Ballmer to Retire

[PGHammer]

I don't disagree with anything you said. And neither one of them is gone (Sinofsky and soon Ballmer) for taking risks. It's because their risks didn't pay off, or pay off soon enough. Everyone else is selling "non-PC" devices by the ton. Yet Microsoft, for all it's might, is not. Ballmer should go, gracefully and should probably stay involved in some capacity.

 

Sinofsky and his cultural mess, and the mess that was/is Windows 8 RTM, got a better exit than he deserved IMO. It will probably take years to fix the internal communication/culture issues that he probably was a part of creating.

 

There were simply boneheaded design decisions made, and they almost doomed XBox One before it even got started. That's out-of-touch management. Risk is fine, but it must be based in reality, the reality has change for Microsoft. They can no longer muscle the competition or consumer. That's not an insignificant adjustment to have to make.

However, NOT making them - remaining risk-averse - would have been worse.

 

And look at those selling those non-PC devices by the ton - they are doing so because someone (in fact, two companies - Google and Apple) took a risk on the nascent platforms.  In other words, it came down to execution - not risk per se.

 

Whether or not a risk (even a calculated one) works ALWAYS comes down to execution - that's in anything.  I'm not saying that Microsoft has executed things perfectly with ModernUI - that is, in fact, something I have pointedly NOT said.  However, what ModernUI replaced in Windows 8 - specifically, the Start menu - was not without flaws, either; if anything, the Start menu's flaws are even worse when compared directly to ModernUI - even with no touch support at all.

 

The flaws of Android (and there are plenty) are easily overlooked because of one overwhelming advantage Android has - price/cost.  Thus the risk of Android is less on a cost basis compared to Windows.  (This is for users/consumers.)

 

Then there is the "expectation cost" of Microsoft software outside of PCs and consoles - look at what folks are asking for in terms of hardware running WindowsRT, for example.  Never mind that RT hardware as it stands already has better specs than anything running Android - we want even higher-spec hardware running RT; on the other hand, we want the price to go down.  Where the heck is the logic in that?

 

Microsoft is NOT going after Google (or Android) - they had no plans on trying to compete on price with Android.  (As well they shouldn't - that was, in fact, part of the lesson learned with WinMo, if not KIN.)  The target of WindowsRT (and of Windows Phone) is Apple and iOS - not Google and Android.  (Microsoft's ad blitzes - both of them - are targeting iDevices; has ANY Google-based hardware come onto the crosshairs?)  Yet we - as users - are insisting that Microsoft compete with Google - not Apple.

 

That is what I'd REALLY like to know - how did we get it into our heads that Microsoft needs to compete with Google?

[Guest]

Good luck to him with what ever he wants to do next.

[MorganX]

However, NOT making them - remaining risk-averse - would have been worse.

 

The flaws of Android (and there are plenty) are easily overlooked because of one overwhelming advantage Android has - price/cost.  

 

Agreed.

 

But sometimes a person is just done in a certain place/position. They lack the fire to go that extra cognitive step and "make it a success." That's why I leave it at, it was probably time for him to move on.

 

re: Android. Flaws not overlooked. I've got a 64G One X+ collecting dust (may trade it in to Amazon.com) because it was just too much hassle to sync and manage playlists. A smartphone is now a lifestyle device, mp3 player, fitness computer, etc.

 

iPhone gets this while everyone else is still trying to understand why it keeps selling. iPhone is getting long in the tooth but it still does more, right and reliably, than anyone else. Androids are just mass appeal cheap which gives them the huge overall market share..

[Dick Montage]

He failed as CEO

 

Except he didn't!

[PGHammer]

Agreed.

 

But sometimes a person is just done in a certain place/position. They lack the fire to go that extra cognitive step and "make it a success." That's why I leave it at, it was probably time for him to move on.

Doubtless the case; however, Ballmer was CEO - exactly how much further up realistically could he go?

 

The same was the case with Carly Fiorina at HP (where she was CEO) and *is* the case with Meg Whitman (HP's current CEO) - just as it was with Mark Hurd (who replaced Carly, and was in turn replaced by Meg Whitman) - CEO is where the "execution" buck stops - not chairman (unless the two are the same position, which, in large companies, usually is NOT the case; in fact, it wasn't the case at Microsoft since Paul Allen left).

[MorganX]

Doubtless the case; however, Ballmer was CEO - exactly how much further up realistically could he go?

 

The same was the case with Carly Fiorina at HP (where she was CEO) and *is* the case with Meg Whitman (HP's current CEO) - just as it was with Mark Hurd (who replaced Carly, and was in turn replaced by Meg Whitman) - CEO is where the "execution" buck stops - not chairman (unless the two are the same position, which, in large companies, usually is NOT the case; in fact, it wasn't the case at Microsoft since Paul Allen left).

 

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.

[Dysphoria]

Except he didn't!

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%.

[AJerman]

Agreed.

 

But sometimes a person is just done in a certain place/position. They lack the fire to go that extra cognitive step and "make it a success." That's why I leave it at, it was probably time for him to move on.

 

re: Android. Flaws not overlooked. I've got a 64G One X+ collecting dust (may trade it in to Amazon.com) because it was just too much hassle to sync and manage playlists. A smartphone is now a lifestyle device, mp3 player, fitness computer, etc.

 

iPhone gets this while everyone else is still trying to understand why it keeps selling. iPhone is getting long in the tooth but it still does more, right and reliably, than anyone else. Androids are just mass appeal cheap which gives them the huge overall market share..

If you can't manage to sync music to an Android device when all you have to do is plug it in and drag and drop, then you pretty much discredit everything else you say related to technology. :laugh:

[MorganX]

If you can't manage to sync music to an Android device when all you have to do is plug it in and drag and drop, then you pretty much discredit everything else you say related to technology. :laugh:

 

Oh, please. I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said it was too much hassle and it is. If you have a music library of a couple thousand MP3's and 10 playlists that change regularly, it's an absolute, why bother. Finding and dragging and dropping hundreds of songs and playlists that unless you're a masochist you have to create in another app and copy playlists and more and new songs every time they change or are acquired. As opposed to a well thought out and media management ecosystem such as is present with iOS and even in it's shabby state far superior with even Windows.

 

You have all day to waste or let your phones lack on usability dictate what you listen to and how often you change that, be my guest.

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

I wish Bill Gates could come back! He made was an awesome presenter and great to listen to.  When I think of Microsoft, I think of Bill Gates!

 

 

[vcfan]

What a day for Ballmer. Announces retirement, then makes $769 million dollars in one day.

[ichi]

However, NOT making them - remaining risk-averse - would have been worse.

 

 

I don't think anyone blames Microsoft for taking risks, but rather for the specific risks they choose to take. Ie. betting the Windows desktop in order to push their mobile platform.

As you said it comes down to execution, but execution should be planned before going ahead with the risks.

 

In this case the "ModernUI" desktop just wasn't ready: Microsoft's own apps weren't there and the concept of the Metro desktop wasn't polished enough yet. These two things combined leave a bitter taste of "WTF is this crap getting in my way to my classic desktop", which has little to do with hating risks and a lot with the current state of the Microsoft OS.

 

I guess they felt they had no choice but rushing it out of the door to compensate for the screw up of being so late to the mobile market, but I'd bet public reception of W8 would have been a lot different if the Metro desktop was actually usable and Microsoft had released Metro apps worth using (eg. Office).

[Growled Member]

Part of me wants to yell "Thank god Ballmer is finally leaving" and another part of me says "oh god, I hope they don't turn out like Apple."

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

For a very long time, I always knew Microsoft as the company that made Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, Vista etc. Its a little hard for me little envision Microsoft as a refreshed company. It may be easier for younger folks to view Microsoft as a refreshed new company. As long as Microsoft doesn't significantly alter the classic desktop I will be fine. What's happening with Microsoft now, reminds me of when Steve Jobs returned and got Apple back on its feet, pointing it in the right direction

[IntegralDerivative]

Julie Larson-Green for CEO! (If you dunno who she is, she is the girl that works in the Windows division)

[HawkMan]

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. 

[PGHammer]

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.

[neo1911]

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.

[MorganX]

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.

[MorganX]

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.

[PGHammer]

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.)

[PGHammer]

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.)

[HawkMan]

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. 

[ctebah]

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?

[primexx]

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