Slashdot Mirror
Why Ballmer Should Leave Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the announcement of Bill Gates' departure from the top spot at Microsoft, CNN Money is carrying an article arguing that Steve Ballmer should step down as well." From the article: "Since Gates stepped down as CEO in 2000 in favor of Ballmer, the company has floundered technically and strategically. As the company's chairman, chief software architect and supposed visionary, Gates deserves blame for missing the wave of Web-based software that has propelled Google and Yahoo. But Ballmer has made gaffes of his own in his longtime role as head of the company's business side. They include an undistinguished push into business applications to compete with Oracle, financial maneuvers that have failed to stir the stock - which has slumped 16 percent so far this year - and continuing antitrust problems in the United States and Europe."
ballmer's big problem is he is inflicted with IP disease... he thinks MS owns all of its code, PLUS all of the data and programs folks put on their computers.
and he needs a cure or he needs to leave, cash in his options, and disappear to a tropical island someplace under a volcano. like seeks like.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Ballmer decided to compete with Oracle and potentially SAP. I don't think M$ can't win against Oracle and SAP, however, looking at growth of Google and Yahoo in same time frame. What he had to do as CEO was so obvious. It was wiser decision to enhance search/web based business to compete Google, Yahoo or anything else than pursuing Oracle with SQL Server and acquiring business software marker like Navision.
Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner, a recent hire from Wal-Mart Stores where he ran the Sam's Club division and previously served as the retailer's chief information officer, is the most likely replacement for Ballmer.
He has one big strike against him: his short tenure at Microsoft, which translates into a lack of familiarity with the company's culture. He's believed to be behind a recent cost-cutting move to force the company's substantial contractor workforce to take an unpaid week off. Since contractors at Microsoft contribute to important projects and are often hired on as full-time employees, the move hurt morale.
But as Wal-Mart's CIO, he bought a lot of software from Microsoft, giving him a valuable perspective as a customer that most executives who rose through the ranks at Microsoft lack.
Microsoft run by a WalMart Exec. The mind boggles ....
heck, the parodies practically write themselves
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
> ...Bill Gates just (apparently) getting sick of the day to day...
Naaah. Gates just turned fifty and he's starting to feel his mortality. He's working on his historical legacy, a la John D. Rockefeller. Meanwhile, Balmer (who also just turned fifty) has no historical legacy outside Microsoft, so expect him to stay.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
My position is coming from a biased perspective as I'm a CEO of a technology company however I do believe that Ballmer should step down and bring some fresh blood in if Microsoft wants to survive.
Microsoft seems to be operating in the mode of a 1990's company and has yet to realize that that the thick-GUI based apps are pretty much history and more over, the OS is a commodity and the whole idea of licenses for OS instances and that being a primary product is effectively dead IMHO.
Office Apps are pretty much commoditized now as well with the advent of OO2.X and now Google jumping into the affrey. Granted Googles product is pretty much a Proof of Concept but it does show where they're headed.
Just some thoughts....
Nick
This is so obviously wrong I was going to ignore it. But I just can't.
Have you looked at their financials? How are billions in revenue not sustainable? Even before getting money from floating stock Google was making a fortune. And Yahoo SURVIVED the dot-com fallout. Their future could easily turn for the worse, but for years they've proven profitable and sustainable.
Developers: We can use your help.
Take the total revenue made by the company over it's entire life and then subtract all the money invested in the company since it was created. In the case of Google, the result is a negative number.
Why should Microsoft have been in such a good position for web based software? It's a completely different chunk of the industry from software sales.
that's an inspired username
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Although I HATE giving advice to MS..here it goes.
1. Get out of the OS biz!
2. License the Windows API's and other protocols that have practically become de-facto standards to ANY os vendor that wants to use it in their OS. Charge a per/seat license that is similar to the cost of windows now.
In one fell swoop windows apps would still be what people use/develop (for the most part) and they would not have to worry about all the security headaches the OS has given them. They can make the same amount of money by charging the OS vendors. Linux vendors would give users the option of buying windows application compatibility and I'm sure Apple would as well.
Today's WSJ noted that Microsoft backdated its monthly stock option issues from 1992 to 1999 to coincide with its stock's monthly lows. While not strictly illegal, depending on how it was accounted for, the practice was quietly discontinued in 1999 and it's stinky in the current regulatory climate. This should come as no more of a shock than Jeff Skilling's abrupt retirement from Enron. Not saying the two are even remotely related in substance or gravity, but such departures usually happen for a reason that isn't good. Also, given the company's current malaise, it might be a good idea for the current leadership to step aside and let some fresh faces take a crack at running the company.
As Steve has gotten older and fatter, so has the company. As Ballmer's temper and desire to kick has been moderated by exposure, so has the company lost its edge. When I worked at Microsoft, the company was all about beating the snot out of the competition. Now, winning doesnt seem to be the goal anymore. Its all about growth, benefits, process and PR. Ballmer used to stock the halls screaming, "Oh, you WILL ship, or you wont be here!" Now, from what I hear, its more like "Oh, please ship on time, okay guys?" Mark L. got it right, they cant ship anymore. Vista is a fucking disaster, whether it ships or not. Today is the first day in 20 years that I dont own a share of Microsoft stock. If Microsoft is going to change, they should put J. Allard in charge.
Google and Yahoo's entire business model is web-based and advertisement based.
/. will probably still be using PCs in the next decade. But even today most computers sold to consumers are not general-purpose. They are cell phones or game consoles or PDAs. Smaller, cheaper, special-purpose computers that use the distributed power of the network may actually really be the Next Big Thing this time.
And Microsoft's business model is based on the PC as a general-purpose computer rather than a commodity with limited functions. This is extremely fragile. IBMs business model was based on computers as big central resources, and they got eaten alive by Microsoft and Apple in the '80's. It seems to me likely that Google and Yahoo have a chance at doing the same thing to Microsoft.
This is not so much about how clever Balmer or Gates or anyone else is. It is about how technology evolves. The people running IBM weren't stupid. They were just limited in their perspective by their own success, and failed to see how much the world was about to change.
Most people on
If projects like the $100 laptop thing are successful they could have the unintended consequence of making things like Web appliances viable commodities. General purpose computing would become a relatively specialized market, like mainframes today: still profitable and a viable business, but no where near as profitable as it is for Microsoft today. In those market conditions either MS doesn't have a lot of choice but to to through some very rough financial times.
Both Apple and Microsoft are making moves in the direction of commodity appliances, but Apple is (so far) doing so a lot more successfully.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Actually, Wall Street would love to do the standard rise-the-stock-value-so-we-can-sell-even-if-it-kil ls-the-company dance:
- bring in a new CEO who promises radical cost-saving changes all over the place (watch stock value invariably rise)
- have him fire half the workforce, accompanied by giving interviews all over the place about trimming the fat and returning to good ol' capitalism values (ditto)
- make it an official policy to only hire re-trained ex-burger-flippers and transfer half the remaining jobs to Elbonia and East Bumfuckistan in the next years (look at all those money we were wasting on paying highly-qualified people. Stock price rises some more.)
- "motivate" the remaining employees with mottos like "your job could be the next one that goes to India", and unrealistic productivity demands. Accompany it with some speeches showing that you see them as a bunch of slackers, just to be sure they have no illusions left that their contribution is appreciated in any form or shape. (Hell, yeah, high productivity here we come. Watch everyone buy MS stock, driving the share value even higher.)
- drop half the products, on account that they weren't directly making that much money. Never mind that they help form the interlocking whole that makes MS almost impossible to displace in the market. (Ditto.)
- sell the relevant IP and know-how to competitors for some quick cash (yeehaw, MS income was above estimates this quarter. Let's all rush to buy their shares.)
- spin off and sell half the acquisitions that MS ever made. Preferrably for less than half the price originally paid for those companies. (Ditto.)
- reshuffle departments and internal policies for no good reason, just to seem like you're doing something new and radical (ok, by this point it only adds a few more cents per share, but it's better than nothing, you know?)
- announce some hare-brained new products, but miss the mark or the market by a mile because of having no fucking clue about the technology involved
- rape the brand recognition, as much as MS does have of it, for some quick buck for the next quarter, at the expense of annoying and losing existing customers
- take some more flashy measures that'll get lots of press like suddenly rebranding to a new name (and losing most of the brand recognition the old name had), moving to another town, "reinventing oneself" by moving completely into a new market, or whatever
At this point the big Wall Street names sell their own stock, making a quick profit. The company starts a long and painful downward spiral, a la SGI, except MS has cash reserves to last much longer. The CEO soon moves to another company, with Wall Street's full backing, to do the same again. A few years down the line, MS is as relevant to the OS market as SGI now is to the computer graphics market, but Wall Street have gotten their quick buck already.
Think I'm exaggerating? Look at what happened to SGI, for example, and then tell me I'm exaggerating. It only took one bright new CEO to do more than half of what I wrote above, and set SGI on a downwards spiral from which it never recovered. Where SGI is now, you already know.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Ballmer, yet another Bill Gates crony billionaire thinks that just sitting on his fat ass waiting for Google to wither up and die is the best strategy for Microsoft. But it won't work because Google is actually doing things that MS can't or won't or doesn't want to.
And the best thing they can come up with in Redmond is to create a turn of the Operating System crank with an unquenchable lust for hardware which will make everyone go out and buy a new PC, which will need OS and upgrades which will need a new PC and so.
Ballmer must go! Ballmer must go! My stock is where it was in 1998 god damnit.
Seriously, if Balmer were to step down too, the door would be open for some substantial change at Microsoft. Just like the palace revolution Steve Jobs staged on his return to Apple which saw, among other things, the Copeland project dropped in favor of what became the BSD based (essentially) MacOS X, a big change at the top of Microsoft could open the door to MS Linux. The fact is that it is really Office that keeps companies in Microsoft's corner more than Windows itself. Most don't care about the OS, as long as it runs Microsoft Office. MS could still make gobs of money and even cut costs by not having to use so many resources on OS development. They could focus more energy on a great user experience. And being able to offer a great OS at a much lower price, the piracy problem would not be such a big deal anymore. And we all know that the major PC makers would continue to bundle the MS OS along with all of the other stuff they do. Third party software publishers might complain at first, but they would quickly get on board too, to stay in business.
I know there are plenty of obstacles to this, but the biggest by far is probably the pride of the current leadership.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I'll tell you a legend that (I promise) bears on this.
In 1980, Alberto Salazar ran his first NYC marathon and won it with the second fastest US marathon time ever. He won two successive NYC marathons, breaking a twelve year old world record in 1981. He was on his way to being the greatest long distance runner ever. Then came Boston in 1982, and the Duel in the Sun with Dick Beardsley. Beardsley was a great runner of course, but he didn't have Salazar's physical gifts. Salazar had intense pride and incredible mental toughness, but Beardsley was smart and used Salazar's pride as a weapon against him. He did his best to make it look like taking on the world record holder was a walk in the park, which irked Salazar. It was almost disrespectful.
The day was warm and sunny but there was a cooling headwind. On a day like that, drinking was critical, and Beardsley drank quite a bit, and when he noticed this seemed to bother Salazar, he made a big production out of it. Salazar in his annoyance began to refuse water, doggedly stalked Beardsley mile after mile. At the final mile mark Beardsley looked back and saw that after running over 133 thousand feet, Salazar was only fifteen feet behind him. With delicate brutality, Salazar began to put on speed. Not too much, because in the past dueling lead pairs had broken down and dropped into second and third place.
With a mere 1800 feet to go out of the total 138,435 ft, Beardsley was bumped by a press vehicle. It wasn't much, but Salazar used this to make his move. He crossed the finish line eleven steps ahead of Beardsley, with a finish time of 2:08:52 to Beardley's 2:08:54 -- a quarter of a tenth of percent difference.
Salazar was champion and record holder. He was also a broken man.
Salazar would never run like that again. He went into a physical decline, so that a few years later he could barely jog a mile. In part this was due to the development of asthma, in part it may have been that that final brutal mile, in which Salzar was running six liters low on water, did something to his brain. A decade later, Salazar began to run again with the aid of Prozac.
The relevance of this story is this: running a marathon is different from running a sprint. And Microsoft is a sprinter. When the new technology land office opens up new vistas, you want to get out there fast and stake your claim. People remark on how agile Microsoft was when it decided to adapt to the Internet. But that kind of reaction is what Microsoft does. They look for an opportunity which they pour resources into so they can quickly pull ahead of the competition so they can establish an unassailable position.
Running a mature business is different. It's not about running the race for two hours and some change. It's about running forever; it's about the tortoises beginning to overtake the hare. That's when giving it your all isn't enough, you have to husband your resources wisely. Eefficiency steps up and takes an equal place with determination.
Unless Microsoft can get in on the starting line of something big and new, Microsoft is going to find itself playing hare to an army of tortoises. That means a huge cultural change. Almost certainly, it means new blood in the leadership.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The 360 has been out less than a year and other consoles haven't even been released yet. It's a little speculative to make that kind of prediction now. It looks like they're going to get a bigger market share this time round, which is what they're after at the moment. They're playing the long game by building up a customer base they can make money off later. Though I imagine they hoped 'later' would come a bit earlier.
Japan has been quite disastrous. Will be interesting to see what happens they get games out that the Japenese actually want. Things are considerbly healthier in the US and Europe though.
To be fair to Microsoft here, I don't think there was any back pedalling. The quote was taken way out of context, which they really should have anticipated, given the way people like to jump up and down on them.
Conversely, you could say that Nontendo doesn't have a choice. Being a games company, they have to make a profit, or go out of business. Microsoft, on the other ahnd, can subsidise the games division in order to establish the foothold in the market that Nintendo and Sony already have.
Have you looked at the new version of MS Office? I am no MS fan boy. I've been dealing with their bulky office products for most of my career - their saving grace is that they usually are better, or no worse, than all of the other product out there.
But the new version of MS Office has some extremely innovative user interface and workflow components. It's unlike anything else out there. And no, it's not just copying OS X.
I propose a new rule, if you find yourself penning a knee-jerk response to any positive commentary about Microsoft, just scrub it and start over. Intelligence is marked by the ability to perceive shades of gray, not just black and white. I can recognize that though there are many negative aspects of Microsoft's business practices and products, there are also many positive aspects. And indeed, though MS has grown mostly throw acquisition and mimicry of innovators, it is still very much capable of innovating on its own every once in awhile.
Read that link, seriously. It's an eye opener. Here's my favourite paragraph:
I took the liberty of highlighting what I find partially funny, partially sad there. Sorta like a tragic clown. Wall Street loved him for some massive firing waves and plant closing that didn't even make any fucking sense economically. And he continued doing those even knowing full well that they don't make sense, reflected in the fact that he cooked the books to make it seem like they actually helped in any way. Yet he kept on doing it.
This wasn't a manager taking tough measures for tough times, it was just a psychopath finding personal entertainment in screwing the company that hired him.
So, alas, much as I'd love to take my place on the executive golf courses, a cruel fate has decided I shouldn't be born in that 1% of the population that Wall Street loves. I have too much empathy for that. I couldn't look myself in the mirror after even thinking about doing something like that. So, alas, I've been condemned to a life of honest work instead. Fate can be cruel like that, you know.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Not all CEOs have this disorder, but the job of CEO requires aggressivenes and hard driving. What looks like good leadership is really just a common sign, pushing people constantly.
It's likely that Ballmer never really earned his way to the top. Instead he cheated people. He took credit for other people, he backstabbed, he lied. There are probably a wake of torn, short-term relationshipos. Psychopaths are clever and know how to charm. A guy like Ballmer would easily make his way to the top.
While I really don't have the information to really be sure, I do have reason to suspect he's a psychopath, and I do think he is. Since he's a psychopath, he's not fit for society. He should step down from his chair. He should be perminately locked up so no one else will get hurt by him.