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."
isn't it slander and defamation to post quotes like that without the evidence to back it up?
Give the guy a break. He's got a high pressure job. He works for the most demonized tech company in America, if not the world, and MS's products and services are constantly being hacked by hundreds of thousands of virus/worm writers with apparently nothing better to do than try to destroy his company.
On top of all that, his city, state, and federal governments are all hoping to find a way to grab his $46 billion either through lawsuits, taxes, or confiscation. That's the way of things. When you're successful, everyone else tries to tear you down.
I heard plenty of stories of such behavior when I was at Fidelity Investments. These upper level analysts who were getting high six figure salaries would scream and throw their phones against the wall when things didn't go their way. The pressure was really getting to them.
I'm not defending all of Microsoft's actions but you've got to feel for the guy when he's caught on tape/web/whatever acting like an ordinary, flawed human being with emotions. Frankly I'm rather relieved to hear that Ballmer is not some kind of icy monster. Heh. I wonder how many Aeron chairs he goes through in a month!
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
You can't be sued over what you only say in court. If you repeate the same slander or libel outside of court, you can be sued for that after the case has ended (regardless of whether you're found guilty of perjury), as SCO's executives might find out soon.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What kind of chilling effect is this having?
Go ask Google, Skype, Symantec, Apple, the local Linux guy, all of which benefit immensely from Microsoft not getting it until it's too late.
I used to work for a company that had a mini MS complex: we thought everyone in IT industry services sector or reseller channel was a competition. The result: we fought a war on 900 fronts and could not bring critical resources to bear on our real competitors (other national mega resellers). Eventually, we were spending more money on trying to out-market and out business develop inconsequential competitors and our sales guys were losing sales because we were not able to deliver hardware on time to customers.
Right now, MS is showing signs of what I saw at Inacom:
* Changes and delays with their OS product.
* Development of huge initiatives that business partners want and customers don't want like DRM and trusted computing
* Not adapting to changing business models - open source for example.
* Ability to market, but not deliver - like the MSN search that was going to be more accurate, etc...
* Competing against yourself - AXAPTA, NAVISION, GreatPlains... how many competing and overlapping ERP/CRM packages do you need?
* When was the last time there was a major real change in office, anyway?
* Oh, and ceeding the entire low end of the computer industry to Linspire and linux (when was the last time you saw a new windowsXP computer for $250)?
-- $G
At least he's passionate about his job. That's more than you can say about a lot of executives. What's wrong with wanting to crush the competition? That's what capitalism's all about. Anti-trust that's why. That same arguement could (and was) used to justify Rockefeller, Standard oil and a host of others. M$ should have been busted up when it was found guilty of anti-trust. But the DOJ and Congress were too damn scared to rock the boat and owned too much stock in it themselves. Now shoo away fan boy you're worse than a fundy apologist surrounded by contradictions and religious dilemnas yet stands there with hands over their ears shouting "la la la I can't hear you la la la la la"
I find this story very interesting, because back when I was in college I interned at Intel. Very first day we went through antitrust training because Intel had been burned a couple of times on antitrust issues. One of the big points they made was don't ever claim that some technology is an "AMD-killer" or that we're going to "kill" a certain company. Statements like that can be used in antitrust proceedings as proof that you were actively trying to force a competitor out of the marketplace. Not sure if it applies here, but there are definitely some similarities.
I do not see that line anywhere in the article.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
I never understood why Bill Gates didn't retire once he was worth an astronomical amount of money.
You hear about Ballmer flippin out, throwing chairs because he lost someone to Google, but what does he care? How OLD is he?
I'll guess... early 50's, and looking at him, he's not exactly in great shape and probably has a shitload of stress to deal with, which means he'll be dead in 20 years.
Why not just fucking retire? You're worth billions... so what personal feeling of satisfaction is to be had by conquering google? Even if you don't conquer google, you'll still be filthy fucking rich.
What's the point? It's not like they offer quality products..
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Actually, what Ballmer is doing is true capitalism; it's just the extreme of it. Capitalism is great, but this is exactly what it turns into when allowed to go unchecked. That is why we have governmental controls. Too much government = communism; too little = ruthless Capitalism (e.g. Ballmer).
While I agree that Ballmer's strategy is maniacal and disgusting, you can't reproach him by saying that he isn't true to Capitalism, as though Capitalism is this machine turning out benevolence and fairness.
This is akin to saying that all we need is true Democracy. Democracy is great too, but pure Democracy is pure majority-rule and no protection of minorities. If 51% wanted to ostracize blacks, then, hey, that's democracy. Fortunately, we don't live in a pure democracy. We have very undemocratic institutions such as the Constitution and the Courts.
Thus, you can't condemn Ballmer as though he's not following "true" Capitalism. He is; that's the problem.