This is not a very good time to be working at Microsoft. Typical of companies in trouble, Microsoft has announced plans to give some 18,000 employees pink slips over the next few months. Most of the lost jobs, some 12,500, will consist of professional and factory employees connected with the $7.2 billion purchase of Nokia. This is typical of what happens when a company is acquired. The theory goes that the newly acquired company has too many employees, or there are redundant positions. Or maybe the money saved will be used to help cover the costs of the purchase.

Regardless, the rest of the 5,500 firings will come from other departments in Microsoft. With 127,000 total employees as of last month, this means that Microsoft is shedding some 14% of its global workforce. That has to sting, particularly if you or someone you know is going to be affected.

Now the last time Microsoft did a layoff was in 2009, where some 5,800 people lost their jobs. That was during the early days of Microsoft’s unexpected (to some) decline in relevance, which culminated in the decision last year to remove CEO Steve Ballmer. In recent years, Microsoft seems to have made all the wrong decisions, such as introducing Windows 8, which changed the rules and turned off lots of customers, and the Surface tablet, which has gone nowhere fast.

With the arrival of a genuine tech nerd CEO, Satya Nadella, some might have hoped that Microsoft’s sinking ship would be righted, but it’s still early in the game and it’s not certain where he’ll go. It’s not that he seems to have a clear vision that will fix what’s wrong. Maybe it is no longer devices and services, but mobile, services and productivity, but how does that translate to making Microsoft relevant in the twilight of the PC era? How does that convince people to buy Surface tablets, and Windows Phones?

Indeed, does the acquisition of Nokia’s handset division really accomplish anything but put thousands of people on the unemployment lines? Indeed, the media is so immersed in numbers of abstracts, that the actual human tragedy of this maneuver is being given short shrift. When you think of employment rolls dropping by 18,000, it means that 18,000 people will no longer have paychecks to feed their families and pay the mortgage.

Sure, you can suggest that the former Nokia and Microsoft employees may find new jobs, maybe at higher salaries, before the severance checks run out. But in the current shaky economy, that’s by no means certain. I wouldn’t want to be alarmist, but I wonder how many of these workers with pink slips will end up working at McDonalds or another fast food restaurant struggling to make ends meet.

Sure, I realize that a company can’t keep people on staff who aren’t contributing to the overall growth of the company. More to the point, Microsoft is bloated and inefficient, and if these large knife cuts are designed to fine tune the remaining staff and focus them in a direction that will fix the problems, that may be the price of progress.

In any case, Microsoft reports that the restructuring will be “substantially complete” as of the end of this year, and the entire process completed by June of next year.

At a time where the media has focused heavily on Apple’s alleged — and usually non-existent — problems, the real issue has been Microsoft’s inability to adapt to the way the tech industry has changed. The myth of Windows everywhere may have been relevant in the 1990s, but Steve Ballmer clearly couldn’t figure a way to move the company to the next level. At the same time, Apple realized that the PC, or the Mac, wouldn’t last forever and it was time to embrace a new generation.

So today’s Apple earns far more money from the iPhone and the iPad than Macs, although with OS X Yosemite, personal computers aren’t being abandoned. In the 1990s, Steve Jobs was once quoted, before he returned to Apple, as saying that Apple should market the hell out of the Mac and move on to the next great thing. Here in the 21st century, the next great thing still includes Macs, and it may be years before what we regard as a personal computer has fully morphed into something else, or been supplanted by tablets.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has made a move that may seem perfectly logical to the bean counters who look at dollars and cents and efficiencies. It may well be that it was truly necessarily to cut 18,000 people from the payroll to get the company moving forward again. But if this decision is to make sense, it would have to be followed by a clear and cogent plan to set things right. Indeed, the one would hope that, if Microsoft can fix the damage caused by years of wrong decisions, maybe there will be a place for some of those who are now losing their jobs to return to the company. But that assumes they are willing to trust Microsoft one more time.

There was a claim today from a usually respected industry analyst, Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray, that the new marketing deal between Apple and IBM wouldn’t cause a huge surge of iPhone and iPad sales. His logic is that iOS gear is already being tested or deployed in 98% of the Fortune 500 companies, and 92% of the Global 500 companies.

That figure comes from Apple, and, on the surface at least, Munster seems to be right on. But it’s clear he isn’t paying close attention, for otherwise he would not have made such a rash assumption.

You see, Apple’s figures do not report the actual number of iOS devices being used by these companies. One or two would put them on the list. Maybe someone in the IT department or a corporate executive bought a few for personal use, and decided to see how well they work at the office.

See where I’m going here? If corporations, knowing that IBM is running a full-court press to market and support Apple’s hardware, buy a few hundred or a few thousand, that could be a huge sales increase overall.

Yes, Apple has already gained enterprise cred, putting them in a position to exploit that status and actually put tons of gear into the hands of employees. In this new deal, Apple supplies the hardware and iOS software along with a business-class version of AppleCare providing 24/7 support. In turn, IBM builds iOS enterprise apps, provides business-grade cloud services and expanded on-site support. Some 100,000 IBM employees and outside sales reps will be selling products bearing the Apple logo. 100,000! Can you see where Apple gets a tremendous boost to corporate sales?

Imagine if each salesperson sold a mere 100 iPhones and 100 iPads each quarter. Multiply that by 100,000 and you’ll see some amazing increases in Apple’s sales. Of course, I’m making no assumptions as to how well each will do, or what efforts they would make to push Apple’s products. I also wonder whether a presumed major increase in sales of iOS hardware will create demand for Macs too, although that is not part of the agreement.

Now it has been emphasized both by Apple and IBM that this is an exclusive arrangement. It means that IBM isn’t going to go to, say, Samsung, and sign a similar contract. It’s all about Apple.

Some are wondering whether Steve Jobs, who often dismissed the enterprise, would approve such a move. But they forget that Jobs advised Cook not to consider what he would have done. Besides, the circumstances are different now, and Apple is merely leveraging the public’s embrace of iOS gear, including the business world, and taking it to the next level. Besides, Apple has already added enterprise-level features, including security, to the iOS. Indeed, Google and Android hardware licensees have lots to worry about here because they haven’t so far considered security to be a serious issue.

It’s also important to realize that the enterprise doesn’t move quickly. Company IT people are careful about migrating to new platforms, and even replacing existing gear. The biggest loser in this deal is very likely BlackBerry, which was a corporate darling for many years. What is left of BlackBerry may continue to decline as more and more of their cherished customers buy iPhones and iPads.

Another potential loser is Microsoft, which famously made that deal in the 1980s for MS-DOS with IBM that put the company on the map. Of course, it was a non-exclusive deal, which fueled the rise of PC clones and the ultimate decline of IBM’s PCs.

In any case, Microsoft, despite efforts to improve Windows Phone and the Surface tablet, is being left at the altar here. It doesn’t mean Microsoft will lose the enterprise. After all, you can get Office on the iPad too, but it does mean that the chances for success are lessened at least in the mobile universe. Most PCs will still run Windows, and while there may be more opportunities for Macs, it’s not certain how large the platform might grow.

At the same time, Apple is making a huge effort to fuel adoption of Macs and iOS gear beginning with iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite. The Continuity feature is designed to allow for seamless switching from Mac to iOS gear and back again, and I can see where the enterprise might actually pay attention to this setup.

IBM? Well, the deal is for iOS gear of course. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be extended to include Macs as well. After all, IBM has been out of the personal computer game for years.

Are there downsides to this deal? Sure. IBM’s previous pacts with Apple haven’t worked out so well. The PowerPC came to an abrupt end when IBM and Motorola failed to deliver more powerful and power efficient chips to compete against Intel. Hopes for a PowerBook G5 were stillborn.

Here, though, it’s about software and services. It doesn’t mean Apple has lost its mojo, as one ill-informed commentator claims. Tim Cook is also an IBM veteran, so he presumably understands how the company works, and thus crafted an arrangement that will be profitable for both companies. We’ll see how it plays out, but it all looks quite promising. At the very least, more than a few tech powerhouses are freaking as a result.

While ongoing speculation about the iPhone has more or less centered on two sizes and the usual range of hardware enhancements, the talk about the rumored iWatch is still all over the map. When it comes to alleged iPhone 6, supply chain chatter has continued to leak into the wild, and some of it seems credible.

As the iPhone supply chain expands, it has become more and more difficult for Apple to keep secrets. Basic hardware features, usually the look and maybe some surface details about the parts, will leak before the official release date. So I assume the same will hold true for the iPhone 6, although there may be a few surprises that might match last year’s revelation about the A7’s 64-bit capability and the M7 coprocessor.

So I have little doubt there will be two versions, specifically a 4.7-inch version and a 5.5-inch version. The latter may or may not be available with the smaller model, but that depends on whether reports of production problems are true, and if true, whether they can be solved in time. Yes, some respected sources are making this claim, but that doesn’t mean the problems won’t be resolved in time to get the handsets out in decent volumes almost sufficient to meet the expected demand.

When it comes to the iWatch, there are plenty of artist concepts of what it must look like. But they are all variations on a theme, that of a wristwatch with a tech-oriented look and feel. Or maybe it will resemble a traditional watch and only betray its smartwatch and fitness pretensions when you actually have it do something other than tell the time.

A new story mentions of two versions, with 1.6-inch and 1.8-inch displays. That stands in contrast to other reports pegging the screen size at 2.5-inches. One recent report speaks of the larger of the two coming with and without scratch-resistant sapphire screens. But this would seem a curious product decision on Apple’s part, and I doubt it would resonate with customers. Indeed, it would be the source of the sort of confusion that Apple chooses to avoid.

So if it’s to be sapphire, they’ll probably all be sapphire.

The chatter emphases the focus on health and fitness, which echoes Tim Cook’s clear appreciation for such capabilities. No doubt there will be sensors aplenty, and the ability to dock with an iPhone and perhaps even an iPad. The big question is what this alleged iWatch will be able to do without the connection. That’s the achilles heel of existing smartwatches, and it may represent the biggest advantage of the iWatch. No doubt a Bluetooth link to the iPhone/iPad would add features, since the size of the watch itself would limit what it can do.

Apple’s decision to bring onboard fashion and health and fitness people to the company would seem to mean that the iWatch can be regarded as a piece of jewelry, not a mere tech toy. That would be a sea change from existing gear, and allow Apple to reach potential customers who wouldn’t give, say, a Pebble or a Galaxy Gear smartwatch a second glance. This would mean different sizes for men and women of course.

Yet some skeptics suggest there will be no iWatch per se, but rather some sort of wearable gadget that might fit around your wrist, but would not be something that resembles or functions as a watch.

Regardless, it’s not as if Apple doesn’t already make something you can wear, with an accessory wristband of course, and that’s the $49 iPod shuffle. It may look awkward, but you can get the sense of where an iWatch make end up. But the iWatch would clearly be far more sophisticated than a basic digital music player, though it may be similar in size if rounded instead of square.

The other question is price. There’s talk of $300 or so, but there was that recent survey suggesting this price point might confront severe customer resistance. But it’s also possible Apple might build a more expensive model with built-in telephone capabilities, and sell it through a wireless carrier, so you benefit from a subsidy or a convenient payment plan.

Compare the iPad, which is available with and without a cellular radio. This way, if the iWatch phone comes in at $399 or higher, the price wouldn’t seem excessive unless you want the unlocked model. Indeed, such a product might represent a convenient way for Apple to reach customers for whom a standard iPhone is just too expensive without a subsidy or financing arrangement.

Understand that all this is speculation. I don’t even know that there will be an iWatch, let alone the form, the number of models, or even the hardware capabilities, and forget about the selling price. At this point, though, the failure to deliver something called iWatch may present a problem, particularly in light of all those promises that Apple will deliver new products in new categories later this year.

So I read a recent message to Microsoft employees from CEO Satya Nadella, in which he attempts, once again, to explain his plans to reform the company. I won’t quote any of the estimated 3,100-odd words here, because they frankly do not make any sense. Using fancy buzzwords the only message Nadella manages to convey, more or less, is that it’s mostly about productivity.

Yes, I can see the TV ads now? Buy a Surface 3 and become more productive! Sure, that’ll sell a ton of those awkward note-book/tablet/whatevers. But it’s no better than the current ads that tout the presence of Skype and Office. Of course Skype is available on multiple devices on multiple platforms, and even Mac and iPad users can get perfectly good versions of Office. So what makes the Surface 3 unique? A kickstand? A higher price than a comparable MacBook Air?

Indeed, I see that other members of the tech media are already taking Microsoft to task for failing to present a cogent vision for the future. At least Microsoft had a game plan in the early days, which was to put Windows everywhere and make a ton of money. That was sufficient to make for a compelling sound bite. But when the industry changed, and people embraced multiple devices including smartphones and tablets, Microsoft’s strategy stumbled.

Even Windows 8 stumbled, but not necessarily because it was the even-numbered version, although I did mention that telling fact in a previous commentary. It stumbled because it was badly designed, with a schizophrenic focus that confused customers.

Indeed, The Mac Observer’s John Martellaro, a regular guest on The Tech Night Owl LIVE, tells of the time he encountered a family at a Staples store trying to return an Surface RT tablet. The reason? Well, it wouldn’t run regular Windows apps. All of Microsoft’s fancy pronouncements failed to properly explain to customers the difference between the ARM and Intel versions of the Surface, and the limitations of the former. I wouldn’t presume to guess how many customers bought a Surface RT because it was relatively inexpensive, only to find that it didn’t do what they expected it to do. And whose fault was that?

While Nadella was being praised as the right person to take over Microsoft, a real nerd in the spirit of Bill Gates, it’s clear he’s so hung up on technicalities that he doesn’t grasp the needs of Microsoft’s customers, and why the company’s products fail to elicit an emotional connection with most users.

So people might love their iPhone or their new car, but a Windows PC? Well, there are some people who do love Windows, but most simply tolerate it in the same way they tolerate a screwdriver or a wrench as tools with which to accomplish work. And work isn’t supposed to be fun.

Now I do not expect Microsoft to fire Nadella because he cannot enunciate a workable plan to improve the company’s prospects. At the very least, he’ll be given a few quarters to demonstrate that things are changing, perhaps until after Windows 9 ships. If Windows 9 helps Microsoft recover at least some of the negative perceptions and lost sales of Windows 8, maybe that will be sufficient for Nadella to keep his job.

Then again, they didn’t fire Steve Ballmer as the result of his failures. So long as the company reported good sales and profits, he held on to his position. But the best vision he could present was “developers, developers, developers!” Well, at least it was short and succinct, but no better than Nadella’s more expansive but no more informative description of what the company is supposed to be all about.

Maybe he should have said, “we’re here to make as much money as possible, and we’ll figure out how as we go along.” Would that be sufficient to present a marketing game plan? Well, maybe it would be the truth for a lot of companies, but one might have expected more of Microsoft considering its long history as a tech giant.

I also wonder about Microsoft employees, wondering what direction the company might take with new leadership, and reading a bunch of drivel that has little relationship to the real world and the problems the company confronts. Are they disappointed, or just suck it up since they still have jobs?

In saying that, however, it’s widely expected that a fair portion of the employees who joined Microsoft as a result of the acquisition of Nokia’s handset division will be given pink slips soon. I’ve heard 10,000 out of the 25,000 who were part of the deal. But nothing is certain, and maybe it’ll be less. But that is usually the plight of a company that’s newly acquired. So-called redundant positions are eliminated for operating efficiency or whatever they care to call it.

Meantime, I hope that, in seeking a new direction for Microsoft, Nadella will find a way to express a vision in a way that makes sense. So far, he hasn’t.