Microsoft admits: We WON'T pick the next Steve Ballmer this year Microsoft's board of directors will need more time to choose a successor for outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer, the company said on Tuesday. The board has been on the hunt for a new chief exec ever since Ballmer announced his plan to retire "within the next 12 months" in August, and it now looks as though the search will continue …
Choice is fine. But less noise in that choice is helpful.
I don't like there being just 1 iPhone to choose from (that's changed now).
But alternatively having half a billion different models of the Galaxy Tab Blue Mini 3, and that's not counting the other million Tab Red/2/3/4/play/sleek whatever, is also confusing.
Somewhere in the middle is usually best. Don't give the option of 1GHZ cpu or a 1.1GHZ cpu, give me the option of touch or buttons, single (budget) or quad core etc.
I don't see what your anti-Android complaints have to do with Microsoft participating in the smartphone market or not.
I think most people would agree that Windows dominating the PC market so strongly was a bad thing. The lack of any real dominance in the smartphone market is a good thing, and having three players is better than two. There are certain things Google may not do with Android if they thought it might damage their relationship with their customers (i.e. advertisers - you didn't think WE were their customers, did you?) There are certain things Apple may not do with iOS because they like to maintain much tighter control over the user experience than Google does. Having Microsoft around provides a third way, and with them as the "hungry player trying to come up from behind" they might try the things that neither Google and Apple will do, and lead to more consumer choices.
I can't believe I just defended Microsoft, I think I need a shower!
@AC 21:41
Microsoft would still exist even if Flop did his magic. We would even have a greater choice. Microsoft abuses it position to control the market. Office pushes Windows on the desktop which pushes for Windows server to manage it all. This is why Linux, BSD, OS X, etc. have a problem getting into the business desktop market.
In that sphere of management, there's no shortage of Egos that think that they're "worthy".
But one thing holding up the process is the way the interview is worded:
Board: "Well your credentials are impressive and you know all the right contacts. But can you lead Microsoft?"
Candidate: "One hundred and ten percent certain! Microsoft is a solid company with a fine revenue, and under my guidance, it can only get better!"
Board: "That's the kind of talk we like to hear! We'd be proud to call you the next Steve Ballmer!"
Candidate: "Me known as the next Steve Ball... Aw gee, look at the time, and I left a cake in the oven, gotta run, talk to you later, bye!" <door slam>
Board: "That's the third one today... What is it with these guys and cakes, anyway??"
Microsoft has reached it's critical mass, the company should be split into independant entities, each entity with it's own CEO.
Entities : Server and business tools + cloudy stuff, Home platforms + Phones , Applications ( Office ), Gaming and Hardware.
Each entity should remain independant but remain within a commonly shared objective.
I would suggest that One (Wo)Man to Rule them All is no longer valid, the risk for not doing so: implosion..
That would mean only "Server and business tools + cloudy stuff" and Applications ( Office ) would survive... ask Santa for a calculator this year....
And that would already a miracle...
They are doing "well" in these sectors exclusively because window cleaners think terminals are as crap as cmd.exe and mice mean they do not need to learn how to type with more than two fingers...
It isn't about hiding your 'poor divisions'.
By spreading expenses across many different departments/projects you are increasing the value of the revenue those departments/projects produce. Overall organization revenue and margins are increased, even of the department/project has less than stellar performance.
The revenue produced by that department/project is worth more than any expenses or losses it incurs. Even if those expenses/losses exceed the profits. In other words, you can lose a lot of money by breaking out high revenue departments/projects even if they lose money.
The idea, obviously, is to grow, but if you can maintain revenue levels then it is generally foolish to get rid of that revenue generator. Lost revenue is a far, far more expensive loss than lost profits.
Nokia underperforming under Elop was exactly what it was meant to do on the path to becoming a Microsoft acquisition. Nokia was Stephen's initiation into the big chair, he brought home the goods for Microsoft at a reduced price and they were conveniently already a major customer to boot.
Elop is a possibility, but I know for certain that some of the Board at MS have been very unimpressed with his performance at Nokia. Nokia ended up being a 'cheap' buy, but is was an investment MS did not want to make. They wanted a partner to develop and sell phones that ran their OS, they did not want to do it themselves.
With the collapse of Nokia it simply ended up being cheaper to buy their mobile division, that had been working with Windows Phone for years than making a big investment in another partner. MS looked at Nokia as a hands off money making investment and ended up having to buy them to mitigate the losses from their Nokia partnership. The buyout was the best outcome of a shitty situation.
Like I said, it may be Elop, simply because of familiarity, but I doubt it. As far as MS management and Board are concerned Elop cost them a lot of money.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
