Steve Ballmer quits

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23815563

Not too surprising, he did not manage to bring Microsoft into a competitive stance regarding the emerging tablet and phone market, and failed big time in the Vista 2.0 disaster that is named Windows 8, which he obviously hopelessly overestimated and instead stubbornly defended in its highly controversial design. That the new MS-made computers that try to be tablet and notebook in one, have not attracted customers due to a mix of being overpriced and not convincing customers by their design, cannot have helped to strengthen his position as a CEO.
I expected his fall from the release of W8 on, when that other major developer already had to go as well. Of course, they will never say anything different than that it is his voluntary and long-planned decision. What else could be expected?

The whole PC market is an kind of a revolution, it seems, with companies like HP struggling since long, and other former heavy weights like Apple feeling the sting of changing times increasingly, while Google for example is still rising. Indeed Google is rising to something that I consider to be threatening and fearful.

[the_tyrant]

I love the man:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=206853



Mind you, I think he did a pretty good job considering what he had to start with.

When he started to take over in the mid-90s and became CEO in 200, Microsoft was like apple, a heavily consumer focused company, nearly 100% dependent on one product, windows, that was on the verge of getting broken apart by anti-trust laws.

Now, they are a heavily diversified enterprise focused technology company putting up record quarter after record quarter.

In my opinion, Ballmer's greatest successes are:

1. Their stranglehold on the enterprise.
Lets be honest here, Microsoft dominates the enterprise. Under Ballmer, they were able to squeeze out Novell, seriously damage IBM, deal heavy blows to Oracle. The enterprise market is infinitely better than the consumer market, because "product loyalty" goes further, and it isn't fad-driven.

2. Their entry into gaming.
Before Ballmer became CEO, under Gates, the Microsoft gaming division was actually a mess. Ballmer really solidified their position, and pushed out the Xbox 360. Now they are a major force in gaming, a huge publisher (arguably one of the biggest), and they were able to be create the first (and currently only) non-Japanese console.

3. The Elop Trojan horse.
Look, I know this is a controversial topic bordering on conspiracy theory, but I kind of believe in it. Nokia was the biggest "anti Microsoft" force for years. People even thought Symbian was going to destroy windows at a time. Yet Elop, the ex-microsoftie took over, and became Microsoft's No. 1 supporter. Now look at Nokia, they are practically Microsoft's mobile division.

Ballmer's greatest failures:

1. Poor corporate structure.
The next 2 biggest failures can all be attributed to Microsoft's biggest Ballmer era failure, their corporate structure. Microsoft is huge, and the different divisions are run like practically separate companies. The different division heads run their departments completely separate, with almost no-cooperation. This is what really doomed multiple Microsoft efforts to failure.

2. Zune and kin
The classic Microsoft fiefdom. Zune was run nearly completely independent of the rest of the company. It had no support from the plays4sure group (the guys who made mp3 software for mp3 players), windows media player group (hell, they had to make a separate zune player), the windows mobile group (they didn't integrate zune with windows phone until 2010). The whole thing was a ticking time bomb on day one. Also, who thought it would be a good idea to release your new mp3 player in one color, s*** brown?

Kin is actually the same thing. It was an acquired company that released a competing product with one of their own products. The two divisions competed amongst themselves. Because of inner competition (the windows group forced the kin team to use CE instead of their modified version of Symbian), Kin was released late and overpriced, and thus killed Microsoft's relationship with Verizon, a critical blow to early windows phones.

3. their whole mobile strategy
People often attribute the troubles of Microsoft in mobile to the iPhone. I would disagree.

For years, Microsoft's mobile efforts lagged behind palm, nokia, and blackberry. Mobile was always a bastard son within Microsoft. The windows team always hated them, and gave them barely any support. Hell, the previous windows head (Sinofsky) was forced out probably because of this. Even today, the windows phone team is seriously understaffed, and has extremely poor synergy with the rest of the company (seriously, Skype on iPhone has more features than Skype on Windows Phone?!)



@Skybird
Now I know you dislike windows 8, but it would be incorrect to label it as a failure. in the last quarter, the whole PC industry declined, yet windows revenue stayed stable.

You might argue that windows 8 did not stop the decline of the PC industry at a whole, yet I would say this is inevitable. Unlike the mobile industry, there is no 2-year forced upgrade cycle (a la contract phones). I would say that PCs simply became too saturated, people didn't need new ones, and nearly everyone already has one.

I can easily prove my argument, because if Windows 8 was a disaster as you might believe, than the argument goes that Apple must than drastically increase market share. This did not happen, because Apple's numbers support my argument. Apple's Mac sales actually declined MORE than the sales of windows computers, their market share did not increase, it decreased.





I like Ballmer, because from everything you see, you can see just how passionate he is. He is arguably the most passionate tech CEO. Unlike other CEOs, with their "image control specialists" and their carefully scripted interviews and presentations, Ballmer is unafraid to embarrass himself for his company and to have some fun. Ballmer shows that he is extremely dedicated to the company, unlike some other CEOs that are simply in it for the money.


He hasn't left yet (staying for the next year), and we don't know his successor. If I was a major Microsoft shareholder, I would hope that its someone from the servers and tools division. Microsoft should transition into an enterprise company with consumers on the side, like what IBM did.

[Catfish]

Oh this perfectly suits my idea of getting a job as a 'Fired Manager'

I let myself be employed, and promise not to do ANYthing. This has the advantage that i do not directly fire people, nor do i any harm to the (big) company.
(This is much better than most big managers have in their sorry portfolio.)

After 3 years i resign, against a payage of say 5 millions.
Deal ?

[Skybird]

Sales numbers of W8 are clearly behind that of Vista per month. Their hardware (RT especially) lies like bars of iron on the shelves. After untypically short time they needed to implement significant price cuts. And total numbers from W8 are further distorted by the intial smile price offensive, where W8 sold more, and with the regular price, sales suddenly collapsing.

I just checked the latest numbers from summer, from ZDnet and some other tech sites and blogs. They all agree in their interpretation of numbers. Wkndows 8 does damage to Microsoft - and probably greater damage than Vista did. Also, the OS is slammed even louder by many bloggers, commentators, writers, than Viksta was slammed back then.

Balmer was the driving voice behind not changing W8 when the first info was released and the public reacted hostile to it. And I think it is fair to say that it has exploded right into Microsoft's face. Since 12 months now W8 reaches only half or less of the total sale numbers of even Vista. Critics slam it for its "features" and design as well. It cannot become any clearer.

I also refuse to applaude any company thjat tightens the screws that hold the customers on short chains. Microsoft may have been forced to give some grounds over original plans, nevertheless they have boosted DRM even further, following the model of Apple, Steam and others there. That may be nice for the profit interests of investors, but what do I care for investors - I am customer, and from a customer's POV I hate companies taking away my freedoms from me and trying to lock me into a closed app store. That's why I refuse to go for Apple, am extremely hesitent over Steam, and do not tolerate Ballmers plans to impose the same schemes - originally just even tighter! - with Windows.

Where Ballmer may score a success indeed, is the X-Box branch of business, I give him that. But its the only point I give him without a fight. When reading between the lines of business reports from the past months and years, Ballmer's was disputed and lost support continously within MS. When Windows 8 failed to ignite and the - who was it, the chief designer I think?! had to leave short after release, I expected Ballmer to no longer standing the mounting opposition, and quitting within two years. Well, and here we are.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sales numbers of W8 are clearly behind that of Vista per month. Their hardware (RT especially) lies like bars of iron on the shelves. After untypically short time they needed to implement significant price cuts. And total numbers from W8 are further distorted by the intial smile price offensive, where W8 sold more, and with the regular price, sales suddenly collapsing.

I just checked the latest numbers from summer, from ZDnet and some other tech sites and blogs. They all agree in their interpretation of numbers. Wkndows 8 does damage to Microsoft - and probably greater damage than Vista did. Also, the OS is slammed even louder by many bloggers, commentators, writers, than Viksta was slammed back then.

Balmer was the driving voice behind not changing W8 when the first info was released and the public reacted hostile to it. And I think it is fair to say that it has exploded right into Microsoft's face. Since 12 months now W8 reaches only half or less of the total sale numbers of even Vista. Critics slam it for its "features" and design as well. It cannot become any clearer.

I also refuse to applaude any company thjat tightens the screws that hold the customers on short chains. Microsoft may have been forced to give some grounds over original plans, nevertheless they have boosted DRM even further, following the model of Apple, Steam and others there. That may be nice for the profit interests of investors, but what do I care for investors - I am customer, and from a customer's POV I hate companies taking away my freedoms from me and trying to lock me into a closed app store. That's why I refuse to go for Apple, am extremely hesitent over Steam, and do not tolerate Ballmers plans to impose the same schemes - originally just even tighter! - with Windows.

Where Ballmer may score a success indeed, is the X-Box branch of business, I give him that. But its the only point I give him without a fight. When reading between the lines of business reports from the past months and years, Ballmer's was disputed and lost support continously within MS. When Windows 8 failed to ignite and the - who was it, the chief designer I think?! had to leave short after release, I expected Ballmer to no longer standing the mounting opposition, and quitting within two years. Well, and here we are.

I would argue with you regarding windows numbers.

The core problem was the pricing policy of windows 8 that damaged it potential.

Lets discuss the adoption problem. Previous versions of windows had faster adoption for 2 reasons. the first major one is the fact that upgrades are free. Traditionally, computers sold 3 quarters before the next version of windows came with free upgrades once the next version came out. This did not happen with windows 8, you had to pay to upgrade. what percentage of people actually pays for boxed copies of windows? 1%? 3%? Considering that PCs sold more than 300 million in 2012, 3 quarters worth is like 240 million devices.

Secondly, the whole PC industry is collapsing. Almost nobody actually buys boxed windows copies. Historically, PC sales kept going up, and thus, coupled with a small install base, adoption would go up.

I just made this example up, but follow along here. If at Vista's launch, there was 500 million PCs out there, and every year 150 million new PCs were sold, after one year, there would be 650 million PCs, 150 million running vista, with a small amount of upgrades and downgrades effecting the number, vista would get a 23% market share after one year.

With windows 8's launch, the number of PCs out there is HUGE. assume there was 1.2 billion PCs out there, and PC sales are 250 million this year, there will be 1.45 billion PCs after this year, and 250 million of them would be windows 8. Windows 8 would only take 17% of the market.

Regarding Sinofsky, the windows division head that left. He left after barely 2 week after the windows 8 launch. I would tend to disagree with the theory that he left because of poor sales, after all, 2 weeks is not enough time to see the numbers. I would actually argue that he was probably forced out because he sabotaged the other divisions, and was an arse to work with. The just forced him out after a major release in order to not damage the development (many Microsoft insiders agree with this).

Compared to the competition, Windows 8 is actually doing great. The PC industry declined 1.2% last year, compared to Apple, who declined 21%!

[Wolferz]

W8 is great for touch screen hardware but, that's as far as it goes I think.
Every version of Windows after 1.0 was basically a rehash of its predecessor. The marketing language was always the same too...

"Tastes Great! Less filling"
Even though it was actually stuffing a hard drive full of unneeded garbage.

[Rockin Robbins]

The problem with W8 is that the entire idea of the operating system formerly known as Metro (sorry! stolen name! fixing........please wait) is to lower the capabilities of your sophisticated computer to the abilities of a 5" screen cell phone. How do you sell an operating system on the basis of lowering the capabilities of a Ferrari to that of a Yugo? Microsoft will NEVER be able to sell that.

I downloaded the new preview of W8.1 and see that they stole enough ideas from Linux, Ubuntu to be exact, to make the nameless operating system kind of kludge along. You can actually have more than one app on screen at a time now......sort of.......within strict limits. But it is not enough to satisfy a power user of Windows, OSX or Linux.

Ubuntu has a better idea. Instead of crippling a computer to the level of a cell phone, why not enhance the properties of the high end multiprocessor cell phones to the level of a computer? The same software runs with two shells: the full-fledged desktop shell when you cell phone is docked to your monitor, disk drives, mouse and keyboard and whever else you'd like to attach to it. When you undock it all software works through the cell phone shell: same software but two different looks depending on screen size and touch capabilities. AND everything lives on the cell phone that follows you along all day. Where you are, your computer is.

The tragedy is that underneath its despicable shell, W8 is a leaner, meaner, more capable machine than W7 was. There's a lot to like if you can kill that lousy interface! But nobody will ever experience it because they aren't buying.

My W8.1 Preview edition? Safely imprisoned in a virtual machine, from which it will never escape. Ubuntu or other Linux distro is my escape plan if necessary. I own a copy of W7, which may have to serve me for at least 5 years until Microsoft either comes to its senses or is replaced by a company that values its customers. But even W7 will have to wait until XP becomes unsafe.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

W8 is great for touch screen hardware but, that's as far as it goes I think.
Every version of Windows after 1.0 was basically a rehash of its predecessor. The marketing language was always the same too...

"Tastes Great! Less filling"
Even though it was actually stuffing a hard drive full of unneeded garbage.

How people react to Windows 8:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Oh this perfectly suits my idea of getting a job as a 'Fired Manager'

I let myself be employed, and promise not to do ANYthing. This has the advantage that i do not directly fire people, nor do i any harm to the (big) company.
(This is much better than most big managers have in their sorry portfolio.)

After 3 years i resign, against a payage of say 5 millions.
Deal ?

In ancient Greece, they had the "Scherbengericht" (octracism). Citizens were able to file one name per citizen into a yearly counting, a leader or official whom they wanted to get rid off due to his lousy performance in office. If a needed minimum of counts was met, let'S say 3000 votes or so, the person had to leave not only the office, but also the city (=state) and was banned, under threat of death, for a period of ten years. If in this time he would return, he was as good as dead.

Now that sounds like a nice idea when thinking of politics - and company management.

Treaties with leading personnel also need to be transparent, there shall be no golden handshakes, no secret payments, no secrecy about special privileges. Contracts need to be published in full. Managers are liable with their private wealth for their decisions, they shall no longer be allowed to just gamble with money that are not theirs. Finally, a solution must be found to prevent managers running business in a way that may maximise their income, but is at the longterm perspective of the company even after the manager has left again already. While a good sales climate and success shall be shared in boni by ALL working personell, boss and worker alike, and according to everybody's contribution, losses shall not be externalised and must be shared by everybody as well. No boss shall be allowed to privatize profit but to nationalise or externalise losses - or just leave dodge and get away with what he has, leaving behind a ruin. Honest traders (ehrbare Kaufleute) know that. Antisocial parasites, hedgefond managers, opportunists and the like, do not. That is what makes the difference between a constructive, creative, good system of capitalism, and a perverted, damaging capitalism that is a race for monopolism, and ruins community interests instead of contrbtuiong by it. Really free market versus monopolism, so to speak. Monopolies, and capitalism in its constructive, posiitve understanding, are mutually exclusive. Where you have the one, there cannot be the other.

Damn, I think you just stepped onto one of my auto-buttoned reflex-triggers there.

[the_tyrant]

Interview with Ballmer himself:
http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-ball...re-7000019810/
http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-ball...re-7000019812/

Q: What was today like for you? After all, you've been one of the most public faces of Microsoft since 1980.
Ballmer: Somebody said congratulations to me this morning, and I've got to say that surprised me, probably shouldn't. When you retire, it's a perfectly reasonable thing. But, of course, my mind's been all around this notion of it never really being perfect time. ...
So I guess it's congratulations. On the other hand, this is my life. I love Microsoft. I love everything about Microsoft. I own a lot of Microsoft stock. I'm going to continue to own a lot of Microsoft stock. But given that my personal plans wouldn't have had me here forever, this seemed like an appropriate time to me to move forward with retirement.
Q: You think this CEO search is going to take a year?
Ballmer: We've (with the board) have all been working together and the board wants to be able to look, and John (Thompson, the lead director on Microsoft's board) can talk about its needs, but a year is a nice long time. And if it winds up being less, but, you know, it just means that we can do things in a very planful and orderly fashion.
Q: When did you actually decide you were going to retire? Was this a sudden decision?
Ballmer: I would say for me, yeah, I've thought about it for a long time, but the timing became more clear to me over the course of the last few months.
You know, we worked hard. We worked hard on our strategy process, our org process. And frankly I had no time to think about it during all of that.... I would say my thinking has intensified really over the last couple, two, two and a half months, something like that.
Q: So when did you finally decide?
Ballmer: Officially, a day or two ago. We had a board call. When was that, two days ago? And it was really two days ago ... I would say that we really -- I finalized and we finalized that this was the right path forward.
Q: Did Chairman Bill Gates ask you to stay or go?
Ballmer: No. Bill -- I mean, no. Bill respects my decision. I mean, it's one of these things when if it's -- you know, ultimately these kinds of things have to be one's own personal decision.
Q: What's next for you now?
Ballmer: Frankly I don't know. I haven't spent a lot of time -- I don't have time to spend actually even thinking about what comes next. I'm not going to have time to do that until the board gets a successor in place.
My whole life has been about my family and about Microsoft. And I do relish the idea that I'll have another chapter, a chapter two, if you will, of my life where I'll get to sort of experience other sides of life, learn more about myself, all of that, but it's not like I leave with a specific plan in mind.

Note:

"On the other hand, this is my life. I love Microsoft. I love everything about Microsoft. I own a lot of Microsoft stock. I'm going to continue to own a lot of Microsoft stock."

"My whole life has been about my family and about Microsoft."

This is why I think he is great, he just has a level of enthusiasm that you don't get with other CEOs.

And of course, the classic: