Slashdot Mirror
Balmer Vows to Kill Google
An anonymous reader writes "Probably due to the Microsoft suit against Google over human resources, some very heated exchanges have turned up in some court documents. Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer has apparently
vowed to kill Internet search leader Google, according to documents filed in the increasingly bitter battle between the rivals." From the article: "At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google,'' Lucovosky said in his statement. Lucovosky replied that he was joining Google. 'At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office,' Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
RE:["Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."]
what an immature neanderthal...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Sworn testimony in a court case is usually considered 'evidence'.
Hope this helps.
He looks a bit like Tony Soprano on that article's picture, this is truly scary.I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.
Hardly. This is the sort of crap that you expect from the overly indulged geek who becomes CEO or from the jock CEO. Look, anytime somebody exhibits this sort of behavior, there is something fundamentally wrong with their character. I've had a boss in the past that pulled this kind of crap on me and I simply told him that it would not be acceptable behavior and I would not tolerate it. I then walked out of the room treating him like the child he was. The guy leaving for Google made the right decision.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Shit man, I know I don't act that immature at my very worst. Maybe you get like that. You should try to limit the scope of your "just people like us" comments, because not everyone's like that (thank god!).
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Steve Jobs was right ... Steve Jobs was right
Oh, please. Check with people at Apple or Pixar and ask if Jobs has ever had a maximum-flake-factor freaky tirade in their own personal cubicle before. Don't let the sandals fool you. He's no paragon of zen-like level headedness when confronted with contrary news, uppity employees, or a marketplace that doesn't always see things his way.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I worked for one of these guys, I'd rather the icy monster any day.
This kind of explosion reeks of a fellow who feels indestructable in his current position. Breaking out in a violent, destructive rage in the office is not normal, even for these guys.
Just think of his assistant who has to go in afterwards, brief him about his next meetings then contact facilities to send somebody to fix the wall and replace the chair.
I feel for them, not the multimilliondollar exec throwing a tantrum like a four year old.
Besides, a tantrum like that would really make me glad I'm leaving.
I was shocked to see this was actually not a The Onion article like last time.
That monkey dancer never cease to amaze me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
He made a death threat against everyone at Google. He should be in jail.
I dont understand why its so important for Microsoft to kill any competition. If they succeed in creating a bigger market they still earn more money even with lots of competitors. Is Microsoft really nothing more than a wanking session for two really pathetic men? One would have thought they would have matured by now and start to think about what they leave after they die. Why not start doing good things for computing for a change? MS has been the biggest roadblock in software evolution to date and nothing can change that if Microsoft doesnt start to behaive like grownups.
HTTP/1.1 400
To understand more about CEO's rent "Gorillas in the Mist" and pay close attention to the silverback male.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Microsoft can't coexist with anyone. To them, "the competition" is anyone in the computer industry who is making money or gaining power who is not them. You cannot possibly say MSN search or, say, microsoft netmeeting were serious products Microsoft cared about or which were serious competitors to google or skype when they started up; you cannot possibly say the appearance of skype or google threatened any product that Microsoft was even meaningfully supporting. Yet skype and google gain mindshare, and suddenly making the "google killer" or the "skype killer" become huge priorities. Or at the other end of things, Microsoft ignored Adobe for years as long as they were powerless, profitable but consigned to a "niche", predictable; but suddenly Adobe starts having influence on popular file formats in the form of PDF (invented) or Flash (bought), starts showing signs of growth, and suddenly it becomes absolutely essential for some reason that Microsoft create a PDF Killer.
... then the first thing that happens is the most powerful company in all of software suddenly has it as priority number one to take you out, duplicate your product and give it away for free, subsume your functionality into the OS, etc. They won't always succeed at this, but they have at least the ability to make your life and job very difficult without even breaking a sweat. And it has been demonstrated that even in the most flagrant case of destructive behavior, even if they are tried and convicted of illegal acts, there will be no consequences for them.
Microsoft keeps demonstrating, again and again, that they believe no one may have power but them, and keep killing companies to attain that goal. And people just keep pretending this is somehow good for the market, because the idea that market forces could lead to something other than the perfect outcome is just something some people just don't want to admit could happen.
But this is hurting the market, in the most direct way possible: Microsoft's expansion strategy is based not on finding the next big thing, but on stopping it before it starts.
Supposedly the computer industry lives and thrives on small discoveries that grow to the "next big thing". You know, the proverbial cliche of the startup in somebody's garage, a new way of looking at things, an idea that could change the world, yadda yadda yadda. But more and more the fact is-- and most people see this-- if you find that brilliant idea, if you sweat and pour your life and blood and tears into making the new next greatest thing,
What is the point of trying to build, or finance something revolutionary like Skype, if you know that whatever it is (even if it isn't something Microsoft does yet) Success will just result in Microsoft signing a corporate death warrant? The answer is obviously "because you love what you are doing", but what about the people who don't love what they're doing enough to take the risk of so much wasted effort? Are there people who would be going out and doing new and interesting things they aren't doing now in a world where trying to change the face of computing is rewarded rather than punished? What kind of chilling effect is this having?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You know Schmidy is just harboring some serious grudge against MS right now. If Balmer thinks he's the only one with the motivation to compete, he doesn't know what it's like to be driven vengenance. Schmidt is like the underdog who've been kicked around and have finally made his break. We all know how those stories end.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Next time Microsoft gets sued and pretends it has destroyed the emails, they should point to this incident as an example of how they find emails when they want to - even deleted emails on a local PC.
Sure, it's the system. The problem with that argument is that it takes the people who put the system into place out of the whole discussion. Doing so, you neglect that it's the people who institute the system and the ones that execute it that make it even exist. Doing so, it makes it seem that the system is the problem, not the people- but then, look at what happened in WWII... The system's the one that set up the scenerio for the horrific acts performed- why didn't we blame the system? Oh, that's right, following orders doesn't count in that- just as the people who instituted the system was guilty of the acts.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
well enough to detroy it. For me, their nice clean interface (no flash, huge graphic files, or other unrelated material) make them a perfect home page. They load super fast and get me the results I want. I don't think anyone can beat that, because it is EXACTLY what I want.
I will visit other sites from time to time, but I always want to start like that. Yahoo used to be close enough, but they morphed into the typical bloated mess that other high profile web sites have become.
Investors should take note of these types of situations.
While we all think it funny, it offers insight into the emotional response of the CEO of the world's largest software company. It shows his a weakness, that he is personally threatened by Google, and a despiration, that he feels Google just one upped him. There is a difference between being passionate about your products and being threatened by your market mates.
Is this the type of personality you would want running the company your 401(k) was invested in? Your retirement future, child's education, or second house at the lake, all riding on the ability of a short tempered reactionist who would scream and shout and create a personal vendetta not only aginst a competitor, but CEO-to-CEO?
In many cases the CEO is a significant reason to invest in a company - that's why there are such massive stock sell offs or buy ins when leadership changes (look at HP recently as an example or further back to Chrysler, GM, etc).
I'd rather invest in a company who's CEO is headstrong and confident enough to try to innovate their competition our of existance, not temper tantrem their CEO to death.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Quite frankly, I keep waiting for him to address the UN. Maybe use some footwear to make his point.
Look at these two guys
Balmer
Khrushchev
He's always kind of reminded me of Khrushchev, but threatening to bury Google.... it's just a little to Warsaw pact, even for my tastes.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Nobody forces him to do this job. He sure got enough cash to live comfortably several life times on it.
But that's not what this is about. It is dominating others, succeeding with manipulation and violence - compulsively, for decades. Does he have a choice? Probably not - regrettably.
Throwing chairs and tantrums is abusive behavior. You seem to tolerate this kind of behavior as "human". I think, it's not yet quite human.
Zonk isn't a man, it's an AI. And he's getting tired of doing nothing but posting articles and will probably go rampant soon.
Seriously, who cares, at least we are getting articles, but then I guess people have to bitch about someone since Michael's been gone.
Back to the topic... Whether these allegations are true or not, it's pretty obvious that Microsoft as a whole is beginning to thrash. They used to point at an industry or niche and say, "We're going in" and owned it withing a year.
But lately their history is littered with failed attempts to get into markets. The problem is, they keep trying to put as many fingers in as many pies as they can at once instead of focusing on what they really are, an OS, networking software, and Office Suite company.
Gee, let's take over digital music. Failed, they got owned by Apple.
Gee let's take over video. Again owned, MPEG-4 is the standard and players like VLC are used instead of Microsofts whenever possible.
Gee let's take over search. You guessed it, owned by Google, who focus on their market, search and advertising. Though Google is spreading out into other areas, which could be troublesome for them in the future, they are at least keeping these areas focused on search. In the case of Google Mail, their search technology is the centerpiece of the offering, well that and an assload of mail storage.
So the real problem is, Microsoft is so busy trying to be everything, trying to compete and crush everyone, that they are lagging in their core buisiness areas. That is why Office is being replaced by Open Office now. That is why Apple is poised to steal the OS market from them, should they decide to make that leap. That is why Linux is taking away their server markets, and Apache is eating into their webservr markets. Microsoft is too busy spinning around in circles to focus on what they once did best, and it's only a matter of time now before they screw themselves into the ground.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Give the guy a break.
You know, I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Sweaty One, if he wasn't so... What's the word? Oh, yeah: culpable.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
did he say these words? As long as Lucovosky says so.
things could turn more complicated when balmer would deny it. there's no way to tell. it has been a person to person concersation. truth is out there.
is it because aussie papers are being written as US papers sleep?
is it because US papers simply dont want to report this stuff?
is it because US papers dont want to rock the boat?
i dont know... but it seems to me the SMH gets mentioned *alot* - make me wonder why.
Our current government is "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market".
Being pro-Business means that you pass laws designed to protect the revenue streams of businesses (copyright extensions, DMCA, patents on "business methods", etc).
Being pro-Market means that you pass laws designed to facilitate competition in a market and curb the excesses of existing companies.
he's the CEO of what the most powerful company on earth, give or take?. he can do whatever the fuck he wants. if he does something oh so terrible, tell the board and let them fire him. otherwise, you just sound like a snively little brat cause you can't handle people shouting or getting angry.
Have some more respect for yourself. If you cannot deal with people without resorting to childish antics then I simply don't want to work with you. I try and surround myself with employees and students who are capable of mature communication, who are smarter than me, and who have strong work ethics. That is the way you create great stuff that has class and does what it was designed to do.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There may be times where it seems like the difference between a passionate genius and a dangerous madman is thin and difficult to place. The thing is though. They really are two different things, and it matters which one that someone is.
That's a bold assertion. Have any proof?
I know smart, passionate people who are perfectly nice. As far as I'm concerned, people who can't control their aggression and desire for dominance need therapy and medication. Jobs behaves exactly like a lot of cult leaders (and some would say "other cult leaders"). I'm glad that he makes cool stuff, but he's still an asshole who makes cool stuff. It would be better if he were a good person who made cool stuff.
How can something be both a lie and an accurate representation at the same time?
If I say "The moon is made of cheese" and you say "I've just heard from Lifewish: the moon is made of cheese", then your statement is a lie (the moon is not made of cheese) but is an accurate representation of what I said.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much from a guy who admits he's an idiot on his own website, but really.
Hey, I figure that if I get it out in the open now it'll save time later...
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Explain to me how Ballmer's actions is the most efficient way of increasing his capital.
As for true democracy. True democracy would mean that minorities would be separate governments, and that a change in viewpoints would place the individual under new laws and a new authority.
'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
What else do you need to know about Microsoft? The company is run by an ill-tempered bald ex-football player who's in it for the sport and kill, nothing else. Ballmer deals in concepts like "team spirit", "take no prisoners", and "offense/defense", not bits, bytes, and software.
Ballmer is also overestimating his own business acumen. Ballmer didn't "bury" Novell or Sun; to the degree that Novell and Sun have problems, they are self-inflicted or due to changing market conditions. I can't think of much Ballmer has done as a businessman that was particularly clever; most of what he has been responsible has been shady or outright illegal bullying of other companies. Shady deals he really is good at.
Sadly, there are some good engineers and technologists at Microsoft, but they are just pawns in Ballmer's grand game and strategy. Well, fortunately, they seem to be leaving for greener pastures. Which brings us back to Ballmer's chair throwing...
Go to "www.microsoft.com" in my browser and turn up my computer's volume?
They are probably so obsessed with their desire of controlling anything computer related (I can remember one early interview with Bill where he said, he wanted to have anything computer related running Microsoft software) that they simply have forgotten, that they have to die as well as anybody of us... Add to that a shitload of stress and a lot of temperament and you get reactions like that, to me Ballmer is heavily in need over a bigger vacation where he should rething his life and what he wants to do with it. I dont think he is insane, but he definitely seems to have lost the focus on what is important in life, after all, he probably will be dead in 10-20 years (more likely a heart attack within the next ten years than anything else, given his shape and temperament) and then his billions will do him nothing anymore, and if there is an afterlife, he will ask himself the question, what did I do with my life, I constantly was running after full control and trying to destroy others people life support of being able to have their own company.
A sad life if you ask me...
Same goes for Bill, although he spends a lot, which I regard high of him, all his day to day thinkins seems to revelove around getting more power instead of trying to have something from life.
What do you call a 401(k) retirement plan largely invested in stocks and bonds? Or a mutual fund largely held by unionised workers? If anything, this is what Marx meant about workers owning the means (the capital) of production.
That is actually a very interesting point. I hope someone mods you up.
However, most of these businesses currently are mostly owned by non-employees, so the employees don't usually have that much of a say over who the directors are except as employees. I don't say it is not a step in that direction, just that it isn't there yet.
Secondly, I think that community-based open source projects are very explicitly a way in which the means of production can get socialized. One can argue that Marx acknowledged that any future post-capitalistic system would not do away with the institutions of Capitalism. Hence the rise of the corporation changed the economic role of government, but governments did not just disappear. I.e. just because they were not producing goods any more doesn't mean that they didn't offer other important services (law enforcement being one).
Similarly with open source, companies don't go away. But the means of production (i.e the source code and development tools) are socialized. These are built and owned by the workers who organize themselves in their own hierarchy based on contributions to the community. The companies persist in a different role (but one still based on making money). I don't know what to call it. The roots of words like "communism" fit but it is not what people mean by the term. Therefore I have coined the term "communalism" focusing on the idea that communities become the key resource of businesses in their quest to earn money. Contributions to the communities then are often strategic. And the basic calculus of business is changed.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
On the other hand, Microsoft has already been convicted of illegal monopolistic business tactics, and got zero punishment anyway. Why would they be worried about stuff like that now?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz