Slashdot Mirror
It's Not a New Ballmer Microsoft Needs; It's a New Gates
theodp writes "Over at GeekWire, Todd Bishop posits that Microsoft doesn't need to replace Steve Ballmer as much as it needs to replace Bill Gates. 'The perennial push to oust Ballmer is back,' Bishop says. 'But as long as we're all going down this path again, there's actually a larger issue to address: Microsoft no longer has an overarching technology leader next to the CEO at the top of the company – someone with a strong engineering background and technical vision, surveying the field and calling the plays. There will never be another Bill Gates. But there should be someone in his former role as chief software architect, if not in title, then at least in effect.' Ray Ozzie was supposed to be The One, but for some reason that never really worked out (Dave Winer warns BigCo politics can crush even the most innovative). Any thoughts on who might 'fill the bill'?"
Ironically, the best thing for Microsoft would be what could have been the result of its anti-trust problems, a company split. It's doing too much, in too many different directions, with too much rigidity. It needs to spin off its divisions and break away from the mother ship. The OS division and the mobile division should be one unit, the business productivity apps another unit, and the gaming division the third unit. Thinking that one CEO can do all that right for all those divisions is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. It's not too big to fail, its too big to succeed.
I8-D
I wonder what would happen to Microsoft's share price if Gates himself stepped back into the role?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
...because Gates was the only one who built the company from the ground up. That kind of experience surely shapes a person
What, exactly, did Gates do for MS as a technology leader?
MS Bob
Ignore the internet
ActiveX
Illegal practices
They HAVE a Bill Gates there. Ballmer is doing what Gates managed to do to them in the past.
I mean, after all, isn't Microsoft pretty much the only company in existence that could afford to hire him at this point? They should just try to do that.
God help us all.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I wouldn't say fill the gap, but if MS happens to fall down I can see Apple buying them out.
He might fit the technical bill at the company but I'm not sure he has the innovative skill. I mean, he wrote Sysinternals and knows Windows in and out--but how well he could translate that technical knowledge into some new and exciting product, who knows.
"...There will never be another Bill Gates
Er, a comment like that...uh, isn't that quite the slap in the face of all the aspiring and probably just as brilliant engineers at Microsoft? I would tend to think so. People probably thought the same thing years ago when the "other" Steve left Apple, and yet they certainly aren't suffering these days.
Some reason? The guy created the Lotus Notes. Compared to that Windows 3.1 should be hanging in The Louvre.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/feb/09/guardianweeklytechnologysection
http://damienkatz.net/2005/02/70-reasons-lotus-notes-sucks.html
They needed a Gates when they were 15, 50, 100, 500 employees and needed someone who could pick one or two things to focus on out of 100s.
They have enough money and employees to do everything (for some definition of everything.) What they need is a visionary leader who can say "do this in Cloud, do that in the OS, do X, Y, and Z in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint."
AFAICT, Ballmer isn't that guy. (And Steve Jobs is doing his thing at Apple.)
What Microsoft needs is someone who understands what an Operating System is and what it is not. A genuine geek who understands that a 40 GB operating system is wasteful and unnecessary and a sign of incompetence and stupidity. Someone who understands that when your software grows to 10 times the size of your competitors (Linux and OSX) something is badly wrong and needs to be fixed. When you don't know the first thing about coding you have no business managing coders. It will all just turn into one giant predictable mess. As we have seen with post-Gates Microsoft.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Apple will fill the gap.
iClippy in a black turtleneck: I see you're trying to maximize a window. I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow that as it's not the "Apple Way"
I nominate Steve Jobs for the position. All shall love him and despair.
Now, that would be an interesting proposition.
As demonstrated by Apple, where the new Steve Jobs is... Steve Jobs. Gates isn't coming back.
At this point Ballmer has too much tenure and is too deeply entrenched; the only way to overrule him is to kick him out of the room. MS needs to rid themselves of Ballmer and replace him with someone that has technical vision. Ray Ozzie should have Ballmer's Job. But that will never happen, because Ray's employee number at MS was more than 200.
I don't think that Apple or Google are the companies to follow.
Apple has a bigger market cap than Microsoft and has just released two wildly successful products in the last 5 years: the iPhone and iPad.
They have also created a new, thriving developer ecosystem, substantially change how folks can get applications, music, movies and share those things with others.
Google, likewise, has a portfolio of innovation mostly related to web technologies but branching into computers and mobile devices.
Microsoft has created...the Kinect. Oh, and updated their Windows operating system. If they don't realize the future is in hardware and getting people connected, they better. And they could start by emulating Apple and Google.
The opposite of progress is congress
Surely you're not implying that Bill Gates formerly held such a distinction. I'd like to hear examples, whether by education or in practice, of this engineering background.
Hey, he just finished completely fucking up FCP with the release of FCPX. Why not let him do for Microsoft like he's done for Apple?
"TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
A tech leader and visionary is needed. I agree. They also need to oust Ballmer...and not replace him. A person talented enough to be a tech leader wouldn't want to work for the kind of company a "Ballmer" makes Microsoft into....where enthusiasm for innovative IT is thwarted by a "windows tax" and a culture of protecting existing technology from yesterday.
.
Any discussion about replacing Gates is premature so long as Ballmer is allowed to continue mismanaging the company.
I bet Jobs would love to appear on a big screen to announce he's bailing MS out like Gates did at Macworld in '97. It'll never happen though, MS is still a powerhouse, a huge unglamorous and un-sexy powerhouse.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I think the dual Consumer / Entreprise personnality can't work: the reliability, compatibility, steadfastness that entreprise clients want is mostly incompatible with the glitter, constant change, and nimbleness to the lastest buzz that consumers want. MS clung to Windows' desktop UI way to long on their smartphones, certainly in the name of synergy... What synergy does a 1% marketshare bring ?
Also, MS seems to lack courage. The recent successes (kinect, xbox...) all were in brand new fields where no feathers were being ruffled, and no entrenched interests threatened. I feel that, for all his chair-throwing, Ballmer never manages to force any change. So while MS is doing mostly OK (OK products, strong lock-in thanks to Sharepoint, Office formats, user skills, and nice dev tools) there hasn't been any "Wow" software / hardware /service, except again for Kinect (which I think is not even their own tech), in a long while.
I'm not sure it's all that much about technical vision per se. Any kind of vision would be good, especially a more customer-centric one: design / ease of use a la Apple, standards compliance and interoperability even at the cost of less lock-in....
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Aren't there enough problems in IT without adding an hereditary gentry to the list ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Hopefully Monkeyseoft will go bust
How Original! At least you didn't write M$
I can't stand all of this Microsoft bashing. Yes, they have done evil things, as has every company I can think of. With all the patent rubbish going on now, some people will still say the evil is still there, but Apple, Google, Samsung... whoever you name is doing the same thing.
Its time to let go of the sins of the past and actually give Microsoft a chance. I agree that they are not helping themselves much at the moment, but Kinect is awesome and Windows 8 looks pretty smart, not to mention how slick office 2010 is. Their downfall will be WP7 and their attempt to fly into the tablet market.
If I was to decide what direction to take Microsoft in, i would suggest that they stick with what they are good at. Desktops & Laptops arent going anywhere soon, so keep pumping out software for these, and build a nice new STABLE innovateve OS and pump a lot into the XBox division, as that is one franchise that will last forever.... Well, atleast until it becomes unrealistiv to have millions of degrees as the number, I mean, can you imagine getting an Xbox 237240?
Don't let the chair hit you in the ass on the way out!
The push to get rid of Steve Ballmer isn't because they need a "new" Steve Ballmer. It was because Steve Ballmer isn't able to fill Bill Gates' shoes and provide the vision Microsoft needs.
It isn't about a "new" Ballmer as much as it is you'll need to remove Ballmer himself to successfully get a new visionary in there. Unless he is totally gone, he'll have too much say in the way things are run and he just doesn't have what it takes.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
This is an ontopic meta comment.
The preceeding part of your post was an on topic meta comment. The part I quoted was an off topic meta meta comment.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Gates personally coded some of the BASIC interpretors on old-school 8 bit micros. Vic 20/ C64 and the like. I learnt to program on these machines, and in many ways I might not have become a developer earning loads, if it was not for cutting my teeth developing on these machines.
However, somewhere between then, and now, Microsoft lost their way. Innovation, gave way to trying to lock people into their platforms and rejecting anything non Microsoft. They have enough money to develop an operating system, that's built on Open standards,and is graphically as appealing as Apples... And, laugh all the way to the bank!
However, they'd rather charge through the nose for a mediocre system, that they know will sell as they've eliminated the competition by bullying PC suppliers to only ship windows, or else.
The reason Apple are doing well, is because they are not Microsoft, and people would rather pay a high premium for their computers, than have to put up with Microsofts offering. Its just very sad, that Microsoft have chosen to be that type of company.
someone with a strong engineering background and technical vision, surveying the field and calling the plays.
The should hire Linux Torvalds!
One thing Bill Gates never ever had is "strong engineering background and technical vision". He is an excellent strategist without even the smallest hint of a conscience.
From the moment he bought QDos from Seattle Technologies and onwards its been a technological disaster with all decisions taken with the aim of crushing competition. The tech has always been behind anything else in priority. Internet Explorer is an excellent example where the desire to kill Netscape lead to its integration into Windows, a decision people thought would only lead to problems at the time, something that still plagues Windows from a security standpoint.
I suggest reading up on third party accounts on what really happened since the Dos trials with Digital and onwards.
HTTP/1.1 400
So what a multinational corporation really needs a psychopathic megalomaniac asshat at the helm. Who would've thunk it?
So if they call, I suppose I could consider an offer.
Perhaps.
Damn, I'll have to move though, won't I? That's never good. And it's awfully rainy up there in MicroTown.
Still, to get to replace that damned paperclip character (or the search dog) with something cute, something toad-ish perhaps ...
Toad-san
The problem when divisions depend on each other like you mention is that innovating becomes very hard to do.
If Microsoft were split in several independent companies they would have to abandon their traditional "embrace and extend" strategy and learn to work together with others in following standards. That would be good for them.
"Embrace and extend" only works when you have an undisputed monopoly, which Microsoft now has only in desktop systems, and nobody knows for how long even that monopoly will last.
I'm not convinced that he'd be the right person at this time, though. He was visionary enough to see that a software company was a good idea; he saw the good idea of other people and either plagiarized or bought them; he was a ruthless businessman who resorted to unethical methods to claw his way up from the bottom, reach the top, and stay at the top. When you think about it, are those the qualities that Microsoft needs today? Post-investigation, Microsoft needs a softer, gentler hand. Ironically, Ballmer is that softer, gentler hand, that makes overtures to the industry, rather than dictating ultimatums to it.
Gates and Jobs are similar in many respects, while Ballmer and Sculley share an equal number of opposing qualities. Gates and Jobs are both dictatorial, with clear visions of what they want, how they want it implemented, and what they're going to do to keep the users locked in and dependent on them. Ballmer and Sculley, however, are less visionary and approach most issues from a traditional business perspective. Remember how Sculley opened up the Mac platform, allowing clones? Jobs would never have done that. Nor would Gates. Ballmer, on the other hand, I think might have. While it didn't work out too well for Apple, at the time, there was potential there for licensing and making the brand more popular. Maybe if Sculley had been more aggressive in his licensing of the Macintosh brand -- going to HP, Compaq, and IBM with enticing offers -- he'd have been on to something, rather than just diluting his own marketshare, by allowing his partners and allies to undercut him. Ballmer and Sculley aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be, but their lack of vision does hurt them. What hurts them even more, however, is their lack of viciousness. Ballmer is unfairly characterized as a psychopath, whereas I think he's probably much more bipolar than anything else. He doesn't have the ruthless, take-no-prisoners attitude that being a high powered CEO demands, and when he's compared to Gates, people often uncharitably use this against him. I hate to defend the guy, because I don't really like him, but he's just not that bad. He's the second coming of Sculley, who was also vilified and detested by analysts, for not being a good enough judge of what to plagiarize and who to destroy. Given a choice, I'll take Sculley and Ballmer over Jobs and Gates. While Jobs and Gates brought their corporations to dizzying heights, Ballmer and Sculley are the better choice for consumers, competitors, and underlings. Jobs is nothing more than a more charismatic version of Gates -- which goes a long way to making him preferable to Gates, in my mind -- but Jobs is still a dictatorial asshole who can't stand competition. Ballmer, as excitable and unvisionary as he may be, is preferable to Gates, unless you're looking for a ruthless asshole with very little empathy. Analysts love that shit. I don't.
Is that they have no taste. They have absolutely no taste, and... I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way... (Steve Jobs, commenting on Microsoft in PBS's Triumph of the Nerds documentary).
Even John Dvorack thinks that MS is brain-dead. He correctly pointed out YEARS AGO (more than a decade) that if Microsoft *really* employs the best and the brightest, as their PR claims, why is their software so backwards? He took an example of using the "copy" function.
When you drag a bunch of icons to copy stuff from one drive to another, it blindly starts the copy, it doesn't check if there's enough space, it doesn't check if there's a file already at the destination with the same name, so, if this copy is going to take hours, you have to monitor it for any pop-up alerts. Because any of these issues will stop the copy dead. It's 2011 guys, why is "copy" still a function like it's 1950? Is this *really* what the best and brightest can achieve?
MS needs a top to bottom overhaul. They are too mired in management, and even brilliant engineers can't rise to the top in such an environment. MS's greatest innovations came from stealing other people's ideas.
These days, people are smart enough to NOT approach Microsoft to give a demo of new technology, so MS has less and less people to steal from, hence their perceived lack of innovation.
If MS wants to innovate, they are better off separating into two companies -- one that serves their corporate interests, making "Enterprise" software, reliable and dull, that gets updated every 7 years, while the other creates glitzy consumer stuff that can crash, but at least it's cutting-edge, and churns out new OS releases yearly.
And while I've got your attention; what's with the crap in the summary? Bill Gates doesn't have an engineering background, he's a college drop-out. He's not even visionary -- every idea he's ever had was stolen from someone else. Don't get me wrong, I admire his tenacity and drive to dominate the software industry, but that's been his ONLY vision - to be bigger than every other company. Well, he did that, until Google came along.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
When so many people at Microsoft all conform to a similar corporate vision and the ones who think outside the box, such as Ozzie, didn't last and are no longer with the company, who could take the reigns without either continuing down the path of Gates/Balmer or conflicting with the vast majority of employees? I'm willing to bet if Microsoft found a guy like Steve Jobs to take the CEO position it would cause so much internal strife that it would hurt the company. There would be too many disagreements and perhaps an employee exodus. How do you think the engineers will feel when nine times out of ten the CEO tells them that their work isn't good enough, that they have to fix X and Y and add Z in for good measure? And it has to be done within the week. That's not the lifestyle these guys are used to. They're used to telling the CEO what's good, not the other way around.
Or, to take an extreme example, if you were to put a guy like Bill Joy in charge he would run the company into the ground by being ethical. Most of Microsoft's money comes from leveraging their dominance with Windows and Office. If someone were to open source them, the company would have to find a new goose to lay golden eggs. They've been searching for that goose for decades, investing billions and hiring some of the brightest minds. Then think of all the lost money from no longer extorting other companies with "patent protection" (look what Oracle is doing with Sun . . .), think of all the government officials that would no longer be bribed, all the lock-in technologies that would be abandoned. It may be good for the market, good for the world in general, but it would be bad for Microsoft. They're so colossal that growth means monopoly. The only reason I no longer consider them a monopoly is because they've been so stagnant for the past decade while many of their rivals have had so much success.
I do think that, in either situation, it could work in the long run. But I also think in either situation it would be extremely damaging in the short term and the board may not put up with it long enough for the company to change for the good. There's a reason people like Ozzie don't last at Microsoft.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Yeah, maybe they'll steal Steve Jobs from Apple. Or might that violate their anti-compeditive behavior restrictions?
Afaik, all the clever youngsters, like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc., are wholly focussed upon the software-as-service mentality that's so hostile to Microsoft's interests.
I'd imagine the best move for stockholders would be de-facto breaking up the company, allowing each business component to go it's own way free from the politics & meddling of other components. Fire the board & Ballmer. Hire someone with an appropriate technical vision for each component.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I did not say that Gates did not code. Obviously he did. I said that he stole other ppl's tech. Gates never had a single original idea. Heck, he coded a version of BASIS, rather than develop a new better languages. He BOUGHT DOS. He bought Xenix, and then had to be made to focus on DOS from his employees (including a guy that I know who has some very interesting comments about the early days of MS; Basically, had gates gotten his way, MS would likely have failed). There was NOTHING from Gates that was innovative that actually helped MS.
OTH, it was gates that pushed MS to have ZERO ethics (which pervades through their company today; also why I will never hire any coder that has been there for more than a year unless I know them personally; I have more than a few friends that have worked for them). It was Gates that pushed to steal tech everywhere. Heck, we all know about Windows development.
Basically, if Gates was back in MS right now, they would be back under DOD inspection. Gates is not capable of a single new innovative idea. He really was worthless on that area.
OTH, what gates is good at, is that he is a MARKETER (hence his wife). Gates has a good eye for recognizing where tech is going. Not initially though. As I said earlier, had he won on many of those early choices, MS would be dead today. But over time, he did. But if Gates was there today, MS would be in worse shape.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wouldn't say fill the gap, but if MS happens to fall down I can see Apple buying them out.
They are both software companies, but that still would be like Apple buying oranges. ;) Their main customer bases are totally different. It's easy for Microsoft to adapt their business first minded OS's to consumers. It would be alot harder for Apple to service MS's business customers, nor do they want to. That's why Microsoft ain't going nowhere.
I'm ready to start any time. I can work an extra hour here and there, and I'll only ask for a few million in "golden parachute" money if and when I drive the company in the ground. Thereby saving the board and the investors hundreds of millions of dollars.
And really could I be any worse than Balmer?
I think not. I could send out teams of legal minions to defeat any upstart enterprise just as easily as he does. Hell I might even innovate something just for fun. Wouldn't that be hoot!
once more into the breach
Microsoft is not thinking in this way because they know Bill Gates. He is not a great technologist. He is not a great programmer. He is an excellent salesman and executive.
This has always been why Microsoft succeeded despite having products in most ways inferior to their competition. Go read the story of Gates and the first BASIC rom.
Microsoft is way past the stage where techies are in control or driving the vision. Yeah, it would benefit Microsoft to have a very smart person in a top position, but current management, who probably have never held technical roles, would never allow that to happen. Rule number one in management is, if you are dumb, make sure everyone around you is dumber.
Saying we need another Gates is like saying America needs Bush back as President. The fact of the matter is the company, and country, were already sinking by the time the torch was handed off to the new guy. Whether or not the new guy is better/worse than the last guy is up to your individual preferences I guess.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Dunno... There was once a time when Apple was a powerhouse, but the Pepsi guy (forgot his name) became CEO and promptly began burning off all the cash on crap projects, crap advertising, etc. Novell once bragged that it had billions in the bank and would do just fine - they bragged on that in 2005, long after most folks stopped bothering with NetWare.
When you consider that the initial investment on XBox was $7-8 billion USD (not counting the lost money on the RROD thing), and it still hasn't hit ROI yet... then multiply that by at least 10 to cover all the various big projects Microsoft likely has churning at any given time? The money would disappear relatively quickly. As Microsoft gets more desperate to catch up in the tablet and mobile fields, expect the money to drain even faster.
Hell, Microsoft blew $8.5bn on *Skype* not too long ago, plus $1 billion (?) on Nokia just to have them become an exclusive MSFT vassal.
Certainly, Microsoft is raking in truckloads of money courtesy of Windows/Office and the like. OTOH, if that ever begins to falter, the R&D cost commitments certainly won't slack their demands any, and will likely ramp up as Microsoft tries to catch up.
Microsoft has a big bank account, but they also have big bills to pay. If Windows 8 turns out like another Vista and W7 like another XP, it'll likely begin killing them.
They certainly won't fall over in a day, but if the public decides to go elsewhere (or the OS becomes such a commodity that it no longer matters), then Microsoft will likely follow the same path Novell did.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Well now you have mentioned Apple, is Tim Cook someone who can bolster innovation in the same way as Steve Jobs or will Apple need to find another visionary? Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs founded their respective companies and had a lot of passion running them. The people replacing them really need to have a feeling for technology and where it might go, as much as good business sense.
I have always seen the rivalry between Apple and Microsoft of that of two brothers. They want to beat each other, but they don't really want the other fail - that just wouldn't be fun. When you know the history of the two founders at the Stanford computer club, then you will appreciate a more human side.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Just being pedantic here, but Apple is more than just a software company, since it is very much a hardware company too. Without their hardware, the software is not worth as much.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
MS is still a powerhouse, a huge unglamorous and un-sexy powerhouse.
Like a sumo wrestler... there is an overzealous crowd who caters to their every need bathing them in rose petals while the majority of the world couldn't care less. When they move they push up against someone instead of working with them. It has to be done on their side of the ring. Ask them to run an agility course and they try to plow through the challenges knocking them all down or they include them in their meal rotation.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
"Ray Ozzie was supposed to be The One, but for some reason that never really worked out "
Gee, I wonder why...
MS hired the most nerd, bland, responsible for the most boring piece of software person ever, AND IT DIDN'T WORK OUT
All that talk Steve Jobs gives, about passion, liberal arts, etc, may seem BS, but it is needed sometimes.
Bill Gates of course is a geek, but he can 'kick ass'.
Ray Ozzie seems the kind of idiot that at first chance would put everybody and all products in a strict 'waterfall process'/'design by committee'.
how long until
While you do see everyday people using iPhones, it's extremely rare to see somebody using an iPad.
That's funny. I never notice iPhones, but just last night someone in my wife's (and my) birthing class was using an iPad 2. Every time I've flown since the iPad was released, at least one person in my line of sight had an iPad. Its has not proven to be a fad, and it certainly hasn't worn off if it is one.
Just to be devils advocate, but just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not being successful. The sales numbers of the iPad are huge, even more so when you compare the competition, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. It may be overhyped, but it has succeeded in creating a market that Microsoft spent years trying to create. Where we go with this is only limited by our imagination and cost.
As to not seeing them, well I see quite a few people around me with them.
My only gripe with tablets, in general, is that they depend too much on someone else's cloud.
Are tablets gadgets? To some people maybe, but they are finding genuine uses, where a normal computer wouldn't have been an ergonomical fit.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Nonetheless, you are not wrong, and thanks for reading.
I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
I can agree with that but the software doesn't just magically appear.
Steve Ballmer is emblematic of the problem with American corporations. He's a business man, not an engineer or a designer; his background is in economics. This means he lacks a fundamental understanding of what his company does. He's never been in the trenches so he doesn't really have an innate understanding of the technology. And these kinds of guys, far too often, lack real passion. That lack of passion means they wont really be able to commit to what may be a good idea because it wont pay off in the short term. They're fixated on the bottom line, which certainly is important, but it's not the most important thing if you truly want a company to thrive.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were so successful because in many ways they were the antithesis of the suit with the business, economics or marketing degree. The funny thing here is that no one would really expect a designer or engineer, regardless of experience, to effectively run a financial company. And yet it's become a convention that you go to the guy with the business degree.
And I think that kind of attitude towards management gives rise to a bloated, and inefficient layer of middle management. There's this whole layer of employee that exists mostly to shield upper management from day to day operations which is ironic because that's the core of their business. And that whole layer of middle management is entirely focused on self-preservation. I've come to feel that middle management positions are like welfare for the upper middle class. Someone with real passion would cut through all that bullshit and would be more directly involved with the business.
"Microsoft has a virtual monopoly."
There's the story in a nutshell. Microsoft doesn't need new CEO's or any other positions filled. Microsoft needed better judges to stomp their asses when they were in court for monopoly abuses. *sigh* That was just one of the minor sins of the Bush administration, though. Their DOJ let Microsoft off the hook way to soon.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Possibly not the best fit... but in some ways, MS needs to do something different.
Actually if Win 8 turns into another Vista it may actually be good for MSFT, and here is why: There is no law saying they can't sell both, just as they did with XP and Vista, and Windows 7 is supported until at LEAST 2020 and that is if they don't pull a couple of extensions like they did with XP.
So here we are with literally hundreds of tons of late P4 XP boxes floating around hell I bet you may even have some in your home or at a relative's place. You know the ones, 2.0GHz-3.6Ghz P4, most with 512Mb of RAM, 40Gb to 160Gb hard drive, typical office box hand me downs. Now XP is gonna finally be EOL and frankly it'll cost more than they are worth to buy RAM and an AGP GPU to upgrade these dinosaurs. So there is no reason why MSFT can't say "Hey want the bling bling touch web 3.0 freaky wow? Buy Win 8. Want a nice normal experience? buy Windows 7" and let the OEMs sell both.
As for your other points? Nobody who is honest is gonna say with a straight face that LO/OO is a suitable replacement in any real capacity with MS Office as it turns .doc into word salad on any but the simplest of formatting, the X360 has the highest sell through of ANY of the current consoles (8 at last check) and is raking in the dough, and of course Windows doesn't have any real competition on the desktop. Sure if you are arty and can afford a 500% markup you can get a MBP, but when even Dell has to host their own repos because otherwise the fucked up driver situation in Linux causes a big fucking mess? Not ready for prime time.
And finally for all the jokes I bet the Skype is gonna go down as one of the smartest business moves made by MSFT, why? One word...integration. Skype gives them an easy way to offer a nice VoIP solution that ties right into AD and can be controlled with GPOs and "just works" no matter what routers are in between. With so many companies having "road warrior" employees this gives them a nice cheap way for their WinPhone (by Nokia naturally) to hook right into the Intranet and have everything all nice and neat. It saves businesses money, makes it easier for admins to manage, what's not to like? I bet it'll sell a LOT of WinPhones to those that used to buy RIM who is all but DOA and whom I'm betting will be either bought by MSFT or Google.
So I'd say the only real weakness they have at MSFT is the CEO is a raving fanboi of black turtlenecks and artsy fartsy design. I can just hear his motivational speeches "Today with the new WinPhone we'll finally be as cool and hip as Apple! We really will! Yes we will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!" and is why I say the Borg icon needs to go. Instead we need an icon of Ballmer in an "I Heart Apple" beanie with his tongue sticking out. Perfect image for a perfectly shitty CEO. Every single success in that company has been DESPITE him, not because of him.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Actually Gates was a coder, and pulled some cool tricks to get dos to fit and work from a floppy (wish I had a link).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
and his name is Mark Zuckerberg.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Have you seen the screens for "Lion"? Maximizing the window to create full-screen applications will be the "Apple Way" soon enough.
I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
Gates has NOT been innovative as many have said. All he has done is constantly cheat at everything. The man has developed little to nothing. Now, you and others claim that he is. Yet, he has done a number of start-ups and all fail. WHy? Because they were missing MS's magic formula: CHEAT. Gates has no vision. Never has. Take the large example of creating a new competing network. Once he realized that he could not cheat with it and would lose to the net, then he moved to trying to control the internet. How about his venture to do networking over satellites? Could not cheat with that, and he lost. His dominance in Office? That was caused by packaging it with his OS and giving it away for free. Lotus and WP lost out because they put their BEST STUFF on MS and they were east to gut. How about Borland? MS defeated them by cheating again( changing libraries underneath them, while giving away quick*). All in all, MS got ahead because Gates does not have a single scruple.
OTH, Allen has actually created multiple industries. For example, it was Paul Allen with Charter that pushed internet over cable. The cable industry had ZERO interest in doing this. Likewise, Paul Allen is largely responsible for the current private space developments going on. He funded Scaled's SS1. He also built several companies that are creating space systems. Then you have Elon Musk: Paypal. Solar City. Tesla. SpaceX.
These 2 have shown themselves to be the types of leaders that you want in companies. Gates? Nope. Absolutely Worthless except for his money, his contacts, and his falsely earned reputation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Coding a version of basic doesn't really make one a developer or an engineer. Just about any CS grad can do that.
It's not like they couldn't compete that way: Microsoft Research hire a lot of very smart people. It's just that currently, the Windows and Office code base is a huge pile of shite that the smart people don't want to waste their life cleaning up, whereas present management seem to view it as a valuable asset rather than the giant sunk cost it really is.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
That's it.
It's been proven that marriage kills off inspiration and productivity in scientists (Google on that , Satoshi Kanazawa was the author of one such study finding that). Bill got rich, a golddigger latched onto him, and the decline of Microsoft became inevitable. It's a familiar pattern.
As long as OpenOffice/LibreOffice isn't the business standard, Microsoft has nothing to worry about and can graciously spew projects that generate losses. The cash cow will pay for all.
And they like to create big projects that can create (some) loss but hog a huge market, just to keep that sectors of market occupied to prevent competitors from rising to power and becoming dangerous through these sectors. They do a lot of things that create losses, but -not- doing them would create greater losses in the long run as someone could grab the cake and obtain resources to damage their monopolist position.
Both PS3 and Wii would be far, far more profitable if XBox360 did not exist. And so, possibly next Sony and Nintendo consoles would be truly awesome, with all that extra revenue. And then Microsoft would lose a part of Windows market with people going for Nintendo+Apple instead of gaming PC. And then lose Office sales. And some of the business market, because people enjoying Apple would replace some of the work computers with Apple. And as they get Apple, they don't want Windows smartphone, they'll pick iPhone instead. With loss of popularity of mobile Windows platform, Microsoft loses some mobile apps developers. So the new "pad" with built-in TV will get less apps and become less successful. And so people will not view so many ads on MSNBC TV and pick a different platform than MSN for their stocks operations...
So it's better to spend $1bln extra on XBox and stop Sony and Nintendo from grabbing huge profits, than allow them and suffer the consequences.
Why do you think Google keeps Youtube? It never got anywhere close to becoming profitable...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
BallmerGATE! Show Ballmer the gate.
You mean new gates at the entrance to keep people like Ballmer out?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The key to Microsoft's success had nothing to do with any of the people there, aside from their willingness to do anything in the name of profit. What made MS the powerhouse it used to be was MS Office, and the stranglehold it had over businesses. At one time, the inability to create or use Word or Excel documents was a huge detriment to any company who dared defy convention. This gave MS the monopoly power they abused to crush competition and force people to buy their products. Now, after numerous antitrust suits and technological advances, MS no longer has that advantage. There are too many other options, from competing office suites and compatibility tools to online competition, MS just can't strangle the competition anymore. They're still a huge company with a lot of power and influence, but they have to actually try to compete, and that's never been their strong suit. The decline is inevitable.
Gates didn't impress me as a visionary, just a guy who knew a half-decent idea when it was presented to him and how to hook it into the momentum and fear of change that the company built by being the first real mass-market player.
Ballmer is an ape, physically and mentally; he worked as Gates' evil alter-ego, but seems better suited as consigliere than capo.
They need someone like Jobs, who can tell that you're just going to orgasm over the next product he picks from the development bin, and they need whoever's standing behind Jobs doing Apple's production since the Sculley days, because it's actually better than Microsoft's. Really, the only reason Apple OSen haven't completely shoved Windows out of the way is the fear of change thing, both at the consumer and enterprise level. If Apple overcomes that, Microsoft is through.
Paul Allen was the technical brains behind Microsoft. The OP commentary on Gates abusing the system until it became illegal is well known. He is not a visionary. He is a business man.
iFixed that for you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Indeed. Soon they will drop support for non-fullscreen windows. I mean, seriously, who uses that? Only Windows users who are stuck in their inferior ways, that's who.
(+1, Disagree)
Not for established companies in mature industries.
Sure, there's a subjective component. But a company with billions in assets and hundreds of millions in profits isn't going to have a market cap in the chump change zone.
Of course, back in the 90s all that went out of the window.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Lou Gertzner took IBM in the early to mid-90s and turned it around. What MS needs is someone like him. Someone who can take a tired and old company and completely revamp it and its culture. Neither Gates nor Ballmer should be involved in MS these days, IMO.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'll take on the job.