
CEOs Who Should Have Already Been Fired - asto
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/05/12/oops-5-ceos-that-should-have-already-been-fired-cisco-ge-walmart-sears-microsoft/3/
======
brudgers
> _"Microsoft is PC company, nothing more, as demand for PCs shifts to
> mobile._ "

I doubt Forbes serves its website from an iPhone.

B2C is a small portion of Microsoft's business (though massive on an absolute
scale). From the days of their agreement with IBM, Microsoft has always been
grounded in B2B relationships. The fact that the author can mention Dell,
Nokia, and HP indicates a strength that companies to which they are often
compared such as Google and Apple, lack - Michael Dell's B2B relationship with
Microsoft helped make him a billionaire.

Under Balmer's tenure, Microsoft has become a stable mature company which has
consistently realizes massive profits through established long term
relationships with their customers. Microsoft started paying dividends a long
time ago. It's not a growth stock.

Balmer remains CEO because he is not beholden to Wall Street. He's second only
to Gates as a shareholder. They can look long term in a way that other
companies cannot and direct Microsoft accordingly - because Balmer's job isn't
at risk based on some two bit analyst's opinions.

~~~
roc
I'll agree there's a strange blind-spot in much tech reporting on Microsoft.
It consistently misses Microsoft's stable, mature and solidly profitable B2B
business. Even if worse came to worst, they could sail off into that land IBM
pioneered, remaining happily profitable for decades to come.

But at the same time, Ballmer _has_ made some horrible blunders. The XBox was
nearly strangled by their obsession with beating Sony out of the gate with the
360. The Zune was a disaster. The years of utter denial regarding WinCE vs the
iPhone and Android. Groove. Danger. Skype. The complete lack of a functional
ecosystem between their own first-party products. [1] The critically
successful Windows Phone being artificially hobbled by bureaucratic concerns
[2]. Mismanaging the entire tablet sector for years, only to show up three
years late with a confusing compromise...

In short, nothing _but_ their B2B business (and you can lump much of their
Windows licensing money in as part of that) has been run well.

[1] XBox Live vs Games for Windows Live, XBox Media Functions vs Windows Media
Center, Zune vs XBox Marketplace (and don't get me started on the mess that
they created when they tried to finally centralize media under the "Zune"
service brand...)

[2] The name is absurd. Why not "Metro"? Why didn't they just put _it_ on a
tablet and call it a day? Why are they finally delivering a Metro-ish tablet,
but under a _different_ architecture and name and with some obtuse desktop
metaphor lurking under the covers?

~~~
sixothree
Microsoft is terrible at naming things. I blame most of Bing's failure on the
name, not the actual product itself.

~~~
untog
What makes "Google" a better name than "Bing", if you ignore the success now
associated with it?

~~~
sixothree
I didn't say Google was a better name but here goes.

Bing is physically difficult to speak. And as every fourth grader who has
taken math knows, Google actually means something. Bing doesn't mean anything;
it doesn't even evoke any thought or emotion.

~~~
brudgers
"Google" doesn't mean anything outside the name of the company and the
services it provides.

"Googol" is the mathematical term.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol>

------
bstar77
As much as this pains me to say it, I don't think Ballmer is the worst by far.
The reality is that MS's numbers are still great despite not having the
stranglehold over the PC industry that they once had. It's still a very strong
company. I don't care for their products, but many people still do.

Ballmer deserves the crap he's gotten for his prior arrogance, but I have not
seen that behavior in a long time. I have a hard time criticizing him for his
lack of clairvoyance of Apple's success, but who else had it in 2007? Only
Google comes to mind.

This story is just out there to get picked up by bloggers and hopefully go
viral. I actually think the man deserves more respect.

~~~
knowtheory
That's fine, but the problem is that his early mistakes means that Microsoft
has been playing catchup, and will continue to play catch up. They've
effectively coasted on their existing installed base without innovating.
Nothing about the experience of Windows now is any different from what it was
in 2000. There is nothing audacious about what Microsoft has attempted to do
this century, save for the xbox & the kinect. My life isn't better because of
Microsoft.

That despite the fact that Microsoft has had some awesome researchers and
projects. They have by and large failed to bring any those tools and products
to market (the kinect again being a notable exception).

~~~
Retric
They have made a lot of progress on the Sharepoint side which will keep them
in the enterprise market for a _long_ time. .Net was released in 2002 and it's
become a completely viable alternative to Java which was vital in the long
term. Bing is an also ran, but it's still the #2 search engine in the US which
IMO is not that bad of a place to be considering where they where in 2000. And
Windows 7 was fairly good, heck Vista was fine on decent hardware far better
than there old school failures like Windows ME.

With that said, I think they are in for a vary long vary profitable decline
but IMO so is Apple. Honestly, that's just what happens to large companies.

~~~
giardini
"They have made a lot of progress on the Sharepoint side which will keep them
in the enterprise market ... it's become a completely viable alternative to
Java ..."

Sharepoint appears to be little more than a recreation of the Internet "in the
small". First time I saw it I had the same thought as the last time I saw it:
"WTF do we need _this_ for? We already share files; we already have FTP; we
already have the Internet. WTF???"

Am I wrong about Sharepoint?

~~~
gaius
You're just not the target market. Corporate types who wouldn't know what FTP
was if it jumped up and bit them on the nose LOVE Sharepoint.

What do we need Excel for when we have perfectly good Perl and CSV files, you
might as well ask...

~~~
GFischer
To be fair, it is a FTP with permissions and a decent user interface, and
plays nice with a Microsoft ecosystem.

Whether that is worth what Microsoft is selling Sharepoint for, well, that
depends on the buyer. It also has the "nobody was fired for buying IBM" point
(and Microsoft does have decent support).

I still haven't seen an Open Source Sharepoint "killer", though I might not
know of it (I had good hopes for Alfresco).

------
jroseattle
This article is actually phenomenally ignorant of what it means to run an
entity such as Microsoft. Ballmer is no gem, but the author suggests he failed
because he didn't re-invent an inherited, gigantic behemoth constructed in the
eyes of Gates, who hung around for years in a non-official capacity. Oh, and
he lost to Apple.

Could he have done better? I guess. Could he have done worse? I'm sure.

~~~
delinka
I don't understand how anyone could have thought Ballmer was anything other
than Gates choosing his friend to fill the job. He's always been completely
out of touch with technology. He's completely a Suit and not a Geek, to put
the stereotypes to work. What's worse is he's an egotistical suit that thinks
he can just will the technology industry to follow his (Microsoft's) lead. He
doesn't even _want_ to understand technology or the end users' needs. He rode
Gates' and Allen's coattails and he's comfortable in his riches. He has no
motivation to attempt innovation and he's stuck in his comfort zone. Billions
in residual revenue from Windows and Office upgrades? Good enough for him
apparently.

They need a CEO with a strong openness principle and willing to listen two
great advisors: a designer with strong UI/UX experience, and an engineer who
knows how to implement those designs.

Summary: Drop Ballmer, get some Apple design sense, and keep shit open. _That_
is how you'll move the industry forward with Microsoft leading the way.

------
asto
Windows 7 _is_ pretty good in my opinion. I only run a linux box right now,
but when I need Office/Photoshop/Games, I'm much more likely to go with
Windows than Mac.

What's wrong with windows as of Windows 7? As far as I can see, not very much.
It seemed quite stable for the limited time I used it. It's good to look at.
It gets the job done. What more do I need?

I'm sure Windows 8 will be a decent move up from here. A better choice for
worst CEO would have been the former RIM CEO or the current Nokia one. I STILL
CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DITCHED MEEGO IN FAVOUR OF WINDOWS PHONE!!! AARRGGGG!

~~~
mbell
> What's wrong with windows as of Windows 7?

1) The start menu is just terrible, 2012 and they haven't imposed a method to
avoid it being a jumbled mess. Worst part, even if i reorganize it to be more
gnome 2 like, next time an app updates it fubars it again. The only thing that
makes it remotely usable is the search bar.

2) Explorer's file copy capabilities are really bad, get 3-4 transfers going
to your NAS, a USB key, whatever and it crawls to a halt.

3) Explorer just completely goes to hell if you lose connection to a network
drive. I have my home NAS mapped as a network drive, take the laptop somewhere
else, tell it to resume, "oh no i have a folder on by NAS open when it went to
sleep", now I have to wait 20 minutes while it decides it can't find the
network drive, nor will explorer do anything while it waits. Also the using
the "file upload" window in chrome is useless when the NAS drive isn't
available, it literally crashes chrome on my laptop since chrome times out
waiting for windows to decide the drive is unavailable, i have to use
drag+drop to attach files to gmail.

4) Mouse scroll wheel only works on the window with focus, luckily there is an
addon that fixes this called WizMouse

5) No virtual desktops.

6) No native mounting of iso files, seriously I have to install some third
party program that installs a fake CD-ROM drive to access the file system of
an iso?

I think that covers my major gripes, my only major gripe of linux, and why I
stopped using it as my primary OS, is just terrible management of multiple
displays, especially in multiple orientations.

~~~
davidw
> 5) No virtual desktops.

<http://www.welton.it/articles/windows_for_linux_users>

There used to be one you could install, which made Windows slightly more
tolerable.

~~~
reddit_clone
>> 5) No virtual desktops.

I have used Dexpot with success in the past (in XP though. Haven't tried with
Win7)

<http://dexpot.de/index.php?id=home>

------
alapshah
Like others here, I think Nokia/RIM ceo's are worse. I liked this article
about tech CEO's in general: <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/why-tech-ceos-
seem-so-dumb>

------
bluedevil2k
I submit Robert Nardelli for the Worst CEO Hall of Fame. CEO of Home Depot,
drove customer experience at the store to the ground all in the name of
profits, stock price was unchanged during his tenure (and his tenure saw the
biggest run up in home prices in American history). CEO of Chrysler, drove it
to bankruptcy.

------
Ryan_Shmotkin
How can anyone can seriously consider this article where the reporter
constantly compares shares prices now to.. the height of the tech bubble of
2000 ?

How about comparing profits ? Oh wait.. didn't Balmer double that..

~~~
TDL
Well said. I am no fan of Balmer, but using stock prices to my comparisons
from one period to another is usually foolish. It's one thing to say that the
price of a stock has plummeted in a short period (SHLD being a good example
from the article) is indicative of poor leadership; it's another thing
entirely to compare stock prices where they currently stand to when they were
priced for perfection.

------
epynonymous
this article is poorly written, microsoft is still a very profitable company
with tons of cash in the bank and though ballmer hasn't innovated much over
the past few years, they haven't fallen as much as the author likes to suggest
(unless you're talking about stock price which is moot anyway since
microsoft's a value company now). it takes different ceo's to steer a company
through different times. surely you don't think companies are at the top
forever do you? DEC anyone?

for the record, i am not a fan of (developers developers developers) ballmer
or microsoft, but this article just pure stinks. competition has heated up and
this is after all the technology sector where even things like social media
can lead the industry.

------
diminish
"Oops! Five CEOs Who Should Have Already Been Fired (Cisco, GE, WalMart,
Sears, Microsoft)"

Surprised not to see Steven Elop of Nokia in the list.

~~~
untog
He hasn't failed yet. He has pursued a risky plan to reinvent Nokia, one that
might yet work out.

~~~
r00fus
How many new CEOs get more than 1-2 quarters before they're judged? Why is
Elop treated differently? Over 4 quarters of disastrous results after an
equally disastrous abandonment of his suppliers customers and products.

Elop can legitimately be described as a disastrous CEO and should have been
dismissed as soon as he uttered "burning platform". Even the similarly
disastrous Apotheker who manned HP got less than a year and wasn't as bad by
the numbers or employee sentiment.

------
dragonbonheur
I don't agree that Steve Ballmer should be in that list. Historically he has
been responsible for Microsoft's massive expansion while Gates wanted to keep
his company 'lean and mean', so in a way Ballmer is responsible for MS doing
so much R&D, although he doesn't have the same ability as Gates to make his
researchers focus on successful future products. OTOH the one CEO that I would
put at the #1 spot is Stephen Elop, of Nokia. Nokia had a great OS, API and
developer ecosystem and Elop gave all that away. Despite what the media is
happy to report the Symbian OS is a perfect fit for mobile technology,
touchscreen or not; a RTOS kernel (just like any kernel, as the Mach Kernel
used in iOS) only needs the adequate drivers to handle multi-touch screens.
There was no valid reason for giving all that to Accenture. Nokia is making a
great range of devices, but now all developers will be coding for Android,
thanks to Mr Elop.

------
randomdrake
I am disappointed that there was not more direct information regarding the
links between Ballmer and the directions the mentioned technologies have
taken.

I can't help but think that there are other factors besides a single
individual regarding Zune, Vista, CE, and so on. Can it really be true that
one individual is responsible for every one of those going the wrong way?

Microsoft is still a valuable company and continues to be in millions of
homes, businesses and schools around the world. Keeping a foothold in that
market seems like a success, to me. Losing stock value is one aspect of the
measurement of successes of a company, but is it truly the reflection of a
single individual?

~~~
saddino
In corporate culture, the CEO is, fairly or not, a proxy for the company, and
thus, the individual held responsible for the success or failure of the
corporate entity.

No different from firing the manager or head coach of a sports team (which may
inherit a losing streak due to pure luck or regression to a mean from a
spectacular run of winning seasons).

The buck has to stop somewhere.

------
joelrunyon
1 page article here -->
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/05/12/oops-5-ce...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/05/12/oops-5-ceos-
that-should-have-already-been-fired-cisco-ge-walmart-sears-microsoft/print/)

~~~
joering2
thanks for that. I couldnt get passed ridiculous "capital one" advertise that
took over my screen. I gave up looking for X to close it down.

------
protomyth
On the sidebar is a couple of Warren Buffet stories and if his next 3 years
are like his last three[1], he might make the list. Microsoft doesn't look so
bad compared to his fund.

[1] [http://www.investorplace.com/2012/05/where-did-warren-
buffet...](http://www.investorplace.com/2012/05/where-did-warren-buffett-go-
wrong-berkshire-hathaway-brka-brkb/)

Technically, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe purchase might yield well given
the pipeline was killed.

------
tzaman
What a load of crap. All these CEOs are guilty for low stock values? I doubt.
Cisco, for example makes top notch networking gear, and it's only so much they
can achieve there - I've had my Linksys routers for years now and I doubt I'll
have to change them anytime soon. I don't think they can revolutionize the
market any further. And that is not CEO's fault - they merely stick to what
they are good in. Why is that wrong?

------
Killswitch
Ouch, that's kind of a kick to the ego. I do kind of agree with the article...
Ballmer is washed up and making Microsoft hurt for it.

~~~
hobin
I think that's nonsense. I don't like Ballmer, either, but nowhere have I seen
any evidence that he's hurting Microsoft because of it. Look at NASDAG:MSFT,
and you'll see that Microsoft is actually an incredibly stable company. This
is very likely to change in the future, of course, but this has little to do
with Ballmer, per se, and more with the fact that its flagship (i.e. Windows)
is becoming less necessary for a lot of people.

[http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1337112000000&chddm=993531&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:MSFT&ntsp=0)

------
_rj
Its kind of disturbing to see speculative articles like these make a quick
huge wave and creates some kind of impact. Most of the logic behind picking
these 5 are based on the stock price, on the other hand if some well known
wall st person makes a stock pick, price shoots up. I think this article is
little over the limit.

------
rdl
What happened to Cisco? Aside from crazy acquisitions, and their long-time
strategy of having employees leave, build a company, sell to Cisco for a high
price, work for earn out, then do it again, and again, what did Cisco do to
fall from where it was to where it is now?

------
mhartl
As a thought experiment, imagine the change in Microsoft's market cap if
tomorrow they announced that Steve Ballmer was stepping down and Bill Gates
was returning as CEO. The result, at least in my mental model, doesn't reflect
well on Steve.

------
gouranga
Granted the guy is a holy grade prick, but he's kept Microsoft together fine
over the last few years.

In fact they've improved as a company quite incredibly recently, bar the legal
shenanigans...

------
slantyyz
I'm surprised the CEO of Groupon wasn't on the list.

------
shelf
Aaand we revert to the usual correlation/cause confusion that usually
surrounds leadership discussion. For all you know, Microsoft could have been
much worse off without Ballmer. Fate and the actions of the collective other
will always have this kind of unpredictable, mountain-moving power, and
foolish men will always try to attribute it to something they can measure.
Nothing is this simple.

~~~
megablast
Everybody in history could have done worse. So what? We should never judge
them?

------
Tycho
Xbox has been brilliant though.

------
giis
I hope he continues as M$ CEO :)

------
loverobots
Not exactly Forbes but a "motivational speaker" and a blogger. No doubt he has
the experience of running a company the size of MSFT _and_ crippled by anti-
trust settlements on both sides of the Atlantic

By the way, Microsoft is still growing all while investing in xBox, Bing and
Microsoft Research (PE of around 11 and valued north of $250 Billion.) They
have returned tens of billions to shareholders via dividends and still have
almost $50 Billion in reserve. This blogger should send his resume and ideas
to the board of top companies if he can do better as CEO.

Microsoft is about to make a cool and predictable $25 Billion in profit this
year. 25,000,000,000.00 in just one year. Not sure what will happen 5-10 years
from now (no one really does) but it's a great achievement for a "dead"
company.

------
adventureful
There's little doubt that Ballmer has been a mediocre CEO in terms of
innovating or at least properly catching the latest technology waves.

However, the Forbes articles ignores several important issues.

1) Ballmer has tripled the sales, and doubled the profits in the last ten
years at Microsoft, while paying out $100 billion in dividends (and MSFT still
has $60b in cash). This with a company that was already the most profitable
tech company (2002). That is not a terrible performance, specifically
because...

2) Had Microsoft gone with someone else, it's just as possible they could have
ended up like HP, Dell or Yahoo. Microsoft is not in that boat however, and
Ballmer has not destroyed the company. The article mentions Windows, but
ignores server + tools, which has grown tremendously and is very profitable.
Consumer Windows is not their lead profit machine any longer.

It's far more likely that someone would implode a company that is on top of
the mountain, than that they would figure out how to create the first trillion
dollar company. It's worth keeping that in mind: the only way Ballmer could
have apparently succeeded by the article's qualification, is by creating a
trillion dollar company out of a price per share ($60) that was derived from
the greatest stock market bubble in world history.

There is a limit to how much money you can make at any given time in the
global business eco-system. Microsoft had nowhere to go stock market wise,
sideways from a stock market bubble price would have been a helluva
accomplishment (just ask Intel or Cisco).

Everybody touts Apple today, but the most likely best-case outcome for their
company is sideways (5% annual growth) for the next decade. Once you hit the
top of the mountain, it becomes nearly impossible to keep soaring.

