
Ballmer Departure From Microsoft Was More Sudden Than Portrayed - kjhughes
http://allthingsd.com/20130825/ballmer-departure-from-microsoft-was-more-sudden-than-portrayed-by-the-company/
======
einhverfr
A lot of the criticism of Ballmer seems to miss the point.

Did Microsoft miss key trends? Maybe a few but who doesn't.

Microsoft saw and got involved in most of those trends they "missed" and even
often got there well ahead of the parties that own the markets today.

In 2000 I was hired by Microsoft. One of the big initiatives was to make
tablet PCs a reality. Microsoft spent years working on marketing consumer
smartphones before the iPhone. That Microsoft lost a leading position in the
market for computing devices is surprising given how much effort they put into
devices eventually popularized by other companies, particularly Google and
Apple.

Why doesn't Microsoft own the tablet and consumer smart phone market right
now? The answer must be in execution rather than understanding of where the
market was headed. Why couldn't they develop (and why can't they still
develop) products folks like in these areas?

When I was there the mentality was that Microsoft would be first to market,
would fail for a few major releases but still beat everyone else with a
quality product. Yet they spent time producing products nobody wanted while
first Apple and later Google ended up walking away with the tablet and
consumer smartphone markets.

What went wrong? That's the real question.

~~~
bcantrill
As it apparently needs to be explained: Microsoft's predatory behavior in
1990s resulted in an incalculable and unrecoverable loss of trust among
technologists -- which was bound to ultimately catch up to the company. You
can get away with predatory behavior when you're dominant, but when you miss
new markets -- as Microsoft did repeatedly in the lost decade of the 2000s --
you can be damned sure no one is going to be foolish enough to open those
markets to a known monopolist. Microsoft is left with two choices: invent new
markets or try to earn back the public's trust. They have no track record in
either department; as the Magic 8-ball says, "outlook not so good"...

~~~
tomphoolery
What about Apple and Google? They have repeatedly violated the trust of
hackers, yet only a small minority have fully divorced themselves from these
companies' products. As much as I'd love to believe in the morality of our
market, I don't really think that's the case. Not that I believe MS's
predatory behavior helped their cause at all, but I still think the primary
reason why people don't use, or don't want to use, Microsoft products anymore
is because they are inferior to others' products.

There was _definitely_ a time where, for most people, that was not the case.

Edit: Just a little example...I don't remember continuously hearing about
Microsoft employees going to fucked-up countries and running clandestine
rescue missions [http://pastebin.com/CuUcHM6m](http://pastebin.com/CuUcHM6m)

~~~
lukifer
From where I sit, Google and Apple have been steadily hemorrhaging enthusiasts
with their creepiness and arrogance, respectively. They're still the least
worst options in their fields, but they no longer seem like the golden saviors
they did in the early 2000s.

------
jeswin
I hate articles like this.

"According to sources close to the situation..."

"_dozens of people_ inside and outside the company..."

"_many_ close to the situation"

"sources said..."

"_the persistent rumor_ that Gates had dropped the bomb..."

"Other sources cautioned that it was not..."

"....said one source with knowledge of the situation"

Garbage like this shouldn't be on any forum, forget HN.

~~~
meowface
In my first journalism class, one of the very first things drilled into our
heads is to always be explicit in who or what your sources are. Even if
they're confidential, how many there are and rough details about them should
always be given.

Weasel words are the bane of decent journalism. It's a shame so many major
news agencies don't seem to realize this, though.

------
nnq
> our transformation to a devices and services company

This is what I find the most worrying. Are there no more "software companies"
anymore? That you know, sell software as a _product_ and only as a side-
business they sell related services? Like the kind of companies that can
"shaft their customers from time to time" because they know they make enough
money from their great software not to care? Will they stop making great
developer tools and will they start to not give a fuck about developers just
like everybody else? Will they stop funding the cool research they currently
do, like in the programming languages field?

This is the saddest news imho, because it will fuel up the current trend in
industry. An in "services" or "devices" companies programmers are seen more
and more as just "code monkeys". And developing tools for developers or "power
users" becomes less of a priority. Catering to "the needs of many" is nice and
fluffy and all but we still need techno-elites somewhere, and they're not
gonna truly exist outside of companies that make enough money and have the
privilege of occasionally showing the finger to both the customers and the
minority shareholders because they know that in the end they have _real
products_ they can leverage to milk enough money from the customers and poor
into the shareholders' pockets... "service" companies can't really do this
because they always need to be perceived as "good" and "devices" companies
will have a hell of a time competing in the new "so-cheap-they-are-almost-
disposable devices" economy.

Winter is coming here. But there is hope for more summery weather for
companies in the fields of AI/ML/BigData.

~~~
yuhong
Well, I think a lot of open source business models involves selling services
relating to the software instead.

~~~
nnq
...because this is like the only viable business model in open source. And
this model does here the same thing it does anywhere else: it makes it so that
developers are undervalued and underpaid or paid nothing at all.

Don't get me wrong, I support open source and I believe most "infrastructure
software", like OSs, compilers etc. should be open source. But I'm kind of
split since the best viable option when it comes to OSs is still some flavor
or *nix/BSD (after 40 freakin years and tons of cool ideas, nothing else
turned into a "usable product"!) and nothing better and usable seems to come
from the open source community. Microsoft had some very cool ideas in their
research department (see Singularity OS for example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_\(operating_system\))),
and I'm afraid lots of them will go to the trashcan if Microsoft stops seeing
software as a "product". If I weren't talking about Microsoft, we could at
least hope they would open source the cool new research projects they loose
interest in but I don't have high hopes for this, or for the open source
community's ability to innovate and do really new and cool stuff.

~~~
justincormack
But Microsoft Research has always been largely experimental and ships few
products. It would ship more if Windows was open source of course as much is
Windows based...

------
randomfool
"recent pressure from activist investor ValueAct — which has a large stake in
the company — had a good chance of succeeding in its efforts to obtain a seat
on the board of Microsoft, especially if Ballmer stayed in place. ... In
talks, said sources, it has asked for an aggressive stock buyback and also a
dividend increase, which might assuage its efforts to garner a board seat."

I agree that Microsoft has too much money, but would much rather see them
investing much more heavily into bolstering their devices strategy. But then
again, Microsoft was never good at acquisitions.

edit- Appears that ValueAct is against the entire devices strategy, but I see
no way for Microsoft to compete on the level it needs to without a strong
devices play-

From: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/19/net-us-
microsoft-v...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/19/net-us-microsoft-
valueact-idUSBRE96I14920130719) "ValueAct is thought to oppose Microsoft's
recent foray into making its own devices."

~~~
joe_the_user
A while back, someone in response to my critique of Windows 8, said something
like "Microsoft can never be destroyed!Their monopoly give them _free money_
". Funny how little people understand capitalism.

No, that's not free money to play your BS "Metro interface" games with. It's
the stock holder's money and they'll be wanting it back if it looks like
you're flushing it down the toilet.

Microsoft's "device strategy" (Window 8) was the most crassly opportunistic
and generally despicable hi-tech corporate maneuver we've seen in a while (and
that's saying something). It's infinitely satisfying to see it go down in
flames. If we could toss more careers and people on this pyre, it would be
even coolers.

While I'm sorry for people for pursue poor strategies as dictated by the
market, this was like the final spraying of Microsoft's true evil poison. Yes,
we are intended to destroy the whole platform we created just for a chance to
steal someone else's platform. Yeah, but that chance came and went. The
organizers of Windows 8 are just left with the poison.

~~~
yuhong
I agree, not an excuse. But note that restoring the start menu is not that
easy: [http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1081755-do-you-like-or-
hat...](http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1081755-do-you-like-or-hate-
windows-8/?view=findpost&p=595048551)

IMO restoring the start button is not bad for a minor release, and it helps
things like RDP (particularly important for server versions).

~~~
speeder
I use Win 8 (because suddenly noone wanted to sell Linux machines anymore...
And I don't figured yet how to install a Linux using USB here, I just cannot
disable the godamn secure boot) with Classic Shell Start Menu.

The Start Menu from Classic Shell is awesome, and I only look at Metro
interface when really forced into...

Too bad the "desktop" app of Win 8 is still hell buggy (ie: sometimes it even
crash and don't relaunch, leaving you with no desktop, just desktop mode
windows, but no icons, no taskbar, no clock...)

~~~
yuhong
>I just cannot disable the godamn secure boot

To enter the firmware setup, use the charms bar to go to Settings, then click
Change PC Settings, go to General, then scroll down and find Advanced Startup.

------
devx
I thought this was common knowledge. Ballmer said a few years ago that he
would be retiring in 2018. To announce that he's quitting, even "within a
year", is _very_ out of the ordinary, and it's obvious something went down,
and the board got very frustrated with Ballmer.

------
JoachimS
The really interesting thing is not really Ballmers demise and who will
replace him.

The really interesting thing to watch is what will happen when the new CEO has
taken the helms and present the restructuring that will inevitably follow.

The board obviously want to see some pretty dramatic changes and Ballmer is
deemed not fit for handling it.

------
wslh
I think every member of the board with kids don't need to think too much to
search for a new CEO. It must be difficult for Bill Gates to see iPads and
Macs on his house and I can't imagine dinner discussions around using Google
Spreadsheet instead of Excel!

I remember this article "No iPhone, iPad, iPod for Bill Gates Kids, Says
Melinda Gates" but don't know how real it was. See
[http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/419359/20121231/iphone-
ipad-i...](http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/419359/20121231/iphone-ipad-ipod-
bill-gates-kids-melinda.htm)

~~~
speeder
I clicked that link, and the webpage started with a woman voice speaking too
much like a whiny entitled gal wanting something when you arrive home, and I
don't figured how to shut it down, and closed the tab :/

Why people leave these whatever with automatic sound that cannot be shut off?

------
mos6502
With the recent PRISM info leak, I can't help but think Ballmer is instituting
damage control for himself, as well as distancing himself from the negativity.
Most likely the smartest move he could make.

------
x0x0
the big question, then, is what happens to bing? I remember it still not being
profitable; if the next ceo cuts it, then who competes with google or does G
just get handed the US and European search engine markets?

~~~
engrenage
If Bing closes, Google will find it much harder to fight anti-trust suits.

------
leaffig
>As AllThingsD‘s John Paczkowski wrote on Friday: “Here’s one metric by which
Ballmer will be judged harshly. On the last day of 1999, the day before he
took over as CEO, Microsoft’s market capitalization was $600 billion

That fails to take into account, the crazy dotcom valuation days and the
subsequent big crash in 2000. Not to say that Ballmer did great as a CEO but
that's just poor reporting. Microsoft did have its great growth days, like
Apple recently did before petering out, but it was back in the 80s.

~~~
sytelus
Even when you compare post-bubble market cap, say from 2002 to now, it's
shockingly bad performance for Microsoft:

AAPL: $5 billion -> $465 billion

GOOG: $16 billion -> $288 billion

MSFT: $217 billion -> $291 billion

I know now you might nitpick that AAPL and GOOG were very small in 2002 and
not comparable to saturated markets Microsoft operates in. In that case, take
example of even non-tech well established companies:

AT&T: $72 billion -> $203 billion

StarBucks: $7 billion -> $53 billion

However you can still argue that Microsoft increased its revenue 3 folds and
profit 2 folds under Ballmer. That might be good metric to measure Ballmer's
performance but this does not discount for inflation (36%) and auto-
accumulating multi-year enterprise contracts that have been pilling up since
Gates era (unknown value).

~~~
shalmanese
This is largely an artifact of survivorship bias.

If you compare MS to it's peers:

GE: $372B -> $239B

MS: $326B -> $239B

Exxon: $299B -> $403B

Wal-Mart: $273B -> $247B

Citigroup: $255B -> $134B

Pfizer: $249B -> $207B

Intel: $203B -> $108B

BP: $200B -> $130B

Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2002)
[http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/ft500](http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/ft500)

