To the saccharine rhythm of a Muzak clip, Steve Ballmer crouched into a tackling stance and dashed across a ballroom stage at the Venetian Las Vegas. A 20-foot wall of video screens flashed his name as the 55-year-old Microsoft chief executive bear-hugged Ryan Seacrest, the ubiquitous television and radio host, who had just introduced Ballmer’s keynote speech for the 2012 International Consumer Electronics Show.
More than 150,000 techies and executives were swarming the city’s hotels last January in the annual bacchanalia of cutting-edge gizmos and gadgets. Attendees ran from one vendor to the next, snapping up fistfuls of freebies, inhaling flavored oxygen, and rubbing elbows with stars such as LL Cool J and Justin Bieber.
But this night, an air of discomfort filled the Palazzo Ballroom, where Ballmer was about to give the show’s opening presentation, one delivered by Microsoft’s C.E.O. for 14 of the previous 17 years—the first 11 by Bill Gates and the rest by Ballmer. Weeks earlier, the company had declared that this would be its final keynote—and, worse, that it wouldn’t even be back next year as an exhibitor to showcase new innovations. The timing for big news about its products, it said, didn’t match that of the annual high-tech pageant.
Rumors had swirled throughout the day that Ballmer planned to go out in a blaze of glory, offering a peek at a yet-to-be-released stunner from a company whose recent innovations had too often been lackluster or worse. Instead, what emerged was a gonzo spectacle, structured as a confab between Seacrest and Ballmer. Cookie Monster showed up, as did a gospel choir that belted out a bizarre song composed entirely of random tweets shot into cyberspace by who-the-hell-knows.
As for announcements of quantum leaps into the technological future: nothing. Ballmer applauded the still-long-awaited Windows 8 operating system (which as of this writing is available only as a release preview online). He burbled about his expectations for Xbox, the game console that successfully competed with Sony PlayStation. Out came Windows Phone 7 again, which, despite widespread praise from users, had experienced bleak sales results. A demo followed, which proved an embarrassment; the device’s voice-to-text messaging failed and then another glitch forced a Microsoft staffer to reach for a different phone. The media response was dismal—the company’s last presentation, a prominent blogger wrote, was a “cruel joke.”
Microsoft’s low-octane swan song was nothing if not symbolic of more than a decade littered with errors, missed opportunities, and the devolution of one of the industry’s innovators into a “me too” purveyor of other companies’ consumer products. Over those years, inconsequential pip-squeaks and onetime zombies—Google, Facebook, Apple—roared ahead, transforming the social-media-tech experience, while a lumbering Microsoft relied mostly on pumping out Old Faithfuls such as Windows, Office, and servers for its financial performance.
Amid a dynamic and ever changing marketplace, Microsoft—which declined to comment for this article—became a high-tech equivalent of a Detroit car-maker, bringing flashier models of the same old thing off of the assembly line even as its competitors upended the world. Most of its innovations have been financial debacles or of little consequence to the bottom line. And the performance showed on Wall Street; despite booming sales and profits from its flagship products, in the last decade Microsoft’s stock barely budged from around $30, while Apple’s stock is worth more than 20 times what it was 10 years ago. In December 2000, Microsoft had a market capitalization of $510 billion, making it the world’s most valuable company. As of June it is No. 3, with a market cap of $249 billion. In December 2000, Apple had a market cap of $4.8 billion and didn’t even make the list. As of this June it is No. 1 in the world, with a market cap of $541 billion.
How did this jaw-dropping role reversal happen? How could a company that stands among the most cash-rich in the world, the onetime icon of cool that broke IBM’s iron grip on the computer industry, have stumbled so badly in a race it was winning?
The story of Microsoft’s lost decade could serve as a business-school case study on the pitfalls of success. For what began as a lean competition machine led by young visionaries of unparalleled talent has mutated into something bloated and bureaucracy-laden, with an internal culture that unintentionally rewards managers who strangle innovative ideas that might threaten the established order of things.
By the dawn of the millennium, the hallways at Microsoft were no longer home to barefoot programmers in Hawaiian shirts working through nights and weekends toward a common goal of excellence; instead, life behind the thick corporate walls had become staid and brutish. Fiefdoms had taken root, and a mastery of internal politics emerged as key to career success.
In those years Microsoft had stepped up its efforts to cripple competitors, but—because of a series of astonishingly foolish management decisions—the competitors being crippled were often co-workers at Microsoft, instead of other companies. Staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed. As a result, the company was consumed by an endless series of internal knife fights. Potential market-busting businesses—such as e-book and smartphone technology—were killed, derailed, or delayed amid bickering and power plays.
That is the portrait of Microsoft depicted in interviews with dozens of current and former executives, as well as in thousands of pages of internal documents and legal records.
“They used to point their finger at IBM and laugh,” said Bill Hill, a former Microsoft manager. “Now they’ve become the thing they despised.”
Today, Microsoft stands at a precipice, an all-or-nothing opportunity that may be Ballmer’s last chance to demonstrate to Wall Street that he is the right man with the right plan to lead the sprawling enterprise into the future. With Surface, the recently unveiled tablet, Windows 8, Windows Phone 7, Windows Server 2012, and Xbox 720 in the offing, he could be on the verge of proving his strategies—including last year’s controversial, $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype. But whether these succeed or not, executives say, the Microsoft of old, the nimble player that captured the passions of a generation of techies and software engineers, is dead and gone.
“I see Microsoft as technology’s answer to Sears,” said Kurt Massey, a former senior marketing manager. “In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.”
Cool is what tech consumers want. Exhibit A: today the iPhone brings in more revenue than the entirety of Microsoft.
No, really.
One Apple product, something that didn’t exist five years ago, has higher sales than everything Microsoft has to offer. More than Windows, Office, Xbox, Bing, Windows Phone, and every other product that Microsoft has created since 1975. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, iPhone had sales of $22.7 billion; Microsoft Corporation, $17.4 billion.
Monopoly Money
While Microsoft was once the hippest company on earth, its beginnings could be traced to the Holy Bible for nerds—Popular Electronics.
In December 1974, a 21-year-old college dropout named Paul Allen purchased the latest issue of the hobbyist magazine at a newsstand in Harvard Square and was barely able to contain his excitement. In bold letters, the cover headline screamed out that the world’s first minicomputer with the power to rival commercial models had been invented. Allen rushed six blocks to Harvard College, where his high-school chum Bill Gates was a student. The two had long wanted to write an operating program using the computer language called BASIC, but Gates had held off; he would start such a project, he told Allen, only when someone developed a computer with a fast processor. Allen thrust the magazine into Gates’s hands, and the two agreed: the moment had arrived.
Things moved quickly. Gates, Allen, and another friend wrote a program they called Altair BASIC and persuaded the company that made the computer—MITS, in Albuquerque—to license it. They named their new company Micro-soft. Soon, the personal-computer market was exploding. Micro-soft began selling its programs to bigger and bigger corporate players. Within two years, the company, renamed Microsoft, was setting the industry standards for microprocessor programming. Working at the young Microsoft was, by all accounts, thrilling, but also unnerving. Gates was relentless, demanding the same intense commitment of everyone he hired.
In 1980, IBM—then the world’s largest computer-maker—came to Gates and Allen and licensed their company to write the operating software for their soon-to-be-released product, the IBM P.C. It was Microsoft’s big break, bringing the company the riches it needed to finance its coming blast into the stratosphere.
The Summary Version
It is random, but the order is only shuffled once, when you turn random play on. If you want to re-shuffle the order, turn random play off and then on again.
The Detailed Version
I don't think this is a bug, it's a feature. Though I can understand how it might seem broken.
iTunes doesn't shuffle the order of the tracks every time you hit play (or any other control button). Another way of saying this is: it uses the same seed for your playlist every time until you tell it to use another seed.
This may seem contrary to the idea of shuffle but it actually serves a purpose: it lets the skip back and skip forward buttons work in a manner that makes sense. I can move back 5 songs while it's on shuffle to hear the song I heard 5 songs ago, and then iTunes plays through all the songs I just heard to get me back to the spot I was at before going back 5 songs.
I do believe the ordering is truly random the first time it's generated. The problem is it's never obvious how to re-generate the ordering after that so your brain, which is really good at recognizing patterns as that's a handy survival skill when you're hunting and gathering, starts to learn the order over time. It starts to find patterns.
You can see this is the case with this little experiment. Set iTunes to shuffle your entire library. Pick a track. Play 5 tracks and write them down. Now pick any other track and let iTunes play one or two songs after that. Now go back to your first track and play from there again. It'll play that track and the same five after it that you wrote down. Changing tracks didn't reseed the random number generator.
The traversal through your tracks is truly random, but that random order isn't refreshed often enough so it starts to feel non-random.
So how do you get iTunes to generate a new shuffle order?
You uncheck and recheck the shuffle button. Doing this causes iTunes to recreate the random traversal path through your playlist (or entire library). It re-seeds the random number generator.
You can convince yourself this is true with a little experiment. Take an album that has track numbers in the meta data and select tracks 1 through 5 then select File -> New Playlist from Selection... from the menu. You'll now have a playlist with 5 songs in it.
Select that playlist and make sure that the shuffle button is unlit and that the track numbers are showing in the window. iTunes will show you the tracks in order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Now hit the shuffle button.
iTunes will show you the tracks out of order. I get: 4, 2, 1, 3, 5.
Now hit the shuffle button to turn it off. And turn it on again.
I now get: 5, 2, 3, 4, 1.
Repeat as many times and needed to convince yourself that iTunes is actually regenerating a random traversal sequence through the tracks in your playlist.
It's the same thing for traversing your entire library: if you never uncheck and recheck the shuffle button the order never gets regenerated so things will start to seem non-random. After I unchecked and rechecked shuffle and began playing my entire library from my original starting track from my second paragraph above I got 5 different songs after it this time. So the order was changed, it's just less obvious when you're looking at your entire library instead of a playlist.
There's a caveat to all of this: iTunes DJ (aka Party Shuffle) works differently. With Party Shuffle you can influence the selection so that there's weighting given to more popular songs in your library. This obviously isn't random playback. So if you want truly random playback you want to shuffle your entire library from the Music view in the sidebar, not the iTunes DJ view. And you want to uncheck and re-check that shuffle button before each listening session to keep it truly unpredictable.
The course of human civilization has always been shaped by transportation. The Mongols would not have swept across Asia without the horse, America would not have expanded west at lightning speed without the train, and modern trade would not be possible without ships.
Our methods of movement empower us. But they also, in other ways, restrict us. The modern automobile, for example, grants us freedom of movement. Yet it also consumes our time and forces the construction of sprawling cities.
The transportation of tomorrow may not solve all these problems, but it may solve some – and it’s important to give the matter thought now so we can plan for the future.
Autonomous Cars
The Promise: Cars are, in some ways, inefficient. I’m not talking about the use of fuel but instead the use of time. Many people living in areas dominated by this from of transportation have to spend hours at that wheel. Individuals are also prone to traffic jams and can’t find alternative routes while paying attention to the road. An autonomous car could free up the driver’s time, automatically find alternative routes and could react more reliably to changing road conditions.
The Problem: Driving isn’t simple. It requires a person’s full attention because it is difficult. Creating sensors and software that are able to react as quickly as a human isn’t simple. Safety concerns only complicate the matter. Failure of an autonomous car’s hardware or software could result in a fatal collision, so the car has to be excessively reliable.
Reality Check: Autonomous cars already exist. The most famous example is Google’s fleet. It’s not clear exactly how many cars the company has retrofitted for autonomous driving, but at least one is licensed in Nevada and others have previously operated in California. One of Google’s autonomous cars was involved in a minor fender-bender, though Google blames that accident on driver error (all of the cars have humans on board).
Google is far from the only company researching the technology, however. Many automakers are also interested. It’s likely only a matter of time before autonomous cars become commercially available.
Vacuum Train
The Promise: The Vacuum Train, or Vactrain, is the classic sci-fi “thing-in-a-tube” method of transport. Take a tube, suck the air from it and then hurl a cylinder down it using magnetic levitation. This creates an extremely low-friction environment devoid of obstacles, making absurdly high speeds possible. Advocates of Evacuated Tube Transport, an organization promoting the idea, claim it could travel between New York and Beijing in two hours.
The Problem: Supporters state that these systems cost only a quarter that of a freeway. No system has ever been built, however, so these claims seem dubious. Even if true, the cost of building a system that spans from New York to Beijing would be extreme. Engineers would also need to find some way of weaving these tubes through major obstacles (like mountains) and across or under the ocean.
Reality Check: The concept of the Vacuum Train is sound and, if built and deployed wide-spread, it could even be reasonably affordable. The engineering and cost challenges that face the first production of the concept are extreme, however. It may be built, but even the youngest of our readers will have wrinkles by the time it’s deployed.
Personal Maglevs
The Promise: Public transportation is often efficient, but not always. A bus or train with only a few people on it is actually less efficient than several smaller individual vehicles. Personal Maglevs try to solve this problem through the use of small pods that move along a track. This allows for the privacy of a car with efficiency beyond that of a bus or train.
The Problem: Personal maglevs, like most public transportation, makes sense when deployed in urban areas. The infrastructure required for this technology may be in conflict with those densely packed locations. Just like roads have never been properly introduced to the cores of some cities built before the automobile, it seems unlikely that this system could ever be properly introduced in urban areas constructed before its deployment.
Reality Check: The idea of a personal maglev isn’t that different from existing monorail trains. With that said, we’re unlikely to see this technology in any currently developed city – the autonomous car, which uses existing infrastructure, will make more sense. This idea could become real in cities that are still undeveloped, however.
Electric Motorcycles
The Promise: Electric cars face serious problems. They can’t travel long distances, they don’t charge quickly, and charging in a remotely reasonable time requires the use of special charging stations. Electric motorcycles share some of these restrictions but can move a similar distance on a smaller battery because of their low weight. This reduces charge time and reduces cost to levels acceptable for the average person.
The Problem: Motorcycles are not popular in some parts of the world because of safety and comfort. A person accustomed to the isolation of a four-wheel closed vehicle is unlikely to embrace a motorcycle unless they feel that they’re nearly as safe as in a four-wheel vehicle and it cuts time out of the average commute. This requires investment into safety research and infrastructure changes in urban areas.
Reality Check: Electric motorcycles with performance equal to gas variants already exist and some are able to charge using a standard electric outlet. One pioneer in the field, Brammo, is head-quartered near where I live. I see their nearly-silent motorcycles zipping around frequently. I think that vehicles such as these will eventually become popular in urban areas – but some laws need to be re-written and the technology needs to be a bit more affordable.
What Do You Think?
There are many other ideas like space elevators, orbital flight and even teleportation. Given a long enough timeline anything seems possible – so I tried to focus on ideas that could potentially be common in fifty years or less.
What do you think will power tomorrow’s transportation? Will you arrive to your commute by jet-pack or glide through the streets on an exotic hover-board? Let us know in the comments.
xCredits
Made with some friends from the Google Chrome team
2011 & 2012 versions by Hyperakt and Vizzuality
2010 version by mgmt design and GOOD
Sources
Wikipedia, CanIUse.com, W3C, HTML5rocks.com and Mozilla Developer Network
Browser screenshots used in this infographic were sourced with best efforts from the web community.
The course of human civilization has always been shaped by transportation. The Mongols would not have swept across Asia without the horse, America would not have expanded west at lightning speed without the train, and modern trade would not be possible without ships.