He'll be remembered as a terrible CEO. Ballmer took over as CEO in 2000. In the 13 years since then, Apple has experienced an unprecedented resurgence. Google and Facebook have gone from being obscure startups to giants. The tech industry went through the bubble, recovered, and today is stronger than ever.
What happened to Microsoft? While the rest of the tech sector exploded and prospered, it stayed still. A MSFT share was worth about $35 dollars when Ballmer took over; it's worth about $35 now. The world moved on, and Microsoft didn't move with it.
I agree that he will probably not be remembered for having more than doubled revenue and almost tripled profits. He will not be remembered for transforming Microsoft into one of the most important enterprise software companies. Not for introducing .NET, C# or Kinect either. All of that will be forgotten.
He will be remembered for missing mobile. He will also be remembered for caring a lot about developers and about developers and about developers as well. The VB6 folks will still hate him ;-)
No, I don't think he'll be seen worse than the CEOs of AOL Time Warner, Enron, Worldcom, or Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, but sure you go on with your hyperbole. It's turning into a staple on HN. Really raising the bar there.
Edit: parent comment used to say "worst CEO of modern history"
There are a few things worth noting when talking about Balmer and MSFT's share price. Since 2004, MSFT has returned over $164 billion [1] to shareholders in a ~50/50 split of buybacks and dividends -- on today's balance sheet, that cash would be worth an incremental ~$20/share (assuming $0 reinvested). Meanwhile, revenue and free cash flow have grown at a respectable 12.4% compounded, and it wasn't until 2012 that Apple passed Microsoft in terms of gross profit.
I don't think anyone would argue that Ballmer's been the most innovative CEO of his era, but as a custodian of shareholder value, it's pretty hard to fault him. Could he have done better? In hindsight, we know the answer is yes, but the answer in hindsight is always yes. He managed to try and fail at big ideas without bankrupting -- or even significantly impairing -- his company. Not many CEOs can claim the same.
What happened to Microsoft? It built and sold unsexy products that people were willing to pay gobs of money for. I'm sure many businesses would love to fail so successfully.
You're judging the share price coming out of the greatest stock market bubble in world history.
1) The stock was closer to $57 in January 2000 if you average the trading days, not $35 (high in Jan was $64 at the end of the month, low was $42 at the beginning of the month).
2) They generated $22.9b in sales and $9.4b in profit in the fiscal 2000 year. Ballmer inherited about a 45 PE ratio, which is a massive multiple for a company with a $425+ billion market cap. An impossible multiple to maintain at that size I'll note. Just ask Apple, their PE has imploded from 35 to 60 several years ago, down to 9 recently (now 12 or so). Does that make Cook a terrible CEO, the fact that it's very likely impossible for him to build a trillion dollar company? No, he inherited a growth monster that is rapidly slowing down. Welcome to the law of big numbers.
3) Sales have increased from $22.9b to $77b so far under Ballmer. And profits have gone from $9.4b to $21.8b for fiscal 2013. For a company that was already the largest software company in the world, that's a spectacular operating performance. Meanwhile they've returned 40% of their market cap in cash to investors.
The notion that any company can dominate all industries simultaneously, such that Microsoft was going to own search, social and mobile is absurd to put it very lightly. The notion that Microsoft can just magically stop all future giant companies from existing, is equally absurd.
I don't think he was a great CEO, but your bashing is completely off target. You're criticizing Ballmer for basically not being a trillion dollar company with $100 billion per year in profit by not being a combined MSFT + GOOG + AAPL + FB. That makes no sense.
Positives: Only threw away 10-20b on pointless acquisitions (aQ, etc.). Successfully avoided buying Nokia, or pulling an HP/Compaq Fiorina fiasco, and didn't buy a big dying services organization to chase IBM. Also didn't do like HP's board with the lawsuits and revolving door CEOs and such. Avoided major criminal activity.
What about Microsoft developing some of the best enterprise programming tools in the world? I don't use any of the following, but I have to admit that they are (or at one time were) best-in-class is basically all of them:
* C#, F#, and all of .NET
* Visual Studio
* SQL Server
* DirectX
* ActiveX[1]
[1] ActiveX is not the best technology, but it paved the way for the AJAX programming that everyone does today.
Server and tools (e.g. System Center 2012 R2, Windows Azure).
Increasing profits. E.g., FY 13 profits of $26.76 billion against FY 12 profits of $21.76 billion. That 5 billion dollars of additional profit in that fiscal year. I wonder how much profit Ballmer's detractors generate?
Relevant: How Apple's profits stack up against Google and Microsoft
Not entirely sure any of these can be attributed to Ballmer but Microsoft has been entirely successful in the enterprise.
Active Directory (copied, but marketed better than Novell), Group Policies, Visual Studio (arguably the best IDE available today), Sql Server, .NET, Azure.
And trust me, I am no fan of Ballmer. I think this announcement is the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a LONG time.
I question the relevancy of that article from Forbes regarding Windows Phone. It is written by a Contributor, so it is basically an editorial piece. The sentence "Nokia becomes a low-end smartphone-maker" strikes me as particularly weird, as Nokia was always a low-end phone maker.
WP is definitely not a widely successful platform, but it is not yet a total failure, and given some more attention from Microsoft, it may yet succeed in being relevant.
==Positive==
He grew revenue and profits at incredible levels. He doesn't get credit because the stock price hasn't gone up, but that is just because he took over during the tech bubble and Microsoft was greatly overvalued at the time. I think profit has more than tripled since he started.
Negatives must also include Microsoft Mediaroom, the much yelled at[1] IPTV platform which was recently handed over to Ericsson for an undisclosed sum which I can't imagine yielded a good ROI for MS.
Maybe the failed Yahoo acquisition wasn't a bad thing? Would Microsoft have really improved Yahoo? Would Yahoo give Microsoft growth? If anything not doing that deal was a good move.
I'm still convinced that eReaders are a good future for distributing books. It isn't Microsoft's fault that the Nook is failing (Barnes and Noble need to pick up the slack), but I think its a good idea that Microsoft branches out into that distribution platform.
Its a Hail Mary pass to attempt to get into the eBooks market, but probably the best attempt that Microsoft could reasonably make. Actually, even if Nook ends up losing money for Microsoft, I'd argue it was a good move.
Lost here is Steve's wasted money chasing success in the media space. Failed advertising platform acquisitions (aQ), billions spent trying to get MSN and then Bing off the ground.
Huge news! Let's see what happens to the stock today. It edged up a little at the end of the day, suggesting that perhaps news was getting out. It's up 8% in premarket trading. [1]
One interesting thing to note from that chart is their Beta (a measure of link to market volatility) is less than 1, which is very low for a high tech stock. It basically means that the market views them as less volatile to market conditions than an index fund. Or put another way, more like a utility than a high tech firm.
What does this mean for Microsoft? I think an awful lot will depend on his replacement. I don't think they can get Gates to do another round. Who has the breadth of skills to manage it all? Seems like a complex enough beast that finding an appropriate outsider would be difficult too.
Going to another source [2] I see:
“As a member of the succession planning committee, I’ll work closely with the other members of the board to identify a great new CEO,” said Gates. “We’re fortunate to have Steve in his role until the new CEO assumes these duties.”
This suggests that he could be gone much sooner if the search goes well. These things don't happen overnight, but it could be by the end of the year or even sooner.
I think Ballmer is an interesting case study in perception versus results. He's commonly portrayed as a poor CEO that has led Microsoft in the direction of irrelevance. And yet, to quote oft critic Gruber, "he knows how to make money" (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/19/msft-q3)
I'd love to sit down and talk to him, and see if his vision is a bit more long range than your average industry analyst, similar Paul O'Neill's vision on worker safety and Alcoa in 1987.
+------------------------------------+
| |
| Microsoft has encountered an error |
| and Wall Street is not responding. |
| |
| If you choose to retire the CEO |
| immediately, you will lose any |
| unsaved cash cows and reboot the |
| corporate strategy. |
| |
| [ Retire ] [ Cancel ] |
| |
+------------------------------------+
"On a personal note, I'll just add that Ballmer was one of the good guys. Though he was relentlessly mocked for his over-the-top public appearances in years past, Ballmer was also relentlessly pro-Microsoft and it's very clear that the troubles of the past decade were at least in part not of his making: Ballmer inherited a Microsoft that had been driven into an antitrust quagmire by Mr. Gates, handicapping its ability to compete effectively or respond to new trends quickly. While many called for his ouster for many years, I never saw a single leader emerge at Microsoft who could fill his shoes or the needs of this lofty position. Looking at the available options today, I still don't."
"While many called for his ouster for many years, I never saw a single leader emerge at Microsoft who could fill his shoes or the needs of this lofty position. Looking at the available options today, I still don't."
This in and of itself is a failure of leadership. If you can't groom a leader to replace you in 15 years, that's a problem. Some could argue it's deliberate (defending their job) others might argue that he just didn't have it in him to make it a priority. The board should have insisted. I would argue that our last 2 presidents, and the current mayor of NYC have made the same problem.
Since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a huge percentage of its wealth still in MSFT stock, I think Bill Gates can make a case to himself that picking the best possible leader for MSFT will save hundreds of thousands of marginal children.
If I were him, there would be two candidates: Qi Lu (insider, obvious choice), or, for the ultimate in turnaround ballerdom: Ben Horowitz (from a16z). Either would be a vast improvement on Ballmer, but Qi Lu would be the "safe" choice, mostly doubling down on trends within Microsoft. Ben Horowitz would put Microsoft solidly at the core of Silicon Valley, plus it would signify that Microsoft views the next 10 years as "wartime" with a CEO to match.
(The other low-odds pick would be Bill Gates Round 2, but that seems unlikely just due to where he is in life. I could maybe see it as "Interim CEO". He'd do an awesome job I'm sure.)
Let me tell you an anecdote why I think Ballmer was incompetent and largely responsible for the sorry state that Microsoft is in at the moment. Yesterday there was a long article in the Israeli newspaper Globes about the success of the Israeli adware companies. Israel has in recent years become a world leader in software that installs unwanted toolbars on your elderly dad and mom's PC and "monetizes" them until they get their son or daughter to come over and fix it.
The list of such companies includes some really big ones, like Babylon and Conduit. These companies are making their profits by degrading Windows users' experience. Not only didn't Ballmer do anything to fight them, Microsoft actually has affiliate agreements with these companies to take a slice of the profits. Screwing your own customers like that cannot end well for Microsoft.
As someone who spent five years working at MSFT under Steve as CEO, my first reaction is sadness. Steve spent over three decades working there, it is an end of an exceptional career, regardless of how his run as CEO might have been.
I'm most interested with the "type" of CEO they replace him with. Broad categories:
- Within Tech: They hire an Apple type key executive whose background is all around getting hardware/software/direct sales to work together. They want to move to be a super tight, integrated brand.
- Outside of Tech: They hire from a GE type of company. This acknowledges that they're a sprawling behemoth and will stay that way. They need someone who can manage a hugely disparate conglomerate.
- Tech vs Sales: Broadly speaking Bill was a product guru with a huge slice of business acumen. Ballmer was all sales and number driven. How we describe the new hire will be interesting.
- Mobile vs Cloud. Do we end up with someone really well known for their mobile background? Or someone who is really well thought of for understanding the cloud? For example Apple has generally nailed mobile and struggled in cloud. MSFT has actually done a little better in cloud than they're given credit for. But it will tell us what they think is more important by the hire.
People here will argue that he is the worst CEO ever, that's debatable of-course. But I want to say some good things about him. To me he is a guy in a suit who understood software development. He shouted (in)famous "developers, developers, developers"[1], he knew that LOC is not a good measurement of software development[2], he poured loads of money in MSR ignoring the pressure of shareholders. For these reasons only he is a fine guy in my book. So I thank him for his works in Microsoft.
Wow, this is going to be the best thing for MSFT stock (and probably the company) in the past 10 years. I'm excited about having a real force to counterbalance Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon again.
This, and the other company response to it, might be good for +0.05% GDP growth or something crazy like that.
Funny thing that people tend to prefer Gates' version of Microsoft ( which is full of popular but sub-quality products) rather than Ballmer's version ( with unpopular but more stable products)
I feel bad for ballmer. his legacy is going to be pretty terrible because the stock price was flat from when he took over until now. nobody seems to take into account that he took over in the middle of the tech bubble bursting and msft was hugely overvalued at the time. I think profit has tripled since he took over or something like that. following gates was already going to be one of the hardest tasks possible. getting handed an overvalued company in the middle of a bubble bursting makes it all but impossible.
while i don't actually think he was a good ceo, i think he is much better than he gets credit for. they say he missed mobile, but i think windows phone is pretty good and new take on it. it was just a year or 2 late. xbox has been pretty fantastic overall. windows 7 was good. i think windows 8 has potential. azure is pretty good as far as i can tell. sure vista sucked (though not as badly as everyone says), and there have been other failures (kin anyone?).
People act like other good ceo's don't ever fail. Jobs had plenty of failures. Ping, mobile me, etc... Jobs had the "benefit" of taking over an almost dead company. making it thrive meant stock went crazy and he gets to be awesome. Ballmer just got in on the wrong end of the market. Tim Cook might have this problem as well, but at least Apple wasn't wildly overvalued at the time.
Steve Ballmer is the perfect example of why a business person should not run a software company. The opinion that "Steve knows how to make money" is a poor indicator of a successful leader. Microsoft has alienated developers leaving only enterprise developers to create boring interfaces for users causing many personal computer users to find something more aesthetically pleasing (OSX/Ubuntu). A company based solely on making money is like a marriage based solely around sex and benefit to social-status. If you're a .NET developer and this offended you; good. Money != happiness
It must really hurt the self-esteem of a CEO when they announce retirement and the stock goes up.
That being said, it's about time. Microsoft has had too much misdirection lately and really needs to either pull it together or drop out of some of its markets.
Good news, this really had to happen. One of Microsoft's biggest problems is one of PR - too many people, particularly in the media have just hated Microsoft for years, and Ballmer is not charismatic enough to ever recover from that position. They need new blood, and to shake off the "old Microsoft" image if they want to win hearts and minds again.
Marketing and PR can only do so much to improve the image of a company or product. That company or product actually has to have great core values or qualities.
Microsoft is forcing OEM's to pay licenses for using open sources operating systems, they're throwing mud against competitors in the media and in social media, and there's still this very real feeling that Microsoft hasn't shaken off the "evil" attitude and culture inside the company.
New pretty colors on its OS and hiring better PR people aren't going to help with that. The company need to change from the inside-out, not outside-in.
$24 billion. That's the increase in market value as of 15 minutes before the open. This has to be a record for a CEO announcing he's leaving. I've always wondered how much these types of things bruise the egos of the retiring execs.
[+] [-] lbarrow|12 years ago|reply
What happened to Microsoft? While the rest of the tech sector exploded and prospered, it stayed still. A MSFT share was worth about $35 dollars when Ballmer took over; it's worth about $35 now. The world moved on, and Microsoft didn't move with it.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|12 years ago|reply
He will be remembered for missing mobile. He will also be remembered for caring a lot about developers and about developers and about developers as well. The VB6 folks will still hate him ;-)
[+] [-] leokun|12 years ago|reply
Edit: parent comment used to say "worst CEO of modern history"
[+] [-] jericsinger|12 years ago|reply
I don't think anyone would argue that Ballmer's been the most innovative CEO of his era, but as a custodian of shareholder value, it's pretty hard to fault him. Could he have done better? In hindsight, we know the answer is yes, but the answer in hindsight is always yes. He managed to try and fail at big ideas without bankrupting -- or even significantly impairing -- his company. Not many CEOs can claim the same.
What happened to Microsoft? It built and sold unsexy products that people were willing to pay gobs of money for. I'm sure many businesses would love to fail so successfully.
[1] http://www.gurufocus.com/financials/MSFT#cs. For the sake of reference, AAPL returned ~$26 billion to shareholders over the same period.
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
1) The stock was closer to $57 in January 2000 if you average the trading days, not $35 (high in Jan was $64 at the end of the month, low was $42 at the beginning of the month).
2) They generated $22.9b in sales and $9.4b in profit in the fiscal 2000 year. Ballmer inherited about a 45 PE ratio, which is a massive multiple for a company with a $425+ billion market cap. An impossible multiple to maintain at that size I'll note. Just ask Apple, their PE has imploded from 35 to 60 several years ago, down to 9 recently (now 12 or so). Does that make Cook a terrible CEO, the fact that it's very likely impossible for him to build a trillion dollar company? No, he inherited a growth monster that is rapidly slowing down. Welcome to the law of big numbers.
3) Sales have increased from $22.9b to $77b so far under Ballmer. And profits have gone from $9.4b to $21.8b for fiscal 2013. For a company that was already the largest software company in the world, that's a spectacular operating performance. Meanwhile they've returned 40% of their market cap in cash to investors.
The notion that any company can dominate all industries simultaneously, such that Microsoft was going to own search, social and mobile is absurd to put it very lightly. The notion that Microsoft can just magically stop all future giant companies from existing, is equally absurd.
I don't think he was a great CEO, but your bashing is completely off target. You're criticizing Ballmer for basically not being a trillion dollar company with $100 billion per year in profit by not being a combined MSFT + GOOG + AAPL + FB. That makes no sense.
[+] [-] kjhughes|12 years ago|reply
== Negatives ==
* Clashes with Gates during CEO transition of power: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121261241035146237.html
* Developer relations / motivational speaking (thanks mathattack): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
* Employee retention (thanks JonnieCache, Ziomislaw): http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going...
* Windows Phone: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/18/if-you-h...
* IPTV platform Microsoft Mediaroom (thanks nixy): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/03/bt_vision_upgrade/
* Vista (thanks balakk, danieldk)
* Internet Explorer neglect and market share declines.
== Mixed ==
* Failed Yahoo acquisition (thanks michaelpinto, seanmcdirmid, throwaway1979): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2008/may08/05-03le...
== Positives ==
* Xbox / games division (thanks benihana)
* Enterprise successes (thanks gregd, facorreia)
* Facebook investment (thanks riffraff)
[edits: updates per reply comment suggestions]
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandonM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] facorreia|12 years ago|reply
Server and tools (e.g. System Center 2012 R2, Windows Azure).
Increasing profits. E.g., FY 13 profits of $26.76 billion against FY 12 profits of $21.76 billion. That 5 billion dollars of additional profit in that fiscal year. I wonder how much profit Ballmer's detractors generate?
Relevant: How Apple's profits stack up against Google and Microsoft
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/23/4549094/apple-microsoft-go...
[+] [-] gregd|12 years ago|reply
Active Directory (copied, but marketed better than Novell), Group Policies, Visual Studio (arguably the best IDE available today), Sql Server, .NET, Azure.
And trust me, I am no fan of Ballmer. I think this announcement is the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a LONG time.
[+] [-] bojan|12 years ago|reply
While their sales are down in the US, they are on a (very slow) rise almost everywhere else. In Latin America, WP is now ranked 2nd (http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/windows-phone-snags-second-...).
WP is definitely not a widely successful platform, but it is not yet a total failure, and given some more attention from Microsoft, it may yet succeed in being relevant.
edited for typos.
[+] [-] clarky07|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nixy|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/03/bt_vision_upgrade/
[+] [-] michaelpinto|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragontamer|12 years ago|reply
I'm still convinced that eReaders are a good future for distributing books. It isn't Microsoft's fault that the Nook is failing (Barnes and Noble need to pick up the slack), but I think its a good idea that Microsoft branches out into that distribution platform.
Its a Hail Mary pass to attempt to get into the eBooks market, but probably the best attempt that Microsoft could reasonably make. Actually, even if Nook ends up losing money for Microsoft, I'd argue it was a good move.
[+] [-] throwaway1979|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neuro|12 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
[+] [-] tmister|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWylb_5IOw0&feature=player_de... (go to 38:59 time mark)
[+] [-] lucasjans|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffraff|12 years ago|reply
IIRC the deal in 2007 was at one fifth of the current facebook value, plus they got to sneak bing in the platform, and cut out google.
[+] [-] jypepin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ziomislaw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benihana|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
One interesting thing to note from that chart is their Beta (a measure of link to market volatility) is less than 1, which is very low for a high tech stock. It basically means that the market views them as less volatile to market conditions than an index fund. Or put another way, more like a utility than a high tech firm.
What does this mean for Microsoft? I think an awful lot will depend on his replacement. I don't think they can get Gates to do another round. Who has the breadth of skills to manage it all? Seems like a complex enough beast that finding an appropriate outsider would be difficult too.
Going to another source [2] I see:
“As a member of the succession planning committee, I’ll work closely with the other members of the board to identify a great new CEO,” said Gates. “We’re fortunate to have Steve in his role until the new CEO assumes these duties.”
This suggests that he could be gone much sooner if the search goes well. These things don't happen overnight, but it could be by the end of the year or even sooner.
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=AsQ2vnc2OVs8WNqk.WdDwM.iuYdG...
[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/08/23/microsoft-ceo-stev...
[+] [-] Delmania|12 years ago|reply
I'd love to sit down and talk to him, and see if his vision is a bit more long range than your average industry analyst, similar Paul O'Neill's vision on worker safety and Alcoa in 1987.
[+] [-] edw519|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sz4kerto|12 years ago|reply
"On a personal note, I'll just add that Ballmer was one of the good guys. Though he was relentlessly mocked for his over-the-top public appearances in years past, Ballmer was also relentlessly pro-Microsoft and it's very clear that the troubles of the past decade were at least in part not of his making: Ballmer inherited a Microsoft that had been driven into an antitrust quagmire by Mr. Gates, handicapping its ability to compete effectively or respond to new trends quickly. While many called for his ouster for many years, I never saw a single leader emerge at Microsoft who could fill his shoes or the needs of this lofty position. Looking at the available options today, I still don't."
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
This in and of itself is a failure of leadership. If you can't groom a leader to replace you in 15 years, that's a problem. Some could argue it's deliberate (defending their job) others might argue that he just didn't have it in him to make it a priority. The board should have insisted. I would argue that our last 2 presidents, and the current mayor of NYC have made the same problem.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
If I were him, there would be two candidates: Qi Lu (insider, obvious choice), or, for the ultimate in turnaround ballerdom: Ben Horowitz (from a16z). Either would be a vast improvement on Ballmer, but Qi Lu would be the "safe" choice, mostly doubling down on trends within Microsoft. Ben Horowitz would put Microsoft solidly at the core of Silicon Valley, plus it would signify that Microsoft views the next 10 years as "wartime" with a CEO to match.
(The other low-odds pick would be Bill Gates Round 2, but that seems unlikely just due to where he is in life. I could maybe see it as "Interim CEO". He'd do an awesome job I'm sure.)
[+] [-] rrrrtttt|12 years ago|reply
The list of such companies includes some really big ones, like Babylon and Conduit. These companies are making their profits by degrading Windows users' experience. Not only didn't Ballmer do anything to fight them, Microsoft actually has affiliate agreements with these companies to take a slice of the profits. Screwing your own customers like that cannot end well for Microsoft.
[+] [-] tuananh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidcool|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcunite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selfexperiments|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sriramk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
- Within Tech: They hire an Apple type key executive whose background is all around getting hardware/software/direct sales to work together. They want to move to be a super tight, integrated brand. - Outside of Tech: They hire from a GE type of company. This acknowledges that they're a sprawling behemoth and will stay that way. They need someone who can manage a hugely disparate conglomerate. - Tech vs Sales: Broadly speaking Bill was a product guru with a huge slice of business acumen. Ballmer was all sales and number driven. How we describe the new hire will be interesting. - Mobile vs Cloud. Do we end up with someone really well known for their mobile background? Or someone who is really well thought of for understanding the cloud? For example Apple has generally nailed mobile and struggled in cloud. MSFT has actually done a little better in cloud than they're given credit for. But it will tell us what they think is more important by the hire.
Any other suggestions?
[+] [-] tmister|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWylb_5IOw0&feature=player_de... (go to 38:59 time mark)
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
This, and the other company response to it, might be good for +0.05% GDP growth or something crazy like that.
[+] [-] pmelendez|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clarky07|12 years ago|reply
while i don't actually think he was a good ceo, i think he is much better than he gets credit for. they say he missed mobile, but i think windows phone is pretty good and new take on it. it was just a year or 2 late. xbox has been pretty fantastic overall. windows 7 was good. i think windows 8 has potential. azure is pretty good as far as i can tell. sure vista sucked (though not as badly as everyone says), and there have been other failures (kin anyone?).
People act like other good ceo's don't ever fail. Jobs had plenty of failures. Ping, mobile me, etc... Jobs had the "benefit" of taking over an almost dead company. making it thrive meant stock went crazy and he gets to be awesome. Ballmer just got in on the wrong end of the market. Tim Cook might have this problem as well, but at least Apple wasn't wildly overvalued at the time.
[+] [-] davidbrear|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonnyV|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaxbot|12 years ago|reply
That being said, it's about time. Microsoft has had too much misdirection lately and really needs to either pull it together or drop out of some of its markets.
[+] [-] bornhuetter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
Microsoft is forcing OEM's to pay licenses for using open sources operating systems, they're throwing mud against competitors in the media and in social media, and there's still this very real feeling that Microsoft hasn't shaken off the "evil" attitude and culture inside the company.
New pretty colors on its OS and hiring better PR people aren't going to help with that. The company need to change from the inside-out, not outside-in.
[+] [-] bedhead|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sz4kerto|12 years ago|reply