Ben Thompson, who used to work at Microsoft, floats some problems with summarily killing stack ranking:

What makes a decision – or a product, for that matter – a good one, is not the surface level question of whether or not it’s a good idea. Stack ranking2 stinks, and it was hurting Microsoft for years. But simply tossing it out the door without carefully considering every aspect of the decision, including who is making it, what is replacing it, and how it interacts with the other seismic changes at the company, threatens to convert a good idea into a bad decision, and another example of the lack of deep consideration that undermines so many of Microsoft’s initiatives.

He makes good points (as usual, sheesh, what is with that guy?), but assuming there is a process in place for performance reviews to be evaluated by the employee and the manager’s manager, I still think, yes, getting rid of a crappy policy is better than keeping one. Thompson knows better than I how it was implemented at Microsoft, but having worked someplace that went down this path, stack ranking had nothing to do with writing the reviews, it simply had to do with forcing them into a bell curve.

Unlike Thompson, I assume that this move did not come from Steve Ballmer but from the board.

Many managers may take the easy way out and give everyone about the same amount of compensation, which sure, prevents said manager from delivering really crappy news to the bottom of the curve, but unintentionally demoralizes the folks that are actually making a difference.

If you’re a manager and you’re not managing by providing your employees the proper incentives, then your manager should let you know you’re not doing your job. That’s how a normal review process works.

None of it is ever perfect in any organization. What you don’t want to do, however, is institutionalize the unfairness and I believe that’s what stack ranking does.

Shawn Blanc’s new effort set to launch soon:

Spending an inordinate amount of time and energy to research, test, and find the very best apps for the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

I’ll have a few pieces in it that I think will help us to learn, laugh and love all over again.

The Verge’s Tom Warren reports that Microsoft is killing its stack ranking system, which fit employees into a bell curve for performance evaluation.

In a closer look at Microsoft’s turbulent history and mixed management decisions, Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald blamed a combination of Microsoft’s obsessive focus on Windows and Office and the company’s internal stack ranking-system for a “lost decade” and cannibalistic culture. Eichenwald interviewed a number of current and former Microsoft employees who all cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside the software giant.

As I said last year, I worked at a company that tried to implement this system but was smart enough to back off after employee outcry. It’s a toxic example of the kind of social Darwinism preached by management consultants. Treating your employees like dogs in a fight pit isn’t a good way to run a business. Which kind of helps explain what’s happened at Microsoft.

TechCrunch’s Alex Wilhelm:

By November 22, Zune’s Marketplace will stop selling and renting content, and won’t allow users to browse TV content.

I guess it’s done killing the iPod.

There certainly was no folly in trying to compete against the iPod. The folly was committed by those who declared it would kill it before it even shipped.

Long-time Windows user Adrian Kingsley-Hughes gives a pretty thorough and heart-felt explanation as to why Windows just isn’t appealing to him anymore:

I’ve lost count of the number of notebooks I’ve owned over the years, but this MacBook Pro is, by far, the most reliable system I’ve owned, and I put part of that down to the fact that it doesn’t run Windows.

The broad applicability of Kingsley-Hughes’s experience come from two points: 1) the increasing relevance of mobile platforms where Windows isn’t competitive and 2) the decreasing importance of operating systems in general. As more and more of our work and life is on the web, the cost to switch desktop platforms is lowered. Windows, as the desktop platform with the largest market share, is more at risk because of this and the Mac, Linux, Chrome and mobile platforms benefit.

Charles Arthur takes a comprehensive look at why market share might not necessarily be a good gauge for the breadth of penetration of a platform. It’s good for the companies that keep selling devices, but if they’re being stuck in drawers or thrown in a landfill it doesn’t do the platform any good.

The resale value of iOS devices is a pretty good indicator of the value of the platform.

(Via Daring Fireball)

CIRP polled 400 people who had activated iPhones between September 20 and October 20. Two-thirds of them had upgraded to the iPhone. Based on questions asked to this sample of 267 U.S. residents, CNet concludes:

“iPhone 5S, 5C lure fewer upgraders, report says”

Which isn’t even what the survey results say, if you can believe a survey with such a small sample size. The survey results say a lower percentage upgraded from the immediately preceding generation of iPhone than last year and a larger percentage upgraded from other iPhones. It’s probably too much to expect CNet to understand the results when CIRP doesn’t understand their own results. They ran with the headline (PDF):

“iPhone Launch Shows Slowing Ecosystem Growth”

There’s no way you can tell that unless you know the total number of people who activated iPhones, something their survey doesn’t purport to show.

I just don’t even know what to do with this stuff.