Slashdot Mirror
Five Years of Ballmer -- the Effect on Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "In the five years since Bill Gates surprised the technology world by announcing he would give up his title as chief executive at Microsoft to Steve Ballmer, the company has changed significantly. Ballmer is largely credited for tripling the company's cash balance, with sales growing from less than $23 billion in 2000 to $36.8 billion last year. Critics claim that today, we see a much 'gentler' side of Microsoft and Ballmer seems to have received an "A" in Wall Street's eyes."
This really isn't a troll, it's an honest statement when I sat that it was the "Monkey Boy" video that really put me off Microsoft. I remember thinking "this idiot is in charge of what happens to our Windows PC's?".
It was shortly after that I decided to switch to Macintosh for my primary platform. Obviously I still have a PC but I only use that for games now.
Five years of FUD, but financial success... He is feeling rattled by Linux though, as the recent FUD he's been spreading about patents shows. One imagines this will continue for some time to come, since his style may not be popular, but it's certainly effective.
"Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend." - Emil Michel Cioran
The stock price has been in a rut for years, the only positive has been the large cash payout to stockholders. Microsoft has yet to find the next growth opporunity that will replace the very mature operating system and office cash cows. Microsoft is losing ground in the next huge growth market, China, to Linux. I'd say that the past five years have been a failure for Ballmer. All Microsoft has done on his watch is tread water.
You'd think Microsoft would/could advertise more. What's up with that?
Everyone thinks that they're a monopoly. Isn't that the best advertising?
You'd think that they could innovate with their $65 billion in cash. Instead, we get a grand total of - not one, not two - but THREE color schemes for Windows XP. It is arrogance like this that will eventually displace Microsoft. Not that color schemes matter, but the company hasn't come up with anything original in a long time. This is just a good example.
And they spend billions on R&D every year. It is like there is some law that prevents them from coming up with something both useful and non-evil. I have about a hundred ideas that they could use right now.
More
It is interesting to see how this $23 to $36 billion growth compares to the drop of the USD value during those very years. Do the math.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
And they spend billions on R&D every year. It is like there is some law that prevents them from coming up with something both useful and non-evil. I have about a hundred ideas that they could use right now.
In the last year, there was an article in Scientific American (I think it was the June issue ) that described Microsoft's R&D department. Essentially, they are buying up some of the best people out there to innovate for them. Of course, the next question is always "What have they produced?" I don't know. Maybe they have produced something, maybe they are getting ready to, who knows? They might just be storing up patents. They have the money and capabilities to innovate, but I think it may take a while to come to fruition.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=
Call home software activation forced everyone to pony up. But have you noticed the thrust behind open source since then. He may have won the battle, the war is still raging and the winner is not clear. With six computers in my home and many more within my area of influence via family members I support it's not hard to understand that I now recommend "good enough" alternatives such as OO, and "Best of the breed" Firefox.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
While it's nice that Wall Street loves Balmer, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is facing a real challenge to its primary revenue streams as we begin to enter a post-PC era. While the PC is not going to disappear, prospects for growth are not good as other devices (that don't and won't run Windows) take the place of PCs for many functions. Microsoft has made some efforts to get out of the PC box, but so far they still seem inclined to try to stuff Windows into everything (Xbox, set top boxes, etc...). They've got to free themselves from this kind of thought if they're going to have a chance to create something new that people will want.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I think that bringing that idea up at a Coca-Cola board meeting would get you a one way ticket out the door to find a bottle of Moxie.
Why?
Because aside from New England, the rest of the world forgot about Moxie during WWII, when the decision was made on the corporate level to use their budget on sugar (a crucial soda ingredient) instead of advertising. The taste of Moxie didn't change during WWII, but since Coca-Cola decided instead to use a substitute, but leave their advertising budget intact, the world remembers Coca-Cola and has all but forgotten about Moxie.
Companies rarely innovate.
But the ones that do are the ones that make the big bucks. Look at DigiCypher. The first company that implemented a practical digital compression scheme for video files. Or IBM for the PC (as opposed to mainframes). The japanese company we just had that came up with a Blue LED. Nintendo came up with the Play Station, but sold it to sony because the load times were too long for them when compared to the Cartridges. They waited till the Cube to do disks. Also, Nintendo for having a portable game system. Xerox, for the Xerox Machine. Sony, for the VTR/VCR. There are plenty of examples.
Although in the case of Microsoft it seems like they just wait for someone else to come up with the ideas and then copy them badly.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Come on, Bill made comment that would make you laugh and think "get real", "whatever" (One day hardware will be free and people will pay for software). Steve, on the other hand, just pisses people off to the point of demonstrating the bird.
What's the deal with Asia's Windows XP watered-down edition. With a continent that doesn't care to much about thier pirate mafias, that is sure going to move the governments away from open source.
Oh yeah, and since it didn't work your going to sue an entire continent over patent infirgements? How about trying that in our country first. Oh, right, you can't becuase you know you'll lose. But I guess Steve must think he can bully those he thinks are ignorant. (If I were you, I won't mess with a peoples that know kung fu).
And how about comparing a copy of $1000+ CD vs a bottle of cognac? I'm sorry Steve, but people paid for the software, not the medium the software was bought on. And since a backup is like less than a dollar, your comment doesn't justify.
So, what does that say about the people who seem to think Steve created a gentler M$? (RLOL) In my opinion, I think Steve is having it REAL lucky right now, or pulling an Enron. The way I see it, more and more people are moving to linux open source. Apple did it. Novell did it. IBM and Walmart are using it. Companies and government agencies are moving to it. Pretty soon the gaming industry, the only driving force that is keeping MS afloat, is going to switch over faster than you can say bubblelusicous. Then we will see a slow horrible death to MS (and their BS).
Well, my experience has been completely different. The last 5 years have been the "Open"-nest period for MS. XP and 2003 are solid systems, working with Office files are actually possible(with XML exports), IIS 6 is reasonably secure, and .NET is a productive development platform for millions of developers. If you dont understand it, its not their fault!
More importantly, is the feedback you can directly provide to MS devs- most of the key people blog a lot. Lots of commentators have influenced decisions made by MS in the past 5 years.
The parent comment is just irrational blather.
Perhaps I don't understand the subtleties here, but why should Ballmer get credit for piling up a lot of cash?
Shouldn't this be going towards developing new products and services (whether they are internally developed or just bought lock-stock-and-barrel from outside)?