Slashdot Mirror
Does Ballmer Need To Go?
Pickens notes a TechCrunch analysis wondering — after Windows Vista and the failed Yahoo bid — whether Steve Ballmer's days at Microsoft are numbered. "Ballmer has been the big driver behind [the Yahoo] deal at Microsoft — some would say to the point of obsession. After the disaster that has been Windows Vista, Ballmer may have realized he needed to redeem himself in the eyes of Microsoft's board. And the 'transformative' deal with Yahoo was the way he was going to do it... If Microsoft's board loses patience with him, it might have to ask Bill Gates to temporarily come back as CEO until it finds a replacement. After all, Ballmer has already made a strong and convincing case for why Microsoft needs Yahoo to make its online and advertising strategy work. It's not clear whether Microsoft can achieve its objectives on its own or through other acquisitions. Maybe Ballmer thinks he can still do the deal by making Yahoo's stock price collapse and come back with a hostile offer."
Ballmer took over in 2000. Here is Microsoft's stock performance since 2000:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Ballmer is responsible for:
* The 7+ billion dollar Xbox fiasco
* The Zune marketplace flop
* The PR disaster that Vista has become
* Mass exodus of Microsoft employees to Google and other exciting and growing companies
* A total failure to get anywhere with Search and Advertising
Ballmer has been a complete failure in every single effort by Microsoft to create viable products outside of their core OS/office software/server software products.
I doubt it, but you never know how Wall Street will react. I've become more convinced lately that individuals like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and that guy who built Sony, are critical for stellar growth in high-tech companies. After David Packard left, HP floundered for years. I suppose Gates could revive Microsoft, much like David revived HP for a time, and Jobs has revived Apple.
However, it seems to me that the writing is on the wall: cheaper computer hardware means cheaper software. $200 PCs are a bad sign for Microsoft. Android built on Linux for cell phones is a bad sign for Windows Mobile. Losses in Xbox and other non-core divisions don't help, and defocus Microsoft from it's primary mission: Windows. I'm a big fan of Intel's Atom processor, and I suspect Intel can make the transition to cheaper computing, although with lower revenue. Microsoft... I'm not so sure.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
> He and Gates surely control enough stock to do as they please.
Not true: Check the holdings:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
% Held by Insiders1: 13.42%
% Held by Institutions1:62.70%
If the institutions (banks, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc) want Steve out the door, he's gone.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Steve Jobs had a lot more than 10% when he was dismissed from Apple.
Who do you think the biggest shareholders of microsoft are?
Banks, pensions and mutual funds, why?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Sorry, but he is correct. Here are the Google Analytics stats from a top 200 U.S.-based general interest website from yesterday (May 5):
Operating System contribution to total:
1. Windows 91.86%
2. Macintosh 7.12%
3. Linux 0.69%
4. iPhone 0.13%
Versions of Windows:
1. XP 80.44%
2. Vista 14.65%
3. 2000 3.31%
4. Server 2003 0.80%
5. 98 0.68%
Ballmer took over in 2000. Here is Microsoft's stock performance since 2000:
I'd like to see that chart adjusted for inflation. Bet it tells an even more interesting tale.
Microsoft's corporate execution wasn't great before Ballmer got there, but since he took the reigns it's been positively dismal. There aren't many people who can run a multi-billion dollar software company into the ground, but he's managed it. Everything he touches turns to absolute crap.
Ballmer has been a complete failure in every single effort by Microsoft to create viable products outside of their core OS/office software/server software products.
I'd argue that he's turned Office into an expensive piece of bloatware. And Windows should have been replaced after XP with a more flexible and slimmer OS product.
Microsoft execution has been horrible and that includes their core profit centers. Instead of putting their efforts into producing the best software products available in the market (not the same as the most ubiquitous), Ballmer put his efforts into flying around trying to strong arm big cities and companies not to jump ship for Linux and OpenOffice.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage