"Microsoft became almost irrelevant under Ballmer or was at least trending that way. Nadella’s turn around is almost miraculous "
This is definitely not true.
Ballmer increased revenues massively, and launched a slew of new products (XBox, MS Live, cloud etc.) and realigned the company. Have a look [1]
Nadella has done nothing approaching that level of importance yet, so far, he is riding the wave that was handed to him.
Now the stock price - this is a different thing. It sagged under Ballmer even as MSFT was massively growing revenues, around Naella's time investors realized that MS 'was not fading' and all that extra EPS was like a share price slingshot.
Ballmer was as transformative and important as Gates.
Nadella's early transformations were around culture, but that's just PR.
Arguably the stock price is a prediction of future success, not current revenue.
The fact that it sagged under Ballmer and is now up under Nadella aligns with how I'm framing things. I suppose you could argue that's entirely PR, but I don't think that's the case.
People thought MSFT under Ballmer was trending down, now they think it's trending up. I'd argue that's due to strategic shifts that happened once Ballmer left.
I've mentioned in other comments that revenue (while good) isn't the whole story.
>Arguably the stock price is a prediction of future success
Sure, the stock price is always a prediction of future success. But it can change overnight, and when it does, it's not because reality or the "facts on the ground" changed overnight (usually) it's because perception changed. Often if not always because a catalyst made people aware of something that was building for a fair amount of time.
>strategic shifts that happened once Ballmer left.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to treat the stock price as evidence of it.
I think this is our core disagreement distilled down.
I think Ballmer couldn’t have done it, he was too tied up personally in windows.
Some of the examples you mention under Ballmer are more examples of strategic failure under his watch. Xbox is the easiest example, the Xbox One’s launch was awful and focus on cable boxes was bad.
I don’t think it took a while for investors to realize, I think investors had an accurate model of what was going on. When Ballmer left things improved.
We have hindsight: the changes Ballmer made to increase revenue were not 'one offs' they were substantial.
1) He reconstituted Windows and Office distribution, sales, put office on the cloud.
2) He launched XBox and more notable Azure.
So if you think 'Desktop is dying' (desktop sales were plateauing) then 1 seems like it's going away and cloud isn't a huge business then 2 doesn't matter.
But the prediction was wrong:
A) Even with flatlining desktop sales, Win + Office continued to thrive. Even to this day. It's not a 'legacy business' it's a 'healthy ongoing business.
B) XBox, in particular Azure are huge. Azure makes more money today than Windows generated in revenue when Ballmer took over Microsoft.
Ballmer's failures were mostly Search and Mobile ... both of which were sad, but also they were up against Google Search and iPhone, the best products of our era. XBox and Azure are in very difficult areas, and are doing well.
In hindsight, Ballmer did quite well, there's not a lot to debate unless someone things that Search/Mobile success should have been imminent, but I don't think that's true.
He massively grew and adapted the baseline businesses, and started a few new, huge businesses. Glorious profits all around.
Satya hasn't yet quite made the kind of decisions that will have the lasting impact Ballmer has had, in his defence, he's in an era were the 'new fields of competition' are less obvious.
Azure is huge and a really big deal - I just don't attribute that success to Ballmer. It may have started under his watch, but it was floundering - I think that's one of the things Nadella deserves credit for making successful.
Windows + Office is a legacy product line. It makes money, but it's not the future. They need it obviously, but over-focusing on that at the expense of other things was a mistake.
The Xbox launched in 2001 - was the original one even Ballmer? I think Gates left in 2000? I'm not sure that counts. Xbox One launch/strategy was bad.
I'm not trying to say he did nothing right, but I think we just disagree on his overall performance.
This is definitely not true.
Ballmer increased revenues massively, and launched a slew of new products (XBox, MS Live, cloud etc.) and realigned the company. Have a look [1]
Nadella has done nothing approaching that level of importance yet, so far, he is riding the wave that was handed to him.
Now the stock price - this is a different thing. It sagged under Ballmer even as MSFT was massively growing revenues, around Naella's time investors realized that MS 'was not fading' and all that extra EPS was like a share price slingshot.
Ballmer was as transformative and important as Gates.
Nadella's early transformations were around culture, but that's just PR.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global...