Sign in / up

back to article Microsoft server and tools chief heads for exit

Microsoft is losing the leader of its $15bn server and tools business unit, the operation charged with executing the company's cloud computing strategy. Server and tools chief Bob Muglia will leave Microsoft this summer after 23 years of service, company chief executive Steve Ballmer said on Monday. Microsoft's CEO had …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Charles Manning

    Deck chairs, Titanic

    Comparing MSFT to NASDQ for the last 5 years shows Microsoft bust floating belly up in the tide.

    It is one thing to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, but Ballmer is just throwing them overboard. It seems Ballmer really wants yes men to just parrot back his world view. He does not need any thoughtful people for that.

    A fish rots from the head. If MS is going to rebuild its mojo then Ballmer will have to go.

    1 0
    1. Rexx
      Reply Icon

      Titanic Captain

      I agree with you, Charles. But the only reason Ballmer can't find yes men to parrot back his world view is that Ballmer doesn't have a world view. He is the captain of the Titanic staring at the black water of the abyss below.

      0 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Microsoft is as strong as ever

      MS will remain a powerful force in IT as long as its Windows/Office monopolies survives. At this stage, I don't see any sign of change. A huge proportion of the IT industry is utterly locked into Microsoft and has little desire to change - note the huge numbers that still use XP. They will have to upgrade at some stage, and Microsoft doesn't need to do anything to keep these customers coming back - there isn't any other choice. Oddly, many people seem to like this. I miss the days when there were many competing platforms, a bit like the mobile market is at the moment.

      0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    The Pilot Leaves Ship

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropping_the_Pilot

    I personally know VisualStudio as an excellent product, which was only messed up by the move to .Net. RAM requirements increasing by a factor of 20 (i.e. 2000 %). My guess is Muglia told Ballmer that .Net does not cut it and that upset the Monkey In Chief.

    Ballmer is quickly losing the best people and is slowly but surely assembling the coffin. But what do we expect from the salesguy ? Salesguys want fancy new stuff with some kind of dancing monkeys on the screen. Solid technology ? Bah - that's not sexy.

    Linux is not sexy, but it has already won in the datacenter and with this decision, Ballmer will just accelerate the decline.

    2 0
  3. Red Dwarf
    Alert

    Who?

    How come all these people have such weird names?

    0 0
    1. Demosthenese
      Reply Icon

      Weird?

      Bob is not that unusual a name.

      1 0
  4. dogged
    Boffin

    title

    I'm saying nothing on the "server" front but the current crop of MS dev tools really can't be beaten.

    If Eclipse was 1/10th as polished, linux development would be soaring. Sadly, it isn't.

    0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Title

    This is surely bad news. Bob was a good guy, and MS needs down to earth people, not chasing fads. Real change always starts from the bottom.

    0 0
  6. thecakeis(not)alie

    Wow.

    This is how many in the past year? Rats --> sinking ship.

    The one who needs to leave is Ballmer. Not the people in charge of areas actually making good money on solid product that advance stably and sequentially in a proper and predictable businesslike manner. Bob was one of the few truly capable leaders Microsoft had. It's probably why Ballmer got rid of him; he would have been a prime candidate to take over Ballmer's position.

    This is just plain dumb. I hope Microsoft's shareholders crucify Ballmer for it.

    0 1
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      @Wow: Was Muglia a Rat ? Certainly NOT

      I was also thinking about that phrase, but decided not to use it, as it is more a case of stupid, powerful animal offloading the much more capable animal against the will of the latter.

      VisualStudio is definitely the best GUI-based C++ debugger and if Muglia was responsible for that (it seems so), I would like to say "thank you". I am now using gdb and getting more proficient and it is just different. But in terms of simplicity and ergonomics, it is hard to beat VisualStudio.

      Maybe Bob Muglia can create a business around an actually competitive GUI-based Linux debugger ? nemiver and Code::Blocks are a start, but simply can't seriously compete with VisualStudio 2008. VS 2010 apparently is a big hairball, though.

      0 0
  7. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Stealth ...... the New Frontier for the SMART Pioneer and Quantum Communications Engineer?!.

    "Tellingly, Ballmer is generous in his homage to the server and tools business. But Cloud computing is more than just licenses for software on a box."

    So then, what is cloud computing all about? Any advance on command and control of both the real and virtual environments ...... for universal delivery of absolute mastery of global assets, with AI mentoring and monitoring [of] programs and projects?

    Or is that too alien a concept for comfortable admission and therefore something you will require SCI/Top Secret/Strictly Need to Know clearance and Developed Vetting, to learn so much more more about Potent Energy and Elite Systems of Power, with Better Beta Big Brother Media Management of Perception/Memes and Themes with CHAOS .... Clouds Hosting Advanced Operating Systems.

    0 0
  8. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Balmer eliminating the competition

    Balmer's performance, of late, has been somewhat lacklustre.

    By dumping all the bright sparks in MS he is ensuring no one, internally, will be fingered for Balmer's position.

    1 0
  9. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge
    Grenade

    The bottom line .... although that is never ever the same as the final word on a subject/matter.

    "Real change always starts from the bottom." .... VoodooTrucker Posted Tuesday 11th January 2011 00:56 GMT

    I would disagree, VoodooTrucker, and share that the opposite is true and correct,and real change nearly always invariably starts right at the top, for implemented from the top, does IT allows programming to go right down to the very bottom, immediately, ....... for right at the top, are power and control levers enabled to easily reach wherever they would wish to go, whereas right at the bottom ........ well, one would struggle to be really effective, although one can easily be remarkably disruptive and destructive.

    Please note though that the certainty implied in "always starts from the bottom" has been replaced by the much more accurate "nearly always invariably starts right at the top" for both are not wrong whenever one knows what one is doing and what needs to be done and what feeds are required for supply.

    The path of least resistance is surely from the top down, for then does the System and systems support/aid and abet one, whereas it is most likely that working from the bottom up, one will be battling against the System and systems, which would be/may be "unaware" of changed intelligence supply controls and newly available, power leverage parameters.

    Advice to the top,offers existing systems admin a remote control through the new proxies .... and all are satisfied with what would then be a joint, mutually beneficial adventure. Should the top fail to see/understand the added benefits which a proposed change would deliver, then such would be a catastrophic systemic vulnerability to be ruthlessly zeroday exploited in order to encourage executive office compliance, although that be a great disappointment, revealing as it would, a lack of necessary, fit for future purpose, SMARTer IntelAIgents in the existing default, ruling running System and systems.

    0 0
    1. Tony S
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      @amanfrommars 1

      For most of history, change has been mostly Darwinian in nature; that is, change comes about because of external forces. However, human beings have the ability to plan for the future, so change for individuals can occur as a result of forward planning.

      But does this apply to companies? I think not, because they do not act as individuals and this is especially true, the larger the business. Change can start at top or bottom, but almost always is as a result of external pressure. But if the pressure is not felt equally at all levels, then the requirement for change is less urgent at the various stages, and as a result, the change may not be carried through. When that happems, the organisation may become stagnant and die.

      In terms of "least resistance" someone at the top can say that things will change, but if they do nothing to make this happen, the pressure to change will often became diluted the lower it gets.

      The biggest problem to overcome in any organisation is inertia; and as in physics, the larger the object, the greater the intertia.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Flame

        @Tony S: Steve J Effected "Change"

        Putting an Enlightened Tyrant at the top of a company something effects real change. The results were certainly worth more than "change".

        But Steve Jobs certainly is a one-of-a-kind guy, something deeply despised by the M.B.A. brigade. He can't be easily replicated and that beancounters don't like.

        0 0
  10. Daniel 1

    "Fast-growing products like Exchange Server, SQL Server, and Visual Studio"?

    Since when were these fast growing? They're strong products, sure, but I don't know any shop that is using these products, today, that wasn't using them a decade ago. They're just strong old brands with little gain or loss in a market with a fairly established refresh cycle.

    Therein lies the problem. Microsoft has always defined itself in terms of growth and it has nowhere left to really grow in the ways it did during the 90s: the decade that defined it. As long as you can keep growing like mad, no one is likely to ask pertinent questions about things like, whether the stock is overvalued. It's only when growth stops, and each of your shares becomes worth what it is worth today, because that share is going to carry on being the same value tomorrow and the next day... that's when problems start happening, because that's when people start asking whether its worth, what its worth, today.

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like