Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff: Bill Gates should be Microsoft's interim CEO

The big question in the tech world in the last week has been, "Who should Microsoft pick to replace Steve Ballmer as CEO?". The speculation is so wild even sports betting websites have a list of candidates with odds. One of them is current Microsoft Chairman and co-founder Bill Gates, who served as CEO until he gave that job to Ballmer in 2000 (he currently has 50-1 odds on the Ladbrokes betting site).

Gates retired from day-to-day work at Microsoft in 2008 to concentrate on his charitable duties with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He has repeatedly stated in interviews that he has no intention of returning to work at Microsoft full time. However, Marc Benioff, the outspoken head of the cloud computing company Salesforce.com, believes that Gates is the best person for the CEO gig, at least for the moment.

In an interview with CNet.com, Benioff says that if Gates returned as CEO, he would bring a new level of excitement to Microsoft, adding, "There is no clear candidate with the visionary skills to turn company around other than Bill Gates." Benioff suggests that Gates announce his return to Microsoft's top spot on an interim basis, saying, ""He could come back with new ways to run the company, let (his wife) Melinda run the charitable foundation, make changes and identify the next leader to come, with a clear window of three years."

While it is unlikely that Gates would suddenly break away from all of his charity work to come back to Microsoft full time, it's certainly true that the idea of Gates returning as CEO, even on a temporary basis, would generate more buzz about the company than any other person who has been suggested to take over from Ballmer.

Source: CNet | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook spam could be worth $200m annually

Next Story

Xbox One voice commands limited to five countries at launch

58 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

james.faction said,
I find it hard to reconcile his "charity" work with his investments in Monsanto stock.

By "charity work", I mean that his organisation is a charity. I'm unfamiliar with Monsanto.

while we're at it. maybe bill should have melinda back, too. we sure need microsoft bob to replace that win 8 crap. especially now. lmao.

He's got more money than all the rice in China, but I'm guessing a lot of his wealth is still tied to the MS stock. If he wants more money for his "foundations", he might step back in to pump it up. Guess it depends on what his wife wants.

warwagon said,
Damn why couldn't this of happened before the Metro UI

That really needs to be the first thing to go.

Windows 9 revamped for desktops with no Metro UI with Windows 8 forked off as Windows Tablet would be a great step.

warwagon said,
Damn why couldn't this of happened before the Metro UI

Yeah because Bill never wanted anything like Microsoft Bob, clippy or the XP assistants! /s

Neobond said,

Yeah because Bill never wanted anything like Microsoft Bob, clippy or the XP assistants! /s

Yeah, I know I hated how Microsoft Bob was built into Windows 95 and there was no option to disable it. /s

Lord Method Man said,

Yes, consumers hate Metro in Windows 8.


I'd love to see the data you have to support that assertion, because I'd disagree that the Metro design language is the primary reason for the lukewarm response the operating system has received from consumers.

Lord Method Man said,

Yeah, I know I hated how Microsoft Bob was built into Windows 95 and there was no option to disable it. /s

lol

warwagon said,
Damn why couldn't this of happened before the Metro UI

I think you are wrong. metro was inevitable. touch based pcs and tablet is the future and the only way for windows to adapt touch fully was to create a touch interface which happens to be metro. arguably is the best way to interact with touch enabled devices. informative and big tile to touch and open an app which is imersive and full screen. alternative of metro is row of icons which was patented by Nokia in more than ten years ago that is in Android and iOS

kind of funny

windows 7" wtf windows 7 sucks for touch, windows 8 cant get here soon enough"

windows 8 "wtf windows 8 sucks for desktop because of touch integration"

JHBrown said,
In that case, millions of people are haters.
Lack of purchasing a new OS is hate? Well, what does that say about OSX.

Honestly though, everybody here projects their obsession with things onto normal customers. If you put all of the top apps on Metro and handed them Windows 8... they'd happily use it w/o a care in the world. Metro is not the reason Windows 8's adoption hasn't surpassed Win7 (it's about even stephen last I looked). It's that there is no compelling reason to live in Metro, though that's changing quickly.

Every "normal customer" I deal with hates the Metro UI. In fact the cheerleaders on Neowin are the only ones I ever see still trying to sprinkle sugar on the Windows 8 debacle.

I love 8. To me the only people I know that dislike it hate it just becuase they dont know where anything is and they are not thinking about it right. Big change is hard because no one like to learn new crap after years and years of the same things since windows 95. Heck everyone I knew HATED win95 that came from 3.1 because of the learning curve. Any people new to pcs seemed to love it. Surprisingly my boss who has a hard time with new things loves windows 8 so much.

I am only speaking of my experience as someone who builds pcs for people on the side since the 90s.

Lord Method Man said,
Every "normal customer" I deal with hates the Metro UI. In fact the cheerleaders on Neowin are the only ones I ever see still trying to sprinkle sugar on the Windows 8 debacle.
Most I know just have no reason to be in it. In fact that's the biggest question I get "Why would I use this." I show them what apps exist and show them the store. Some use Metro, some don't. The apps aren't incredibly compelling in a desktop interface IMO. But that's changing. I'm no cheerleader of Windows 8's Modern interface seeing as the applications, even built in, were not up to snuff at release. 8.1 that's changing drastically.

A very vocal minority hate Windows 8. People who are open-minded and adapt to change like Windows 8.

A very vocal minority hated Windows 95 too.

A very vocal minority hated moving away from DOS before that.

Ain't nothin changed.

Edited by james.faction, Aug 29 2013, 11:07pm :

james.faction said,
A very vocal minority hate Windows 8. People who are open-minded and adapt to change like Windows 8.

A very vocal minority hated Windows 95 too.

A very vocal minority hated moving away from DOS before that.

Ain't nothin changed.


And you've got some figures to back up your claims too?

Lord Method Man said,
The denial on this site is breathtaking.
There's no denial marketshare growth is lagging. You could attribute that to a number of things. But taking slow marketshare adoption and translating that to Metro is horrible and should be removed is quite a stretch.

Someone known for giving little soundbites to gain publicity does it again. Shocker.

And once again people talk about how this affects share prices, like they know...

Disagree. He left his legacy at Microsoft years ago, and him and Melinda should continue their current legacy for the betterment of humanity.

*ahem* legacy for the betterment of humanity..... together with Monsantos, Carlos Slim and a bunch of "good people".

Astra.Xtreme said,
Um... what?...
You have heard of the Melinda Gates Foundation, right?
What are you going on about?

Melinda Gates Foundation, with their FORCED vaccinations in africa , that seems more concerned about reducing population & eugenism, than spreading health, yeah.

bigmehdi said,

Melinda Gates Foundation, with their FORCED vaccinations in africa , that seems more concerned about reducing population & eugenism, than spreading health, yeah.

Why would vaccinations reduce population?

bigmehdi said,

Melinda Gates Foundation, with their FORCED vaccinations in africa , that seems more concerned about reducing population & eugenism, than spreading health, yeah.

A conspiracy nut on the internet. Well, theres something new.

mr_sock_00 said,
Because something is IN the vaccination.

Well yeah it's likely a dormant or weak form of the disease, which the body then learns to kill off and prevent. That's basically how all vaccines work. And of course there is the chance people get sick or die from them. Here in the US, there are a few cases of that every year with the Flu vaccine. It still doesn't neglect the fact that it helps almost all the people that receive it.

Stop acting like the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Gates family donates is a bad thing...

For those saying I'm a "conspiracy nut", Bill himself is explaining in a TED video,
that vaccination could help to reduce population:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmzeYYWntxw

Try to deny that.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Why would vaccinations reduce population?

Some sterilizing agents can be introduce in vaccines. Heard once of the US giving away "free vaccine" to Mexico, that were inducing infertility ; convenient if you want to get rid of these unwanted immigrants.
I'm not sure I can find an "enough official" link for " forced sterilization by vaccination" , but hey you can search:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ne...hive//ldn/2004/mar/04031101

Off course the worst "conspiracy nuts", think that vaccine can be even more harmful,
but I won't dive into this. Let's just say that the usefulness of particular vaccines is contested.

mr_sock_00 said,
People should use their head more than a hat rack. More programming done than Windows 9. =p

So you're essentially calling the people that disagree with you stupid... That's very mature of you.

bigmehdi said,
For those saying I'm a "conspiracy nut", Bill himself is explaining in a TED video,
that vaccination could help to reduce population:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmzeYYWntxw

Try to deny that.

Some sterilizing agents can be introduce in vaccines. Heard once of the US giving away "free vaccine" to Mexico, that were inducing infertility ; convenient if you want to get rid of these unwanted immigrants.
I'm not sure I can find an "enough official" link for " forced sterilization by vaccination" , but hey you can search:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ne...hive//ldn/2004/mar/04031101

Off course the worst "conspiracy nuts", think that vaccine can be even more harmful,
but I won't dive into this. Let's just say that the usefulness of particular vaccines is contested.


Uh. Yeah. It would act as a population 'control' in that parents have fewer kids when they're more confident 2/3 of their offspring won't die before their 20th birthday.

Bro, do you even logic?

Brony said,
*ahem* legacy for the betterment of humanity..... together with Monsantos, Carlos Slim and a bunch of "good people".

I agree with you 100% why not educate before you vaccinate. Vaccines contain more poison in them that they don't even list their ingredients. Everything given or taken by the public has a break down of ingredients except vaccines. And they refuse to do studies against people who don't vaccinate because they say its not humane, sigh. Very convenient.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Where are you getting that information from?
A simple Google search will list the ingredients of any vaccine out there. Health clinics are also littered with pamphlets regarding this stuff.
Here's a start for you: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pa...e-decision/ingredients.html

Don't spread non-sense please...

oh come on, I've looked at your link, and they cite Thimerosal , which basically contain
mercury (which can be highly toxic). They imply that at small dose it's safe, but it's controverted, and proof is in your own link : "vaccine manufacturers stopped using it as a precautionary measure" , but still on flu vaccine (yuk).
Then second ingredient : aluminium, the safety of it is at least controverted, with some study suggesting a link with Alzheimer disease.
Then Formaldehyde , which is an other toxic (as usual they would suggest that a small dose is innocuous).

And if you want an example of vaccine that is well known to harm, just search for the gardasil.
Is the washington times "enough official", to not be considered "conspiracy nut":
http://communities.washingtont...6-million-gardasil-victims/

bigmehdi said,

oh come on, I've looked at your link, and they cite Thimerosal , which basically contain
mercury (which can be highly toxic). They imply that at small dose it's safe, but it's controverted, and proof is in your own link : "vaccine manufacturers stopped using it as a precautionary measure" , but still on flu vaccine (yuk).
Then second ingredient : aluminium, the safety of it is at least controverted, with some study suggesting a link with Alzheimer disease.
Then Formaldehyde , which is an other toxic (as usual they would suggest that a small dose is innocuous).

And if you want an example of vaccine that is well known to harm, just search for the gardasil.
Is the washington times "enough official", to not be considered "conspiracy nut":
http://communities.washingtont...6-million-gardasil-victims/


Your perspective sounds like it's largely rooted in reading blog posts, forum discussions, and homeopathy infomercials. Evidence is important for a reason, and it's so people don't get as totally emotionally wrapped up in a point of view they can't readily support. If your reasoning can't convince others, how the heck was it all it took to convince you in the first place?

Joshie said,

Your perspective sounds like it's largely rooted in reading blog posts, forum discussions, and homeopathy infomercials.

Arrgh .....
I don't think the washington post link I've posted is a "small blog".
Neither is the ted video , where bill speak unambiguously about reducing population with vaccines.


Evidence is important for a reason, and it's so people don't get as totally emotionally wrapped up in a point of view they can't readily support.

I just don't care . My point original point is that bill with his melinda association is not the angel that everyone describe. If that's too hard for you to accept, I just don't care too.

bigmehdi said,

oh come on, I've looked at your link, and they cite Thimerosal , which basically contain
mercury (which can be highly toxic). They imply that at small dose it's safe, but it's controverted, and proof is in your own link : "vaccine manufacturers stopped using it as a precautionary measure" , but still on flu vaccine (yuk).
Then second ingredient : aluminium, the safety of it is at least controverted, with some study suggesting a link with Alzheimer disease.
Then Formaldehyde , which is an other toxic (as usual they would suggest that a small dose is innocuous).

And if you want an example of vaccine that is well known to harm, just search for the gardasil.
Is the washington times "enough official", to not be considered "conspiracy nut":
http://communities.washingtont...6-million-gardasil-victims/

There are low doses of horrible things in just about everything we eat and breathe. Fish almost always has small amounts of mercury. The air we breathe has low doses of radiation still lingering from Chernobyl and other poisons. And it will get worse yet with the Fukushima radiation spreading via the Pacific Ocean and it's currents. If you go outside on a sunny day, the Sun is slowly killing you. The list is infinite.

They have to publicly tell people these things in case of allergic reactions or other negative unforeseen effects. But at the end of the day, vaccines help way way more people than they harm. People will complain about the negative effects of everything, but there's nothing we can do about it. Even if you locked yourself in a dark room to get away from "scary reality", your brain will probably become your worst enemy and you'll go insane. Life is risky, but it's not worth wasting it by worrying about the rare consequences.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Life is risky, but it's not worth wasting it by worrying about the rare consequences.

Might be true . Problem is the mass that never question anything as long as statements comes from ( corrupted ?) experts. Being a scientific is not incompatible with dishonesty.
It's not hard to mislead people , when you are more knowledgeable. There are well known example of medications , with risks that are downplayed (and then the medication is removed from the market) . Just look at the mediator scandal in France.

bigmehdi said,

Might be true . Problem is the mass that never question anything as long as statements comes from ( corrupted ?) experts. Being a scientific is not incompatible with dishonesty.
It's not hard to mislead people , when you are more knowledgeable. There are well known example of medications , with risks that are downplayed (and then the medication is removed from the market) . Just look at the mediator scandal in France.

There's a difference between skepticism (asking questions) and paranoia (making accusations).

It sounds like you've decided writers--who clearly totally never have any agenda ever--are more likely to be correct than experts--who are all conspiring to destroy humanity.

Christ man, you're on a technology enthusiast site, I can only assume you're interested in technology. How can you NOT have noticed that people who write articles are far more likely to twist reality to suit their personal opinions than the sources they're quoting do? It's what we deal with every day as tech enthusiasts.

I Love bill gates. he is the best, but I think he was kind of away from Tech business lately. Microsoft wants an up-to-date person with bill gates's vision .

Edited by trojan_market, Aug 29 2013, 2:11pm :

If that happens, the share price would go through the roof.

It would be a nice thing to happen but MS is in good shape as it is, so it's not something that needs to happen.

Gates is still the Chairman of the Board. He's not really free of Vista, but it seems to be just as easily forgotten that Gates was there for Windows ME, and that Steve Ballmer was in charge during the release for both Windows XP and Windows 7 (which is only a stone's throw away from Windows Vista in differences anyway).

This is not really a ding on Gates, but I am constantly surprised that people blame Ballmer for everything without giving him any due props; he is not the spawn of satan. After all, Gates tried to do tablets too soon, which is almost certainly the reason that MS was weary when it came to jumping into the market again to compete with iPad (plus, being Chairman and the former CEO, I am certain that he has some say-so with Ballmer).

Ballmer was not the best CEO, but he definitely was not the worst either.

I can see this happen. Only reason will be pumping up hype. Microsoft needs consumer trust back and only thing that can give them that fast is Bill's PERSONALITY. Opposite to people's saying i think that Microsoft is only company with vision right now...Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. Still people have wrong perception of both OSes. I would put Bill on CEO till Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 are shaped and till they gain deserved market share... for a few years, till 8.5 versions arrive or something. Think Bill should sacrifice some year and help not with his moves because i don't see nothing wrong with moves Microsoft is taking right now but with hype around his personality.