Now that Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates has started his two-year goodbye from a day-to-day role at the company, it’s time for CEO Steve Ballmer to set a resignation date, too. Since Gates stepped down as CEO in 2000 in favor of Ballmer, the company has floundered technically and strategically. As the company’s chairman, chief software architect and supposed visionary, Gates deserves blame for missing the wave of Web-based software that has propelled Google and Yahoo. But Ballmer has made gaffes of his own in his longtime role as head of the company’s business side. In addition, Microsoft has started a wiki-like thing to allow its employees to ventilate ideas to the higher echelons of the company.
CEOs serve at the pleasure of the chairman of the board and the shareholders. If they don’t think a CEO is up to it, then it is up to the chairman to fire him/her on behalf of the shareholders. Setting public dates for retirement or resignation is just ridiculous. It makes the CEO concerned a lame duck, paralyzes everything and so helps your competitors. No benefit at all would be gained by setting a departure date for Mr Ballmer. I guess how long he stays will depend on the changing dynamics at the top of MS in the wake of BG’s gradual withdrawal from day-to-day contact.
The number of times “Enderle” is mentioned in the article suggests to me that it’s just another shop window for the well-known Microsoft shill come Dvorak-like pundit Mr Robert Enderle. Clearly he doesn’t like Ballmer but imho the premise behind the article is just lame.
Ballmer , while having the record for becoming a billionare working for a company that isnt his own, has done very little for the business side of the company. What went wrong? Where did you steer the company improperly? at what cost was this to the ends? Falling stock price, lulling company worth, stagnation of releases, releases that are “technically” up to spec, and a myriad of others These kinds of questions are hard to answer really. Perhaps it was too much screaming of the proverbial word “DEVELOPERS!!!!!!”.
More stupid “Ballmer should resign” articles… I’ve seen a few too many of these lately. I don’t think these quasi-journalists have any idea what they’re writing about. I have about as much faith in the validity of this bogus editorial as I do in the national enquirer.
Ballmer should resign.
Do you remember the hype that surrounded the launch of Windows 95 (and to a lesser extent Windows XP)?
Where’s that for Visa? Most people don’t even know what it is. As head of the company he’s responsible and accountable.
The lack of hype is a bit surprising, especially since Ballmer is a (self-proclaimed) marketing specialist. However, since they are still pulling features it would make it difficult to advertise…would you want to tell millions upon millions of customers about a great new feature only to have them discover after they’ve bought your product the feature doesn’t exist? There’s also the possibility that they aren’t feeling too secure about their release date and don’t want to look bad to Joe User if it slips again.
Absolutely. Those are all good reasons why Microsoft hasn’t been able to effectively market Vista. They’re also good reasons why Balmer should resign!
The sad state of journalism these days is apparent no matter what topic you’re reading from what source you’re reading.
It seems to me they just don’t bother to research what it is they’re talking about, they just spout whatever in order to create news.
That’s the new journalism. Don’t wait for news to happen. Go out and create it.
Unfortuantely the business model has actually kept them afloat. People seem to be complaining currently about the length of time between releases. Lets go back in time shall we? Windows 95 is released, then within a year Windows 95 OSR2 is released which adds major functionality, such as the ability to have a hard disk larger then 2 GB. Have another 12 months, just as companies are on this upgrade treadmill and enter Windows 98, adding USB support and other such much sought goodies. At the same time MS Office is staying at Office 97. Then there was Windows 98 SE, adding more stability and again some other nice goodies. Move forward a bit and in yet another year is Windows 2000 released, adding much more stability to the business desktop, true domain integration, etc., followed closely by Windows XP joining the 2 branches. Although this was in NT, NT was more used by Engineers and not standard office peeps who used the 9x series. Customers complain about the frequency of these releases and the amount of money spent. Enter Microsoft Software Assurance Licensing. You pay in advance so you can upgrade to the latest without any further cost, since you are paying up front for it. Now that the licensing was switched, people are surprised that MS has not released an updated OS, but yet have people renewing the license, which is only covered for 3 years. Sounds like they are still supporting themselves off licensing.
Windows 95 OSR2 added support for the FAT32 filesystem, enabling support for larger individual disk partitions (filesystems) on a disk. 2GB disks were not a problem before that, but 2GB partitions were. 🙂
Windows 98 didn’t add USB support — many folks already had that functionality with the Windows 95 OSR2.1 and OSR2.5 releases. That’s why a number of folks stayed with their older Win95 versions instead of moving to Win98. There wasn’t a good technical reason to do so.
Fair enough. I meant partitions actually, not disks. I wasn’t clear
There was limited USB support true, there was still a huge upgrade to Windows 98 due to USB however, at least is what I saw, as devices were supported natively more instead of relying on extra drivers.
I’ve heard that the Win98 USB support was a lot less picky about things. Just hearsay, though.
“I’ve heard that the Win98 USB support was a lot less picky about things. Just hearsay, though.”
It was in my experience, hence the upgrades to it I saw.
and should be run by a software developer. Thats why it did so good when Gates was in charge. Now look at how everything is being shipped late.
No, companies should be led by people who understand the business implications of their decisions. Software developer != CEO.
Managing Tech is not the same as selling Pepsi. You need someone conversant in both arenas.
Ballmer understands the business of software better than anybody on OSNews — geek, or otherwise.
i know it’s really easy to take things out of context and slice them up to bias the viewpoint, but this guy makes it too easy, no slicing needed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2362050448778905490&q=ballm…
I don’t know if I should laugh or mod you up or down…
But the video was hilarious, XD
Anyone who throws chairs and screams “GIVE IT UP FOR ME!!!!” is clearly the best choice for a CEO of a company.
I still think ballmer IS/WAS Uncle Fester!
You don’t need psychic gifts to be capable of predicting the future in regard to Steve Ballmer.
Fact: Steve Ballmer is a human being.
Fact: Human beings get older.
Fact: Sooner or later they get too old for their tasks.
Conclusion: Steve Ballmer is getting older, and will sooner or later get too old for his tasks.
If he is replaced sometime during the next 2-10 years it wouldn’t be surprising. Stuff like that happen all the time, but please don’t tell this to Enderle and his cohorts. They need bread and butter, too
As far as I can recall, Ballmer is chief executive officer of Microsoft, not chief technical officer, let alone chief software architect. Most of the complaints in this thread have been about technical decisions.
At this juncture, only the Microsoft board of directors is in a position to judge its CEO (although that won’t stop the arm chair quarterbacks from trying.)
My guess is that they will wait out Gates’ transition and then give the new management team some time to work together before they make a call on Ballmer, one way or the other.
But like everyone else here, I’m guessing.
“As far as I can recall, Ballmer is chief executive officer of Microsoft, not chief technical officer, let alone chief software architect”
That might be the problem. Ballmer is a sales type, not unlike Fiorino at HP (responsible for the disastrous Compaq/HP merger among other things). Sales types tend to be pretty clueless. Companies where the exec has some glimmer of understanding of the PRODUCT and what can be done with it tend to do better. Look at AAPL, oracle, Sun, Adobe, Pixar– these companies all have execs that can do more than jump up and down like a sweaty monkey shouting “developers”.
Having said that, I think Ballmer has an impossible task. EVERY one of MSFT’s products (with the possible exception of the money-losing XBOX) is so pathetically technologically obsolete, I think the company has no place to go over time but down. If they had spent more money the past ten years on talented progarmmers instead of lawyers, maybe Vista wouldn’t be a steaming pile of insecure, proprietary doo-doo.
That might be the problem. Ballmer is a sales type, not unlike Fiorino at HP (responsible for the disastrous Compaq/HP merger among other things). Sales types tend to be pretty clueless. Companies where the exec has some glimmer of understanding of the PRODUCT and what can be done with it tend to do better. Look at AAPL, oracle, Sun, Adobe, Pixar– these companies all have execs that can do more than jump up and down like a sweaty monkey shouting “developers”.
Yeah, look at all those companies: None of them can match the earning power of MSFT. Why? Because MSFT knows, first and foremost, that’s a business, not a religion. Its competitors (including all of the companies that you listed) have made incredibly bone-headed business decisions over the years. It could credibly be argued that the technically-inclined folks who made those decisions simply didn’t realize how MSFT’s business model would bury them.
Having said that, I think Ballmer has an impossible task. EVERY one of MSFT’s products (with the possible exception of the money-losing XBOX) is so pathetically technologically obsolete, I think the company has no place to go over time but down.
Look, I’m no great fan of MSFT’s products, but the fact of the matter is that the compatibility of successive products and the entrenched nature of MSFT’s desktop monopoly virtually guarantees that even incremental improvements will be successful. Here’s a fact to chew on: Like XP before it, Vista will be on 60% of all desktops within the next 5 years. This has nothing to do with technical excellence. It’s a numbers game, and it never ceases to amaze me how few geeks understand how it works. If you’re old enough, think VHS vs BetaMax. By all accounts, BetaMax was a superior technology. Didn’t matter in the end. Marketing won.
If they had spent more money the past ten years on talented progarmmers instead of lawyers, maybe Vista wouldn’t be a steaming pile of insecure, proprietary doo-doo.
Vista is insecure? Really? Can you show me some references which support your statement?
“60% of all desktops within the next 5 years”
Only if it FINALLY rolls out
Only due to pre-installed systems not people making a choice about it. I truly doubt people will upgrade to vista.
“Vista is insecure? Really? Can you show me some references which support your statement?”
Vista trys to be secure. Oh that annoying popup box asking for the password to do such and such.Okay, how about one word…wait for it….ready…. wmf
“As far as I can recall, Ballmer is chief executive officer of Microsoft, not chief technical officer, let alone chief software architect.”
OMG he has already been demoted…I knew he was on the way out
I can’t be the only one not reading over this red herring. The idea that web-based something was a wave which is a shame to miss, is on it’s own enough reason not to take the article writer seriously.
Web-based software is crap, pure and simple. I don’t need a more laggy Word with doubtful availability and less functionality, I need an open standard so I can work on my work on every platform.
There’s nothing to miss about this wave, all the more to ignore.
Besides..this article complains about MS floundering under Ballmer..wasn’t Ballmer also (partly) responsible for getting 96% marketdominance, which is near unprecedented, in the first place?
No wonder the company is going downhill. They have had the longest run as top-dog ever, with an incredibly succesful buisness-model..it can only be downhill from there, and perhaps their buisnessmodel is becoming less and less succesfull, but hey, it’s still raking in billions of dollars a year. It’s simply a matter of accumulating market-resistance and alternatives gaining momentum.
I have to agree 100%!
Also, all companies follow the pendulum, they all have ups and downs, it’s the norm just pick one and you’ll see it!
I also think MS’s business practices are biting them in the butt at the moment and Linux and open<Insert favourite piece>, like it or not are gaining traction. People are starting to realise the great MS is not the only kid in town and that others can actually make stuff much better and with less restrictions and spying!
Is it Ballmer’s fault? Some for sure, but not just him!
It’s tough for a company as big as MS to keep up with smaller faster and more agile companies running on new blood techno wise; particularly when they do try something new, some Linux dude is already a 1/2 years ahead of them and can put his shit out strait away, MS can’t do this really so they look like they’re floundering and well they are, it’s what happens when you get so big, it’s what pulls you back from resting on laurel’s and forces you to re-think your strategy or die.
IMHO, MS has seen their best days, Open source will take over from here on in, other than trying to make laws to stop it, there’s nothing that can stop it, it’s part of the evolution of man, just sit back and think about that for a minute before typing your rebuttals
It’s shareholders, shareholders, shareholders.
Last night there was a rather funny bit about Bill Gates leaving Microsoft on the Colbert Report. They showed the video of Ballmer jumping around on stage, screaming out. He didn’t really have to tell any jokes after that (but did anyway)…
he is a sweaty guy….and does he only own that light blue shirt and does the sweat come out of it.
maybe he took “shout it out” as literal? maybe he wants the devleopers out?
You would think a millionare could afford more than one blue shirt to sweat in, no? Seriously, that guy scares me and always has. I honestly think he was one of those guy cheerleaders back in school. Not really good but makes up for it by yelling louder, sweating more, and being more gung-ho than anyone else…
Is it just me?
I think tomcat is really Steve Ballmer… 🙂
people are just complaining because they haven’t been that successful in “controling” the web portal market (investors seem to think they should own everything related to computer software period) and some think they invested too much in the launch of the xbox which apparently was aimed at capturing marketshare than making money at the time. The methods of taking control of entire markets has helped them in the past but now they’re getting crazy with it. For example, media players and browsers could threaten the company by influencing them to buy other companies projects and use other people’s OSs if they ran on all of the world’s OSs (realplayer, netscape?) but microsoft stole it to use that to their advantage. Releasing OneCare is aimed at patching secure concerns that “why cant the OS company protect their own OS from viruses?”
microsoft’s problem is that it’s hard for their developers to collaborate with each other and put out a solid peice of software quickly and more efficiently… theres software teams much smaller doing just as good of work. I think gates has the power to change that.
But does this matter? They’re huge and they have the billions to throw arond.
Anyway, they’ve always increased revenue and they’re still the world’s richest software company. What is everyone expecting? doubling revenue by selling all of the world’s TV’s?
Now, I think bill gates is more at fault than balmer. They are listening to analysts more and more. and i think calls for them to go to subscription based sales is very dumb but profitable. and i will reffuse to use it if that happens!
UNFORTUNATELY… I think the whole windows live thing is completely stupid and putting the guy that is credited with doing all of that in charge in gates role is INSANE! Who is going to use windows live? What’s the point of creating a derivitave and driving the windows brand into the ground? It’s like .NET — It’s confusing as hell to everyone and its abuse drove everyone nuts. Why make the same mistake? They should remove live.com and incorporate everything to MSN.com .. Why call it windows live when it could just be called msn?
BTW, I’d love to see gates invest in helping america’s youth. They are millions of children in america’s lower class that don’t have enough to eat while the majority is fat off cakes and cookies and nobody seems to care to help them because they think everyone in america has money regardless who they are. Wake up, we’re having a growing class division problem. Since he made most of his money in america… I think these celebraties go to africa and the such and do things that have little to no effect on them because they seem like Gods over there or something because common americans dont give them as much respect. education and a good economy is key.
“BTW, I’d love to see gates invest in helping america’s youth. They are millions of children in america’s lower class that don’t have enough to eat while the majority is fat off cakes and cookies and nobody seems to care ”
Sorry; that cause has less PR value than helping the third world. The Gates Foundation is mostly about creating that phony aura of philanthropy. Note how it came to prominance during the MSFT antitrust trial (That trial really irked me: the govt. nailed MSFT to the wall and then the GOP all-corruption party comes in and lets campaign-donor Gates off with a slap on the wrist!)