Will Ballmer Be Replaced As Microsoft CEO?

Strudelkugel writes "The Beast reports unhappiness with Steve Ballmer as CEO of Microsoft: Sources say the talk around Microsoft's Redmond, Washington, headquarters — which has grown increasingly loud ever since Apple surpassed Microsoft in market capitalization — is that the company's stock suffers from a 'Ballmer discount,' and that the CEO is on the clock to significantly move the needle on its share price over the next two or three quarters or face a potential move to oust him. 'Ballmer is on the list of mega-executives under pressure,' says a banker who has negotiated deals for Microsoft. 'If he was asked to leave the building, I suspect there would be more happy than unhappy people.'"

Comments

Re:Not Surprising

[postbigbang]

You can still make money by not innovating, and sucking the blood and energy out of a marketplace that you don't own by doing it patiently. It takes Microsoft a half-dozen versions to get close to 'right'.

Then you put your heal on the throats of your OEMs, and banish them from the money kingdom if they don't tote the line. You pour FUD where possible, get sued successfully in many jurisdictions, and don't believe that anything you didn't think up could be any good.

The black-widow effect is famous for decades at Microsoft. Go back to 3Com.... SQL Server, even Windows then MS-DOS itself. There. Now let's see. Was Ballmer there when all of that stuff happened? Yes. Did he help architect the insanity of Windows code? No, that guy retired, and the people that drank the koolaid, like Allchin.

If Ballmer leaves, it's a good thing. Fresh blood, blocks of Microsoft as new business units, somebody taking all that cash and making astute acquisitions that would in a post-tracking stock era, pass the FTC and SEC and maybe even EU smell tests.

It's not like he needs any money..... or reputation.

Re:To be replaced by...?

[whoever57]

Every corporation of a decent size has divisions that do not, and have never, contributed directly to the bottom line.

Absolutely, but those divisions are either failed divisions, or some kind or research division. Xbox is neither. It was intended as a product division, and should have either made a profit (which it probably has not) or, gained a central position for MS in the home (which it has not).

Or would you like to claim that the Xbox has helped sales of Windows and Office? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

The simple fact is that while attempting to refute my argument, you have failed to provide one whit of evidence that the Xbox has helped (directly or indirectly) MS's bottom line. Perhaps the Xbox helped sales of the Kin?