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."

55 of 218 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. Re: Bill Gates' response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Vampires beware!

    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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!
    11. 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!
    12. 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
    13. 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"
  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 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"
  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 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.
    2. 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...
  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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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."
    5. 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.

  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.
  6. 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/
  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  8. 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 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.

    2. 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

  9. 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 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? :)

  10. 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*

  11. 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".

  12. 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 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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

  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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!
  18. 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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.