Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maybe Steve Ballmer Doesn't Deserve the Hate

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the easy-to-criticize-a-caricature dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Who could forget Steve Ballmer's defining moment, that infamous 'Developers! Developers! Developers!' rant that became a YouTube hit? Or the reports of frighteningly accurate chair-throwing? Who could miss the tech media and investors blaming him for everything from Microsoft's largely stagnant stock price over the past decade to its inability to get in front of trends such as mobile devices? But tech columnist (and Kernel editor-in-chief) Milo Yiannopoulos talked to a bunch of Ballmer's friends and colleagues, picked through Microsoft's history, and came away with the argument that the man deserves a second look as an effective leader. 'He stands accused of running one of the greatest companies in American history into the ground, even as its stock price remains remarkably resilient and the company continues to turn a healthy profit,' he writes. 'The mature verdict on Steve Ballmer is that he has made only one major strategic error: not combining his own brilliance for sales and detail with a visionary product leader who has the authority to create bold new revenue streams for the company.' Do you agree? Or does Ballmer deserve his reputation as a bad CEO?"

5 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. The company you keep by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tend to judge leaders by those they choose to surround themselves with. Delegating is one of the most important tasks any leader or executive has, and choosing to whom you will be doing so is the most vital decision they can make.

    Therefore, I refuse to judge Ballmer as a leader, since I haven't really examined who he keeps company with. However, I still generally dislike Microsoft's products and strategies.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  2. What? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . 'The mature verdict on Steve Ballmer is that he has made only one major strategic error: not combining his own brilliance for sales and detail with a visionary product leader who has the authority to create bold new revenue streams for the company.'

    I don't know a thing about Ballmer - I don't follow corporate politics. But if you dig through all the marketing-speak there, didn't that just say "Ballmer's one major error as a CEO was not doing that thing that CEOs should be doing"?

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  3. On his watch by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It all happened on his watch. The buck has to stop somewhere--at the top. That's how it works. If some VP was causing problems, it was his responsibility to get rid of that VP. If it was a particularly bad market for tech, that's not his fault; but it wasn't a particularly bad market. Other companies innovated and grew. They didn't. The whole strategy became, "let's make lame Apple clones that will piss off people who prefer the traditional Windows way, and won't convert people who prefer the Apple way".

    I just don't see how the man at the top can escape responsibility for all that.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  4. Biased, much? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I expect some MS fanboi will mod me down for this, but:

    We should begin in Silicon Valley, which resents Microsoftâ(TM)s chief executive at least in part because he has helped grow what the Internet industry has so rarely managed in all its decades of boom and bust: a stable, profitable company, built on a solid grasp of numbers and proven sales techniques, with wildly successful products that people actually pay for. Contrast that with social networking companies such as Twitter and Facebookâ"and of course Google, with its rapey contextual advertisingâ"all of which throw their users âoefreeâ toys but violate them with privacy-invading ad sales and user-data scandals. Microsoft can seem positively virtuous by comparison.

    This is pure Microsoft talking points.

    Given the most recent revelations about Microsoft, the author should be reconsidering that claim to Microsoft's virtue.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  5. Microsoft could have been more by BLToday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So many times in the last 15 years, you could tell that Microsoft was really really close to getting it right. Just a few more revisions and they would have done it.

    * Smartphones: really an outgrowth of PDAs. WinCE (version 3 and later) bested Palm OS. Palm was crushed and what did Microsoft do? Sit there for 5 years with minimal investment in WinCE. WinMo 2003 was barely an upgrade to the previous version. I had the Jornado, HP iPaq, and the HP hw6515 (I think) smartphone. It even had GPS well before the iPhone.

    * Tablets: Bill Gates was right, we all will have a tablet in the future. It's just not running Windows. I bought the HP TX tablet/convertible. And you can tell that even with Vista, it was potentially a great device. Handwriting recognition, touch support, pressure sensitivity and decent weight. But terrible bloat in the initial Vista release made the tablet boot up in about 2 minutes on a good day and put out heat like a nuclear reactor.

    * GPS/media players: Remember all those Magellan and Garmin GPS units, and portable media players from China? They were likely running WinCE.

    * Email: Hotmail was there early on and they sat there while Google took over. I remember the 4MB account limit.