Not Quite, Mr. Ballmer.........
Engineers in charge is not a good idea unless these guys represent the customer and understand intuitively what they obviously want to do. Closed computing supporting mainstream applications vs cool nested menu driven stuff for the autistic no one ever has time or aptitude to find except minority power users..
Engineers designing cool technology has always been a problem - of technology push. Most car buyers don't share mechanics skills or interests. They just want ti to go and can't switch off their fog lights because theyry don't know which button it is. What IS needed is people from an engineering background who get the problems and can extrapolate them forwards - and want to deliver what the mass of users want, the requirement often precedes the technology to deliver it. Steve Jobs does that. Most tech companies fail at it because engineering creates technology to market, not marketing creates solutions for engineers to deliver, but working symbiotically, no heirarchically.
The engineers job is to meet the need with the best available technology. e.g. I specified a fixed/mobile smartphone cloud resident solution in 1990 and asked Gassee (Apple Tech VP) when Apple expected to deliver such a device, back then there was no public network bandwidth or cloud based resources, and the computing technology had not shrunk enough. The cloud was an enterprise mainframe on leased lines. He didn't even get it and said he didn't like Swiss Army knives.. blah blah. lost the plot with Be as well. Now there is the Internet instead of X.400, MPLS (out of mainframe SNA), Flash and optical memory and mental CPU power enabling the mass access to computing and consumer commoditisation in the cloud.
A road map Isaac Asimoc laid downin a short story back in the 60s, OBTW. There's someone MS should have employed as its visionary, not some young technology de jour led techy who doesn't know what went before and can't project into the future. MS is not an innovator, its a mechanical market satisfier now run by an accountant. Can't innovate. Its semi autistic. It has a track record of innovation by acquisition (as in - "You can be bought or you can be put out of business when we buy your competitor. How lucky do you feel, punk?", not creativity, its core skills have been as a ruthless borderline monopolist with Mafia like marketing practices - look at Ballmer! He's Tony S and acts like it. MS won because they exploited a monopoly OS cash flow and control of the low level software links and mass marketed properly to the undiscerning computing masses, the competing innovators marketed to techies on excellence and got devoured by less capable but volume me too solutions acquired by MS and bundled, remember? Visionary marketing with grasp has to co-exist with the ability to apply evolving technology to old problems and create totally new but dreamed of solutions as well as re invent better solutions to old problems, not one predominate - as in Apple whose leader can do both and whose approaches' time has come.
Larry Ellison will do enterprise in the cloud. MS will slowly whither to some lesser status under Ballmer's vision by-pass. Maybe Oracle will buy it as the work station software, but they have Open Office so only need the customer base, not the software....I rest my case. Sell Microsoft. Your mileage may vary.