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."
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.
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!
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
>At least he's passionate about his job.
> That's more than you can say about a lot of
>executives. What's wrong with wanting to crush
>the competition?
Uhh, being passionate is a relative thing.
Being passionate about creating new art is
a good thing. Being passionate about being
a serial killer is a bad thing.
Being passionate as a thug I would argue
is not a good thing. Please keep in mind
that the goal of a businessman is to do
business, not to throw chairs around
a room, nor to threaten an individual
with bodily harm. That kind of behavior
is simply childish and unprofessional.
A professional would have looked at the
situation and thought how to improve his
business. Ballmer did neither.
--Johnny
P.s. Tell Monkeyboy keep up the good
work and show us what good leadership
is all about.
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 cant really mix passionate with completely mad. Wanting to crush the competition is not sane since the goal is to make money, not kill everybody else. If your goal is to crush your competition regardless if you make more money on it you are way off.
Capitalism is about healthy competition that follows rules. When coorporations compete on common ground it drives prices down and quality up and fosters innovation. I have never ever read about how capitalism is supposed to foster killing competitors with legal tactics, bribes and by using illegal or shoddy business deals. You probably mistake capitalism for anarchy.
HTTP/1.1 400
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
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.
And, actually, wanting to crush competition is not what capitalism is all about. The idea that competitors need to be crushed instead of, well, competed with is largely what is wrong with capitalism today. It is also precisely what is wrong with Microsoft.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think you're describing the ideology of capitalism, rather than capitalism in practice. Innovation is no longer fostered by capitalism, it is capped. With the rise of DRM, propriatory solutions, closed standards, cheap 3rd world labour and large scale downsizing the idea of capitalism has changed to *maintaining* an advantage, rather then innovating it. Development hasn't given momentum to corporate profit in 10 years. It's control of a current market, pure and simple. Give any corporation the chance to monopolise the industry and they will. Consumers gain nothing out of the current situation.
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."
No, he said he'd kill Google, not the people at Google. Big difference. A company is an entity independent of its employees.
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.
Crushing competition, in the Microsoft sense, means using virtually any means to eliminate said competition. According to the Federal court that deemed Microsoft an illegal monopolist, that includes illegal tactics, and lots of them. That is not capitalism, that is not a free market, and in the long run we lose. If you'd been in the personal computer business since its inception (like I have) you'd have some awareness of the staggering number of ideas, technologies and products that Microsoft either suppressed or stole outright. And I have no doubt that there are thousands more that we'll never know about. If that's capitalism in action I'll take vanilla, thank you very much.
... hey, now that's capitalism, market-driven all the way. But that's a far cry from what Microsoft has been doing.
And no, I don't think you understand what capitalism is truly about. In pretty much all marketplaces there is room for more than one supplier of goods and services. Certainly that is the case with operating systems and office suites. And no reasonable person would have a problem with a corporation "crushing" its competition by providing a quality product, since it would be the consumer's choice to, in effect, grant a near-monopoly to that company. And when the value of that monopoly's product falls off and someone else becomes top dog for a while
Really, that view of the business world is fundamentally incompatible with Gates & Ballmer's. Their idea of successful competition is the wholly-unenlightened approach of ruthlessly suppressing or eliminating anything that is or might become a threat to Microsoft's hegemony. That's the history of that company, much of which was brought out during the antitrust trial (read up on the "Microsoft tax" and some of the interesting contracts Microsoft forced on the big hardware makers to keep competing OSes out of the picture.)
Actually, I would have to say that Microsoft's way of doing "business" is really more in line with Chinese or even Japanese methodologies than those of traditional American or European businesses. I was watching a TLC program (I think it was TLC) that showed a business strategy meeting from some unnamed large Japanese manufacturer. It was run along near-military lines, and was full of terms like "englobement", "encirclement", "cutting supply lines" and "choking off their air." I found it very interesting, since it was all aimed at removing some competitor from existence (they didn't say who.) I'd like to be a fly on the wall at some of Gates' strategy meetings. I suspect he learned a thing or two from the Japanese.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
The problem with today's captialism is the complacency of the consumer. Capitalism requires intelligent consumers to understand the pros and cons of every purchase. When consumers don't care that they are getting less for their money and are loosing control, then we get companies selling "DRM, propriatory solutions, and closed standards". Additionally, companies can appear to cheaper than open solutions because they know they've locked in future revenue streams.
Regarding "cheap 3rd world labour and large scale downsizing", these are choices of efficency implicitly promoted by capitalism. If the I can get the same labor so cheap it offsets the costs of additionaly shipping, it is in my benefit and it is in the benefit of those who can prvide teh labor. Remember, compared to many other jobs in these places they are well paying. Again, only intelligent consumers can influence the market to encourage the market to maintain good working conditions in these places. The same go for local jobs: if I care about how companies treat their employees and want to ensure fair treatment and benefits (e.g., avoid large scale downsizing), I have to support/purchase fromonly those companies that meet my values.
Anm
'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...