Jump to content



Photo

Ballmer to Retire

ballmer msft

  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#91 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,453 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 24 August 2013 - 11:15

Depends on what you take as success and what as failure...

 

Did he bankrupt the company? No he didnt.

 

Did he take the organization to the next level and increase the shareholders value? No, he didnt... well he actually did, once he announced his retirement as shares jumped 7%.

 

Microsoft has NEVER been a company focused on shareholder and share vlaues. it's not where their focus is, in fact if MS had in the last 5 years been playing for the shareholders instead of their products and customers, the company would have gone under by now. 

 

Shareholders don't know how to run a company, shares and share values has no real indication of a companies actual worth and success. 




#92 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 24 August 2013 - 17:31

Agreed. CEO is ultimately responsible for execution. But form the sounds of it, they've been planning his exit and now was a time that clearly made quite a few people and analysts happy. I definitely think it's time for a change. Change is always a risk as well ...

 

I understand Carly was just a Leona Helmsley type and her execution was long overdue.

You are looking at her relationships within HP through those she tangled with.  CEOs tend to be prickly - Carly was no pricklier than the two CEOs before her, and, if anything, she was not AS prickly as Mark Hurd, who replaced her.

  And in terms of job performance as CEO, quite honestly, Carly performed better than Mark Hurd.



#93 +d5aqoëp

d5aqoëp

    Banned

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 07

Posted 24 August 2013 - 19:20

I am extremely pleased with Ballmer's decision. It's time to get in some fresh blood and free Microsoft from clutches of Bureaucracy. It's high time Microsoft starts functioning like a corporation rather than like some country's government.

#94 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 24 August 2013 - 20:04

You are looking at her relationships within HP through those she tangled with.  CEOs tend to be prickly - Carly was no pricklier than the two CEOs before her, and, if anything, she was not AS prickly as Mark Hurd, who replaced her.

  And in terms of job performance as CEO, quite honestly, Carly performed better than Mark Hurd.

 

 

I'll take your word for the performance. But I think I remember seeing a few exposed letters. Prickly is being gentle; she probably needed to go like the others. Absolute power in a large organization tends to corrupt the best of us.

 

It's really hard to measure the performance of a CEO who takes over a locomotive on the move. Even with a bad performance they're just hard to stop, it's the inertia of the business.



#95 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 24 August 2013 - 20:06

I am extremely pleased with Ballmer's decision. It's time to get in some fresh blood and free Microsoft from clutches of Bureaucracy. It's high time Microsoft starts functioning like a corporation rather than like some country's government.

 

I agree, it's just time for fresh blood and a fresh outlook. Not necessarily that Ballmer isn't "fit" to be a CEO. His time at MS is just done. But I think they're functioning to much like a corporation right now. The internal culture, and the shareholder influence. This will be a good thing unless they get a Shareholder yes man on the throne.



#96 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 24 August 2013 - 20:34

I am extremely pleased with Ballmer's decision. It's time to get in some fresh blood and free Microsoft from clutches of Bureaucracy. It's high time Microsoft starts functioning like a corporation rather than like some country's government.

A corporation IS like a government; Microsoft actually has LESS bureaucracy than other corporations it's market cap size.  (I can give three examples - none of which are even in technology;  JPMorganChase, Berkshire Hathaway, and Kraft Global.  A financial services company, a diversified holding company - in fact THE diversified holding company of Warren Buffett, and a food company.  Believe it or not, all have bigger bureaucracies than Microsoft.) Even General Electric STILL has a bigger bureaucracy than Microsoft - despite the massive layoffs under Jack "the Bloody" Welch AND the spinout of NBC.

 

If you are comparing Microsoft to either Google or Apple, the comparison is misconstrued.  Google is still largely a services company, even after the acquisition of Motorola Mobility.  Other than MM, exactly what hardware OR software does Google itself sell?  (Android, Chrome, and the software fruits of both are given away;  everything else - including Google Fiber - is services-based.)  Apple is ALSO largely a services company - albeit one with a small (almost boutique) manufacturing arm - which is itself almost wholly contract labor.  Apple's monstrous reliance on contract labor has cut both ways; it lets Apple look small (David to Microsoft's comparative Goliath) - however, it's also been somewhat of a PR nightmare due to issues with the contractor.  (It's far from unique to Apple - or even to technology companies - this started in the fashion business, actually.  However, some companies DO make a conscious decision to farm out as little of their support business as possible, simply to avoid backlash - IBM historically has been one of them, and GE is another.)

 

Also, consider how many people Microsoft MUST employ simply to deal with regulatory compliance - and not alone in the EU or North America.  From the last annual report of Microsoft, almost fifteen percent of Microsoft's "bureaucracy" is simply to deal with regulatory issues. The closest comparison among other tech companies is IBM - which has a larger bureaucracy than Microsoft still.  (And neither Microsoft or even IBM has the regulatory woes of Boeing.)



#97 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 24 August 2013 - 20:50

I'll take your word for the performance. But I think I remember seeing a few exposed letters. Prickly is being gentle; she probably needed to go like the others. Absolute power in a large organization tends to corrupt the best of us.

 

It's really hard to measure the performance of a CEO who takes over a locomotive on the move. Even with a bad performance they're just hard to stop, it's the inertia of the business.

I saw the exposed letters - prickly CEOs do get "shot at".  (The same happened to Ballmer early in HIS tenure as Microsoft CEO - heck, it even happened to Bill Gates himself.)  Office politics is little different in large companies than in large governments - why do you think there are so few WILLING candidates for high-level positions on corporate boards?  The lavish (admittedly) perks for serving on them is basically glorified bribery (so it seems to an outsider) - until you walk that mile in their shoes.  Do you REALLY think the "Peter Principle" doesn't apply to corporate boardrooms?  Still, considering what the CEO of a large company - and especially one in the public eye as much as Microsoft Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc. - I'm actually surprised that the turnover in CEOs at all except Yahoo is not even higher than it has been.  (Look at corporate-board-level turnover at merely Boeing and Starbucks compared to Microsoft - just since Gates went to chairman and CSA.  I picked those two companies for two rather obvious reasons - they have been the corporate neighbors of Microsoft, AND they have spent almost as much time in the public fishbowl.)



#98 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,453 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 24 August 2013 - 21:13

I agree, it's just time for fresh blood and a fresh outlook. Not necessarily that Ballmer isn't "fit" to be a CEO. His time at MS is just done. But I think they're functioning to much like a corporation right now. The internal culture, and the shareholder influence. This will be a good thing unless they get a Shareholder yes man on the throne.

 

They fixed the internal culture when they fired the last windows boss who ran his department like he was king and only his department mattered at MS.

 

as for shareholders. MS doesn't and has never pampered to shareholders. they don't make decision based on maximised shareholder profits, they make decisions based on their products and customers. 



#99 ctebah

ctebah

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,407 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 03

Posted 24 August 2013 - 22:15

as for shareholders. MS doesn't and has never pampered to shareholders. they don't make decision based on maximised shareholder profits, they make decisions based on their products and customers.


I don't get it though, can you really say Microsoft has been making decisions based on their customers when Xbox One, Windows 8 and Surface have recieved so much backlash?

#100 primexx

primexx

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,741 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 05

Posted 24 August 2013 - 22:27

I don't get it though, can you really say Microsoft has been making decisions based on their customers when Xbox One, Windows 8 and Surface have recieved so much backlash?

you gotta look at who's generating that backlash



#101 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,524 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 24 August 2013 - 22:29

I don't get it though, can you really say Microsoft has been making decisions based on their customers when Xbox One, Windows 8 and Surface have recieved so much backlash?


I remember Win95 having some backlash... WinXP, Vista, and 7 had some significant backlash too. Your point?

#102 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,453 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 25 August 2013 - 00:01

I don't get it though, can you really say Microsoft has been making decisions based on their customers when Xbox One, Windows 8 and Surface have recieved so much backlash?


It's about moving the world forward. And I have yet to have a single client that is unhappy with widows 8 after I explain and show the it's the same as 7 but with a bigger and more organized start menu.

If they where to please the shareholders MS would be stuck in the past, stagnating. Windows 8 is a necessary step to get to the next stage and get a fully universal OS.

And look a the backlash of them going back to discs on the one, its as much backlash from that. The actual people that where going to buy it and weren't Sony fans gave as much backlash to them dropping digital games with family sharing.

#103 dvb2000

dvb2000

    Neowinian

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 07

Posted 25 August 2013 - 00:25

MS doesn't and has never pampered to shareholders. they don't make decision based on maximised shareholder profits, they make decisions based on their products and customers. 

 

other than WIndows 8 you mean, where customers were totally ignored, likewise OEM's who were lambasted for not being innovative.

 

I guess the Surface that Microsoft produced in response shows that karma is a bitch - miserable fail, lack innovation, no one wants it - lol



#104 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,934 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 25 August 2013 - 00:26

They make decisions based on their products and customers. 

 

Given their recent "You will use your computer as we say and you will like it" approach that's an amusing assertion to say the least.

 

Most Neowin users would probably laud poop in a bag if it carried a Microsoft logo. If you want a more balanced view of what the market is saying sales of Windows 8 are weak, and sales of Windows devices are even more weak. 2 of the last 3 versions of Windows have now proved unpopular with customers and the evidence I get is far from Microsoft being a customer oriented company, they're forging ahead with this "vision" of being a devices company and they seem completely oblivious to the way the markets are receiving their current products



#105 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:00

other than WIndows 8 you mean, where customers were totally ignored, likewise OEM's who were lambasted for not being innovative.

 

I guess the Surface that Microsoft produced in response shows that karma is a bitch - miserable fail, lack innovation, no one wants it - lol

 Hold on, if the Surface RT had been running iOS or even Android it would have been a smash hit. Windows 8 RTM was lacking too much. It will get better with 8.1. It's not over yet, for Ballmer as CEO yes. But the Surface still lives, for now.