Skip to main content

Microsoft's HoloLens 3 's--t show' proves it still doesn't understand the consumer market

Man wearing HoloLens 2
Man wearing HoloLens 2 (Image credit: Windows Central)

Update 11 AM ET 2/4/2022: Microsoft's Alex Kipman has since posted a response claiming HoloLens 3 is not dead but did not address any of the other claims from the BI article.

Update 11 PM ET 2/4/2022: Business Insider has a new report that refutes Kipman, says HoloLens 3 is dead.

An explosive new report from Business Insider confirms everyone's worst fear regarding HoloLens and Mixed Reality: Microsoft has no idea what it's doing.

The story, which relied on reports from "more than 20 current and former employees," is a damming expose on the HoloLens division, headed by Microsoft technical fellow Alex Kipman. The entire program is apparently in complete disarray.

The news is devastating for those who thought that with HoloLens, announced in 2015, Microsoft would have an enormous advantage in the market because it was so early and ahead of everyone else.

In case you missed it, here is a tl;dr of Ashley Stewart's excellent reporting:

  • HoloLens 3 was reportedly canceled in mid-2021.
  • That timing was around when Microsoft partnered with Samsung for a mixed reality device.
  • The choice to rely on Samsung for hardware while Microsoft focuses on software is causing disruption.
  • The mixed reality and HoloLens teams are infighting over strategy: consumers vs. enterprise (and military).
  • The leadership team has largely failed to address the concerns of employees working on these projects.
  • The $22 billion Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) for the US military is having major quality issues and is behind schedule.
  • At least 25 Microsoft mixed reality employees left Microsoft and joined Facebook's Meta in 2021, but it may be more than 100 employees.

It's no wonder why one Microsoft employee called it a "s--t show." I have never heard of such a division in this much chaos in all my years of covering Microsoft.

History repeats itself

Microsoft Kinect

Source: Windows Central (Image credit: Source: Windows Central)

What's so troubling about all this negative news regarding Windows Mixed Reality is how familiar it all is to those who follow Microsoft. The company has a terrible track record of shipping consumer devices and creating new categories. There's Windows Phone, of course, but also Zune, the Courier Project, Surface Neo, Windows 10X, Project Andromeda, Kinect, Band, Kin, the entire Nokia acquisition, and some would lump in Surface Duo.

Even Windows Mixed Reality (WMR) has been in doubt despite being years ahead of anyone else, shipping free with all Windows 10 PCs, and having strong OEM support (HP, Lenovo, Acer, Samsung, and Dell all had WMR headsets).

Source: Microsoft (Image credit: Source: Microsoft)

On the contrary, Microsoft's Xbox division, save for a few shaky years, has been nailing it, which explains why it is pivoting (and investing) so heavily into it. And Surface, for the most part, has had strong (and innovative) releases that have seen many iterations.

But when it comes to cutting-edge, generation-defying products, Microsoft is very good at envisioning them but rarely sticks the landing. And the cause of the failure? It's rarely due to the product being awful. Instead, it's almost always attributable to lousy leadership, tumultuous strategy, lack of direction, and an inability to understand the market. I mean, we are talking about the same company that released its Kin phones at the same time it was selling Windows Mobile.

Interestingly, some in Microsoft's mixed reality division seem to know this past. The Samsung deal, which we speculated on the podcast, would have Microsoft do the software while Samsung did the hardware. It makes sense, as Samsung can not only ship things on a global level, but it also makes processors, RAM, storage, displays, and headphones all internally. Samsung does hardware very well. (Since this editorial went live, a new report sheds more light on the Samsung deal).

But, ironically, this decision to partner with Samsung is itself causing infighting within the mixed reality division. As reported by Business Insider:

It was even suggested by some that Microsoft should end the Samsung partnership, or do the bare minimum to fulfill it, in order to focus on its own projects, the employee said.

Microsoft even hired Apple's vice president of engineering, who helped spearhead the iPad and iPhone. He wanted to get to the market ahead of Apple with a mixed reality headset for consumers. Of course, which is it? Is Microsoft doing its own consumer mixed reality headset, or is it Samsung? No one seems to know.

The metaverse is still a joke

Ignite 2021 Mesh Demo 26.00 02 47 37.still

Source: Microsoft (Image credit: Source: Microsoft)

All these issues circle back to the main problem, which is that virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), and augmented reality (AR) are still all cool ideas with little utility for regular people. That may change, but no one has been able to crack that nut so far. VR is still primarily for gamers with social sprinkled in, but it has a long way to go before being mainstream (if ever).

The recent trend of using "metaverse" as a buzzword for this technology is tragically hilarious. No one knows what it means. When examples are given, it refers to virtual reality … with avatars and a marketplace. Yeah, it's Second Life (2003), reborn but now with NFTs, virtual real estate, crypto, and idiotic venture capitalists. We get it. It's not cool.

Microsoft is caught up in this hype, too, even using the phrase when it talked about its recent announcement around the Activision Blizzard acquisition.

But if you have no idea what the metaverse is, neither does Microsoft. Even the teams working on it don't know what it is supposed to be and how to address it. The question is, will Apple? The company is rumored to release something in late 2022. If I were a betting man, I'd bet Cupertino is going to swoop in and dominate this market, followed by Google (who has its own rocky past in this segment). Microsoft mixed reality could be Windows Mobile all over again.

Time will tell what will become of Microsoft's mixed reality ambitions. Unless it gets back on track soon, trades in leadership, and brings on a visionary who can execute, this could all go down in another all-too-long list of Microsoft's "we were so far ahead we blew it" catastrophes.

Daniel Rubino
Executive Editor

Daniel Rubino is the Executive Editor of Windows Central, head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been covering Microsoft here since 2007, back when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, Microsoft Surface, laptops, next-gen computing, and arguing with people on the internet.

129 Comments
  • Sad and intriguing article. Thanks... I keep hoping MS can learn from these, but it's a like a movie ghost, forced to keep repeating its history over and over, never able to learn and grow like the living. (Limited metaphor, not suggesting MS is dead.)
  • It seems the leadership is not knowing what to do. Even with Satya things changed but still the same.
  • "Even with Satya things changed" To the worse...
  • Satya is the problem
  • That's MS insider team issue. Satya handled MSFT very well.
  • Satya handled the stuff in which he exceled well. He moved the cloud and subscription-based (which has a similar pricing model to cloud) stuff forward exceptionally. However, the consumer stuff is a collective letdown, IMO. We keep praising Xbox for their dev teams, but they're all taking FOREVER to release games. they're delayed, buggy, or both. Nadella ran mobile into the ground so fast it looked intentional. I still believe that's what made Band and Cortana (including connected devices like the Invoke speaker) an inevitable failure, as they were so reliant on mobile as a driving force to accompany them into consumers' lives. Surface, calling it a success is probably an "investor vs. consumer" thing. It's not losing money, so it's successful as a business. As a brand, I think it's completely lost itself from where it started. There's little innovation, while prices are through the roof. The latest Surface Pro starts at $1,100, while asking you to pay more than ever for the keyboards and pens to boot. Duo suffers greatly because of its MSRP and lack of sales (despite having a higher MSRP, the Fold 3 is constantly having good trade deals and sales). Consumer electronics just aren't a great experience within Microsoft. The did well with Surface, but have since branched out to releasing overpriced, mediocre stuff like their audio accessories and the Surface Laptop (which is a Macbook without the allure of Mc OS to justify its price tag).
  • Satya has, so far, managed quite well some/few of the programs that had been envioned and therefore developed by his predecessor.
  • He's been all along. Look at what he destroyed since he's CEO...
  • Well Satya is making rhe company earn a shitload of money. To investors is all that matters. Otherwise, anticipating the future tech will not always be easy.
  • I second that
  • That'd be nice if I was interested in Ms stock. In that case I'd be commenting on an investment site
  • Anticipating or not, doesn't matter, if satya cant put together what exists and make use out of it, like Windows on ARM, PWA support on edge, amazons android app support, CShell UI. satya is lacking everything that Microsoft needs to stay ahead of the times, and is simply keeping the shareholders distracted with what they get now by organizing, cutting losses and reducing risk factors, if so in the end, Microsoft future will be quite bleak, cause they will just "go lazy".
  • It's the same old goat...
  • After my experience with Microsoft as a developer for Windows 10/11, nothing in this article surprises me. It is, indeed, sad. You can only get them to pay attention if you start off with, "Azure . . ." I made a cool drawing program that was pen-centric and had voice commands in it, showing off Windows 10 when it arrived. I had a developer relations contact, but that led nowhere. Now he won't even return my emails.
    As background, I was a key developer/publisher for the Macintosh in the 80s, helping it get started. In the 90s, I co-founded the company that created what became Adobe Flash. And with this background, I couldn't get the time of day from Microsoft. Maybe I should have said, "I have a drawing program for Azure . . ."
    -Charlie Jackson
  • Maybe Microsoft's unofficial tagline should be: If it's not our idea, implemented in our way, we're not interested.
  • Their market research says X but nobody can find anyone who wants X. I think their market research is completely fabricated to support their preconceived notions.
  • I believe you have a point. Microsoft don't seem to be open to new ideas and especially if it may benefit the consumer a huge market which I don't understand their negative stance. The OS don't really put any new features and it seems if they find out you like something it's will be stripped in the following OS...
  • It's a bit sad they repeat this same mistake. Its hard not to draw comparisons to Apple. Both companies have an extraordinary amount of money and Microsoft seems to fall short in 2 key areas. They quit or lose faith too easily and they seem to try and do more with less too often. They don't sink too much money into areas they worry might fail. Which is why most of their most revenue stems from products they developed 2 decades or more ago. Office windows azure. All are very old. It's rare they develop anything new that sets the world on fire and unfortunate because they could really do so well. I wish they'd believe in what they do
  • I would add the rare exception seems to be Xbox/gaming now
  • I would say Xbox / gaming can be the exception because that's the one of the few products can't sell to enterprise.
  • I would say that rare exception was Ballmer but he was hated and now is long gone. Bill Gates hardly swallowed even the project concept of Xbox while Ballmer had no problem investing billions when it was loosing money and some costly mistakes needed that budget to be fixed.
  • They could have easily practice the same patience in developing the Xbox with Windows Mobile and WP they could have come along together. But I am wondering if Microsoft is prohibited from entering the mobile market because they act like they want any part of it...
  • They are not engaging pornography enough. It's what will make VR hot. You would think with bing being the porno search engine they'd do better with VR.
  • Hahaha while true I don't think THAT is what they want to be known for, even if it's what can drive interest
  • Well they could substitute that for sports from baseball, football, hockey, etc., to Indianapolis 500. Could partner with Disney and Xbox affiliates for content creation, movie theatres, schools, etc. but this would benefit consumers something Microsoft's upper management don't want to take part.
  • The comments about a consumer device possibly coming out was from Alex Kipman back in 2019... and he said it would take 4 years to possibly get it to that point. So we would of had to wait until 2023 to see another device come out anyways. Additionally the Hololens 3 program which was "scrapped" happened the same time MSFT started to redesign the waveguides according to this Army IVAS update which happened on December 1, 2021. The Army rep basically said the IVAS was a consumer Hololens 3 if you removed all the miltech sensors (digital night vision and thermal sensors). The video can be seen here: https://youtu.be/bYxJeI2IYO0
  • I don't get the consumer angle. They could have developed this mostly for business and military. Just assumed that was their direction
  • A bit hilarious to read that all these 25 or maybe 100 Hololens folks were jumping ship from Microsoft to Meta. Seems like from frying pan to fire if you ask me. Although learning that, some of the stuff one sees in the public domain starts to make a little sense. If Zuckerberg is busy raiding engineers from a particular area wholesale from rivals, it would make sense for him to do something nutty like change his whole company name, to show these workers that cash aside, hey, we are really serious about this area in a way that is impossible at Microsoft or whichever other large company that has many other things to deal with. Also, this would explain why FB's stock tanked today. The earnings report showed Facebook is spending $3billion a year now on "Metaverse" (which as the writer reminds us, nobody knows what it means). I guess investors prefer real reality cash to virtual tokens. It also explains why Microsoft itself (or indeed any other company in the business) is happy to join the keyword hype and bandwagon. "We have our own "Metaverses" " etc. If you see your workers leaving wholesale through the backdoor to join "the Metaverse company" when the journalist on Bloomberg asks you what you are doing about the Metaverse, and you are Nadella, you can't really say, "I don't have time for that nonsense .." , since you don't want to encourage a stampede. :-) All that said, the reason Microsoft will lose on consumer anything is right there. FB is spending $3 Billion (not total, per year). It is always this way. The rival, more consumer-focused company is ready to spend humongous amounts near the beginning when the payoff isn't really clear. Microsoft is an old world company in a way non of their current rivals (except Apple) isn't because they stick to conservative investment approaches. They can never win in today's consumer business that way. Since Google came on the scene, the way that game is played as changed. Apple is different because they have a huge, high-income audience locked in their walled garden.
  • “Apple is different because they have a huge, high-income audience locked in their walled garden.” And Microsoft has a huge, high-income audience locked into their enterprise walled garden. The point is, Apple is a consumer company. Microsoft is an enterprise company. Neither understands - nor needs to understand - the other market. Both are hugely successful in their respective markets. And there is zero chance either would be successful in the other market.
  • I agree that Microsoft is somewhat comparable to Apple consumer in their enterprise dominance. I am not sure about the middle and end there though. Both Microsoft & Apple started out as just computer companies and sold to both audiences. It is only later they both got pushed out of those two different markets, not totally by design but just based on reality of focusing on what you do best when push came to shove. However, there is never a complete demarcation in the way you seem to think about it because computing devices and services are many times dual use, and the same individual who is a consumer consumer :-) is also an enterprise consumer. Indeed, and necessarily, both Microsoft and Apple still have considerable businesses that serve the "not focus" areas today. I am typing this on a Windows personal device. Finally, to these companies it's about making money, and/or fending off the competitor. They cannot afford to just leave the field of one segment completely because if they do, (a) they will miss learnings and trends that are useful in their main areas, and perhaps more importantly (b) very bad things can happen when competitors completely occupy other segments, and you have no recourse to competitive actions they can and will take against you in your area of strength, because they would like to make more money. So that "zero chance of success in the other market" thing, no company acts that way. I mean, there was a time neither Apple nor Google, had any presence in phones, Microsoft was the leader in phone software. So, a company can and will be evicted from their "area of strength" or dominant market or whatever if they misstep.
  • Except that all businesses use iPhones (or at least not Microsoft phones). So it is not that simple.
  • All businesses use iPhones? Where did you pull that out from? Most businesses that I know support BYOD when it comes to mobile devices.
  • Well it depends, I've been to companies that only provide company iPhones, though still offered BYOD, most just prefer having seperate working phone from their personal one. My current one uses Galaxy A21, it used to offer iPhones. Idk the statistics, but iPhone on enterprises is actually far more common that what most think. It's only Macs are rare, except on design and media related companies.
  • Exactly - back in 2015 Apple claimed their enterprise business was already $25 billion a year. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/apple-posts-huge-gains-in-its-25-bi...
  • “The company has a terrible track record of shipping consumer devices and creating new categories.” So then, given this fact, WHY do people continue to look to MS for consumer products? Why are you ALWAYS surprised when yet another consumer product fails? Is anyone surprised that the Duo 1 sold barely 40,000 units in over 1 year? Of COURSE Microsoft “still doesn’t understand the consumer market”. Is it not totally, blindingly, bleeding obvious that MS is not, never has been and never will be, a consumer-focused company? MS is in the best financial shape in its 46 year history, without a single consumer product. Why do you continue to believe they need to be selling consumer products? Why not complain that Apple needs to get into the enterprise market with Linux/Oracle DB servers? What would be the point? Apple is a consumer company, and Apple is in THEIR best financial shape in THEIR 46 year history without a single enterprise product. Once you understand and accept all of this, life is good. It all makes sense.
  • "So then, given this fact, WHY do people continue to look to MS for consumer products?"
    You're conflating people's wants with the reality within Microsoft, who is, reportedly, having the same debate. The whole thrust of the BI article is the MS mixed reality division is in chaos, with no clear path forward, internal fighting focusing only on enterprise (and military) and what to do about the consumer market. Kipman wants a consumer product. The Samsung partnership is about a consumer product. The ex VP from Apple came to Microsoft to help launch a consumer product. Hell, forget the consumer angle for one second: MS is evidently blowing the $22B military deal with poor quality and being behind schedule. The (presumably) enterprise-grate HoloLens 3 was canceled.
    "Once you understand and accept all of this, life is good. It all makes sense."
    I'd suggest actually addressing the central thesis of the BI article first because none of this "makes sense." Consumer or enterprise, the whole thing is a disaster.
  • Then why is the title of this article “ Microsoft's HoloLens 3 's--t show' proves it still doesn't understand the consumer market”? My point stands. If people at MS are STILL expecting to build/sell a consumer product, then they are at the wrong company. Which explains why everyone is leaving for Facebook, which IS a consumer company. Do you get it yet? MS IS NOT A CONSUMER PRODUCTS COMPANY. Apparently people IN Microsoft are learning this obvious fact. That MS was trying to convert a consumer product into a military - of all things - product, just shows how clueless MS is outside of enterprise. Yes, it all makes sense. But you have to be willing to see AND ACCEPT reality.
  • My bigger concern is what's laid out here in the article: Mismanagement of the mixed reality division with no clear path forward for consumer or enterprise.
    "MS IS NOT A CONSUMER PRODUCTS COMPANY."
    I'm not on board with this statement. It's not that black and white when they sell Surface devices and Xboxes. The could do Surface HoloLens if they wanted, and being so ahead in the market (or, were) have an advantage. The head of HoloLens believes this as does Nadella, who financed the division.
  • Is microsoft going to mess this up and let Facebook take over?
  • Interesting thesis about Microsoft. But the Windows operating system isn't an enterprise product.
  • My Xbox Series X would like a word with you.
  • 6+ years and.... Nothing. What are they afraid of? Apple released the iphone with what, 12 apps in the app store? It wasn't anywhere near finished. Microsoft could have followed the same script. Let the masses decide where Hololens can go. It's like Microsoft is too protective and afraid of losing "their" idea.
  • When Apple first released the iPhone it didn't even have an app store. Which process your point even more.
  • Heck, it didn't have copy, paste either. However, Microsoft did try a similar process with Wp7. That failed due to stubborness and piss poor management.
  • Yep, the problem with WP7 is they basically just following similar approach like how iOS started, except its got a Windows Marketplace from the start, but iOS that time already have huge selection apps to begin with. And other features like task switcher and cut-copy-paste features were already implemented while WP7 has none at the start. That task switcher on Windows phone didn't even came until WP8. It was also mismanaged sadly and early bad decisions led to its very slow adoption rate to the point Android and iOS were too dominate on the market that is hard to crack. Not to mention the price entry for Windows Phone and its availability is hard. Even for those who may want it is either unable to afford or justify the price and is pretty rare to find.
  • Those bad decisions lasted through to WM10. On Wp7.x, Microsoft stubbornly region gated the best features of bing to the US. It had terrible landscape support. Not to mention the fiasco with msd cards. As well as the issue with the front buttons. Wp8 Microsoft still stubbornly refused to budge from adding a file explorer, notification centre, region gated Cortana. Email attachments defaulted to the photohub. Wp8.1, there's also the fiasco of tap to pay, dynamic lock screens. The Cortana team being under resourced. WM10, before launch the entire mobile division was axed. As a result the 950 series launched in a buggy mess with flagship prices. WM10 until cancellation still lacked basic features i.e being able to set custom/static ips per wifi network connection. Not to mention Microsoft pay never made it out of the US. That's just a few examples. On a wider note, there's WoA and lack investment into UWA. Especially, visible investment into UWA. Microsoft was too visibly invested into their competitors platforms. What materialised from that? Google kicking Microsoft in the teeth with the youtube app. Apple refusing to allow xcloud on their platform. Microsoft should have focused on WoA and UWA. As they could have used WoA on Hololens as well as pocketable devices. But nooo... it was too bleeding obvious *smh*.
  • Yeah, I still remember some of those shortcomings though are not the sole reason for its adoption issues, but still to sum up can be a bug factor for some. It seems that Microsoft were too slow to add features and trying to follow Apple approach even though they are late on the party. It took for W10M to address most of the shortcomings and it as become more of a proper "pocket" Windows, but it's too late, and that time of release it was so buggy, sluggish and UI were unpolished that was a turn off when release with a flagship device. That time I wasn't even the fan of Lumia 950 series, basically loosing the Fabula hardware design with something more bland. The last nicer looking Lumias were 930 and 830, IMO peaked the Lumia design. Don't get me wrong, I was really more into Windows Phone, but I can't deny it's shortcomings that disappointly took them a while to implement features it needs. Not to mention many API restrictions that don't help the app gap during WP7 and WP8.X days.
  • Lol. We can agree no surprise there. The only surprise is that you mention Windows 10X, as if that was a thing. And neglect to mention xbox's twin Windows Media Center.
  • How was 10X not a thing? It was announced by Microsoft. They published documentation on it for developers. There was a damn emulator released.
  • It was code name for a device that was never released.
  • No, it wasn't. Windows 10X is an operating system that other OEMs were going to use in future 2-in-1 PCs. It was announced. Documentation was released for developers, and there is a working emulator. If you're going to comment, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
  • And Windows Media Center was in no way xbox's twin. It was an overlay/app on Win XP that brought entertainment options, to what was primarily a productivity device. No games BTW. It was Plex before Plex. One stop shop for Music, Videos, DVDs, TV, Radio, scheduling, recording.
  • Yeah, and I think it was just discontinued due to slowly loosing ground on HTPC market, and Xbox console were already serving as de facto media center. Maybe if they held it for longer, they could have a foundation of what a modern day Smart TV OS now. But Media Center is long gone before the rise of Smart TV.
  • WMC is not smart TV.
  • Media Center a productivity oriented device? It was aimed to entertainment for a consumer audience.
  • Windows Vista, Xbox and Windows Media Player were designed to be separate platforms going forward. So yeah it was a twin or a trio if you include vista. The products with round logos at the time represented platforms or ecosystem.
  • The X in 10x was a placeholder for an edition of Windows 10.
  • Device = Neo
    Software = Win 10X Not the same.
  • Or system software or software that operates hardware. It was 1 unreleased device.
  • Windows Media Center is ko twin of Xbox though. Especially in its early stage, Xbox were just for games and didn't really have media features. Only on Xbox 360 slowly that console becoming like Media Center, they even had baked it to Xbox until new Metro dashboard. HTPC market were waning that time, and mostly just a enthusiast HTPC who do it. Though it it lived longer, Windows Media Center could have played the way to Smart TV. But that time it was supposed to be Xbox One is the Media Center, which pretty much got what Media Center had including DVR and TV Guide.
  • Microsoft should bet it's whole Hololens business for Samsung partnership. Samsung will jump ship as soon as Google launches their new MR OS.
    Google will give them all privilege Samsung want with their Open Source model, something Microsoft can't provide with it's Closed Source proprietary OS. They should keep developing their own device and partner with OEM's who have less demands.
  • "Microsoft should bet it's whole Hololens business for Samsung partnership."
    Not sure that was ever claimed or implied. Samsung and Microsoft work often together on PC (see foldable PC initiative). Samsung stands to benefit from this as it could use the tech with its laptops and Galaxy phones.
  • At the moment, it seems that all the technology giants are still unsure about the prospects of mixed reality in the consumer. I can understand why consumer-oriented HoloLens is so difficult to produce, as it's still hard to imagine how the average person will use them in real everyday life.
  • I think it's always been the case with new form factor. Smartphone in its early days were also harder to imagine what regular consumers need for it and how they can use it. Mostly feature phones were already sufficient for most people needs. For mix reality, I think the hardware are just still early in this stage be really viable for consumers. Once we got to the point that it's more like wearing a sunglasses and with wider FoV that extends towards peripheral vision and decent battery that last a day, then only mix reality devices would be attractive, thus more devs will make apps for it. The problem at the moment is that smartphone devices are so versatile these days that there is very little thing left for mix reality devices to have unique features that smartphones cant do or not efficient on doing. Most people use smartphone for social media and media consumption, which is far more than sufficient with smartphones.
  • To have such a big headstart in the market, only to lose it due to poor management and lack of direction, is ridiculous. Personally, I think Satya Nadella has done well. Under Ballmer's leadership, Microsoft had really veered off course. They were chasing dead ends and it started to feel like they were going to slide into obscurity. Nadella was the right man to steady the business down and get them focussed. He followed safe bets into the cloud, and they've paid off. With that said, however, it does at times feel like Nadella is so laser focussed on cloud and office, and now xbox, that everything else Microsoft has to offer is of little to no interest. He's a steady pair of hands at the tiller, guiding Microsoft toward where the obvious money lies, but he's no visionary. He lacks depth of perspective. And, with the exception of xbox, he's completely at a loss in the consumer space.
  • I bought a Windows Mixed Reality headset and it just sits in a box. The weird progress - the lack of consistent development... and then the Oculus Go (then the Quest and Quest 2) came out and WMR just faded away. With HoloLens, the demos convinced me I wanted one - but then US$3000 with no warranty or return policy meant I waited until I could try it on and... well... underwhelming. So I passed on that. And I could see 3D on Windows was going away when 3D Builder, one of the best light weight 3D object design tools I've seen suddenly stopped being included and had to be downloaded from the MS Store, so none of this is surprising... just really... sad. One note though, Courier (a project near and dear to my heart) was never a public project. It was basically a leak by Gizmodo (I think). And it did sort of survive as Win 10X which admittedly is either in a coma or is dead (although Win 11 may be its eventual expression) and arguably, the Duo represents what's left of the idea,.
  • They have got to get rid of Satya Nadella before he blows this huge chance they have
  • Yeah, I don't think they are going to oust the CEO that turned the business into a multi trillion dollar company. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft aren't really making their money from consumer products, so why focus on it? Which I then understand why the staff might be getting frustrated, as they can see that these ventures simply aren't money makers, so what's the point?
  • I think a pandemic was the biggest cause of them becoming a multi trillion dollar company. Everyone bailing on the hospitality industry had to put their money somewhere. All the big tech players b