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."
"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"
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
...from looting Microsoft.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Pick one.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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*
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".
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.
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.
Clippy is actually running the joint.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
xkillbill
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
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
... 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...
Vulture capitalists don't count.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
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"
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.
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.
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
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''
Someone with an ID that low probably isn't all that young. I created this one 13 years ago.
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
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
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.
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.
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'!"
Don't knock it. The stupidity of the wealthy stimulates the economy and helps redistribute some of their wealth.
This space intentionally left blank
I think Ballmer should become the chairman, and then let a new CEO, such as Elope take over
One good idea - put Windows 8 under AGPL 3
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.
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
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.
if the suits succeed, it will be another case of american productivity gutted by greedy stockholders.