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:the Balminator

[ZeroExistenZ]

What's he going to do when they come to fire him ? Throw an entire office set ?

He'll cash in his layoff-bonus he surely has somewhere on contract, and start up something of his own.

Microsoft will flourish again with all the young idealistic minds working hard and get slowly more solid and standard-comliant, but wont get so much back into the front-game.

Balminator, on the other hand, will be very loud with his "next new best thing" and go after Apple's marketshare. Ultimately, he'll end up as a lonely old but relatively rich man and being moderatly successful in the furtniture durability testing-industry.

To be replaced by...?

[Just Some Guy]

I'm hardly a Ballmer fan, but what could he have done substantially differently? In my opinion, he inherited a pig with no obvious roadmap to future gains. He managed over the Kin debacle, sure, but he also managed the Xbox and that worked out pretty well.

I've read a thousand perfectly valid criticisms of Microsoft over the years, but I'm not sure that many of them can be traced back to Ballmer. For example, what changes could he have made to the Windows or Office lines to gain new growth instead of settling for trying to get current users to upgrade?

If anything, I think investors are expecting too much of Microsoft. Yes, it's somewhat stagnant. Of course it is! It already has something like 90% of the slow-growing PC market and roughly 100% of the "non-gratis office suite that runs on Windows" market. There's just not any growth left in MS's core competencies, and at least they're trying new stuff, even if the results are pretty embarrassing most of the time.

Re:To be replaced by...?

[Zelgadiss]

The problem with the guy is he has practically no vision.

Most of what MS has been doing, ever since he took over, is playing catch up with Google and Apple.

For their investors, it's not enough that they try new stuff, the new stuff has to "work".

Re:To be replaced by...?

[FreonTrip]

A quick visit to Mini-Microsoft yields a lot of insight, especially in the comments thread. The management system's apparently poisonous and horrifically bloated, leading to lots of in-fighting and internecine political battles between rival divisions within the same company. Most employees also languish under a tiered review system that is overtly strict in its implementation and prone to misuse by the aforementioned management. I'm inclined to believe that a lot of promising developments are being sacrificed at the altar of upward career mobility for a largely administrative segment of the company, and that everyone else basically suffers and watches the rest of the world pull ahead.

Re:To be replaced by...?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm hardly a Ballmer fan, but what could he have done substantially differently?

The three most obvious, from a commercial point of view, are probably (a) avoiding the whole Vista fiasco, (b) handling the release of the new Office UI better, and (c) not running so many loss-making divisions in the name of diversification.

Microsoft are in the business of making operating systems and office software, two products that almost everyone with a computer uses at some point. There is plenty that could be done to help people using these products to work more efficiently or enjoyably. That could legitimately drive both paid upgrades and, potentially, sales of back-end software and on-line services that support collaboration using those client-side tools.

But Microsoft aren't doing those things. They've had a catastrophic release for each of their main products, and in doing so, they have managed to kill the automatic upgrade cycle that has been their cash cow for a decade or more, with corporate IT types now seriously questioning why they should pay the Microsoft Tax and possibly upgrade their hardware as well every time a new release of Windows or Office comes along.

Not innovating merely requires laziness, but not innovating and killing a tried and tested business model that all but runs itself and has been successful for years? That requires serious talent at executive level, and the buck stops with the CEO.

Re:To be replaced by...?

[TheRealFixer]

Really, though, the same could be said of any company that size and age. Very large companies nearly always, over time, develop into unwieldy mega-bureaucracies, comprised of individual fiefdoms solely concerned about their own headcount and perceived influence. They become microcosms of nations. They have well-defined class structures, their own culture, sometimes even their own currency internally.

Replacing Ballmer isn't going to change any of that. A new CEO might excite the board and top investors a little, perhaps shuffle some HR/management policies around a little. But in the end, the same issues that are inherent in being a company of that size are still going to be there.

Re:To be replaced by...?

[Locutus]

Ballmer must have read "The Innovators Dilemma" and has, as Bill Gates has before him, threatened and eliminated every threat to their income channel( Windows desktop and server ). They have always spent over a billion dollars per year on projects and marketing specifically targeting new products others have created and they've been successful protecting Windows. They have really never put much effort at all into making products better for customers for the customers sake, it has always been about limiting choice and preventing movement to other products.

They did Pen for Windows to block Go Inc from doing tablet computers in the late '80s and early '90s. They did Internet Explorer and Windows 95 to block IBM Web Explorer and OS/2 initially and then Netscape. Windows NT went from a failed desktop OS to a "Workstation OS" to a server OS to block OS/2 Server. Windows CE to block PalmOS, Xbox to block PS2/PS3, MS .Net to block Java, Silverlight to block Flash. All these things they blocked or limited their growth were already out there, ran on Windows and because they were not tied only to Windows presented a chance of a loss of control and therefore a loss of the Windows monopoly and income stream.

Microsoft has hardly ever had to innovate, they just leveraged the control they had and made something good enough to sell so people thought they were getting something new and improved.

IMO, the iPhone, iPod, and iPad all represent a threat to Microsoft not because they can take away Windows desktop sales but because they show Windows users that a different way to do something can be easy, can work better, and can be fun and enjoyable. Android and ChromeOS are what is keeping Ballmer up at night because they are being targeted across many hardware manufacturers devices and that kind of flood would quickly spread into Windows customers minds of a none Microsoft choice for doing lots of stuff outside of Windows. But, also with very little effort those same systems can do almost all of what Windows does.

Danger, Danger, Will Robinson! Steve Ballmer will be pissing off many because he _must_ spend spend spend to block Android, ChromeOS, and limit Apple iOS growth. So if they give him 3 quarters then he's out in 3 quarters and by then, if he fails to block Android and ChromeOS, Microsoft will be over the edge and headed down a steep slope of losses anyways so he'd welcome to chance to cash out. IMO

LoB

Re:To be replaced by...?

[thesandtiger]

I'll add a biggie:

Recognizing that the marketplace is changing and that while Windows is dominant NOW, things are rapidly moving towards an OS agnostic world that uses open standards.

The people who, 20 years ago, were terrified of trying anything new are generally filtering out of the workplace and have been (and continue to be) replaced with people who grew up with computers as everyday things and aren't afraid to try something different. I can only imagine that as younger people who grew up with computers being completely ubiquitous, and with the stuff they use built on open standards, this will only accelerate.

Fear of change and a fundamental lack of understanding of tech were their bread and butter, but that is going to end, and soon, and they've done nothing to position themselves for the sea change that will be coming. They've been so intent on holding on their old (and, it must be said, profitable) way of doing business that when things do change they'll have to move faster than they ever have to adapt.

The marketplace has changed, too. It used to be that companies would try to compete with MSFT and get wiped out (bought or just crushed); now there are companies that exist solely to help their customers migrate away from MSFT products, or that develop tech that allow people to host their legacy apps on non-MSFT platforms.

Ballmer has been a caretaker CEO at best. MSFT is in a worse position, now, than they were when he took over, relative to the rest of the market. They've got massive resources and a really huge influence, but they're going to need to reinvent themselves in the same kind of way IBM did if they want to continue to be relevant.

Will he be replaced? No.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Stock is a LOUSY indication of a CEO's performance. Even the article itself makes this clear, earnings went up together with profits, yet stock price went down.

The stock market is about emotion and it seems to be run by 12yr old boys. "OMG the MS did notzers hve 9 trillion winnezers, SELLORS!" This is after all the stock market that gave billions in value to web companies that gave things away for free and refused to buy stocks in decades old companies with reliable safe markets.

Ballmer, as much as I despise the guy, is the CEO MS has to have. Yes, MS COULD try to be an Apple, but it can't. No Zune team, the problem ain't Ballmer, the problem is YOU! The MS staff, those 100.000 people who couldn't come up with an original thought if it bid them on the ass because you are to busy watching the stock market.

Just as a dog reflects its owner, a CEO reflects his company. MS is the boring spreadsheet maker. It can't do an iPod or indeed a PS3. Little Big Planet could NEVER have been a MS project. Simply doesn't fit. Why do you think MS bought up so many game companies and then sold them again? They try to buy the color they lack only to find everything turning gray in their hands. They got the midas touch, expect that everything turns to lead. And lead sells very well indeed. But it ain't sexy.

MS can't ever be sexy, it is not its role in life. IBM isn't sexy either and it does very well because of it. If you want sexy, you go to Sun... and yes that Sun has been bought up says a LOT about how well sexy works. If you want a boring reliable server, you go IBM.

And if you want to outfit 10000 workplaces with an OS/productivity solution, you go MS.

The Zune and Windows Mobile are side excercises, they may someday result in a profit on their own but the cash cows remain Windows and Office and nothing has changed under Ballmers leadership. It is just that in the stock market, improving your earnings and profits results in a lower stock price because you didn't give all your money away and hope to make it up in bulk.

Apple vs. Microsoft No Longer Relevant

[Slash.Poop]

One has a primary focus of SOFTWARE and secondary focus on GADGETS
One has a primary focus of GADGETS and secondary focus on SOFTWARE

...in favor of someone better suited...

[starglider29a]

Tony Hayward is available!

He's got the "right stuff".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-26/leadership-tips-from-tony-hayward-or-not-.html

• Deny and minimize problems
• Emphasize your own power and importance.
• Make the story all about you
• Never apologize, and don't even pretend to learn from your mistakes.
• Hang onto your job even when it's clear you should go

And experience in negatively impacting an entire ecosystem. Perfect! (Also perfect that this article posted 14 minutes before the Slashdot article. ;-)

Are you serious?

[bravecanadian]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Despite what everyone on slashdot and idiot day traders say:

MSFT Revenue 2002: $28B Profit: $5B

MSFT Revenue 2010: $62B Profit: $18.7B

Yeah.. he's doing a horrible job. And obviously Microsoft can't do anything right and is only declining.

Seriously, how can anyone even begin to say that?

Re:Fair point: he's been a big fat howling failure

[bravecanadian]

Zune and Kin were a laughing stock, they're having to give away Windows ME (or whatever they're calling it these days) phones, they're paying people to use Bing, IE is losing market share, XBox has finally broken even just in time to start sinking more money into developing the next version. Hotmail is a has been, Silverlight is a wannabe, and C# / .NET is just about tying developers into Windows, not about attracting anyone who's currently using Java anywhere else.

I really can't think of any new revenue sources that have come along in the Ballmer era. If all he's doing is treading water, then they might as well pay peanuts to a chimp - it'll shriek and gibber and fling chairs just as well as Uncle Fester.

Zune and Kin were warmups for their new mobile launchs.

Xbox has finally broken even and has gone from nothing to the best console for revenue. And because of all those Xbox live subscription now they just need to sit back and keep doing what they are doing and make a pile of money off it. As far as the new generation of console.. Nintendo and Sony have to sink the same sort of resources into new ones as well so I'm not sure how that figures as a disadvantage to Microsoft.

If there have been no new revenue sources during Ballmers era then how do you explain Microsoft's revenue doubling in the last 8 years? I can tell you one product that has developed into a billion dollar business off the top of my head: Sharepoint.

I know everyone here is anti Microsoft but the fact is they are still a very viable company and they have the resources to get things wrong 5 times until they get the formula right and then they just keep going.

Re:Not Surprising

[MBGMorden]

You have to remember though that the original Xbox was essentially not expected to turn a profit. Their goal was to use it as entry into the home console market. If you consider that as an end goal (rather than profits), then it was successful. It got Microsoft into a VERY difficult market. Look at all the companies that failed in that area, some with MUCH more experience in that domain: Sega, Atari, NeoGeo, NEC (TurboGrafx).

Microsoft broke into the market and has turned their unit profitable. As laughable as most people considered their first product, in North America Xbox360 is the de-facto standard console for traditional gamers (Wii is more profitable overall, but it targets a different market).

There's essentially no question that Xbox has been trending upwards the whole time. If they continue, then they'll make their money back overall.

Essentially, Xbox was loosing money at first, but is now profitable and trending up. Compare to Microsoft's other businesses: still profitable, but trending downwards, and it's easy to see which will work out better in the long run.

Re:the Balminator

[MemoryDragon]

Sorry to say that but Microsoft wont change too much, it is almost in the stage of an engineering driven corporation.

First stage: Founders and young engineers develop products

Second stage: Founders and young engineers drive the company to a corporate status and have a good sense of what has to come, corporation becomes successful (Google is there currently) and dominating

Third stage: MBAs and sales guys take over more and more, engineers are leaving en masses as soon as possible or give up internally to develop something amazing, company is still thriving with new products from the back catalog and the left talented engineering force which becomes smaller and smaller and is replaced by mediocre people

Fourth stage: Company is entirely MBA driven, engineers are seen as commodity and work is more and more outsourced, product development is miserable and often behind the competition, the company becomes more and more like a bank (Microsoft today), depending on the business and assets built up in the initial stages this state can last for decades.

Fifth stage: Company either folds or becomes slowly a bank with some other assets which are dropped if they are not profitable enough (Siemens and others which are on their way out of engineering)

Re:Ballmer Out, Dark Knight Radick in!

[MemoryDragon]

The problem is not Ballmer, the problem is generally the way they do business. Microsoft never was about invention it was about copying or buying the competition. This worked until the late 90s when most people were not exposed to the better competition. The game has changed now, and Microsofts problem still is the lack of innovation they still copy apple like they did the last 30 years but people know the original nowadays.
Add to that that Bill Gates despite his constant mispredictions had a good feeling where technology was heading or at least recognizing it before it was too late while Ballmer as the sales guy never had it, but also the upper and mid management does not seem to be in touch with that sense (probably an MBA thunking layer they built on top of engineering)

Microsoft simply has become what Bill Gates despised in the early 80s, the next IBM. Boring but there, earning lots of money, but not really that interesting anymore.

Its not Ballmer, its everybody else at Microsoft..

[LibertineR]

Microsoft is not the same company it was 18 years ago, when I started there.

Back then, if your code was shit, you heard about it. Not just from your lead, but from everyone up the chain. You got one, maybe two fuckups before you went on plan. If you were one to glance at the clock and be out the door at 5pm, you were not long for the company.

Back then, if you performed, you had a chance of becoming wealthy. Today? Well, good luck bitches.

When the options were flying, you didn't mind getting your ass chewed on a semi-regular basis, and you didn't mind living in your office for weeks on end, if it meant your project shipped on time. The stuff I heard back then, directed at me, at women, at minorities, or whoever the fuck you were, would welcome lawsuits today. Back then, nobody cared, we were shipping, and buying homes for cash.

What's the stock done for a decade? Nothing. A decent wage, and even great benefits are not enough to get smart people to work like slaves; ruin marriages, with some threatening suicide in the parking lots. For that, you need the promise of wealth.

And that time is OVER in Redmond. Some will still do well, but there is never going to be that sense that one day, you and the guy across the hall are going to be drag-racing your new Porsche's on the 520, if we can just get this fucking product out the door.

My first day in Redmond as an employee, I parked my Camry next to Bob McDowell's yellow Ferrari, and said to myself, "that's me one day, if I work my ass off, fuck having a life for now".

That day is long gone, and it aint coming back to Redmond.

Ballmer was the perfect guy to motivate back then, even though he was more focused on sales at the time. Today, he cant even say what he wants to say in public. He has to call Steve Jobs a visionary, rather than the spear up his ass, he really feels he is.

If anyone back then had told Ballmer that one day Apple would be worth more than Microsoft, he would have probably strongly suggested that you go work there, and get the fuck off the campus.

Ballmer is the right guy, its just the wrong day. Different people, different motivations, different skills, and thinner skins.