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.
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.
God help us all.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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
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.
Steve Wozniak running Microsoft would certainly be a sight to see. This is the new Windows tablet. It has USB and I soldered the connectors on myself"
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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
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.
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.
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
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
"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