Talk:Embrace, extend, and extinguish/Archives/2016

This is an archive of past discussions about Embrace, extend, and extinguish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Embrace, extend and extinguish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hoax?!

This edit removes one whole side of the story with the comment that it was a 'hoax'. I'm editing on a smartphone at the moment, so multiple tabs, copy and paste and so on are difficult, but it seems clear from the first ref deleted that, although the word monopolise is not used, the sense is described in some detail. The second ref [1] uses the word, and describes the details. I can't get to the original Dr Dobbs article at the moment, directly or via the wayback machine, but it seems that this wholesale deletion of text and citations was not fair, and that there is no evidence that claims of Microsoft's EEE strategy were a hoax. --Nigelj (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was confused about that too. Microsoft critics certainly say the strategy was anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Cruelty isn’t even the right word, Extinguishers at Microsoft HQ

When I became a manager I was forced to stack rank and kill off several people. It was the cruelest, most vicious form of management ever devised. The philosophy was to get rid of the bottom 10% and refresh the ranks. I found myself forced to get rid of people who had devoted many years of service to MSFT’s success but had either burned out or had suffered some other life crisis (illness, death, divorce etc) which caused them to rank last. So rather than work to improve our people we got rid of the heart of MSFT culture. I hated it. I loathed it. And it caused me to burn out too. I left in 2000. Just in time to miss the burst of the Tech bubble. Yet our district manager, (who shall remain nameless), thrived in all of this chaos and turned it into a lucrative career. Such was the politics of MSFT at the time. Kinda like the old Star Trek parallel universe episode. Where you advanced by forming alliances and killing off your competition. And hence the decline of MSFT since the late 90’s. Yet some people came out on top. Cruelty isn’t even the right word. Many did commit suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.224.98.230 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)