Slashdot Mirror
Gates Steps Down As CEO, Ballmer In
migooch was the first of many people to write with news that Bill Gates has stepped down as CEO of Microsoft. Steve Balmer, who replaced him as President, will be CEO. Gates will become "Chief Software Architect", and will remain as Chairman. Update: 01/13 10:27 by E : The official Microsoft press release is here.Alright - Salon's Top 10 reasons Bill Gates stepped down is pretty funny as well. What do you think are the Top 10?
The link on the post looks screwed. here it is.. html?chkpt=zdnntop
http:// www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2422036,00
Truly, we live in interesting times.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Gates will remain as chairman, and Steve Balmer, who has earlier replaced Gates as president, will continue to be president and CEO.
And he's bald and EVIL looking! Perfect for a CEO of microsoft.
BALDIES UNITE! WE'LL HAVE THE WORLD!!!
Until Bill sells his shares, he's still calling the shots. He may not be making day-to-day administrative decisions, but I'm sure all important policy decisions have to pass his approval before being implimented.
'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
Well, now, hardly a better canidate for that post; after all, he did write that blue and white screensaver thingee that now runs on 90% of the PCs out there... 8-)
-=- SiKnight
Wanted: Borg picture of Steve Balmer.
:)
...can be found on the Microsoft site.
Click Here
The government might split Microsoft into 3 (or so) entities, but it can't strip Bill Gates of what will be his large ownership in all 3 companies. And will breaking Microsoft up instantly produce a viable competitor for Windows? Office? Internet Explorer? (Note: I'm not talking technical merit, I'm talking end-users BUYING what they know).
Very likely all three companies will do really well, just inflating Bill Gates' personal fortune into even more stratospheric heights. It happened to Rockerfeller when the government split up Standard Oil, don't be surprised to see it happen again.
I'm on an MS campus right now, and it's an odd hearing about this from /.
It's easy to understand why bill stepped down if you've played sim city. Once the city gets to a certain size, the effort required to run it begins to outweigh the fun of making it bigger.
Running MS has probably been similar. I bet it was fun launching windows 1.0. Likewise it was no doubt a blast watching OS2 nose dive while windows picked up speed. And the success of MS's internet strategy after nearly missing the boat completely had to have been thrilling.
What next? 10 years of slow, expensive court appeals? That's not fun - that's like trying to build enough police stations to handle the population of your 700 arcologies.
There comes a point in sim city where you either quit or click on the disasters menu and select all of them. I'm glad bill decided to step back instead of building a flying robotic monster and having it lay waste to the campus -- that's what I would have done.
--Shoeboy
I'm not a microsoft employee, and I'm certainly not speaking for them.
"Steve's promotion will allow me to dedicate myself full time to my passion -- building great software..."
If only Bill had realized the problem years ago, we might have great software today.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Interesting... Slate is owned by Microsoft. Slate posted an article this morning titled "What's the Difference Between CEO's and Chairmen?". Coincidence??? :)
//www.slate.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show= 1/12/00&idMessage=4361
The article is actually rather interesting for those who don't know the answer. Anyway, here's a link:
http:
I believe the CEO is actually the "manager" of the entire company and the Chairman is the head of the Board of Directors of the Corporation. I'm not sure, but I think the board decides the direction of the company and the CEO decides and maps out how it will get there. Somebody feel free to correct if I'm wrong.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I guess the sort of means they failed badly . . . .
President is the president, tends to set policy, and is a corporate signing authority for legal matters. Incorporation normally has a president, a treasurer, and a secretary required to sign and affirm certain documents.
CEO is Chief Executive Officer. Tends to run the company. The big cheese.
Chairman of the board runs the meetings of the Board of Directors, which can hire and fire the President and the CEO. The chairman can either run the board (usually holding many shares then) or can be just someone who makes sure meetings occur (usually few shares or a compromise position for a company with large shareholders who disagree on certain issues).
Any of these can be given powers the others might have. This is decided by the shareholders and the Board of Directors. And their jobs can be changed at whim. The Chief Technology Architect could take control if he happened to own nearly 20% of the company (e.g. Bill Gates), for example.
It's just a name. Bill is still Bill. He just doesn't want to do the boring legal stuff anymore and at $100 billion that's his call.
Will in Seattle
Greetings,
:)
Love him or hate him, Bill Gates is the reason why Linux exist. If it was not for dos and windows 3.11 inferior code, Linus would not of been inspired to write linux. Can anyone argue where Linus got his inspiration? No, cuz he admited himself , look at Novemebrs issue of MIT Magazine of Innovation Technology Technology Review.
People can argue this back and foward all they want, but growing up in an era with Bill Gates pushing the internet into everyones home is the reason why some of us are what we are today. No can argue the fact that Internet is readly available toady to millions is partly because of Microsoft Mission Statement which is " A computer on every desk and in every home using great software as an empowering tool". Now some might argue that their software is somewhat not so great, but the fact of the matter most of would still be using "MAC's" today if it was not for this man we love to hate.
Bill Gates, is proably the most influential man in the high tech industry next to Tim Berns and Marc Anderson. Yea , the company was on a mission to destroy every one in its path, but thats what having a good strategy is "to over come your competition using best cost / low cost leader to differentiate yourself and gain market share at any cost."
If Netscape, Apple, and all those wining company recognized the oppurtunity before Microsoft had, then the table would of been turned. I have to wonder what kind of management these companies had, to forgo oppurtunties that existed. Proably not astute managers, thats for sure. Why else would of Netscape surrendered to competetion?Netscape had their web site to leverage to be able to capture market share in the internet arena. They didn't.. Obviously AOL know's how based on the appearance and marketing of it today. www.netscape.com The same with Apple, if they would have liscnesed the "OS" things might be different today. They didn't. Who's fault is that? Microsoft! Wrong, it's managements fault.
When it all comes down to it, a company with astute managers and good business sense is more likely to succeed and fend of competetion than one that is just made up of a bunch of "TECHIES".
With that in mind, I say Bill Gates is the greatest man to have come along since Henry Ford. He was able to mass produce a product and make it available to every one of us at an affordable price. Thus, making some of us who we are today. Network Engineers, Programers, Linux Geeks, Hackers, Web Site Desingers, entrapanuers, and so forth. Well you get the picture.
The man we love to hate! Bill Gates
Remeber him, cuz when we get older we'll all have something to talk about.
TTYL
He that hath a trade, has an estate. (Ben Franklin)
Ballmer has been the heir apparent for some time as the designated hardass that can (they hope) keep Microsoft moving ahead of its problems. Gates is now at that age (like many of us) where the day to day business stuff that was once so exciting is a bore. He has a family, a house on Lake Washington about the size of Rhode Island, and enough money (no matter what happens) that will allow him to do what he wants as long as he wants. All he needs to do now is find something that interests him. What is there left for him to do in business? Build the richest company in the world? Become the richest man in the world? Talk about been there, done that . . .
Gates is now looking to create a different kind of legacy for himself. As far as the lawsuit or splitup is concerned, a move like this is an upraised middle finger. If they really thought a splitup was going to happen, they (Gates, Ballmer, etc.) would either both move into division management to prepare, while leaving someone with more legal/financial backgroud to manage the details of the split with the DOJ and Wall Street. Microsoft knows it has to settle to survive, and Gates has put his chief junkyard dog in charge to handle the negotiations and aftermath -- he's the bad guy who will have to take all the actions to comply along with all the blame.
Seven of Nine is a really hot chick. Steve Ballmer is a fat ugly bastard. I definitely don't want to see his picture...
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
It feels to me like the point in Wizard of Oz after the house (DoJ) landed on one witch, they learn that there's another one still to go.
Seriously, tho, my first response to this was to see it as the obvious reply to the rumors of the split-up--leverage the top execs so that they are all at least somewhat experienced with the CEO seat before they get plopped into it. That, combined with Gates getting tired of being at the helm. All reliable reports I've heard is that it is true that he'd rather be in the trenches.
Whether that's a good thing or not, well...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
> I'm glad bill
:)
> decided to step back instead of building a flying robotic
> monster and having it lay waste to the campus -- that's what I
> would have done.
What do you think Windows 2000 is?!
The President of a company is usually responsible for the day-to-day running of a company -- for instance, are we selling enough product, do we have the right people in the right places to produce it, etc, etc.
The CEO is responsible for the LONG TERM management of a company -- issues like: does the company as a whole have enough funding? What is the appropriate positioning in the marketplace? Can we forge alliances with other companies, or buy them outright? What markets should we be entering or leaving?
In a way, the CEO is the actual head of the company.
The board is another story. The board functions as an overseer. Typically, the board does NOT set policy, make rules or even high-level decisions. This, however, varies widely from company to company, but in general, they can't -- the typical company has board meetings once or twice a quarter at most. Their job is to act as advisor to the CEO (who almost almost ALWAYS has a seat on the board, and is usually chairman), and as a brake on them. They are not employees of the company -- frequently they ARE of other companies, or are executives of other companies, and they are also the elected representatives of the shareholders. Usually a fraction, or all of the board members are re-elected each year. As a last resort, they usually have the ability to remove the CEO, as they did at Compaq last year. oh, they one area they usually do rule over are issues like executive compensation.
Reuter's Photo
Folks,
Stop sounding like a bunch of conspiracy theorists who've been listening to too much Art Bell. (shrug)
Consider this: how long has Bill Gates been running Microsoft as CEO? 25 years? Given the fact he's raising a family and also does have some other serious hobbies in life (e.g., his considerable interest in biotechnology), I think Mr. Gates wants a change of scenery and do something that won't be so taxing.
His place in history is already completed; he wants to do other things like life, just like when Steve Wozniak stepped down from Apple Computer.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I agree with the previous post. Nearly everyone on this site is biased against Microsoft to some degree. Maybe this is flamebait but it's completely true.
I curse Windows and Microsoft on a daily basis as much as everyone else, and don't get me wrong, I fully support Linux as a superior operating system... it is. However I haven't killed my hope that Microsoft can improve. Can anyone truly say they believe that Microsoft has no talented people working for them? It's a question of how that talent is being used.. (namely, for marketing, not QA oriented goals)
Bill Gates isn't a god, or a monster. He's flesh and blood just like the rest of us, trying to do good in the hyper-competitive, vicious world we have created for ourselves.
How many of you have even considered the possibility that Gates has regrets? I doubt very much he's blind to what an unstable operating system Windows is. I think he stepped down as head of Microsoft simply because he's currently unpopular, and he wants to protect Microsoft, his life's work. (Before you start yelling at me that he made himself unpopular, I suggest you take a good look at Slashdot's Gates/Borg icon and ask yourself who really makes demons of men)
I'm not saying Microsoft is going to turn around and start laying golden eggs, but Gates stepping down from CEO and focusing more on improving their software is at least an ATTEMPT to move in that direction. Oh no, wait, I forgot. It's a big monstrous conspiracy to cleverly position himself as the uber antichrist of the next millenium. Silly me.
I'm sorry to be caustic, but the amount of suspicion and hatred flowing from what I usually find an extremely open minded, intelligent, and positive community just sickens me sometimes.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Guys like gates, love them or hate them, usually aren't motivated by money, and while he may make moves that are financially sound, I really doubt much of his motivation for doing anything is his own *personal* wealth. (Obviously he has micros~1's wealth in mind, otherwise he would have been kicked out of the CEO's chair by the stockholders)
Generally speaking, wealth is meausured in terms of orders of magnitude, not total dollar amounts. That's why somebody who has $9 million is in the same bracket as someone who has $1.2 million. Obviously, the difference of 7.8 million is a HUGE difference, but they're both "millionaires" and we leave it as that.
Billy isn't that close to jumping up another order of magnitude, because the higher you go, the harder it is to progress in terms of order of magnitude. In terms of day to day, and even life long decisions including providing for your next 3 generations, *there is no functional difference between having $5 billion and having $9 billion* Again, sure one is a hell of a lot more than the other (to the tune of $4 billion) but that is such an absurd amount of cash that I would think most people never touch the capital to begin with. You just stick it in reasonably conservative investments, and live like a king off of the interest.
Bill isn't dumb, he knows all this since he's probably got a small army of CPAs that just administer his finances. So let's be optimistic and say that with "Baby Bills" he could stand to end up $4 billion richer than he was before. WHO CARES??? He can't spend that amount in his lifetime, and it's doubtful his kids could either. (short of wholesale gambling and simply throwing it away). What's the motivation for earning the extra $4 billion? There isn't one...
Bill gets off on control and ego. He gets off on having one of the largest corporations on earth under his control, and being a celebrity probably. Money just can't be a motivating factor. If it is, then he is WAY more shallow than anyone could possibly have ever imagined. And comfortable living can't be it either, because he achieved that a long time ago.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
He can't buy off the government- he's tried. But he can buy a fall guy. That is Ballmer. He can extricate himself, claim Ballmer set the whole tone for the abuses of MS, and spend the rest of his life giving away huge sums of money while still living better than most kings. Who wouldn't want that? Gates wants that.
It is also true that the kind of person who can build an empire of this nature simply will not let go- but this isn't Gates letting go, really. Microsoft's _reputation_ is being wrested from him, and I'd say this also indicates no plans of Microsoft's indicate any change in overall strategy or approach. MS will play dirty to the end- Gates doesn't see this as wrong, but he's not a dope and he does see that _others_ see it as wrong. Given enough incentive, people do change- I picture Gates thinking about his image, how he wishes to be seen. He can afford to be the benevolent philanthropist for the rest of his life, a Carnegie in the best possible way- if he chooses. But at some point he must accept that Microsoft has taken him as far as it can- and has started to get in the way of his new dreams for a well-loved future as a philanthropist. And, just like any of a thousand unfortunate tech startups that were in the way and had to go, now Microsoft, its culture, its legacy are in the way of the life Gates wants for himself- and it has to go.
Gates is not a sentimental man, and he is easily as perceptive as the Judge and intelligent enough to see the full implications of his position. At some point he began taking all this seriously- and started laying escape plans.
Ballmer is left in a position to preside over the decay of an empire. There's really no way for MS to expand further- _especially_ with AOL Time Warner suddenly appearing- and MS is hopelessly dependent not on profitability alone but an outlandish growth rate. That cannot continue and won't. Ballmer is also combative, a perfect match to the job of making Microsoft fight to the death. They won't in fact die, but their being relegated to only one choice in an industry of choices will be a very, very painful and bitterly fought loss.
Gates has the opportunity, having made MS what it is, to now cut it loose, cash in, and go home to be a lovable billionaire. Doing this is perfectly in character with the approach that made MS what it is- ironically, I'd been saying for awhile that there was no reason to believe MS would have loyalty to the USA, and now it turns out that Gates does not have loyalty to a losing MS either. Perhaps surprising, but plausible.
Get used to the idea of Gates as a benevolent philanthropist. He _will_ be able to separate himself from the unpleasantness, but his ways of doing so may be startling...
Microsoft Rhapsody by Justin Osborn To the tune of: BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY by Queen Is this the boot disk? Is this the Win CD? Caught in a deadline This software is real crappy. Open a file, look up at the screen and see, I'm just a marketer, give me some sympathy Because I'm loaded man, playing spades, on my LAN, everyday. Quality of Windows doesn't really matter to me, to me. Ballmer just quit my job On TV prime time, signed on the dotted line. Ballmer, I was having fun But now I'm going to go goof off. Ballmer, ooh, Didn't mean to make you cry, If we're not regulated by tomorrow, Carry on, carry on, cause quality doesn't matter. Too late, not having fun I'm getting very bored, with the bugs in MS Word. Goodbye ev'rybody, I'm gonna go, Gonna connect to Hotmail and hack root. Ballmer, ooh, I don't wanna use vi Sometimes I wish I knew a little Linux. I see a little silhouetteo of a man, Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs, could it be some competition Torvalds and Penguin, very very scaring me. IE5.0 IE5.0 IE5.0 IE5.0 IE5.0 Word 6.0 Alpha 0.0.0.0.0 I'm just a marketer, nobody loves me. He's just a marketer, with a long history Stealing intellectual property. Monopoly, what d'you know? will you let me go? Microsoft! No, you bought out all we know. (We like slow!) Microsoft! You bought out all we know. (We like slow!) Microsoft! You bought out all we know. (I like slow.) Bought out all we know. (I like slow.) Bought out all we know. (I like slow.) Heck no, Heck no, Heck no Prosecution Prosecution, Prosecution let me go. The DoJ has a punishment for me, for me, for me. So you think you can split us and break us apart. So you think you can fine us, we'll make a new start. Oh DoJ, can't do this to me, DoJ, I'm gonna get out, I'm gonna get right outta here. Quality doesn't matter, Windows users see, Quality doesn't matter, Quality doesn't matter, to me.
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
Thats my $.02
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
When a corporation is organized, by law (and in some cases regulations close to being laws) it must have
For a small company, the board of directors is likely to be the investors themselves (VCs, for example). For a large company, then you see execs from other companies. (somebody here (Cliff Stoll?) said "go to the library" -- uh, there's this new thing, I like to call it the "web"? take a look here
The board meets quarterly, sometimes more, and hears a pitch from the President, who then leaves while the board discusses and votes. Some decisions require board approval, but the President mostly better do what they say because they can fire her. They decide things like "we need to sell a new chunk of shares to raise money to buy AOL" or "we are not going to pay a dividend this quarter because we wish to use the money to pay down our debt"
I think there are other jobs like "counsel" (a lawyer) and "secretary" (keeps track of the decisions) which I will ignore. Remember, these positions must exist by law.
Now, in large organizations and those where insiders are the shareholders and they maintain a lot of control, it can be convenient for them to switch some of the roles around, consolidating and delegating on the basis of the needs of the business or the particular strengths of the personalities. This is where we get unofficial but descriptive titles like
All of you giggling and postulating about Bill Gates being wary of a Microsoft breakup should be aware that he may be laughing all the way to the bank in the near future.
No, he won't, see below
The government might split Microsoft into 3 (or so) entities, but it can't strip Bill Gates of what will be his large ownership in all 3 companies.
The conventional wisdom is that the value of the separated entities will rise higher than the value of the original entity, as happened with the Standard Oil breakup. This is just false. What will happen is the bottom will fall out of the stock price - faced with competition from free software, and no longer having the means of forcibly maintaining the existing monopoly, the Baby Bills revenue can go nowhere but down.
Microsoft's current annualized revenue is about $25 billion (being generous); its market capitalization is about $500 billion. That's a 20 times multiple on earnings whereas a mature, stable business with stable revenue would normally have something more like 2x. Microsoft's valuation is based on one thing: expectation of continued exponential earnings growth. That just ain't gonna happen. In fact, the baby Bills are going to have to dance like crazy just to avoid having their earnings decimated by the need to compete with free software and unshackled industry competitors. In short: end of exponentional earnings growth == goodbye 20x multiple on revenue. Hello 2x multiple, and maybe worse. Shareholders aren't so clueless that they can't see that as well as anybody else can; neither are the professional short sellers.
Hooboy, that means Microsoft's stock will fall like a lead balloon.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
are getting really long-winded here.
Damage control! Battlestations!! Ensign, prepare a press release...
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Good one! :)
actually, to clarify, CTO is abused. Let me explain it this way: note that there is never a CMO, a chief marketing officer. This is because marketing the company's products is so central to the company that it doesn't need explicit representation in the executive suite beyond what the CEO brings. In a like manner, if you are a technology company, the CEO looks after the technology in the products, and the engineers are perfectly capable of selecting their own technology tools.
But think about supermarkets 20 years ago: who was going to champion the expensive installation of scanners? That's a CTO role, created when a CEO is visionary enough to understand that the company needs one.
It's important not to have strict rules about this stuff, none of it is hard and fast. Does Real Networks or AOL need a CTO? I.e., are they media companies or technology companies? There is no answer to that question, just like there is no one way to coach a football team. You make your best predictions, look at the people-assets you have, deploy them and see if you win. Winning says that what you did worked in your situation.