Slashdot Mirror
Elop Favored By Gamblers As Microsoft's Next Chief Executive
PolygamousRanchKid writes "A gambling website's favorite as Microsoft Corp.'s next chief executive officer is Stephen Elop, the Nokia CEO who has presided over a 62 percent decline in market value. Elop, a former Microsoft executive, has 5-to-1 odds to be hired as Steve Ballmer's replacement, according to Ladbrokes, the U.K.-based gambling operator. He leads a pool including internal candidates Kevin Turner and Julie Larson-Green and outsiders like Apple CEO Tim Cook — a 100-to-1 dark horse."
Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. It's close enough to Elon Musk that they can cash in on some of the buzz around 'hyperloop' and "isn't he the Tesla guy?" and "doesn't he build rockets?" to make them sound new and edgy and relevant.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
He is like Mr 4%, honestly, Steve is a huge improvement on him!
An expert in tanking companies at the helm of Microsoft? I can't wait.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If they tried to hire him but he couldn't get a H1B1 visa?
Reading is hard. It does say "100-to-1 dark horse" in TFS.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Maybe he'd like a challenge? Maybe he's tired of everyone comparing him to Jobs and knows that being compared to Ballmer couldn't possibly be worse. Or maybe there's a reason why there are 100:1 odds against him...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
He is like Mr 4%, honestly, Steve is a huge improvement on him!
Windows Phone may never hit 4%, and they are both called Steve.
which are laughably high odds. More like a million to one. Seriously, under what circumstances could you imagine Tim Cook, CEO of possibly the worlds most profitable and well loved company accepting a job offer to be CEO of a smaller, shittier company that everyone hates and represents everything that Apple hates about technology? Maybe if he was fired from Apple in the next year for doing something horrible but Microsoft was still desperate enough to want to hire him.
I put my money on that one just to screw with people's heads.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
I can picture it now...
Elop gets in. He sits down, and writes a memo about how the company is sitting on a burning platform and needs to change or die. He'll then adopt a bold strategy of switching the entire company over to... what? QNX maybe?
Considering his track record, I find it hard to believe anybody thinks this is a good idea.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Apple has lost half it's value since Tim Cook took over, it's since regained some now that the sharks (Icahn) are circling the pool waiting to see if they can profit off the decline. It's also seen two quarters with a decline in profits under him also.
In this respect he's actually damaged Apple far quicker and far more severely than Ballmer managed to damage Microsoft when he took over.
But despite this I'd argue Cook would actually be better suited to Microsoft. Apple sells cutting edge innovative products and Cook just isn't an innovator or a visionary which is why Apple has been beginning to suffer. Microsoft tends not to innovate so much and focuses on optimisation of profits in it's existing markets which is what Cook is actually good at - he did in Apple as the supply chain guy finding the cheapest suppliers etc. but has struggled as CEO.
Cook was never going to be able to follow in Jobs' footsteps but the way he's going he's at risk of taking Ballmer's crown as worst CEO if he hangs around in the role for 10 years like Ballmer. If he jumped to Microsoft he could probably do a bit better than Ballmer. I doubt it'll happen, there's too much money for him at Apple, but if reputation is what he cares about then he'd probably actually be better off leaving Apple and going to Microsoft.
Or to put it another way, Cook is Apple's Ballmer, but Apple's Ballmer is still at least likely able to do better than Microsoft's Ballmer at being Ballmer.
I don't think you understand how gambling works, but knowing this, I'll happily offer you your requested million to one odds with a minimum bet of $1000. Good luck!
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Kevin Turner, Lisa Brummel, and Amy Hood are all despised within Microsoft... they are Ballmer yes-people and Lisa Brummel is directly responsible for destroying any shred of productive culture there. They all need to go.
The employees want Satya Nadella or maybe Tony Bates... although many say it has to come from the outside... Sinofsky ;-)
http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2013/08/steve-ballmer-is-going-to-frickin.html
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Maybe Nokia was always supposed to be Elop's training company? You know, a company he can try stuff at and drive it into the ground before he gets his hands on the real thing? Maybe he was even supposed to run it into the ground the ground, kind of like Brewster's Millions but with a company?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Ballmer left the company in shambles in terms of their standing and momentum in the industry. Whoever takes over is going to have to be very aggressive and will probably run head long into antitrust issues if they are too serious about rebuilding Microsoft's standing and momentum. What Microsoft needs at this point:
1. Release Windows 8.2 with the start menu fully restored, Metro apps able to run on the desktop mode and Metro only a primary UI option on touch screen PCs unless the user configures otherwise (either way should still be an option).
2. Release Windows RT 2 tablet in $200 and $300 32gb and 64gb options with full Microsoft Office. Microsoft needs to just flood the market with low cost, Kindle-like Windows tablets that'll run any traditional Windows app recompiled for ARM (another restriction that needs to go from Windows 8).
3. Attack the living room not just with the XBox One, but alternatives to protocols like AirPlay that are open, documented and patent-free for other vendors to implement. Microsoft can isolate Apple even more by returning to its roots of being of one of the most open big vendors in the industry.
Here is hoping the next CEO hires the Jolla and Neo900(N900 based GTA04 mod OpenMoko upgrade system board) team and they get back to making amazing hardware with a great OS.
Then I wake up...
This is about replacing the Microsoft CEO not Nokia CEO. As much as we talk about smartphones here Elops most criminal cut was Meltemi a featurephone OS aimed at low hardware.
Nonsense. Apple did NOT lost half its value under Cook. The peak share price of 702 bucks was archived under Cook himself. Effectively the market value is MUCH higher than under Jobs. Just take a look at the AAPL stockprice of the last 5years.
This could bring them back from the grave, specially if whoever replaces him on nokia take a hint and dumps windows as phone OS, their main alternatives would be android or, well, back to meego or one of its childrens (sailfish, tizen, etc).
And that could be the final nail on the coffin of Windows 8, and with Elop as CEO could play again the burning platform game and be the end of Windows.
Well if he could get down enough action at a million to 1 he might call them up himself. That'd be one circumstance.
Completely wrong. Apple is worth much more than it was when he took over.
Stock price doesn't mean diddley squat. GE is immense and their stock price isn't great but they do very well in their markets.
And this visionary thing is overrated, Apple isn't going to produce a groundbreaking device in a new market for them every three years. No company can does that.
Hear, hear!! If Elop could to do MS what he's done to Nokia, I'd be a happy camper.
But most of that can be attributed to the lag effect. The point is simply that Cook hasn't sustained, or even managed to come close to holding it even close to that peak.
Ultimately under Jobs it was on an upwards trend, and whilst no one expected Cook to be able to keep up the pace (no one could) one would at least expect him not to oversee a 50% decline from that peak.
Or in other words Cook could've simply not turned up to work after Job's resignation and it'd still have had the momentum from Jobs - it wouldn't have declined overnight, it takes time.
But if Cook was doing a good job then it would've kept increasing, or plateaued or declined slightly. It didn't do any of those though, it went into freefall under him.
1. Release Windows 8.2 with the start menu fully restored, Metro apps able to run on the desktop mode and Metro only a primary UI option on touch screen PCs unless the user configures otherwise (either way should still be an option).
2. Release Windows RT 2 tablet in $200 and $300 32gb and 64gb options with full Microsoft Office. Microsoft needs to just flood the market with low cost, Kindle-like Windows tablets that'll run any traditional Windows app recompiled for ARM (another restriction that needs to go from Windows 8).
3. Attack the living room not just with the XBox One, but alternatives to protocols like AirPlay that are open, documented and patent-free for other vendors to implement. Microsoft can isolate Apple even more by returning to its roots of being of one of the most open big vendors in the industry.
I love quick fixes. The problem with Microsoft is the the company. We are asking why an army of clever; highly qualified and paid individuals could release so many failures...obvious failures before release.
Lets look at your fixes(Lipstick on a Pig) you address the unpopular Metro Interface failure, by having it there as a kludge; It was never about a start menu it was about creating an ecosystem with a consistent interface so they could force themselves into the mobile market(They use the word "ecosystem"), and cash in on the lockdown (store and hardware) to Microsoft product and services. The answer wasn't to use the advantages over mobile (10x power and screen real estate, good input, massive storage) they simply dumbed down a computer to a poor tablet. How about Microsoft accept its in competition and compete by producing the Best Desktop ever.
Then you bring up cost. Microsoft walk around with 70% gross margins while its partners do with 10%-20%, and not only is office unwanted they also charge for that too. Traditional Windows Apps do not work on a tablet. No wonder the devices are considered overprices and its partners are turning away. How about Microsoft change their business stratergy?
Bill Gates might have got into the living room with the console, but seriously its a $500, £430 in the UK and 500 Euros console (ignoring its anti-gamer launch) it is going against a $35 Device Chromecast. that already has an alternative to Airplay and works for iOS and Android. How about Microsoft stop selling hardware but sell software...hold on did Andriod just get another 6 Consoles.
The bottom line is a few quick fixes...and these aren't are not going to fix the problem.
Statistics and logic is hard it appears.
iHaters do not need logic, please.
You might want to keep up with the news... You really don't want to be a stale iHater. Makes you look more stupid(er).
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/03/apple-is-once-again-the-worlds-most-valuable-compa.aspx
Let's face it, Microsoft has recently seen a huge amount of innovation.
- a completely new UI for Windows
- gambling a couple billion dollars on Windows RT
- locking down the XBox with draconian DRM
These were HUGE gambles, Ballmer had HUGE stones. They were really betting the company on this dynamic new strategic path.
It just so happens that this is innovation that really fscking sucked. They need a CEO who recognizes that Microsoft cannot innovate. It is not something that the company does well.
Elop is a moron. Why in the world would they put a moron in charge of Microsoft?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You might want to keep up with the news... You really don't want to be a stale iHater.
The rise in stock price is though a buy back of its own shares, and if you bought shares on the low side you made a good chunk of change. Whatever you think of that. Its not the same as from new technology or even better current technology, or even buying it. The lack of these things causing the drop in the first place. Its just share price manipulation, not innovation; not new products; not sales
The bottom line is we are waiting on September the 10th, and then only to find out the price of the cheap iphone
I take it you're just not totally impressed with the Darth Trashcan?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Read this from uber Nokia analyst
Scroll down to
August 27, 2013
Ballmer Aftermath Part 3 - Ballmer replacement and specifically Elop? (Spoiler alert: Elop won't become MS CEO)
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
I actually agree that stock price isn't the greatest of metrics for what it's worth but what metric do you suggest? I think profit growth is probably the most sensible but Cook has faltered there the last couple of quarters too and Ballmer has maintained healthy growth at Microsoft so by this metric would be deemed a highly successful CEO. Sales figures are up under Cook but marketshare is down. Customer satisfaction is strong in Apple products but is it higher under Cook than it was under the era that could be credited to Jobs? Corporate responsibility? Is Apple greener and more philanthropic under Cook maybe?
I'm not arguing against you, on the contrary, I'm interested to hear what metric or metrics you think are best because none of them are particularly more positive for Cook than they were for Ballmer which is why I find it difficult to see how you can objectively suggest Ballmer is a poor CEO at his respective firm, but Cook not. By most metrics, their performances seem incredibly comparable having both taken over from people who were perceived to be successful leaders (albeit with varying levels of like/dislike depending on who you ask).
"Apple isn't going to produce a groundbreaking device in a new market for them every three years. No company can does that."
I actually agree, though that doesn't mean visionaries aren't important. You still need someone who can judge the road ahead and know what products to aim for when the time is right, even if you can't do that every three years. I do not think Cook is a person who can do that - just as Ballmer isn't given how badly he missed the smartphone and tablet boats only deciding to follow way after the boat had already left the dock.
Yeah? Take a look at my comment history and then try to call me a MS apologist.
Cook's been in charge...what...about 2 years? Apple was destined to have reduced marketshare ever since Samsung and their fellow travelers decided to ape them at just about every turn. That had nothing to do with Jobs and/or Cook. In fact, you could argue that Jobs saw it coming by throwing sueballs around. Let's give Cook a bit more time. It takes years to develop a new product, and if Jobs had so much in the pipeline, Apple would have coughed up a new one by now. Maybe it was the iWatch, but as soon as the rumor started, Samsung was right there saying Me Too, Me Too...and they are supposed to punt their iWatch Sept. 4 if memory serves.
Being a visionary is good thing, but it isn't always apparent. Jobs is recognized now as one, but he wasn't when he retook Apple, or rather NeXT took Apple. In fact, he was derided a lot. It took him a good 10 years before Apple started generating really good new products. Up until that time, he spent his time refurbishing old products.
Gates wasn't stupid? This is the man who built MS's sclerotic culture that made them the powerhouse of innovation they are today. And there was nothing stopping Billy from telling Ballmer that smartphones were real and that Apple wasn't to be taken lightly. He could have realized that the tech was finally available for tablets but somehow this never got communicated to Ballmer. And he might have realized that Windows 8 was something only marketing executive could love, but that must have gotten lost in translation.
You don't need to assume. There are escalating payments with their deal. They basically got the first few years without payment but they have increasing sales goals where they have agreed to by X number of licenses later regardless of whether they sell the phones or not. MS gave Nokia several billion and they will get back every dime plus interest, termination of the contract likely requires a balloon payment of the whole thing immediately.
Nokia is hooked like an Anchor to MS, they will not be getting out of that deal without bankruptcy involved.
In most companies, the board and CEO own a tiny slice of the company, yet the shareholders have little say about critical issues.
Think of it a little like congress. Most of the time the citizens are too divided to force their leaders to act one way or another. However on those occasions when the citizens speak with a coherent voice then their leaders are forced into action. Substitute citizens for shareholders and the result is the same. The shareholders own the company and can force management to do whatever they want. Too often though the shareholders are too disinterested to really effect significant change. Most shareholders act like absentee landlords.
Windows 8 is the best OS on the market today....the Lumia phones are solid and most of you zealots
Ironically zealot implies some kind of blind fanaticism irrespective of the facts. This topic is about Ballmer being pushed (stabbed in the front by Bill) because of 5 quarters of PC sales drops, and being invisible in mobile. On a side note you should have listened to you professor Linux won :)
Cook from Apple becomes MS's new CEO.
Iger from Disney takes over the Apple spot.
And the musical chairs continue...
Well.... I guess Elop would be fine but how does he feel about developers, developers, developers, developers?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
And I don't mean for "waah waah antitrust" reasons, I mean because I honestly think we'd see a hell of a lot more innovation in more productive directions. A parent company might hold majority shareholdings in the subsidiaries, but daily operations (including pretty much all strategic thinking) should come from the individual companies Microsoft would be split into, not from the big hulking brute that is Microsoft today.
The idea being that
Off the top of my head, you'd wind up with:
- Home Entertainment. Gets the XBox. Without the "mustn't play nicely with others" mentality coming from the top, they could license DAAP and integrate with Apple, maybe use the xbox as some sort of media centre that can stream to devices around the house.
- Operating systems. Gets Windows - both client and server. Because it's now effectively a separate company, they can build stronger relationships with others - the concern that there's a conflict of interest somewhere mostly evaporates.
- Enterprise Software. Gets SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, maybe IIS. Without the "must integrate everything 15 ways from Sunday and run only on Windows" push coming from HQ, there's scope to openly publish integration mechanisms.
- Productivity Software: Gets Office, Visio etc. Opens the door for publishing an API that allows third party companies wanting to build a Sharepoint-alike and integrate just as seamlessly as Sharepoint does. (Or does Sharepoint just use WebDAV?)
Ultimately under Jobs it was on an upwards trend, and whilst no one expected Cook to be able to keep up the pace (no one could) one would at least expect him not to oversee a 50% decline from that peak.
It wouldn't be hard to argue that Apple was 50% overvalued at its peak. Furthermore the stock right now is sitting right in the middle of its 52 week range and the long term trend puts it right about where it currently sits. Take 2012 out of the mix and the stock price is right on the trajectory it was on between 2009-2011.
But if Cook was doing a good job then it would've kept increasing, or plateaued or declined slightly.
CEO performance and stock price are only loosely correlated, particularly in the short term.
That doesn't even list Ray Ozzie at all. I found that a bit surprising, as I thought he left over conflicts with Sinofsky.
which are laughably high odds. More like a million to one. Seriously, under what circumstances could you imagine Tim Cook, CEO of possibly the worlds most profitable and well loved company accepting a job offer to be CEO of a smaller, shittier company that everyone hates and represents everything that Apple hates about technology? Maybe if he was fired from Apple in the next year for doing something horrible but Microsoft was still desperate enough to want to hire him.
$100 million a year, with a ten year contract. That would be convincing :-)
I think before starting he would ask the board: How easy is it to fire any managers? And I mean fire without paying them any money?
If it is easy, then he might be able to turn this ship around. Give every executive two weeks time to produce a plan how to make their department work much better for the benefit of the company, not for the benefit of that manager. For every executive, let two subordinates make exactly the same plan. After two weeks, every executive without a promising plan is fired and replaced with one of the two subordinates. After three months, every executive who didn't execute on the plan is fired.
The problem at Microsoft is not the products, it is how the whole company is run. Obviously that leads to awful products, but you don't fix it by trying to make better products, you fix it by running the company better.
.... who also seems to have a humour bypass.
What are the odds for Clippy? He (it?) would make a great CEO!
The current stock market is basically opposed to prudent corporate management, it mainly rewards short term gains and penalizes long term thinking. Ie, they want stock growth rather than regular dividends.
Meanwhile "vision" is basically what happens when you see people who aren't there and hear voices no one else can hear. In the old days they used to lock up up if you had visions for your own protection.
Then I look forward to Windows 8.2, codename "Crashinator".
So you agree that what you wrote was wrong.
No I just expected anyone reading the post to be capable of understanding the point without an in depth explanation explaining every bit of detail thoroughly.
Apparently some readers just aren't that smart.
Dividends only started being paid after the fall as a measure to stem it falling any further.