Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to Retire 'Within 12 Months'

There was a reason Forstall was shown the door. He wants to be Steve Jobs but he isn't.
It sounds like he was poison at Apple. It always seemed like he held iOS back and not wanting to tinker with it and improve it, instead resting on his laurels while fooling himself that it was okay as it was. That is symptomatic of what happened to MS.
Why has it taken Apple so long to incorporate convenient and desired features into iOS. I am diehard an Apple fan as anyone but it was irritating to see so little innovation in further developing iOS. Apparently that was all Forstall.
MS can't hire Forstall. It doesn't seem like he has the people skills or the strategic vision to maneuver MS into a better direction.
 
Ryth said:
Oh...totally. Many said that the stock would go up 10%-20% if Ballmer retired. No one had any confidence in him ever. Gates basically handed over the keys to an incompetent individual. This guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time when he met Gates ages ago.
Click to expand...

He was in sales and marketing. He heard Gates say, "Windows on every desktop" years ago. That's why he ended up with the mess of two different tablets and Windows 8.
 
JGRE said:
He reminds me a bit of Uncle Fester of the Adam :D.......both in looks and IT-knowledge

----------



Shouldn't you be posting on the winrumors forum?
Click to expand...

I agree with him. Apple has gotten too complacent, too lazy; they used to have to actually compete with Microsoft. In a way, they've sort of jumped markets and no longer do because of this; but many people jumped from Microsoft and Apple's market (desktop/laptop computers) to pretty much just Apple's (iPad/iPhone) and a new player (Google with Android) as well.

Microsoft has been doing good things by diversifying into these, as well as other markets, but they've been doing so poorly; I want to see Microsoft "rise from the ashes" if you will. Perhaps maybe not to reclaim the near-monopoly they once had in their markets, but to become a real threat and viable alternative to Apple, Google and whomever else.

I like Microsoft, always have. It makes me sad to have seen Ballmer damn near run this company straight into the ground. Perhaps a new CEO can kickstart this company, and get the ball rolling again. And maybe give Apple a quick kick to the rear as well to show them they haven't won yet. ;)
 
hchung said:
Even if you decided to somehow make a desktop environment out of Android which has quality UI elements which are more adept to the desktop, you've still basically recreated the Windows RT problem: What you think you see isn't what you actually get.

Windows RT looks like Windows 8.
Windows RT can't run Windows 8 apps.
Users are confused.

Desktop Android would still look vaguely like Android.
Some Android apps (pure Dalvik-only, so no fancy games basically) could run on Desktop but they'd be severely crippled in usability as not all PCs have touchscreens, and using a mouse to emulate a touch control is very poor usability.
Desktop Android would NOT be fully compatible with traditional Linux distros. The only similarity is that they both use the Linux kernel, however everything else is different. Now, one could say, well just include everything else. You can't. You've added the GNU userland, but if you're going to pick a specific package manager and window manager, you've still broken compatibility with many others. APT vs RPM vs portage vs etc. GNOME vs KDE vs etc.

Google's done what they can to provide a custom Linux distro that PC vendors can use which avoids the Windows RT problem: Chrome OS. You get a stable browser which lets you access the internet, and you're pretty much entirely protected from having to maintain your computer, and when it breaks, your next one resumes where your current one left off. Pretty compelling for the average user.
Click to expand...

Okay, I don't understand why every response to my post seems focused on using Windows 8 as a template. I already stated that the Windows 8/RT example is the wrong approach.

What I am contending is that Google could emulate Apple instead, in reverse. I'm not saying that Google should shoehorn Android into the desktop (like the ever-present Windows example).

I'm saying they could come up with their own Linux distro that is optimized to work with Android in the same way that iOS and OSX work together. Their Linux flavor wouldn't have to be compatible with other Linux distros, why would they need to be? The idea is for Google to extend their ecosystem to the desktop. Again, Apple has done the reverse here: they've extended the Mac ecosystem to the mobile space with iOS. I believe that integration of the mobile and desktop experience is the future. Microsoft just sucked at it. The key (and the hard part) is how this is accomplished. So far, I prefer Apple's way. But if done right, Google could present a viable alternative and kill Windows outright in the consumer space.

While I think it unlikely to occur, it would be better that Chrome, in my opinion. I don't think that an "Internet-access required" OS is better than the alternative. I want to be able to use my computer offline, store things offline, etc. Chrome is not the answer to the integration problem, and I think Google should just ditch it altogether.
 
melendezest said:
Okay, I don't understand why every response to my post seems focused on using Windows 8 as a template. I already stated that the Windows 8/RT example is the wrong approach.

What I am contending is that Google could emulate Apple instead, in reverse. I'm not saying that Google should shoehorn Android into the desktop (like the ever-present Windows example).

I'm saying they could come up with their own Linux distro that is optimized to work with Android in the same way that iOS and OSX work together. Their Linux flavor wouldn't have to be compatible with other Linux distros, why would they need to be? The idea is for Google to extend their ecosystem to the desktop. Again, Apple has done the reverse here: they've extended the Mac ecosystem to the mobile space with iOS. I believe that integration of the mobile and desktop experience is the future. Microsoft just sucked at it. The key (and the hard part) is how this is accomplished. So far, I prefer Apple's way. But if done right, Google could present a viable alternative and kill Windows outright in the consumer space.

While I think it unlikely to occur, it would be better that Chrome, in my opinion. I don't think that an "Internet-access required" OS is better than the alternative. I want to be able to use my computer offline, store things offline, etc. Chrome is not the answer to the integration problem, and I think Google should just ditch it altogether.
Click to expand...

We use Windows 8/RT as an example because that's the closest, most recent, and highest-probability-of-success example to what you're describing, even if you don't mean to be describing it so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're starting with the claim that iOS and OSX were somehow optimized to "work together" for the user in some meaningful, significant, and unique way. Perhaps you need to elaborate this first, as I simply don't see it that way. For the common user, what makes the relationship between iOS and the user's OSX desktop unique in a positive way that could not exist between iOS and the user's Windows desktop?

Additionally, we've seen that PC sales are declining across the market. You're suggesting Google enter that specific field as it declines. And you're suggesting they develop an OS package and encourage users of existing desktop OS' move to theirs with the promise that their existing software won't work, but their Android phone would somehow work better. This seems very unlikely to work because I don't see how a user benefits by severely crippling their desktop PC by removing their ability to run the software they depend on.

Until then, the best we can do is simply read your suggestion as "make a Linux distro that vaguely resembles Android."
 
hchung said:
While I think he's got great vision, I'm not familiar with Sinofsky's management style; would he allow for these fiefdoms to continue? Or would he go with the more dictatorial "we're doing this vision; my way or the highway" unification?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, he was all about continuing the status quo at MS. It was the reason why he was shown the door instead of being groomed as the next CEO. He didn't want Windows division working with Office, or the web apps team, or the services team. Ballmer, for all his faults, saw that the biggest problem with the company is that it's really 50 smaller companies more concerned about doing their own thing, and not caring at all about working together. That's what that big 200 billion page announcement he made was all about a few months back. Addressing this one big issue.

He might've been a good CEO. Who knows. But I think if things continue on as is, MS will be a has been company sooner than not. They need to be one company working for one common good like Apple currently is.

Personally, I'd love to see Steven Sinosky, Scott Forstall, and Andy Rubin join up and start a new company. If they don't kill each other first, I think they'd seriously do an awesome job.
Click to expand...

Eh. I dunno. I think it'd be like having an Apple with 3 Steve Jobs on the pay roll. By themselves, they'd be great. But each one would have their own ideas about how things should be done, and would refuse to listen to outside opinions.

It's the too many cooks problem. You might think having a bunch of top tier chefs working on something would produce the tastiest plate of food you've ever had. But it'd more likely end up being a hodgepodge of terrible ingredients mixed together badly because no one was willing to compromise on what they thought was best.
 
I don't get the Balmer hate, he was one of the MS originals he helped shaped the personal and enterprise computer market. By all outward appearance he's all in for MS. Not all people are stellar CEO's and that's OK Ballmer was the logical pick when Gates went on to show the world he was actually a nice guy. The guy spent 33 years at MS he deserves a little respect.
 
GermanyChris said:
I don't get the Balmer hate, he was one of the MS originals he helped shaped the personal and enterprise computer market. By all outward appearance he's all in for MS. Not all people are stellar CEO's and that's OK Ballmer was the logical pick when Gates went on to show the world he was actually a nice guy. The guy spent 33 years at MS he deserves a little respect.
Click to expand...

Ballmer got more "respect" than he deserved. If getting canned hurts his feelings, he can always rub some money on it.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Ballmer got more "respect" than he deserved. If getting canned hurts his feelings, he can always rub some money on it.
Click to expand...

Yea he's in his 50's and is worth 15 billion I don't think his feelings are hurt so much. I'm talking about this forum and it's inability to see beyond it's nose.
 
GermanyChris said:
Yea he's in his 50's and is worth 15 billion I don't think his feelings are hurt so much. I'm talking about this forum and it's inability to see beyond it's nose.
Click to expand...

I can see beyond my nose well enough to know that Ballmer would at best have risen to middle management at any other company.
 
IJ Reilly said:
I can see beyond my nose well enough to know that Ballmer would at best have risen to middle management at any other company.
Click to expand...

Not as the first real business manager of MS, he oversaw the rise to prominence and the cut throat ending of competition that was a hallmark of MS in the 80's and 90's. He's as responsible as Gates for the rise to power and the preeminence of MS.
 
GermanyChris said:
Not as the first real business manager of MS, he oversaw the rise to prominence and the cut throat ending of competition that was a hallmark of MS in the 80's and 90's. He's as responsible as Gates for the rise to power and the preeminence of MS.
Click to expand...

Most people don't realize this, they just think Gates did everything that made Microsoft big.
 
GermanyChris said:
Not as the first real business manager of MS, he oversaw the rise to prominence and the cut throat ending of competition that was a hallmark of MS in the 80's and 90's. He's as responsible as Gates for the rise to power and the preeminence of MS.
Click to expand...

Michael Goff said:
Most people don't realize this, they just think Gates did everything that made Microsoft big.
Click to expand...

I know as much as anyone about Ballmer's role in Microsoft during the early years. The point I made before was that Microsoft would likely be in the same jam today if Bill Gates had remained as CEO. He and Ballmer have the same mindset, and mindset is the fundamental problem here. The big difference between the two is, Ballmer was at the helm when Microsoft really needed to execute a major strategic shift. The failure to recognize this will be Ballmer's legacy, more than it will be the legacy of Bill Gate -- though they are both culpable.
 
hchung said:
We use Windows 8/RT as an example because that's the closest, most recent, and highest-probability-of-success example to what you're describing, even if you don't mean to be describing it so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're starting with the claim that iOS and OSX were somehow optimized to "work together" for the user in some meaningful, significant, and unique way. Perhaps you need to elaborate this first, as I simply don't see it that way. For the common user, what makes the relationship between iOS and the user's OSX desktop unique in a positive way that could not exist between iOS and the user's Windows desktop?

Additionally, we've seen that PC sales are declining across the market. You're suggesting Google enter that specific field as it declines. And you're suggesting they develop an OS package and encourage users of existing desktop OS' move to theirs with the promise that their existing software won't work, but their Android phone would somehow work better. This seems very unlikely to work because I don't see how a user benefits by severely crippling their desktop PC by removing their ability to run the software they depend on.

Until then, the best we can do is simply read your suggestion as "make a Linux distro that vaguely resembles Android."
Click to expand...

I thought Windows 8 was failing miserably; I don't see it as a high-probability-for-success example. In my view, it attempts the mobile/desktop integration awkwardly. And the masses agree.

The Apple-iOS integration, it's one of the best features of the Mac ecosystem (I may be in the minority of people who actually appreciated Apple's "back to the Mac" initiative), for my part at least. Apps that exist in iOS and the Mac look and feel the same, if not exactly alike in features or performance. With Windows-iOS, you're limited to the iCloud web app interface, which, well, sucks. I hate using iCloud on a PC. It is nowhere near as good an experience as Launchpad (which could also stand to improve; I'm not saying it's perfect) and Mac app integration. But if you don't find the iOS-OSX integration meaningful then there's no point in arguing it further.

Good point about Google entering the market as it declines. I mentioned that this move would be unlikely, and your point makes it more so. However, Google is lacking the desktop piece of the desktop/mobile integration I've been describing, as Apple does. The desktop is not going away, it's being downsized. I'm simply stating that Google could attempt to come up with a free desktop OS alternative (which is why I thought of Linux), and if they were successful, it could become a serious threat to Windows. How Google achieves this is not the point; that's for them to figure out. I'm just suggesting examples (I'm not a software engineer, nor do I wish to be) that provide a better mobile-desktop integration option than what Windows is doing now.
 
hamiltonDSi said:
Damn I hate that guy
Click to expand...

Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, and everyone running Google or Facebook loved him :D

----------
katewes said:
If Scott Forstall becomes next MS CEO, he might be able to tweak Microsoft into an Apple-like behemoth that has larger market share than Apple has ever had.

I also think that Microsoft's current think-tank lead designers are not in the mould of Steve Jobs and Jon Ive, so if Forstall gets the CEO job, he might need to re-shape the MS team.
Click to expand...

Would I wish Scott Forstall on my worst enemy?
Maybe I would. :D
 
Renzatic said:
See, MS' biggest problem isn't that they're "stupid", or "not innovative", or whatever you'll hear around here. Some of the brightest minds in the industry work there. The problem is in how the company is managed from the top. Instead of having a huge group working as a unified whole, you have tons of little fiefdoms throughout the company, all sabotaging and fighting each other every step of the way. The end result is a series of great ideas butchered before they get to the final line, and don't integrate as smoothly or as efficiently as they could.
Click to expand...

If I worked at Microsoft, every time the company hired someone competent, it would be in my self-interest to trip them up, keep them from doing anything good, so that I look relatively better. Employees there cannot afford to work for the good of the company, instead they have to work on promoting themselves.

Where I work, I'm actually glad every time the company hires a good engineer, because it means we get more good stuff done in our team. That makes a huge difference in efficiency. A group of people working together and not afraid if someone else in the group is doing well achieves a lot more than a bunch of people turned into vultures by their management, hating each other and being jealous of each others' achievements.
 
Steve Jobs was able to turn Apple around because of the hidden value that was inside in people (e.g. Jony Ive, Avie Tevanian, Jon Rubinstein) and know how/technolgies (e.g. QuickTime, NeXTSTEP). He could not have done alone. He was helped tremendously by very smart and capable people. Jobs gave it a focus and a drive and his personal genius for recognizing a good user experience.

Neither is Ballmer to blame solely for the long series of misses and completely misunderstood happenings (like the iPhone appearing). Ballmer sits atop a company of which you can doubt it has that same potential as Apple had when Steve returned. Ballmers constant misses when confronted with something Apple did the first ten years of this century (laughing at it, mocking it and completely misunderstanding it) strongly suggests that it was not just Ballmer, but Microsoft in total that was unable to understand.

So, when some new CEO comes in, how much time will it take to change the company culture into something that does not produce all those hopeless messed up user experiences? Even if the new CEO is brilliant, he sits on top of something that won't be able to support the vision.
 
GermanyChris said:
I don't get the Balmer hate, he was one of the MS originals he helped shaped the personal and enterprise computer market. By all outward appearance he's all in for MS. Not all people are stellar CEO's and that's OK Ballmer was the logical pick when Gates went on to show the world he was actually a nice guy. The guy spent 33 years at MS he deserves a little respect.
Click to expand...

Respect because he was there 33 years in the good days?

The reality is he consistently failed MS. IMHO MS went from bad to worse over his tenure. By any measure he's failed. I'd like to see a healthy MS and Steve Ballmer by his history was not the guy to do it.

MS should have ditched him eons ago.

I'm looking forward to the next chapter at MS. They have a serious amount of stuff to fix.
 
Mystic386 said:
Respect because he was there 33 years in the good days?

The reality is he consistently failed MS. IMHO MS went from bad to worse over his tenure. By any measure he's failed. I'd like to see a healthy MS and Steve Ballmer by his history was not the guy to do it.

MS should have ditched him eons ago.

I'm looking forward to the next chapter at MS. They have a serious amount of stuff to fix.
Click to expand...

Respect because he created the good days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back