Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's going to be interesting to see if a new CEO can save Microsoft. Back in 2004, I posted on MacNN that I thought Microsoft was on an eventual march to a slow death given their dependence on Office and Windows, and I was shot down. It's been fascinating to see what was clear so long ago begin to take place, though perhaps more quickly then I could have anticipated. It's certainly possible to turn this company around and make my prediction incorrect, but it would be extremely difficult.
The Board is being somewhat proactive in removing Balmer before things get worse, but the problem is Microsoft is still a company with a steady revenue stream from Windows and Office. You need to break some eggs to make an omelette and I'm not sure shareholders will accept that. They may prefer the slow death of Microsoft, even if they don't admit it, because the alternative is to move quickly in a different direction and take on risk. Apple was on the brink of failure when Steve Jobs took over, the only option the company had was to take risks. That is not yet the case with Microsoft.
I certainly wouldn't want to take over as the CEO of Microsoft. For the life of me, I can't think of a way for Microsoft to somehow maintain the status quo and simultaneously innovate into new and/or existing markets. Obviously cleaning the current culture within the company would help things along, and there must surely be some good ideas employees can bring to the table, so perhaps a new CEO can work with the existing resources within the company and cull out of them a more successful path then could Balmer. Short of that, Microsoft has a long way to fall before they can pick themselves up again, assuming they even will.
The Board is being somewhat proactive in removing Balmer before things get worse, but the problem is Microsoft is still a company with a steady revenue stream from Windows and Office. You need to break some eggs to make an omelette and I'm not sure shareholders will accept that. They may prefer the slow death of Microsoft, even if they don't admit it, because the alternative is to move quickly in a different direction and take on risk. Apple was on the brink of failure when Steve Jobs took over, the only option the company had was to take risks. That is not yet the case with Microsoft.
I certainly wouldn't want to take over as the CEO of Microsoft. For the life of me, I can't think of a way for Microsoft to somehow maintain the status quo and simultaneously innovate into new and/or existing markets. Obviously cleaning the current culture within the company would help things along, and there must surely be some good ideas employees can bring to the table, so perhaps a new CEO can work with the existing resources within the company and cull out of them a more successful path then could Balmer. Short of that, Microsoft has a long way to fall before they can pick themselves up again, assuming they even will.
And I was just about to say the same about you. In fact, I just did.
The stock has flatlined for over ten years, for essentially the entire time Ballmer has been running the company. Investors are clearly saying that change is needed, and they don't much care what kind of change it is, so long as it's coming from someone else. Personally, I don't buy into the sentiment, and not because I admire Steve Ballmer, but because I don't see how anyone changes Microsoft. FWIW, I'd have said the same thing about Apple in the mid-90s, until Steve Jobs came along and commanded the attention needed to rebuild the company from the inside out. Not only will Microsoft not get a Steve Jobs figure, I suspect the board does not see the crisis as being acute enough to warrant a rebuilding. But that's exactly what the company needs.
----------
This too. I could have saved myself some typing.
I was more trying to point out one basic fact. Google is a one-trick pony, they make 95% of their profits from ads. Microsoft has several billion dollar cash-cows. Yet according to the stock market, we should think Google is the more successful company (despite making less money).
Think about it.
Exactly, and companies that have had a CEO in place for years and is approaching retirement put a plan in place to groom his/her replacement, it's good business sense. It's quite clear they have none in mind, and it's safe to assume they don't have anyone in mind within Microsoft, that they're going to have to go outside, which means they want change. Not "One Microsoft" change, but change on a grand scale, perhaps change that sees certain products spun off into other companies to take advantage without the restrictions Microsoft puts on the success of them.
It's not really surprising this happens immediately following the announcement that the company had to write down nearly $1B due to the latest Surface fiasco, I'd bet that was the final straw for the board, and the market agreed.
Really? How many industries did Balmer transform?
Microsoft has this huge legacy in Enterprise for desktops, etc so it almost earns profits by default. His ham handed management of Microsoft is why they are chasing Apple and Google.
Jobs took an almost bankrupt company and made it into a juggernaut. Jobs had more vision and marketing skills in the nail of his Great Toe than Balmer has in his entire body.
I always love looking at Balmer making laughing predictions about how others will fail and then think of the Kin, Zune or Surface. He still doesn't get it.
Maybe part of the the problem is the board as well and maybe it is time to elect a completely new board.
But the look and feel of iOS is meant for the mobile arena.
Yet that didn't stop Apple from implementing it on OSX.
Why can't Google do the reverse? A Google-designed, free Linux flavor that integrates well with Android. Is that so hard to imagine?
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.
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.
I think the guy is clearly talented and would probably do pretty well at MS.
Jobs clearly kept him around for a reason, and I think, personally, seeing what iOS has become visually after his departure, I'd probably have kept him around a bit longer.
I agree that anyone with any degree of self-worth would feel pretty crap on the news that their retirement announcement ushers a boost in share price. Without even knowing who will be the replacement. But I get the impression that Ballmer's not the sensitive type!
agreed, but keeping the apps exclusive to their company would help them attract more customers, they should make more software goodies but keep them with microsoft, that's how they'll get out of the trouble and will be playing in millions again
He reminds me a bit of Uncle Fester of the Adams family 
.......both in looks and IT-knowledge
----------
Shouldn't you be posting on the winrumors forum?
.......both in looks and IT-knowledge----------
Shouldn't you be posting on the winrumors forum?
Last edited:
They probably could, wouldn't make it any less crappy... but they could.
Then again, they probably wouldn't anyway because they're pushing Chrome OS.
I have thought about it, quite a lot over the years.
Microsoft and Google are surprisingly similar. They both make their money with one or two products and use that revenue to fund a bunch of other ventures that aren't necessarily profitable. Neither seem to have any internal compass.
From there, they differ. Microsoft has always been slow to recognize that any plan other than the one they have always followed will ever be needed. Nearly every product but Windows and Enterprise loses money and every new product either flops badly or requires immense sunk costs over years before it becomes profitable.
Google on the other hand seems to have a case of corporate ADD. They flit around trying ideas they don't seem to have much appeal, or to fit into any plan. Meanwhile they leave products seemingly half-completed, as though they lost interest before they were done.
The markets like Google better because their core business still has growth potential and for all their lack of focus, they are growing, and trying other approaches. Microsoft's core business is shrinking visibly but they plow on as if nothing is wrong. Investors hate that.
----------
Sadly, some Microsoft insiders are on the CEO short list. I'd make book that one of them gets the job, if only because they need make this happen quickly. Ballmer is now a lame duck and probably won't be able to get anything done. I'm sure a lot of the most qualified outsiders would be reluctant to take the job, knowing that they'd never have the kind of authority that Ballmer had. And look what happened to him.
It would be hugely ironic if Microsoft voluntarily split up its operations into freestanding companies. This was precisely the remedy first proposed in US v Microsoft. The company of course objected loudly, and it never happened. But it might have been a blessing in disguise for them, knowing what we know now.
Their core businesses are "shrinking" while their profits just kept growing (even through the recession).
Their core businesses, meaning the desktop OS and Enterprise. Yes, profits can grow, some, even when the business does not. A company does that by working the other side of the ledger.
This chart tells the tale:
http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/eps
And, I put a whole lot more in my post.
Yes you did.
Most of it I didn't understand.
I don't understand how Google's core business (ads) has huge potential. Then again, I didn't understand how Facebook stocks are at the price they are, so maybe my stock market knowledge isn't there.
Okay, I knew you'd go the Windows 8 direction. Windows 8 doesn't suck because it attempts integration. It sucks because it attempts integration badly. And Windows (and their tactics) sucked as it is to begin with.
Now, when I referred to Android on the desktop, I was referring to a flavor of Linux that would maintain many design elements of Android, much like what Apple has done with the "iOSification" of OSX. It doesn't have to be called Android. It'd be a free desktop OS (well, what Linux already is) that has Google behind it, to control and implement the integration of the two OSes in a good way. Keep desktop control elements where necessary (keyboard and mouse), but implement many of the look, feel, and design elements from Android.
I'm not saying this would be better than the OSX/iOS combination (although, if done well, could be a SERIOUS threat). My point is, if Google did what I'm saying, and PC OEMs started shipping with a (free) Google flavor of Linux, I think Windows could die very quickly in the consumer space.
Microsoft needs to do what people have been mentioning to death here:
Platform-agnostic Office. Let go of hardware.
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.
Yes you did.
Most of it I didn't understand.
I don't understand how Google's core business (ads) has huge potential. Then again, I didn't understand how Facebook stocks are at the price they are, so maybe my stock market knowledge isn't there.
Google is the king of online and mobile advertising. They are dominating this market like Microsoft dominated the desktop OS market from the 1980s on. As long as this market grows, so does Google.
As for Facebook, you got me. That stock plunged after the IPO and recovered to exceed the IPO price only recently.
I hadn't thought of that parallel, though it does seem like they're acting a lot like 1980's-1990's Microsoft.
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?
I've gotten the impression it's the latter, but I'd like to hear more thoughts.
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.