
Steve Ballmer fired Sinofsky, clearing the way for faster progress in mobile - evo_9
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/140733-sinofsky-abrupt-firing-can-microsoft-finally-make-progress-in-mobile
======
steve8918
The real culprit that needs to be fired is Steve Ballmer. He was great from
the inception of MSFT until maybe the turn of the century, when their business
strategy of making and maintaining a Windows monopoly worked beautifully and
extremely profitably. However, he is living in a legacy environment where he
believes he needs to protect the Windows/Office monopoly BY ANY MEANS
NECESSARY, and he and the rest of Microsoft can't keep up with everyone else
around them because of innovation.

This mindset has completely stymied any sort of innovation at Microsoft
because they are playing with one arm tied behind their backs in the midst of
trying to compete against the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. In Steve
Ballmer's eyes, everything must lead back to the sale of a license of
Windows/Office, and that no longer works in their environment.

If Microsoft engineers had free rein to make the best search engine, or the
best phone, or the best tablet, without worries about how will it lead to
maintaining their revenue streams of Windows and more importantly Office, then
I think their offerings would be on an order of magnitude better and more
creative.

~~~
kvb
This doesn't make any sense to me... You think that the problem with Bing is
that it's too focused on revenue for Windows? I suspect the problem is that
it's really hard to build a better search engine than Google (and that even if
it were slightly better, people are resistant to change).

Microsoft's overall profit numbers still look pretty strong to me, and their
product portfolio is as diverse as ever. They've got 6 different products in
their server and tools division alone that generate more than a billion
dollars each year! [1] That's not to mention Office, Windows, Xbox, etc.

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-server-and-tools-unit-now-
in...](http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-server-and-tools-unit-now-includes-
six-1-billion-businesses-7000007613/)

~~~
ikono
Right or wrong, your argument is exactly why Ballmer is still in charge and at
the same time the reason many think Microsoft's future is bleak until he's
not.

------
programminggeek
It's worth noting that Ballmer has publicly laughed in the face of two of the
biggest innovations in the last 5 years - the iPhone and the iPad. Now they're
racing to catch up.

It seems like Ballmer, Sinofsky, and Gates pushed out people building products
along those lines - J. Allard and co. only to pick up their vision later with
Metro UI and Windows 8. (J. Allard and his team were behind Xbox, Zune, and
Courier which basically gave a roadmap to Metro UI, Windows Phone 7 and
Windows 8. J Allard also wrote a famous memo about internet connected apps
back in 1994.)

Sinofsky and Ballmer also pushed out Ray Ozzie who was trying to make cloud
computing a meaningful part of Microsoft's future.

Now that all the big vision is gone, where is Microsoft going to go? Continue
to be a fast follower of Apple and Google?

Microsoft is a company without vision because it already achieved what it set
out to - a computer on every desk. They won that battle. In the meantime,
people's desks already have computers on them and are putting computers in
their pockets, purses, and appliances. Microsoft was too busy with traditional
computers to have a vision for mobile computing.

Maybe Microsoft should change their company goal to a computer in every
pocket. Or a Microsoft app on every home screen. Or every computer to be
powered by Windows. Or maybe a computer on every surface.

Without a big goal, Microsoft is going to be just another big tech company
like IBM. It won't change the world again. It already did. Now it's just
following everybody else.

~~~
cooldeal
>It's worth noting that Ballmer has publicly laughed in the face of two of the
biggest innovations in the last 5 years - the iPhone and the iPad. Now they're
racing to catch up.

Copy pasting from one of my previous comments.

I'm tired of these kinds of statements. The golden rule is that companies'
employee publicly have to put down their competitors' new strategies. Imagine
if Balmer said the iPad is great it's going to kill us, or if Jobs said 7"
tablets are good but we'll make only in two years, so wait for us to make it.
Or even Andy Rubin saying that Android UI is laggy compared to iOS, fix coming
in 18 months. All of them(except maybe Jobs) would be summarily fired or
atleast will be forced to recant their statements immediately on threat of
being fired. It's almost part of their job to publicly mock their competitors,
or their shareholders will dump the stock.

Privately they could be pissing in their pants about their competition, but
you almost never hear about that except after maybe 5 years from unnamed
sources. Care to think for a moment why?

The more puzzling thing to me is, why do so many otherwise smart people
actually think that these people publicly say what they really believe and
really believe what they publicly say?

~~~
programminggeek
Well, maybe it's my personality, but I expect people to be basically honest. I
realize people lie constantly, but why should we believe anything that they
say if we assume they are lying?

As in, if I believe that Steve Ballmer is lying about the iPhone being an
overpriced product that won't sell, why should I believe him when he says that
Windows Phone will sell millions of devices and that it's worth developing
for?

I realize that nobody wants to admit that their competitors are making a good
or better product than you, but I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to
tell the truth.

Maybe it's a midwest thing, but if we assume that Jobs, Ballmer, and Rubin are
all lying through their teeth, why would we ever buy their products? That is
even dumber than believing they are telling the truth. The only thing dumber
than trusting someone is buying from someone you don't trust.

~~~
oz
_"if we assume that Jobs, Ballmer, and Rubin are all lying through their
teeth, why would we ever buy their products?"_

Because the merits of a product have little or nothing to do with the public
statements of their makers.

------
twoodfin
My wild speculation:

Steve Ballmer is a sales guy at heart, and it's why he's been able to survive
a decade of middling stock performance and strategic missteps: He must have
close connections to Microsoft's largest enterprise customers, and were he to
be fired, it would be an invitation for those customers to reevaluate their
commitment to Microsoft's platforms.

When he walks into a big customer's boardroom, he must be furious every time
he sees some C-level using an iOS or Android device. He knows that if he can't
sell "Windows everywhere" to _these_ users, he's doomed to keep reading
headlines about 5,000-user iPad-based IT projects and the "post-PC era".

He didn't need to wait to see how the market would respond to Windows 8 and
devices like the Surface. These users could tell him immediately, perhaps even
before the product launched, and I would guess that their feedback was
discouraging. If at the same time their IT departments were making noise about
sticking with XP or 7, that would have been the last nail in Sinofsky's
coffin.

~~~
brudgers
_"He must have close connections to Microsoft's largest enterprise customers"_

Ballmer has a close connection with Microsoft's largest shareholder, some
fellow named "Gates."

He has even closer ties to the second largest shareholder, himself.

------
debacle
> Larson-Green is best known as a driving force behind the new Windows 8 UI
> and, prior to that, the Office ribbon bar.

How can I dislike this woman so strongly when I've never met her?

~~~
MichaelGG
You might try watching the "Story of the Ribbon" presentation, or just read
the articles on Jensen Harris's blog. The amount of research, data, and care
that went into designing the Ribbon is astounding. I'm not sure what other
approaches work, when you need to present thousands of commands to end users.

I wasn't a fan of the Ribbon on first sight, but when reading how they came up
with it, it's clear this wasn't just some arbitrary cosmetic adjustment.
Contrast that to the Office 2013 design, with it's random all-caps on items in
no apparent pattern.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-
story...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-
ribbon.aspx)

~~~
debacle
This is one area where I side with Jobs. No amount of research can compete
with smart designers.

~~~
kvb
Surely the combination of research and smart designers is better than either
in isolation, though, right? Do you have evidence that the designers of the
ribbon were not "smart"? Are you aware of a better design for surfacing
hundreds of features? Clearly, standard menu bars weren't working. The
combination of the ribbon plus the quick access toolbar seems quite elegant to
me...

~~~
debacle
Outlook is probably one of the most complicated non-admin pieces of software
that Windows users use, and I find it completely impossible to do real things
in 2010 - in fact, it took me way longer than it should have to even figure
out that I was running Outlook 2010.

There are conventions to any interface. In Windows, Help -> About will tell
you what version of a piece of software you're using most of the time, but for
some reason Outlook feels that I need to go to File -> Help -> Additional
Version and Copyright Information.

Disregarding decades of convention because a handful of wankers with a
whiteboard say so is a recipe for failure. I find LibreOffice far easier to
use than newer versions of Microsoft Office precisely because their navigation
isn't a convoluted wad of deuce.

There is a reason that Visual Studio, Visio, and Project don't have the ribbon
interface - it's not better for anyone who actually knows how to use a
computer. The ribbon interface was designed for a mythical group of people
that hadn't ever used Windows-style context menus in 2005. Maybe as an
emergent, intuitive interface for people who've never sent an email, the
ribbon is great, but it's different than any other piece of software out
there, and I've never met anyone who actually prefers it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Did you bother to read the presentation I linked to? They had all sorts of
tests, had many millions of users's usage data. They even ran eye tracking
studies to see how people actually used menus versus the Ribbon and on and on.

I'm unsure if, after reading the information how you could dismiss it as a
"handful of wankers with a whiteboard" just "saying so".

P.S. Clicking the help icon opens a window with "Outlook 2010" in the first
line of content. Searching for "what version" also provides an article
explaining how to find this. My guess would be that "checking the version
number" didn't show up as a commonly used feature, enough to warrant higher
visibility or reworking the help system.

~~~
debacle
The only difference between a handful of wankers with a whiteboard and the
scenario you describe is budget.

------
brudgers
_"Clearly Ballmer will assume a more direct role in Windows management, with
Windows VPs Julie Larson-Green and Tami Reller now reporting directly to
him."_

The sexism upon which this statement is partially premised aside...

I have an entirely different take on this promotion. Microsoft has been run by
a pair of consuls, Ballmer and Gates, for a long time. One focused primarily
on the business side, the other upon the technology.

At this point it is only prudent for them to look at leadership succession.
Larson-Greene has real technical chops and has worked on compilers, Office,
UX, and Windows. Teller went from receptionist to CFO at Great Plains, leading
them through both an IPO and Microsoft's acquisition.

It is clear that the future leaders will be from the post IPO generation of
Softies. It may be clear now that the tradional pointed elbows approach to the
throne is frowned upon.

~~~
Permit
>The sexism upon which this statement is partially premised aside...

What?

~~~
brudgers
Why does direct reporting indicate Ballmer is taking a more direct role in
Windows management rather than indicating that both Larson-Greene and Reller
have been given a degree of authority equivalent to that Sinofsky had?

Sinofsky was reporting directly to Ballmer before his resignation. If he was
fired, of course Ballmer fired him himself. Sinofsky was his direct report.

People only report directly to the CEO because they are seen as capable of
acting largely with autonomy. It's a sign of trust, not incompetence.

The conclusion that Ballmer would micromanage Larson-Greene is absurd. He
doesn't have the technical chops. The suggestion that he would do so with
Reller, ignores her demonstrated professional competence.

The most likely case is that Sinofsky is gone so that they could be promoted.
This probably wasn't a crisis, but something brewing for a long time. The
issues with Office under Windows 8 RT were due to structural issues with
Sinofsky's management approach.

It's the "Clearly" that makes it sexist.

~~~
mhurron
CEO removes subordinate and has product heads reporting directly to
themselves. Clearly, the CEO wants to take a more active interest in product
development.

Point out the sexism.

CEO is female and product heads are male, point out the sexism CEO is male and
product heads are male, point out the sexism.

CEO is male, product heads are female. Without any more information then that,
you saw sexism. Point out the issue. You are making huge leaps to conclusions
that are just not supported by the information given.

~~~
brudgers
Sinofsky reported to Ballmer. His replacement(s) report(s) to Ballmer. How is
a more active role by Ballmer "clearly" indicated?

~~~
mhurron
Sinofsky was President of the Windows Division. He is being replaced by two
VP's. This implies a removal of one level of management, placing the CEO
closer to the product team.

~~~
brudgers
It only places Ballmer closer to the team if one presumes that Sinofsky was
not part of the team.

It only implies removal of a layer of management if one doesn't see Reller and
Larson-Greene as having been promoted.

The appearance of Larson-Green and Reller on Microsoft's Senior Leadership
Page supports my thesis.

<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/slt.aspx>

------
waynecochran
The article shows two women in two different pictures with no sub-titles. Are
these just random stock photos or is one of them Sinofsky? If so, who is is
the other?

~~~
colkassad
"...Windows VPs Julie Larson-Green and Tami Reller..."

Had to mouse-over to figure that out.

------
ww520
Is there a chance Gates would go back to Microsoft? Jobs did go back to Apple
to revive it.

~~~
evo_9
I keep wondering the exact same thing and yeah people alway say 'now way' but
you have to wonder, as a founder, it's got to be hard to watch your former
company struggling so hard at this point.

I keep thinking back to the mid-90's when Gates sent out his famous internet
tidal-wave email; that was how he reacted to a threat to MS's longterm
survival - a huge pivot away from multimedia, cds/dvds (remember Encarta?) to
focusing everything on the Internet.

Ballmer in 2005 facing a similar tidal-wave does what? Laughs and mocks the
iPhone then the iPad. Had he reacted as Gates had and pivoted the entire
company then instead of 6+ years later with Window 8/Surface, who knows where
they'd be right now.

~~~
kvb
Or maybe he has a different perspective on what would constitute "struggling".
The company did post its highest revenues ever this year, right?

~~~
jlgreco
I think the idea is that for a company with as much resources as Microsoft,
_"doing really well"_ is not actually all that great. They should/could be an
absolute juggernaut.

------
raganwald
This hatchet job reads like Ballmer put it out to make it seem like he's a
great manager and did a wonderful thing firing Sinofsky. I smell "The
Submarine," the unseen hand of a PR company carefully managing public
perception.

------
taskstrike
Sinofsky was a great tech leader and shipper of products. The people who
replaced him seems weak sauce.

I'm not sure if firing someone creates faster progress in an area vs. just
shipping more products.

~~~
watmough
Yes, this is a strange article. The reality is that MS were way behind the
tablet curve, having plugged the same old tiny buttons, traditional Windows,
use a stylus, furrow for years and years.

Bolting Metro onto Windows 7 is likely to please very few, least of all
corporate customers.

If Sinofsky is as bad as painted, could he really have turned around the
Longhorn mess, salvaged Vista, then reshaped the organization to do a
fantastic job with Windows 7?

