Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Speaks on His Solo Act
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "In his first one-on-one interview since Bill Gates's retirement announcement, Steve Ballmer tells the Wall Street Journal he is bullish on Microsoft's investments in online services, and he dismisses as 'random malarkey' the idea that Microsoft is having trouble hiring and keeping the kind of brilliant employees that have always been the company's competitive weapon. Here's Ballmer on Gates's departure: 'As co-leaders of the business, I could allow Bill to be the full-time champion of innovation. And [now] with me really being the guy who's here every day running the place, I must be the champion of innovation.' And on competing with Google: 'We're going to compete. We're going to be in the online business. We are going to have a core around online. We're going to be excellent. That, I would tell people, to count on...'"
By most accounts, Mr. Ballmer is little more than a boorish yahoo who happened to be in the right place at the right time. This interview does nothing to dispel such an impression.
I could allow Bill to be the full-time champion of innovation. And [now] with me really being the guy who's here every day running the place, I must be the champion of innovation.
When Bill was being the "innovative" guy, they generally resorted to copying existing products or entering markets that others had already proven to be successful. Is Steve saying that his approach to "innovation" is a step behind even that?
This guy's the limit!
Steve Ballmer, from TFA: "When did China get great? China didn't get great under Mao Zedong. China got great under -- in the recent years -- probably got great under Deng Xiaoping."
I'm skating on the edge of Godwin, but... it's kind of scary when the head of an organization such as Microsoft cites a totalitarian government as an example of greatness.
Or simply a picture of a dancing monkey?
This guy's the limit!
That's just symptomatic of a company who spends more time and resources on HOW to capitalize on ideas and not enough on WHAT ideas to capitalize on.
In otherwords, they're out of steam.
If MSFTs idea of innovation is to make Windows "even bigger" then I think it's a good sign they're done for. As far as I'm concerned Vista shouldn't require anything more than WinXP or Win2K requires. These "added bonus value" features like the wasteful GUI, WGA and other random tools are further signs.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
He looked at the amazing innovations happening in the FOSS community and realized that as terrible a beast as it was, it was one of his own creation, because any company--other than Apple, which is the only reason that Microsoft avoids major Sherman Act action--which created a powerful, stable operating system like Linux and sold it--even for a dollar--would have been crushed by the mighty weight and hunger of Microsoft. He may not have actually created FOSS, but he certainly created the environment in which it is growing.
So yes, in a way, you're right; he probably does see the writing on the wall. But that's only part of it. It's not that he doesn't want to be blamed, but rather that he's realized that he's defined by something which is doomed, in the end, to fail, as all things are. As he approaches the sunset of his life, he is looking for something that can still be approaching its apex as the lights are going out, instead of watching the slow, painful death of a dinosaur.
If anyone does not believe that a single act of hubris can sink a major company, look no further than Commodore. They once had the best selling computer, worldwide, in the Commodore 64. They were smart, and while developing the Amiga, they also got into PC-compatibles, since they saw that market as likely to explode. However, they refused to license the technology for VGA displays which they had incorporated into their systems, and as such, they got locked out of the US market (for PCs) in the very early 1990s. The Amiga didn't sell well enough, and Europe wasn't a big enough market for PCs, and so the company, which had grown so much, literally imploded.
I don't think that MS will fall apart quite so quickly, but with the lack of true innovation ("Me too!" seems to be their entire vocabulary), and constant and growing court costs, penalties and fines in the millions of dollars, it's not going to be long before the slope is noticably down-hill for them, unless something major changes.
It's not about blame; it's about shame.
The CB App. What's your 20?
and he dismisses as 'random malarkey' the idea that Microsoft is having trouble hiring and keeping the kind of brilliant employees that have always been the company's competitive weapon.
Um, no. The company's "competitive weapon" doesn't have anything to do with the alleged "brilliance" of its employees, save for the number of inventive ways that the security of its products has been compromised. The company's "competitive weapon" quite simply, is its monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior.
Ugh, the stream of bullshit coming out of Ballmer's mouth just makes my head spin. I don't understand why every chief officer in a tech company thinks they have to admit absolutely no fault and use meaningless business speech? Listen to some of the crap Balmer says:
They can't be open-minded, no, they have to be willing to be open-minded. What the hell? And what the hell does being multicapable mean? It's all a bunch of fluff talk, intended to make people think Microsoft is "dynamic," and that they're "expanding into key new markets." Just call it like it is, man. Microsoft hasn't done anything really impressive, on the software front, for five years. Your stock has flat-lined. It's ok to admit that you've got serious work to do. Instead he wants to tout how amazing Microsoft is, or how cutting-edge and forward-thinking their staff is. Just give it a rest. The PR machine really makes me sick.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
For how many years have Microsoft been touting this line, that they are going to revolutionise the online world? For the life of me, I can't think of one Microsoft online service that has caused even a murmur never mind a wave of avid followers. Unless you count IE and WMF vulnerabilities as having a "core around online."
I'm sorry, but the more interviews I watch and read with Ballmer the more I think that guy is a complete idiot. I think he truly is the dumbest successful person I've *EVER* seen. He talks with the vocabulary of a high school drop out. "{W}e're one of the highest payers in our industry." Payers?!?! WTF! Moron.
Mushroom, mushroom?
Agreed; IBM's PC architecture was ALSO non-excellent.
Apple's architecture was better. Their software was better. It wasn't even funny how much better. But it was more expensive. And you could only buy it from Apple.
IBM regarded the PC as a toy, a piece of junk with no practical serious application. More a proof of concept than something you'd want to develop and support. They were pretty much right. They opened the spec, so that fools at other companies could build the boxes rather than be forced to build better.... and then gave away an empire in licensed software to Microsoft because they really didn't want to be bothered with it.
And the rest is history.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!