Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Investors Call For Bill Gates To Step Down As Chairman

rjmarvin writes "Now that Ballmer is on his way out, flak for Microsoft's middling stock prices and lagging mobile innovation is starting to land on Bill Gates himself. Three of the company's top 20 investors are lobbying the Board of Directors, pressing Gates to step down as chairman. The stockholders believe his presence would handcuff the next CEO's ability to re-make the company with new strategies and sweeping changes. They also think Gates wields a disproportionate amount of power relative to his financial stake and day-to-day activity within the company. No word yet from Gates or the board on this internal strife."

218 comments

  1. Bill Gates' response: by themushroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Yeah, about that... Go fuck yourself. Now if you don't mind, I have to go save thousands of African kids from getting malaria. Back at 3pm"

    1. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

      Having read all of their correspondence beforehand, Gates was always one step ahead of the plotters.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    2. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA gave him the heads up a week ago.

    3. Re:Bill Gates' response: by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      or to have them ritually mutilated.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Bill Gates' response: by djupedal · · Score: 0

      Yes, everyone knows the gates are is running a classic charity/non--profit scheme on the backs of impoverished Africans, but thanks for the reminder.

    5. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Mabhatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not about plotters, he doesn't HOLD A STAKE in the company that deserves as much power as he holds. They are correct to replace Gates before even looking at Balmer's replacement as Gates hasn't held Balmer's feet to the fire nearly hard enough in the last 7-10 years.

    6. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you wish you had a penis.

    7. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just mutilation anymore.

      Check back in 3 years.

    8. Re: Bill Gates' response: by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      He holds billions of stakes.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re: Bill Gates' response: by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. Bill owns about 4.5% of the stock ... the people trying to oust him control about 5%.

      Bill Gates is essentially a minority shareholder, but exercises clout like he still owns half the company.

      And maybe people are thinking that if Ballmer is going, this is a perfect time to put the company in the hands of someone beholden to the shareholders, instead of Bill Gates. And, long term, it's hard to argue with that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Vampires beware!

    11. Re: Bill Gates' response: by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Wait, what?

      While I just love jumping in on the Microsoft stomping, thinking that 'shareholders' will drive MS into anything but the ground is really delusional.

      Or, are you just being sneaky?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re: Bill Gates' response: by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      5% is not a minority share holder.
      And the Top 20 own 5%, not the three trying to oust him.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft.

      Under the definition of "hyperbole", there only needs to be this as the unequalled example, and we're done with that entry in the dictionary for all time.

    14. Re: Bill Gates' response: by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bill will prevent a new CEO that "remakes" the company via massive layoffs to save costs - which has never once worked to "turn around" a software company, but no one ever seems to learn that. Presumably the activist board members want just that, not realizing it would kill the company in a few years, or perhaps not caring (hey, what's 100k jobs gone if I can boost the stock 10% before it crashes - we'll know when to exit). Heck, even as an old school /.er I find it hard to root for potlatch on that scale.

      Bill had a pretty good track record for the shareholders during his tenure - all the same things than made /. create it's own special icon for him. Makes me wonder if the heart of the dispute is as cynical as the above, or something more interesting.

      [ BTW: If you're new to the game: "synergy" means "layoffs" and "turnaround CEO" means "lay off most everyone". Look for those terms in a merger near you (and run). ]

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: Bill Gates' response: by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      thinking that 'shareholders' will drive MS into anything but the ground is really delusional

      As opposed to what they're doing now, with a series of products nobody is buying and for which they're taking huge write downs? Or that hardware makers are informing Microsoft they'll no longer make products for?

      It's hard not to think Microsoft isn't being driven in to the ground now.

      Or, are you just being sneaky?

      Not at all. I'm saying welcome to the stock market where shareholder value seems to be what drives everything, and long-term planning be damned.

      If you don't want a bunch of stock owners yelling about how badly you're doing ... don't go public.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Bill Gates' response: by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      "Now if you don't mind, I have to go save thousands of African kids from getting malaria."

      It's just too bad that he couldn't have save thousands of Linux kids from getting SCO lawsuits.

      That said, these "three investors" just want to jack up the short term stock price. They'd rape their own dead grandmothers' if it would raise the stock price. They saw the price jump after the Ballmer announcement, and are hoping that some buzz can do a repeat in the short term.

      More than anyone else in the world, he is emotionally attached to Microsoft because it is his baby, and wants the best for it in the long term.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    17. Re: Bill Gates' response: by NickFortune · · Score: 2

      5% is not a minority share holder.

      OK, you're right. 5% is not a minority sharholder. %5 is a percentage.

      Someone who holds 5% of the stock in a company however IS a minority shareholder. That's going by any definition. I can find, anyway.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    18. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to what they're doing now, with a series of products nobody is buying and for which they're taking huge write downs?

      Keep up

    19. Re: Bill Gates' response: by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      To the shareholders - be careful about what you wish for.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1423642.stm

      There are plenty of stories of "New blood" turning solid businesses into manure.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    20. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know whats even better. The picture in the reuters article. If you glance at it quick it almost looks like he is flipping them off.

    21. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That's actually a good argument to be rid of him though.

      He is nominally in control, but owns very little of it now (~5%), and spends most of his time not doing microsoft related things. If he wants to come back to microsoft that's one thing. But he's got other things to do - and microsoft needs to look out for shareholders of the other 95% of the money.

      That said, I think it's somewhat silly - Billg's big job right now is helping to find a successor to Ballmer, which, as a 5% shareholder he is certainly entitled to be involved in.

    22. Re: Bill Gates' response: by disposable60 · · Score: 1, Informative

      The shareholders define "value" as the stock price at the end of the next reporting period. As soon as it's above their (buy-in price + comissions), they'll sell. Zero interest in where the stock will be five or ten years from now. Of course, I'm only talking about the big, institutional holders. The employees and 401k-holders will be farked.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    23. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "Or, are you just being sneaky?"

      Sneak on to Gates as he sneaked on to us

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    24. Re:Bill Gates' response: by turgid · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for Bill's crummy software that's held human progress back 25 years and sucked trillions of dollars out of the world economy, that malaria might have been cured by other people a decade ago. We might have tourist hotels on Mars by now too.

    25. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandmother raping? I see you have been to a board meeting before.

    26. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill will prevent a new CEO that "remakes" the company via massive layoffs to save costs - which has never once worked to "turn around" a software company, but no one ever seems to learn that.

      Actually, I believe when Jobs took Apple back over the first thing he did was lay a ton of people off.

    27. Re: Bill Gates' response: by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 2

      Exactly. If MBA suits can destroy the company that invented modern technology why should BG let them into Redmond? Whatever you think of his products and actions, would you let an MBA take ownership of your code?

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    28. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shove your whiny bitch MBA basher talk up your aspie shit tube. I don't see any of you engineer or code monkey types running anything. Bill Gates doesn't count either. He's just a self-entitled psycho prick thief.

    29. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't his presence on the board keeping the stock price higher than if he were gone?

    30. Re: Bill Gates' response: by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has an incredible amount of deadweight, mostly as a product of the exceptionally brain-damaged review system, which encourages managers to keep untalented people on their teams so that can reserve the good-review-score quota for productive people. Reforming the review system and eliminating this deadweight would be wonderful.

    31. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Waldeinburg · · Score: 1

      Did you just compare lawsuits and malaria?

    32. Re: Bill Gates' response: by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Deadweights don't do much. So they're not that responsible for stuff like Windows 8 or Surface RT. Therefore they're not the main problem with Microsoft.

      It's those steering and moving the ship who are responsible, not really the deadweights.

      --
    33. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Mdk754 · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. A coder has never sold a successful startup for millions or anything like that. Just doesn't happen...

    34. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is a dividend paying company though. why would you want to compromise a stable source of funds, unless you were more interested in corporate raiding and think everything should be run by groups like Cerberus or Baen.

    35. Re:Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I think about Microsoft the first thing that came to my mind is Bill Gates, his name is party of the brand ... and to be very honesty, link his philanthropic work to Microsoft helps to make up better image public image to M$ ...

    36. Re: Bill Gates' response: by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Wait, where did Fairchild Semiconductor come into this conversation?

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    37. Re: Bill Gates' response: by MiSaunaSnob · · Score: 1

      Facebook?

    38. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arloe Guthrie probably never attended a Microsoft board meeting, and yet he came up with ...There was mother rapers... father stabbers... father rapers... Father rapers! Sittin' right there on the board... (I added the on the board part)

    39. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's something that would never go public:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9PwbtlOIU
      Parental discretion advised.

    40. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would expect that by now you'd check your facts before blurting out another obviously incorrect statement.

      Your behaviour is ongoing anecdotal evidence that ignorance and arrogance are common bedfellows.

  2. Or prevent them... by Antiocheian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...from looting Microsoft.

    1. Re:Or prevent them... by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yeah.. just put elop as the chairman, see how it goes.

      guaranteed that within 2 years he has sold the company to oracle(if you use stupid counting system then windows is a "burning platform" that needs to be ditched asap..).

      thing with gates is that he has so much money he isn't tempted to butcher the company for some cash. put someone else in charge with even lesser share of the company and no personal interest in the company and he'll start looking for how to extract cash for himself.. and that actually screws the shareholders(common shareholders) a lot more.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Or prevent them... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that large-scale shareholders consider small scale shareholders to be sort of like krill. Numerous; but not really worth much except to be filtered out and devoured in numbers large enough to be tasty.

    3. Re:Or prevent them... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that large-scale shareholders consider small scale shareholders to be sort of like krill. Numerous; but not really worth much except to be filtered out and devoured in numbers large enough to be tasty.

      They're also a good source of Omega-3s...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Or prevent them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah.. just put elop as the chairman, see how it goes.

      Recent news makes it look suspiciously like Elop was being groomed to succeed Balmer. I'd kind of like to see Windows die so I'm actually in favor of it happening...

    5. Re:Or prevent them... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, you're clearly from the US else you would realize the rest of the World is really starting to like what Elop has done with Nokia

      As a result, he is odds-on favourite to become the new CEO

      That said, your second point is exactly right. It's in nobody's interests (except these three shareholders) to put Microsoft in the hands of these asset stripping vampires.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    6. Re:Or prevent them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia loses money on each of those phone sold.

    7. Re:Or prevent them... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Just because a few people are taking what Nokia is practically giving away for free, rather than buying a non-free product elsewhere, doesn't mean they "like" it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Or prevent them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global

      Yeah and microsoft is one of their clients, and the article talks about 'sales share' which is not actual market penetration...

    9. Re:Or prevent them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Market share counts for nothing if you lose money on every unit sold. Apple is the counter example: low market share but high margins per unit - this counts for more in terms of funding futures and delivering stock value. TL;DR: you can't make it up in volume.

  3. Misleading Headline by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    The headline is a bit misleading.

    THREE of 20 of the top investers have demanded Gates step down.

    Non-news.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Misleading Headline by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Um ya... actually the words "Microsoft Investors" in the title imply any integer above 1. The more interesting thing is how much financial and boardroom clout those insurgents might be wielding.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    2. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those three investors combined own about as much of the company as Gates does (around 5%).
      So it's not insignificant.

    3. Re:Misleading Headline by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1, Informative

      They also think Gates wields a disproportionate amount of power relative to his financial stake and day-to-day activity within the company.

      Gates holds 4.5% of the company stock, and the "three investors" combined hold about 5%. Sounds like a pecker contest to me.

    4. Re:Misleading Headline by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      Still news actually. It's a glimpse into what is going on at MS. The investors, who likely haven't accomplished what Gates has accomplished and probably care less about MS in the long run, want him gone. To me that suggests that these investors (and probably more than 3), want to do the usual "cash out now by running the company into the dust" type thing.

      But I'm not an investor in anything. Still, interesting to me.

    5. Re:Misleading Headline by Morpeth · · Score: 1

      Good catch, nice to way to sensationalize a non-story. Editors should have looked at the article, since it says 3 of 20 in the very first line of the story.

      --

      'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    6. Re:Misleading Headline by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um ya... actually the words "Microsoft Investors" in the title imply any integer above 1.

      Yes, well, the headline implies more than a few.

      Actually, *I* own 100 shares. So if *I* as an "investor" seek Gates' removal, does that warrant a story at Slashdot?

      The entire group of 20 investors onws ONLY 0.5% more than Gates holds all by himself. So what percentage do you think 3 of those 20 owns?

      The headline *IS* misleading.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also think Gates wields a disproportionate amount of power relative to his financial stake and day-to-day activity within the company.

      Gates holds 4.5% of the company stock, and the "three investors" combined hold about 5%. Sounds like a pecker contest to me.

      I'd be more interested in exactly what the day-to-day activity is, within Microsoft, of ANY of the other investors and how it differs from that of Mr. Gates...

    8. Re:Misleading Headline by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The headline is a bit misleading.

      To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men: "are there any other kind?"

    9. Re: Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not the CEO.

    10. Re: Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates hasn't been the CEO in a long time, you fuckwit.

    11. Re: Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of this Ballmer guy? ;)

    12. Re: Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't been CEO for 13 years.

    13. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire group of 20 investors onws ONLY 0.5% more than Gates holds all by himself. So what percentage do you think 3 of those 20 owns?

      Pedantic fix: 5% is what those 3 own in total, and they're now "lobbying the board". Question is how much the other 17 have and how their votes will split.

      Still, the headline is clickbait.

    14. Re:Misleading Headline by jon3k · · Score: 0

      Three investors that own 5%, more than Bill Gates. And who knows how many more thinking the same thing.

    15. Re:Misleading Headline by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, no. You are wrong, the people who modded you Informative are wrong, and you are part of the problem here. The three investors are part of a group of 20 that collectively hold 5%. Unless those three are an incredibly disproportionately large portion of the group of 20, their combined percentage will be tiny relative to what Gates holds.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    16. Re:Misleading Headline by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      No, you fool, the group of 20 owns 5%. Those three? Small fish, even combined, next to Gates.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    17. Re:Misleading Headline by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      The headline implies more than one investor. What you infer from the title is due to your own thought processes, which apparently caused you to be mislead. This isn't about the count of investors agitating for the change, but rather the influence they wield, as covered quite well by others in this thread.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    18. Re:Misleading Headline by jon3k · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I'm the fool...

      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/02/microsoft-investors-reportedly-press-for-bill-gates-to-step-down

      There is no indication that Microsoft's board would heed the wishes of the three investors, who collectively hold more than 5% of the company's stock, the sources say

    19. Re:Misleading Headline by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      There is no indication that Microsoft's board would heed the wishes of the three investors, who collectively hold more than 5 percent of the company's stock, according to the sources.

      Reading comprehension. Work on it.

  4. Power grab by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These are people who want power for themselves. It's not because they believe Gates does a poor job.

    When the investors take over the company, beware. This is what happened to HP.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shhhhh, let it die a quick, painless death.

    2. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      carly is what happened to hp

    3. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's somethign to be said for keeping the founder at the helm but in the case of Microsoft I do believe Gates is part of the problem. I worked there from the mid-90's to the mid-2000's and a lot of the cultural problems started with Gates. They only became apparent with Ballmer because exponential growth came to a halt but they were there. Not to mention that without Gates' support Ballmer would never have lasted as long as he did.

    4. Re:Power grab by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      "hese are people who want power for themselves. It's not because they believe Gates does a poor job."

      If Microsoft is lucky it's just a power grab. It's also possible that they think that Gates is excessively sentimental about wanting his baby to succeed, long term, as a company, and that they could make more money by cashing it out in the near term, or by sending it to the M&A chop-shop.

    5. Re:Power grab by armahillo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, just imagine... they'd put profits over quality and the product would start to suck and its advertising would feel really patronizing, with lots of glitzy flash but little substance.

      Man, I can't even imagine a world where Microsoft operated that way.

    6. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also possible that they think that Gates is excessively sentimental about wanting his baby to succeed, long term, as a company, and that they could make more money by cashing it out in the near term, or by sending it to the M&A chop-shop.

      Microsoft NEEDS to go to the chop shop. The quicker the better.
      The mandate that every product lives and dies by Windows made sense 20 years ago but in a world where iOs and Android are now the bulk of operating systems shipments, it is sheer insanity.
      Microsoft product teams should be allowed to work on non Microsoft platforms.
      Right now, by forcing them to develop for Win dows only, management is basically asking them to fight the competition with one hand tied behind their backs.

    7. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What MS needs is a phrase that was uttered ages ago:

      Developers, developers, developers.

      Yes, Windows is doing well in the enterprise, but one can only coast on that so long. The Xbox is doing fine, but the games are on the platform because of its momentum, not because there is some draw making it better than the PlayStation.

      MS killing Technet hasn't done any good to help with market share.

    8. Re:Power grab by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you won't have to.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re: Power grab by Mabhatter · · Score: 0

      What has BILL GATES done for them? Is HE PERSONALLY working 80 hour weeks on MICROSOFT projects to turn the company around? As a 5% investor it doesn't really matter if he WAS the founder or not... He's not spending his TIME on the company, just waiting out till he cashes out in the next 5-10 years.

      More importantly, Ballmer is Gates' anointed ... And has performed poorly. If BILL GATES isn't going to PUBLICLY step up and escort Ballmer out of the company (his FISCAL DUTY as CEO) then what quality of follow up leader is Gates going to back?

      Microsoft needs a 100 hour a week CEO and a 100 hour a week President... If these guys don't want to do that job, get out of the way!

    10. Re: Power grab by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      He's the board president. The board doesn't work 100 hours a week, you know. Sometimes you'll be lucky if you get 100 hours a year out of them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re: Power grab by ormico · · Score: 2

      Ballmer is CEO.
      Gates is Chairman of the Board, not Chief Executive Officer.

      MS doesn't have a President and I don't believe its a Chairman's job to put in those kinds of hours. That's why they hire a CEO.

      The Chairman leads the Board of Directors and it is the Board's job to direct the CEO.

    12. Re:Power grab by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Agreed. A power vacuum sucks too hard. It takes a more gentle touch to produce the desired results...

    13. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't what Michael Dell trying to take back his company from Investors because the investors are fucking R-Tards when it comes to NOT selling out the consumer whom you make money from, and wish to continue to make money from... for years ongoing.

          Gates just happens to be the historical proof that sticking to he helm of the company can prevent Investor sell off. Fuck investors.. what havethey done? NOTHING thats what!

        Look at HP, yup. sold out to investors who dictated the crumbling mess HP is today. Yahoo? yup, its already a dead subject, but people want to save it. Dell? Well Michael had to come back to help bring the company back on its feet. Steve Jobs? HE HAD to come back. But Bill made him do it.

    14. Re:Power grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Xbox is doing fine, but the games are on the platform because of its momentum, not because there is some draw making it better than the PlayStation.

      Wrong. Microsoft succeeded with the 360 because Sony sent all their developers flaming bags of dog crap with the PS3 whilst prancing around as though they could do no wrong.

      The PS3's Cell processor was and is a boondoggle; many people, game developers especially, knew that when they saw it and it killed Sony's dominance. The 360 would have done well if the PS3 had used a plain PPC CPU, but not nearly as well as it did (remember the 360 had massive red-ring-of-death hardware failures but it didn't matter, developers targeted 360 first and the PS3 version was almost always worse [if there was one at all, 360 and PC only wasn't that uncommon] unless it was a PS3 exclusive).

      [Reminder: Sony thought that sticking the Cell boondoggle in the PS3 would create an environment of exclusives for the PS3 since games written for the Cell would be almost impossible to port to 360, Wii or PC due to the shear weirdness of the platform compared to standard CPU architectures. Any ports which were made would always be worse than the PS3 version since the 'advanced' features would be dependent on the stream co-processors. The reality of what was going to happen was obvious at the time: very few developers were stupid enough to chain themselves to a boat anchor that would take away their independence and guarantee they lived or died with the platform itself, the 360, which was easier to port to or from, became dominant instead.]

    15. Re:Power grab by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      There's somethign to be said for keeping the founder at the helm but in the case of Microsoft I do believe Gates is part of the problem. I worked there from the mid-90's to the mid-2000's and a lot of the cultural problems started with Gates. They only became apparent with Ballmer because exponential growth came to a halt but they were there. Not to mention that without Gates' support Ballmer would never have lasted as long as he did.

      It might be true that Gates lead the company into "cultural problems" as you saw them, but you gotta admit under his rein they made a metric buttload of money. I've also left companies because the culture didn't agree with what I thought it should be, but it seems like sour grapes to say he was a poor leader because the peer review process was broken, they worked their programmers too hard, or that they stopped free towel service at the gym. From an investor's perspective (that's what we're talking about, right?) all of that means diddly-squat as long as the company was printing money that looked like Office license keys.

    16. Re:Power grab by Roberts777 · · Score: 1

      ... and Mark Hurd and Leo Apotheker .... . The jury is still out on Meg Whitman.

  5. A titular role only? by metrix007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bill Gates is chairman in name only, is he not?

    This would seem fitting since it is the company that be he built....it's kind of shitty to force people out of the thing they made.

    Alternatively, perhaps Bill Gates will be to Microsoft as the Schwartzes were to Grey Matter...

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:A titular role only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Arnold Schwarzenegger in that other movie.

    2. Re:A titular role only? by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      it's kind of shitty to force people out of the thing they made.

      I'm sure he was aware of that possibility when Microsoft launched their IPO 27 years ago, and compared to how many other company founders have fared after their company went public I'd say that Gates have lasted for a pretty damn long time. It's all part of doing business, a place were ethics and morals only are facetious words used in corporate PR bullshit.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    3. Re:A titular role only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing happens at MS without his say so.

    4. Re:A titular role only? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "This would seem fitting since it is the company that be he built....it's kind of shitty to force people out of the thing they made."

      Yes, especially when Gates never did anything like that to anyone else!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  6. I nominate... by msauve · · Score: 0

    Fake Steve Jobs for chairman.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:I nominate... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I think Ballmer should become the chairman, and then let a new CEO, such as Elope take over

  7. Fools by twocows · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As much as I disagree with his business tactics over the years, Gates is a freaking genius. One read of the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo, which was written years ago and was correct about 90% of its predictions, should tell you that. Gates was one of the primary reasons, if not the only reason, Microsoft was successful to begin with. These three people are complete fools and ought to be off with Ballmer.

    1. Re:Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      read "The Road Ahead" and come back to us later.

    2. Re:Fools by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As much as I disagree with his business tactics over the years, Gates is a freaking genius.

      I'm not sure whether he's a genius, but I had a lot more respect for him once I read this, which is Joel Spolsky's first-hand account of working for the man. He wasn't necessarily a genius, but he was a very effective combination of ruthless businessman and smart technical guy.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Fools by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1, Informative

      You mean the memo that came about three years too late after BG realized the big booboo he made in blowing off the internet?
      The action of which started antitrust violations so egregious that the DoJ could no longer ignore MS's antitrust actions and had to join in with other people to sue them.

      The suit which also brought EU regulators forwards and had so many ramifications on MS that it is even being felt today in a major way.

    4. Re:Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I disagree with his business tactics over the years, Gates is a freaking genius.

      I'm not sure whether he's a genius, but I had a lot more respect for him once I read this, which is Joel Spolsky's first-hand account of working for the man. He wasn't necessarily a genius, but he was a very effective combination of ruthless businessman and smart technical guy.

      At a time when most people weren't technical at all. His first exposure to computers was in 1968 at age 13. The world had yet to see a "Walkman," much less a desktop computer (or any computer at all). That right there put him ahead of 95% of the world in terms of understanding computers. He simply crossed that line that many academics would not, i.e, trying to monetize their research. He took advantage of many who didn't know what they had (DOS was bought to 75K and the guy who own DR-DOS didn't want t deal with him).

    5. Re:Fools by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting memo., especially since anyone who has read the original release of "The Road Ahead" knows it couldn't possibly have been written by Gates in 1995.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meh...most of what he said wasn't all that revolutionary and he got a few points wrong like the popularity of ISDN lines. It's a cogent analysis, but I think "freaking genius" is overstepping a bit. If you want to see something of that level, look at Esther Dyson's take on intellectual property...to have written what she did in 1994 still boggles my mind.

  8. Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

    I've supported Microsoft for many years and I still believe they do some things right but on the consumer side they are lacking to say the least. They need new blood that will change the face of MS. They need to continue what they do for MS developers but improve their approach to their users. Innovation is key in today's technology market and MS needs to show they can still innovate at all business levels.

    1. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> I still believe they do some things right

      Really? like what? I'm genuinely asking/interested.

    2. Re:Great idea! by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Once you get past the UI, Windows 8 and Server 2012 are pretty damned good products. Of course, everyone focuses on the UI because its what people see but you have to remember that Windows does have a lot of other components behind that UI. Office is much the same way, although it's a bit bloated in places. I got to play around with Azure a bit too. I don't know how it compares to competitors, but it is a nifty platform.

      Then there's other products like Xbox which seems to have done quite well, including Kinect, and the Surface Pro (RT not so much).

      It's easy to focus on the bad because it tends to be in the most obvious places that affect the most people, but there's still plenty of good at Microsoft. Even Internet Explorer has come a long way since IE 6.

    3. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Then there's other products like Xbox which seems to have done quite well

      Xbox is BILLIONS in the hole over the lifetime of the program. It had gotten so bad that they moved the Mac Business Unit to Entertainment & Devices to hide the extent of the damages.

      Sure, it is profitable now, to the tune of 250 millions a quarter. But that comes nowhere close to making up for years of accumulated losses. And with the launch of the new model, it is likely that losses will start again.

    4. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLROFLMAO... you must be 'murican...

    5. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Did you notice that even your own list of what yu think are the best Microsoft products needed to include caveats for each?
      Seems to me all you need is better experience with the alternatives.

    6. Re:Great idea! by LordThyGod · · Score: 1

      Once you get past the UI, Windows 8 and Server 2012 are pretty damned good products. Of course, everyone focuses on the UI because its what people see but you have to remember that Windows does have a lot of other components behind that UI. Office is much the same way, although it's a bit bloated in places. I got to play around with Azure a bit too. I don't know how it compares to competitors, but it is a nifty platform.

      Then there's other products like Xbox which seems to have done quite well, including Kinect, and the Surface Pro (RT not so much).

      It's easy to focus on the bad because it tends to be in the most obvious places that affect the most people, but there's still plenty of good at Microsoft. Even Internet Explorer has come a long way since IE 6.

      I don't think that's what bothers the investors though. Its things like being a major player in the smartphone market. Laugh at the iphone. Ignore iphone. Surrender market willfully to iphone, then android. Scratch like hell to catch up to the iphone and android. Settle for crumbs left on the floor. Ditto tablets. Ditto cloud. They don't lead, they follow. And follow rather poorly at that. To an extent, that's been their MO since Gates: let others create the market, then use muscle to take the market. But you can't wait years to re-act for that to work.

    7. Re:Great idea! by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

      What you're trying to argue makes no sense whatsoever. Everything has it's caveats, including everything from Apple. All the flavors of Linux feature a multitude of caveats, many of which are worse than anything you'll suffer with Microsoft. Let's take Office as an example. I use OpenOffice at home and have used iWork for a couple of years. They're both pretty good, but nowhere near as good as Office, even with it's quirks.

      So really, the decision comes down to which products offer the fewest compromises, or which of those compromises bother you the least. With open source, are willing to put up with quite a lot of crap for the sake of what it all represents.

      Microsoft's biggest problem with now is their brand. People are incapable of appreciating anything from them because they continue harbor a negative impression of the brand. It's at a point where people are grasping at straws to find fault with the company.

    8. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the problem is the bad is the most visible thing, and when it gets in the way EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME, it starts to become a problem that far outweighs any positives.

      It is like saying "here, here is the cure for dying, you are now immortal, the only thing though is there is only enough for one dose so you will see everyone you ever know and love die while you continue living on. You will also outlive the stars because it is somehow magical now, and spend eternity in a dead universe."
      That's not a good design system. It might be for someone that likes to torture themselves, however.

      The Vista UI onwards is absolutely atrocious, it is a bastardized tablet/PC UI Hybrid that just becomes annoying as hell on a desktop after 30 minutes of dealing with it.
      And that isn't even the worst part, the taskbar is annoying, sorry, I LIKE MY TEXT, I LIKE small icons, I LIKE being able to have a billion small quicklaunch icons for things I use frequently, take your casualized ribbon-inspired crap UI and jump the chasm.
      I don't want menus on my damn taskbar entries, I want to see everything. Just like how I want a god damn vertical taskbar for Chrome already you pleb-tier casual web browsing developers that you all are. Oh no, nobody likes vertical lists, they are bad, gotta cater to the 50 giga billion people that only have faceboke open 24/7 while watching funny youtub videos.
      The worst thing, the worst thing about all of this, they actually had working sidebar code but they removed it because they wanted to make those stupid crappy always-require-focus bubble pop-out things that extensions can use which are annoying as high-hell.
      Why the hell do I still use this crap browser? FF is actually half-decent now I hear.

      That was a rant on why Google and Microsoft are both the worst thing to happen to software development.
      Shame since some developers in both of the companies are really smart and cool people, but they get held down and suppressed by the big bad and ugly types upstairs. RIP Google Labs. I wouldn't be surprised if MS Research is next on the chopping boards, they already killed a few of the developer orientated communities and services.

    9. Re:Great idea! by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Once you get past the UI, Windows 8 and Server 2012 are pretty damned good products.

      In my experience Exchange 2013 on Server 2012 is an unstable POS. We have this at work, serving a small number of mailboxes and about once per month, it goes haywire, requiring a reboot.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Great idea! by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Did you notice I never said any of them were perfect? The iPod is nice and easy to use, except for the price. Linux is cheap and works on a wide range of devices, but many distros have poor support. You can find a caveat for anything. In general, I think Windows 8 is pretty good, it just happens that its flaws are in the most pain in the ass location but 95% of the OS is really good for anyone intelligent enough to realize that even a fatal flaw doesn't mean the rest of the product isn't well done.

    11. Re:Great idea! by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I was responding to the guy asking about *some* things they do right. I never said they do everything right or even that they do most things right. I pointed out a few things they've done right with recent products, as well as the issues keeping people from using them in spite of them being done right.

    12. Re:Great idea! by dk400 · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you are overrating Office... we all know it is overpriced. Office was a great idea back in 90s... but these days with SaaS and the cloud, I dont think Office is going to earn great profits, once the competition... like Google docs come close to most business needs, on-the-go... only about 10% of the code/features in Office is making it juicy and profitable... rest is all bloat and that makes it an overrated product... We will see more users (even non-power users) moving towards the cloud once the SaaS model sets in stronger when those 10% features are in good shape !

    13. Re:Great idea! by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      It's at a point where people are grasping at straws to find fault with the company.

      When I see the General Sherman giant sequoia I think "Now that is one motherfucking huge tree!", I guess you just shrug your shoulders and go "meh, straw"

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    14. Re:Great idea! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Of course, everyone focuses on the UI because its what people see

      Everyone focuses on the UI because that's what gets in the way. The improvements in Windows 8 are not earth-shaking, and not nearly large enough to overcome the awfulness of the UI.

    15. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously very young, early 20's I'm guessing.

      MS has never innovated, they are the opposite of innovation and always have been. They copy the successful businesses that do innovate, and use their leverage to enforce it. Just look at what happens when they step outside of office software and OS, all their hardware fails. All of it. Even the Xbox loses money on the unit sold, and it's the first system to blue screen. (I mean, red ring.)

      They may be successful, but they have *never* innovated.

    16. Re:Great idea! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's dinnertime, and your Mom has been calling for you to come up for 20 minutes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      By resorting to ad hominems rather than any fact-based or even subject-based argument you only validate my point further.

    18. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing that absolutely all parts of it are rubbish, but I was arguing as you also correctly point out, that its fatally flawed.

    19. Re:Great idea! by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, actually I don't, Captain Logic. You didn't have a point in there; it was a subjective rant.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Again you post just a spew of personal attacks. Do you actually have a thread-related point to make at all?

    21. Re:Great idea! by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      They don't lead, they follow. And follow rather poorly at that. To an extent, that's been their MO since Gates

      If anything, you've just given a good reason for Bill to step back up to the plate. If everything only started to turn to $#it when he started taking a backseat, surely the logic would be to bring him back to prominence to return the company to its heyday?

      I'm not saying I think this would be a good idea. It just seems to be the resulting recommendation if you take your analysis to its logical conclusion.

      Personally, if I was Bill, I wouldn't want to step back into the CEO role anyway. Find a good replacement for Ballmer (heck... pretty much ANYONE could qualify!) and stick it out as chairman, influencing where possible, but not micromanaging it into the dirt...

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
    22. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      All of MS's dev tools have gone from good to great over the years. Windows server since 2003 although I prefer to talk about 2008 R2 and on are amazing servers that just work great! Windows 7 a robust and flexible OS for everybody. SQL Server is an amazing database (Simply the best product for Windows environments as I don't have experience installing/managing database in other platforms).

    23. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see what you have to say about whatever products you use. I bet you love Linux and specifically one flavour of it. I know people like you, nothing other than what you know is good enough because you can't get out of your own square box. A good integrator knows what products fit what job. MS has proven it belongs in the business market since it has grown it's business in that area.

    24. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      That's funny that you're concern with privacy and fair use considering the track record Google has right now. I bet you have a Gmail account.

      And you're friend is too dumb to use a phone from his own company? What does Android have more to offer? I own both so I can tell you NOTHING!

    25. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> And you're friend is too dumb to use a phone from his own company?

      Not too dumb. Actually smart enough to make her own choice rather than swallow whatever the company line is.

        >> What does Android have more to offer?
      Personally speaking I prefer the user interface and the better integration of shared data across the most popular apps. I also like the fact that the Play Store has much more content, especially free content, than Microsoft's store. I also like the fact that Android is based on Linux. I also like the fact that most of it is open source and easily hackable. I also like the fact that I can get android versions of stuff like VLC, BBC Iplayer and MythTV, good ssh clients, etc all free. I also prefer the hardware and features of my phone than any one that runs Microsoft. I have no idea what her reasons are.

    26. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Actually I do use Linux but dont stick to one particular distro. Currently I like Mint but have tried and worked with lots. I also occasionally use Apple products. Been a software developer for 35 years on a large number of different big and small computer OS's including every version of windows since 2.0. I'm continually frustrated by the lack of usability and stupid hoops you have to jump through to do even fairly standard stuff in nearly all Microsoft products, especially Office. I have a broad experience to draw on, and I still think Windows is the OS that sucks the most, except maybe for gaming but only because thats still the only platform that most PC games developers target. I Can't wait for SteamOS to start really changing that though. Goodbye Windows partition forever when it does.

    27. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> SQL Server is an amazing database (Simply the best product for Windows environments as I don't have experience installing/managing database in other platforms).

      Which is best entirely depends on your usage and criteria. For example If what you want is a small database in an embedded environment, SQL Server would suck yet SqlLite might be great. Conversely for a large enterprise, SqlLite would be a joke and SQL server wouldn't even get close to Oracle on Windows or maybe even PostgreSQL if cost/performance is an issue. For mid-range windows shops, SQL Server would probably be the best but thats only one small view of the computing world.

    28. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Maybe just me but I use a phone for business and some entertainment. I don't have time to fiddle with an already perfectly working phone. If you like fiddling then I understand you wanting an Android phone over a Windows Phone although both use the same hardware in this case.

    29. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      You appear to have been in the industry for a long time and you are clearly very experienced but I believe you may be out of date on how much MS SQL has progressed. The last benchmarks I've seen didn't put much of a gap between Oracle and MS SQL performance. The only major advantage noted for Oracle was that it can live outside of the MS platform (For some this is a big deal, for others it's a "meh!"). On the plus side for MS SQL initial cost + integration cost was almost 10 times lower. In addition to this it was more feature rich and included tones of new features to optimize database usage further. Now, don't take me wrong, I have experience with many database include Postgres, MySQL and Oracle. My experience with Postgres was terrible.

      My opinion about MS SQL:
      - Best DB on MS platform
      - Best developer DB as it's easy to install, includes all tools and it's free.(speaking of express)
      - Smallest learning curve of all Dbs I've worked with

    30. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you may have (incorrect) preconceived ideas that android requires a lot of configuration/hacking or something, possibly because you know Android is based on Linux?

      Android phones are honestly just "plug and play". Its actually surprisingly good at integrating with everything.

        I've never had to dick about with android's internals, but its great that I could if I wanted. Everything I want to do is just supported out the box, even some obscure stuff, at most by downloading the approrpriate app for free from the play store.
        I'm not speaking from a position of any real first hand experience here about Windows phones, but I dont believe there's that much flexibility in a windows phone. Can you even get to a shell at all? Are the tools for developing your own apps free? Can you see the whole file system? Can you treat the phone as a USB thumb drive and copy media and other files back and forward freely and without having to install some stupid app like Itunes? I know for sure that there isn't that much flexibility with an iPhone.

    31. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      To answer your questions because clearly we are both learning here:
      - Windows phone doesn't have a console option that I know of
      - Hook up the phone and it's files can be copied, modified, viewed, deleted like a USB stick. The OS files cannot be viewed or modified from what I can tell
      - Tools to develop apps are free. Deploying them may not be

      My earlier comment was that the windows phone can be used for Android as well. It's almost identical hardware.

      From where I'm sitting, most users (99%) will never want to change anything about the OS. On top of that, by the time a new OS is worth switching to, the phone hardware will either be old or in rough shape and replacing it at no charge on your plan is more logical. For those reasons alone I can't see a company focusing it's efforts to provide any customizability for users. I'm happy Android does it for it's hardcore users but it's not what will make or break a phone OS.

    32. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I dont think you should generalise so much.
      The windows phone may be similar hardware but there are so many Android phones out there that you cant assume the windows phone can match all their features. For example camera megapixels or screen size/resolution might be make/break decisions for someone. In my case they would certainly be factors to consider.

      Similarly you make bold claims that 99% of users wouldnt want to change anything about their OS. Did you just pull that number out the air? I'm not so sure you're even close to right. ..and also about timing of releases that the phone hardware would be so old you might as well buy a new phone by the next version of firmware, is ridiculous at lest in the android world.
      I agree that your thoughts probably echo the mindset of Microsoft, that they always provide for Mr/Mrs "average". However, I and many if not most other people just dont look like that. Personally I don't even know someone that looks like that. The dominance of Android in the global market speaks for itself in proving that the Microsoft marketing mindset just isn't really valid.

    33. Re:Great idea! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I dont think you should generalise so much.
      The windows phone may be similar hardware but there are so many different Android phones out there that you cant assume any windows phone can match or beat all of their features. For example camera megapixels or screen size or resolution might be make/break decisions for someone. In my case they would certainly be factors to consider. The fact that it runs a Microsoft OS alone would put me off.

      Similarly you make bold claims that 99% of users wouldn't want to change anything about their OS. Did you just pull that number out the air? I'm not so sure you're even close to right. ..there are numerous large communities dedicated to Android hacking. Also your point about timing of releases that the phone hardware would be so old you might as well buy a new phone by the next version of firmware, is beyond ridiculous at least in the android world.

      I agree that your thoughts probably echo the mindset of Microsoft, that they always provide for Mr/Mrs "average". However, I and many if not most other people (on slashdot at least) just dont look like that. Personally I don't even know someone that looks like that. The dominance of Android in the global market speaks for itself in proving that the Microsoft marketing mindset just isn't really valid. Thats exactly why Microsoft is going down the pan. They dont even understand their potential customers needs. They are still arrogant enough to assume they can bend their customers to fit the Microsoft model, rather than the other way round. No thanks.

    34. Re:Great idea! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      People don't buy a phone to mess around with it and the 99% number is based on my surroundings. Even the techiest of my friends doesn't give a damn about upgrading firmware or doing anything remotely close to that. They purchased a smart phone that does what they need it to do. Do you buy a calculator with the intent of modifying it? Probably not. Most consumers feel the same way about the purchase of a phone. A smart phone is just another fancy calculator. They pick a brand and move on.

      As for dominance, yes, Android did a good job making sure everybody has access to putting it on their hardware which in my opinion is why Apple is loosing ground. Currently in NA, IOS is still dominating with 50% of the market and Android with 39%. MS on the other hand is struggling at 1.7% but if you look at growth (it is an important number in the business world), it has more than doubled it's presence in the last 365 days.

      To deny that a big market like the smart phone market can be dominated by only 2 players is foolish at best. That kind of thinking is what happened back when Ford released it's model T. Everybody though that Ford and Chrysler (later) would be the only car manufacturers for centuries. Guess what? They were all wrong. As wrong as the people who though IOS would dominate forever and the same as those who think Android will dominate forever.

  9. All 3 are money runners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of the top 3 are hedge fund money runners.

    They are NOT interested in Microsoft's long term health, but in having someone at the top to give their 40%+ return in a year and who the fuck cares what happens after that. If the money runners had their way, Apple would have been liquidated in '98.

    That's what these people are all about.

    They are not techies. They are Wall Street scum bags.

    MS is in the "Cash Cow" phase of its life. It will end. What they need is a 'visionary' who is NOT tied to Wall Street (a la Jobs) but never the less, knows the roots and corporate culture of MS - Gates is the ONLY one who can make the next leader taken seriously.

    1. Re:All 3 are money runners. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      All of the top 3 are hedge fund money runners.

      They are NOT interested in Microsoft's long term health, but in having someone at the top to give their 40%+ return in a year and who the fuck cares what happens after that. If the money runners had their way, Apple would have been liquidated in '98.

      That's what these people are all about.

      They are not techies. They are Wall Street scum bags.

      MS is in the "Cash Cow" phase of its life. It will end. What they need is a 'visionary' who is NOT tied to Wall Street (a la Jobs) but never the less, knows the roots and corporate culture of MS - Gates is the ONLY one who can make the next leader taken seriously.

      Bill Gates is Microsoft's largest shareholder which gives him considerable power. Unfortunately, he lost interest in Microsoft years ago.. That's why he allowed a close personal friend (Steve Ballmer) to remain CEO for 13 years with no regard for how well he did the job.

    2. Re:All 3 are money runners. by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates is Microsoft's largest shareholder which gives him considerable power.

      Largest share holder, holding a grand total of 4.5% of Microsoft shares. If all other share holders want to change something, they could and over power Gates' shares.

    3. Re:All 3 are money runners. by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that he has a deal or contract or something where he sells a ton of his shares back every year. He started with 49% and is down to around 4%. Supposedly he'll have nothing by about 2018 if he stays the course.

    4. Re:All 3 are money runners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is one of those 3 Carl Icahn? Also can we please have the term "activist investor" banned from media use, I'm so sick of that one.

    5. Re:All 3 are money runners. by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2

      Do you have the slightest idea of what it takes to own 4.5% of a company like Microsoft if you're not:

      - the founder
      - a corporate fund (hedge, mutual, pension, etc.)
      - an investment bank
      - a government entity

    6. Re:All 3 are money runners. by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It is probably due to share dilution more than him selling shares. So he will never have "nothing". His estate will even have most of his current shares after his death.

    7. Re:All 3 are money runners. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he lost interest in Microsoft years ago.. That's why he allowed a close personal friend (Steve Ballmer) to remain CEO for 13 years with no regard for how well he did the job.

      I would lose interest in business too, if I were worth $50 billion. At this point, he doesn't really have any reason to care about Microsoft, except as a nostalgia thing.

      But generally speaking, I'd say BillG would be the person most capable of turning the ship around, just because the markets, the employees, and management would all respect him (deservedly or not).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:All 3 are money runners. by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Do you have the slightest idea of what it takes to own 4.5% of a company like Microsoft

      About 12.465 Billion USD?

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    9. Re:All 3 are money runners. by TheP4st · · Score: 1
      Your UID as well as your comment indicate that you are not new here.
      FTA: "Gates, who owned 49 percent of Microsoft before it went public in 1986, sells about 80 million Microsoft shares a year under a pre-set plan, which if continued would leave him with no financial stake in the company by 2018."

      Commenting on an article you didn't read, a well honored /. tradition since 1997

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    10. Re:All 3 are money runners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I did the math right about $400 million.

    11. Re:All 3 are money runners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you have the slightest idea of what it takes to own 4.5% of a company like Microsoft

      About 12.465 Billion USD?

      I doubt it. Buy up the first couple billion dollars worth of stock and then see what happens to the price when the market realizes someone is making a play at a major stake. You won't be any where near that figure when you're done.

    12. Re:All 3 are money runners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sell when that happens. When you have enough money to control the perceptions of the speculators, it's easy to drain them of their cash.

  10. Gates to investors.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Bite my shiny metal ass.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Gates to investors.... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Except Gates doesn't own enough shares to do that.

      He's been steadily selling off his shares for years, and I think he's down to 4.5% or so with the expectation that by 2018 he won't have any.

      At which point, if you're a company trying to make long-term plans and possibly fix things, do you want someone with 4.5% of the shares to be able to wield as much power as Bill does?

      The whole point of this is that Bill is perceived as being able to control a larger proportion of Microsoft than the number of shares he owns would suggest.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  11. Chatauqua Tour by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    If there were to be a no-Gates Microsoft aftermath, I propose a debate tour: Gates vs. RMS, 10 universities.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Chatauqua Tour by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      I propose a debate tour: Gates vs. RMS, 10 universities.

      This is the new Millennium . . . we don't watch people debate any more.

      We lock them up in reality TV shows, and watch them spewing out frivolous drivel for hours on end, before voting on who we dislike the most.

      Gates vs. RMS? I think one of the Kardashians would win that one. Even if they aren't on the show.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Chatauqua Tour by unixisc · · Score: 1

      RMS would win. Gates would faint @ the odor

  12. Gates should step up or step down by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Pick one.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Gates should step up or step down by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Neither. We're microsoft. We'll build an escalator so he can do both at once.

    2. Re:Gates should step up or step down by afgam28 · · Score: 2

      Is this going to be like some kind of shoddy Microsoft elevator, which would send him up a few flights before crashing and sending him tumbling down again? :)

  13. Wouldn't that be fair? by gwstuff · · Score: 2

    If Bill has his focus sharply fixed on the foundation, and that is where he directs all of his energy, then isn't it fair that he not have strong influence on day to day activity in the company.

    "Bill, we need to make a call on Skype. 16 Billion dollar's at stake"
    "Not now, I'm on a bullock cart touring an Indian Village."
    "But Bill, you're the chairman."
    "Ah, yes. Let me think about it. Well, I've thought about it. Buy Skype, but then make sure you follow up by buying Nokia."
    "Got it Bill. You're the boss."
    *click*

  14. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not exactly. Steve Jobs was *the* driving force behind Apple over the last decade or so to the point where the two are almost synonymous. Microsoft, on the other hand, hasn't relied on Bill Gates as the lead visionary and motivator/taskmaster in a long time (and never to the same extent). Jobs was the face of Apple, Gates was/is the face of "don't pick on the nerd, you'll work for his rich ass one day".

  15. Gates interests might not be short term $ by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm certain they want him to step down because they want to focus on short term profits. Investors have no vision, no desire to better the company, no reason to do anything besides focus on short term profits.

    1. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      He most of his shares. I don't think he's interested at all

    2. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investors have no vision, no desire to better the company, no reason to do anything besides focus on short term profits.

      Sounds like you just described IBM...

    3. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, populist bullshit. Smells just as bad as all the other bullshit.

      But yes, let's demonize all investors. Turns out pretty much everything have and take for granted in this society was magically made by poor people dreaming it up and *poof* it appeared

      Fucking slashtards

    4. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      No, investors do have vision, a desire to better the company, and a focus on long-term profits. What you're describing are speculators. Sadly, speculation has become a massive part of the stock market and has almost everything to do with the 90s shift of pensions to stock-based retirement funds managed by mutual and hedge funds.

      The small bright side is that a lot more people are involved in the stock market and its benefits instead of it being limited to only the wealthy. The big down side are events like this where the same people who would have in the past used a few wealthy holders to obtain controlling interest and liquidate a company are now supported by thousands or millions of smaller investors to do the same, often with much more reach in monetary power. And, of course, this isn't to say that no one chooses long-term mutual funds or that all mutual or hedge funds are bad.

      One could even argue that the ability to liquidate a company is a sign of its weakness and the industry is better off with such companies gone. The counter to that, of course, is not that the statement is outright incorrect but the scale of it is way off with short-term greed driving companies out of business to the long-term detriment of everyone, even the investors. The point, though, is it's not a simple black and white issue even to the extent that speculation seems inherently bad.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    5. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by DavidGMan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like those currently in charge of Microsoft. Minus perhaps the short-term profits. There's a reason why it is usually struggling companies (financially or in reputation.. or both) targeted by these so-called "activist" investors. You know Ballmer's successor will make Ballmer appear an excellent manager by comparison, regardless of what internal/external pressures influence the decision on his successor.

    6. Re:Gates interests might not be short term $ by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 1

      Ok, people who are long on stocks are inherently invested in the long-term interests of the company. Most people in the money are not long in the same sense as a "common man" investor is long.

      A guy like Icahn is not long. That what I think of when I say "investor".

  16. Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Microsoft by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's as simple as that. The 3 hedge fund managers are interested in looting the company's bank account, saddling the company with outrageous debt, and then cutting it up and selling off the pieces. It's the Mitt Romney strategy. Or rather, and more accurately, the standard wall-street tactic. It's why America doesn't make anything anymore, and the greedy bastard 1% fuckers should all be lined up against a wall and executed.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  17. they are ignoring the REAL POWER at Microsoft by swschrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clippy is actually running the joint.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:they are ignoring the REAL POWER at Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I see you are trying to run the company, would you like help with that?" -Clippy 2013

    2. Re:they are ignoring the REAL POWER at Microsoft by swamp_ig · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I see you are trying to ruin the company, would you like help with that" - FTFY

  18. Dear Mr. Gates you need to fight back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Mr. Gates, we know your foundation work is important; but so is your company. A lot of the money for the foundation comes from the company, so pay attention.

    We know you don't want to run it yourself; so take the time to find somebody who can run it properly. Pay no attention to your friends. Pick somebody based on talent this time. You might consider a successful IT exec from a non-tech company. That way, they won't have ulterior motives from their previous company and/or culture (e.g., Marissa Mayer from Google, probably a Trojan horse CEO).

    We know it won't be easy, and it'll take some time away from your current work; but if you do it right it'll help your foundation, not to mention your existing user base who are looking at the exit but aren't crushing towards the door.... yet.

    For the love of God and your users, take off the philanthropist hat and put on the executive recruiter hat, and fight. It's actually the same hat, because to some extent what's good for MSFT is good for your causes.

  19. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really just want to piss you off by pointing out that middle class in the US goes up above $400,000 / year and down to roughly $25,000 / year (or maybe even lower). The only 1% that actually exists is the number of people who wouldn't do absolutely anything they had to in order to become rich. Most people would do exactly the same thing as these "wall street scumbags" if they were but given the chance. And like true scumbags, they will deny it right up until the opportunity presents itself.

  20. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft's senior leadership has been looting the company for years at the expense of shareholders. It's only fair that they try to get a turn.

    There are about 1000 MS employees classified as "partners". Their collective compensation totals 1 Billion (with a 'b') a year.
    Let's not mention the way their bonus criteria have constantly "evolved" since the early 2000's to make sure that the money paid to them didn't go down despite the stagnation of the stock price. Let's forget the way stock allocation was massively shifted to said partners at the expense of rank and file employees when the choice was made to move from options to restricted stock units.

    The truth is, shareholders' money has been dead in the water for well over the decade and in the meantime, the senior leadership and their cronies have kept on feasting off the beast.

    If shareholders do loot the company and run it into the ground it will be the result of Gates, Ballmer & Co's shortsightedness in the way they treated them.

  21. Reminds me of an old game on X11 by xming · · Score: 1

    xkillbill

    1. Re:Reminds me of an old game on X11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was "xbill", aaah, the memories... http://www.xbill.org/

  22. Thanks Valve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For giving us Steam OS, will change the moment Bill is kicked out.

  23. That would be a mistake by geekoid · · Score: 2

    He is starting to earn a lot of good will, and that will reflect in the price as long as he is attached to the company in a role.

    Of course he could step down to CEO; which would be hilarious AND helpfull

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It's a vulture capitalist tactic. Wall Street is far more encompassing than that one strategy.

    " It's why America doesn't make anything anymore,"

    That not true, America makes a lot of things.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to fire all middle managers and developers with a stick up their arse, then they must give all the power to steve jobs 2.0, he'll revolutionize MS, or they'll keep having a stick up their arse and grind it through as always.

  26. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Nyder · · Score: 1

    ... It's why America doesn't make anything anymore, and the greedy bastard 1% fuckers should all be lined up against a wall and executed.

    Just to be sure, shouldn't we take out the top 5%?

    --
    Be seeing you...
  27. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    That not true, America makes a lot of things.

    Vulture capitalists don't count.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  28. lolwut by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I think his response should be something like:
    "Lol wut? Right after I stepped down as CEO or whatever in 01 is precisely when MS went off the rails on a crazy train. I'm hijacking this bitch 100%. Everyone else get off"

    1. Re:lolwut by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " Right after I stepped down as CEO or whatever in 01 is precisely when MS went off the rails on a crazy train."

      That is a pretty major bit of revisionist history. Microsoft started sucking well before 2001.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  29. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be sure, shouldn't we take out the top 5%?

    It's 5x more work and once the 1% lose everything, it generally takes 100 years for a new 1% to become so arrogant again.

  30. Minority != Minor by sjbe · · Score: 1

    5% is not a minority share holder.

    Anyone with less than 50% of the voting rights is a minority shareholder by definition. Minority shareholder != Minor shareholder.

  31. Bean counter time by p51d007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They want Gates out of the way because he still has "power" over the company, to a point. Mostly, the shareholders want him out, similar to the way they wanted Jobs out, so they could cut cut cut, to prop up the stock price.

    1. Re:Bean counter time by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

      Who modded this down? It's exactly right

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  32. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ". Microsoft, on the other hand, hasn't relied on Bill Gates as the lead visionary"

    Try to be serious. Gates ran the company. Nobody who has ever read "The Road Ahead" would ever describe Gates as a visionary. We are talking about the guy who said that the Internet was just a fad. His only great insight was that there was a huge pool of people who knew little to nothing about computers whom he could potentially exploit if he simply modeled his company after an organized crime syndicate.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  33. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW that includes a large portion of Slashdot. How many rich people do you think there are?

  34. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are crazy if you think someone that makes $400,000/yr is in the same "class" as someone that makes $25,000/yr. On can buy a nice new home in a year and pay cash, the other would have to struggle for a long time just to get a home.

  35. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill coded, Steve sold. Neither was actually evil, but they are/were psychopaths , as are all the top alphas

  36. From Apple Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that.

  37. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you(we) do that, then what would we all do with the added 98% of the money that the 5% make?

      I dunno, I'd probably buy a piece of land, a house, open up a reasonable small business that employs 10 to 100 people. I'd be able to replace my car every few years. Still have mony in the bank, and can afford any kind of unforseen medical expenses. Because with what the 1% makes over the rest of us, would be able to fund 46% of those in poverty.

      Hell our Society wouldn't know what the fuck to do with all that deflation from killing off those who keep prices high.

      I've thought long and hard about this. We kill off that 1 percent, we still have 98% of others to fight. To me, it's the stupid ones that will get me killed. Not the 1%

      (where did I go with this comment?)

  38. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how many young people think they understand the history of MS. Fucking unreal.

  39. Open Windows? Microsoft Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Microsoft's leadership changes, we might see something cool happen like a Microsoft Linux distro, or other free operating system type thing. For those of you who think Microsoft shipping Linux would be too crazy of an idea, you should remember that Microsoft used to ship AT&T Unix for PC's, called Xenix.

    At the very least they could give Windows licenses free of charge.

    1. Re:Open Windows? Microsoft Linux? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      One good idea - put Windows 8 under AGPL 3

  40. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by brwski · · Score: 1

    Here's the fun part: most people that make $400,000 live like people with $25,000; they're also up to their eyeballs in debt, they're just doing it with the same sorts of things, only (marginally) better . They could be living like kings with what they have, if they'd just drive basic cars and live in decent houses, but the vast majority feel the need to signal what they own, and in so doing, leave themselves just as badly off as those supposedly below them. Those in the top range may have more access to credit, but they, in many cases, have no more liquidity than those at the lower end. Stupid, right? But it is how it is.

    --

    brwski
    "Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''

  41. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

    Someone with an ID that low probably isn't all that young. I created this one 13 years ago.

  42. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    As a guy who was writing software before Microsoft bought QDOS form Seattle Computer Products, slapped the name MS-DOS on it, and called it "theirs" I wholeheartedly agree.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  43. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates was a nerd who got lucky, and as he freely admits, went out and hired some really smart people and surrounded himself with those. Gates knows he is not a god, so planned for the day he wasn't running the place, and surprisingly stepped away and did great things in other fields. Gates might even be remembered more for the things he did outside of microsoft than for starting it.

      The problem is those smart people have now turned to him and said we really don't understand, Bill, can you fix this for us. Thing is they are right, Gates is probably should be involved in finding a successor as they are too stupid and most likely would muck it up.

      Jobs actually believed he was magical. He believe he was part god. Jobs was not really a nerd, he was a successful control freak. He believed he couldn't die. I find the stories about Bill and Steve talking in the hospital. Bill trying to talk seriously about trying to change the world after Steve is dead and using his money to do that. Steve is like "people? Who cares? Look at my new boat, its got gorilla glass". I dunno, maybe steve is a god, maybe he has transended physical form or has had himselfed cloned so he can retake the company.

  44. Re: Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you underestimate the importantance of vision and product design.

    A painter who can't dream or imagine is not the same as a dreamer or visionary who can convince a team to paint his dreams for him.

  45. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I think you are off by a bit. My SlashID is a little higher than yours and I created it before 2000. It was in 1998 IIRC. According to Wikipedia: "By June 1998 the site was seeing as many as 100,000 page views per day and advertisers began to take notice.[3] By December 1998, Slashdot had net revenues of $18,000, yet its Internet profile was higher, and revenues were expected to increase. On June 29, 1999, the site was sold to Linux megasite Andover.net for $1.5 million in cash and $7 million in Andover stock at the IPO price.", and I know I had been a regular Slashdotter some time prior to the sale.

    Of course, you are assuming he was referring to me. My guess is that he was agreeing with me and commenting on the GP, who has an ID of 1966756 and doesn't appear to know the history of M$ very well.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  46. Re: Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by symbolset · · Score: 3, Informative

    It takes a visionary painter to invent selling paintings. People will give Gates credit for a lot of things he does not deserve, and I am not one of those. But he did pretty much invent the commercial software market, for good or ill.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  47. What this looks like by symbolset · · Score: 1

    At the current and long standing rate his divestment will be complete in 2018, so he has been waving goodbye for a quarter century. By coincidence this is just after Steve Ballmer's long expected departure when his youngest child graduates high school.

    Now Ballmer is cutting out early and so is he. At least giving the appearance. But wait - as a billionaire with his own investment groups that manage not only his vast wealth he could actually be the one calling for his own ouster. That way he can escape the infamy while retaining control.

    While now only a fourth of his wealth his direct Microsoft holdings are still a significant amout of wealth to recover for his Foundation. Hence an immense dividend and buyback program to keep the cash up, followed by a turn and burn hotshot to ramp the share price temporarily as he divests.

    OK, now it makes sense. The company dies, erasing the stain on his charitable legacy, at the same time maximizing the Foundation's benefit. Everybody wins, and because he was kicked out rather than fled it is not his fault what happened after. Brilliant!

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  48. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by dkf · · Score: 1

    It's 5x more work and once the 1% lose everything, it generally takes 100 years for a new 1% to become so arrogant again.

    Actually, it's on the order of 200 years (no, I don't remember where I read that). Not that I'm saying you don't get crises in between (and different parts of the world may well be moving at different phases of the cycle). Still, go back around 200 years and you get a very forthright approach to dealing with an unacceptable elite: the French revolutionary one. Now, I don't advocate a general massacre of the 1%; I fear such a thing, as I've no idea at all whether I'd gain from the ensuing upheaval. But my real fear is that the 1% doesn't bear in mind that they really can lose absolutely everything, including their lives and the livelihoods of everyone they care for; I suspect that they believe themselves untouchable, and I suspect that's one of the major things that fuels widespread revolt.

    We're sliding towards the abyss and too many people want it to happen. Shit.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  49. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    Don't knock it. The stupidity of the wealthy stimulates the economy and helps redistribute some of their wealth.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  50. Re:Real headline: Wall Street wants to loot Micros by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    BS. "trickle down" economics has long since been disproven. It was known to be BS even at the time Reagan and Thatcher were pushing it.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  51. Probably the "investors" want to make a buck by the_arrow · · Score: 1

    In the Ars Technica article about it they speculate that the "investors" just want to get rid of him so they more easily can sell off parts of Microsoft to make a quick buck.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  52. We really need a level marketplace by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    The worst effect of Microsoft in my mind is that they shoved a mediocre OS down the worlds throat and while doing so, managed to convince generations of people that don't know otherwise that Bill gave us the Personal Computer. It makes me crazy every time I hear it, and what always follows is that I get accused of being jealous. Back in the late seventies, I thought there was going to be a new world fueled by the advent of the microprocessor. Bill's questionable marketing tactics slanted the playing field and suppressed the independent software business. There were some glory days, but it didn't take long before the popular wisdom was that you needed millions of dollars to launch a new application in the marketplace. In my mind, Bill represents everything I dislike about the current marketplace. If he sold his soul to the devil for forty or fifty years of fame and power, wake up nick, and go collect already.

  53. Steve Jobs Anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember what happened to Steve Jobs and Apple, as does the rest of the world. Bill Gates is an investor, an entrepreneur, a businessman, a computer programmer ... the founder of one of the most successful companies in the world ...

  54. Re:Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by kloro2006 · · Score: 1

    if the suits succeed, it will be another case of american productivity gutted by greedy stockholders.

  55. Re: Killing the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And much of the underlying DOS OS calls were just like DR's CPM.