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?

Comments

Link to the zdnet story

[IRNI]

The link on the post looks screwed. here it is.
http:// www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2422036,00. html?chkpt=zdnntop

Correction

[Frac]

Gates will remain as chairman, and Steve Balmer, who has earlier replaced Gates as president, will continue to be president and CEO.

Bill gets the last laugh

[Anonynous Coward]

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.

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.

sim city

[Shoeboy]

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.

Slate foreshadowed this nicely...

[Smack]

Interesting... Slate is owned by Microsoft. Slate posted an article this morning titled "What's the Difference Between CEO's and Chairmen?". Coincidence??? :)

The article is actually rather interesting for those who don't know the answer. Anyway, here's a link:

http: //www.slate.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show= 1/12/00&idMessage=4361

Re:Getting ready for inevitable break up?

[belgin]

Maybe Gates is positioning himself so that if the DOJ breaks up MS, he can jump ship to the most profitable baby-MS, leaving Ballmer holding the bag with a less viable one?

While that is a possibility, I don't think it matters whether Bill is Chairman and CEO, or just Chairman. He'd still get first choice. There is no way that any serious individual thinks he will come out of the DOJ trial crippled in any truly signifigant way. Bill is a very clever fellow and he would end up in the best remaining position no matter what. He could always BUY a smaller compay and start over, if he wanted.

The tongue in cheek answer is that someone gave him a perfectly functioning version of Windows 2000 that will run any software it is supposed to. He has only weeks to break it and make sure that 1) no competing products work and 2) it looks like it is their fault.

Finally we have something more realistic: Gates is a celebrity. He knows that he is one and has a lot of stuff that he has to do as a CEO. He either wants to give the impression, or actually does want to get back into the trenches to some degree and work with the developers. If you acutally talk to some Microsoft developers, many of them will tell you about how he goes through their offices every so often and talks to them, sometimes motivating more than anything else they can think of and sometimes just chewing them out. (I interviewed with MS folks at Redmond before, just for fun.) Bill has to be under an incredible amount of stress from the trial, too. He may want to give up the reins a bit, but doesn't trust anyone else absolutely, so he remains chairman. As Chief Developer, he can pick any project as his pet and work with it, or step back and look at all of them. He has pretty much said: this CEO thing is too defined for me, so I am making up a title, retaining the real power of veto, and doing what I want.

B. Elgin

It's time for him to step down anyway

[RayChuang]

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.

Is everyone here a cynic?

[Wraithlyn]

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.

My take on the matter:

[Chris Johnson]

Gates is arranging matters so he can entirely cash out. He's done. He's tired of being treated like a villain, cannot understand why he'd be considered guilty in this, and at a time when it's becoming clear that _something's_ going to go down painting the braintrust of Microsoft as robber barons and criminals, Gates finds that is not to his taste.

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...

Re:My take on the matter:

[brianvan]

The story told here is both tragic and promising, if everyone will put down the biases first.

The idea of Gates as a well-loved philanthropist is something we should hold more strongly in our minds than the "BillGatus of Borg" image we beat to death. Whether truth or opinion, the image of Gates as an evil dictator is not very appealing and does no one good. The image of Gates as the next Carnegie, on the other hand, is very pleasing and beneficial to our minds and our society. My belief is that the entire presence of computers in our world is entirely mythical - although I don't want to get into that. Based on that idea, if you can swallow it, there are no heroes or villians on the Internet or in the tech industry different from those in real life. Such is why the entire antitrust case against MS is a complete fallacy, such is why AOL could merge with AT&T and all the Baby Bells if they wanted to and our existence will be no different, such is why Linus Torvalds is just some guy from Finland when he walks into a local bar.

I hate to see this as the beginning of the end (or some substantial part of it) for MS. First of all, I think Gates is taking his natural role right now rather than cashing out (as this move has little to do with money). Even if it is motivated by the imminent collapse of MS or the current turmoil, it's not as if the power structure is radically shifting - it's more like the movement of the tectonic plates. Second, the idea of this leading into the bitter end for MS is just nauseating. After all, this is a company with tens of thousands of employees, the highest market capitalization of any company existing today, hundreds of (arguably) quality products on store shelves, and a solid financial foundation. Sure, any company can give up the ghost tomorrow for any reason, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way for MS. Especially in light of the AOL-TimeWarner merger, it seems STUPID that a company like Microsoft can lose everything. AOL-TimeWarner could collapse under it's own weight, and yet Microsoft has stayed agile and responsive to the industry over the years throughout failure and success. This alone should be a good reason to not count MS out yet. Finally, like I said computers are mythical and only real people make the difference. Microsoft is still a real corporation with real people in charge... pretty much the same real people as before. No one is going to skip buying Office 2000 tomorrow because Gates isn't CEO. Office 2000 will be the same product as it was yesterday, and Microsoft's ability to continue releasing good or half-baked products and making money regardless is what will tell their future.

That said, is this the end of an era for MS and the computing industry? Maybe. I can't see how that AOL-TimeWarner merger really changes the success of other companies... for example, Yahoo isn't going to be upstaged just because they DIDN'T merge with another company. Same goes for Microsoft... it's a pure battle of control and hype, and in the end the real world fact is that I can hardly think of any major products that the new AOL-TimeWarner possesses that directly compete with anything from Microsoft and vice versa. Microsoft can still succeed in the face of AOL, the DOJ, Linux, temp workers, whatever. If they heavily rely on what they've done in the past to dictate their future, THEN THEY'RE DONE. But they really never have. Not in the real world anyway. Sure, on the computer, it's slow reused 16-bit legacy code in Windows98, it's a web browser given away for free just to crush Netscape, it's Service Pack 7 for NT, it's that annoying paper clip animation. But you have to think for a second... these are all little nitpicks. No one is going to totally upheave their computer(s) because of these things. Microsoft's OS dominance might outlast Microsoft itself. But MS can't live on that alone. And if you naively think that MS has no chance of continuing to be a dominant company, well then you are probably forgetting that all MS has to do is to keep making progress like they have been for 20 years to keep alive and healthy, never mind being the market leader.

Which is why I'm sure that Gates isn't thinking MS is doomed right now. Knowing Gates, he's doing something radical that he probably knows is in the best interests of the company... kinda like John Carmack stepping in and hiring an outsider to improve the bot code in Quake 3 Arena. I think that it's probably a nice side effect that he drops the negative attention directed toward him, and I think it's good for everyone in the real world that someone like him have as little negative attention possible focused on him. The idea of Gates as a benevolent philanthropist sounds heartwarming, even. It would be a shame if all of this posturing, hype, and hypocrisy in the tech industry ruined that for the rest of us. But that's not an issue until Bill quits everything and starts handing out all the cash. Even if Microsoft florishes or whithers, he's going to win in this situation for himself. But I think he still has MS on his mind, and I think that this might be the start of something real good for Microsoft. And possibly the rest of us.

Re:Question

[MattMann]

There's an important legal distinction to add:

When a corporation is organized, by law (and in some cases regulations close to being laws) it must have

• a President, the person who "presides" over the company making day to day decisions. Everybody in the company reports (directly or indirectly through other managers) to the president.

• The president works for the shareholders, the owners, but indirectly through an group elected by the shareholders, the board of directors who represent the owners interests. The person who presides over the board of directors is the Chairman.
  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"

• a Treasurer who is in charge of keeping track of the cash, the shares and the debts and the assets

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

• CEO, the Chief Executive Officer, the person who makes day to day but strategic decisions. It can be the President or the Chairman, or in rare cases neither. This is very likely to be a charismatic person who you identify with the company (Jobs or Trump) or the shrewd "brains" (Buffet) or a really good manager (Welch at GE). They are very future oriented, and keep the collective eyes on the ball.

• COO is important to a company that has extensive operations. Think of IBM, with its vast manufacturing and service networks with bezillions of employees. Day to day they don't make glamorous decisions, but they make sure the rubber meets the road.

• CFO keeps track of the financial big picture (there is way more to this than you can imagine). Generally the Treasurer, the CFO keeps track of the long-term money (from investors) with a bean counter underneath called the Controller keeping track of the short term money from/to customers/suppliers. There are probably examples of visionary CFOs who have a starched Treasurer working for them.

• CIO for companies that rely heavily on their information (Wall Street, Airlines)

• CTO, mostly bullshit so some techie with a lot of stock feels important, but can be a real job. Think of companies that use technology strategically (FedEx) not companies that produce it (Microsoft).