I feel for the guy but I'm not so sure he's doing a BAD job. He's made some mistakes, but so have dozens of other CEOs; their replacements haven't always been much better. Microsoft is a monstrosity of a ship and it's slow to change course. Nevertheless, earnings look pretty damned good to me. Ballmer is not without his flaws and he is a victim of the times, but I doubt a changeup in CEO will do much for them. Better to stick with continuity with someone who understands the company. Anyone else coming in will be so overwhelmed that I imagine they'd divest most of the company before they make their investors happy. Yet IDK if that's what MS should be doing at this point. From where I'm sitting, you need as much vertical integration as possible to go up against Apple.
I have to disagree. He has made some horrendous calls and his arrogant panning of competitors products that go on to sell millions has to be galling for share holders. Bill Gates was a smart guy, ok copied a lot but still had some vision - right place right time also requires you to notcie! For a microsoft CEO to say windows 7 is vista done right is just plain incompetent, he basically openly admitted they released a sub standard product with no apology. I would be furious as a share holder and demoralised as an employee. Microsoft is still massive and can do great things given the right leader and we can all benefit as it drives competition. But this guy is just like shooting fish in a barrel for people like Jobs, google etc... We need more pressure from serious companies to make apple cheaper and better.
Balmer is a tool, but he is not the problem. The company is too diversified, lacking focus. Splitting the company up is probably what needs to be done. Something like this, perhaps:
● Computing. Windows, SQL Server, Office, and similar products.
● Entertainment. XBox, Windows Phone, MSNBC, Bing
The argument against doing this is you lose the synergies between the various divisions of MS. But it's starting to become clear those synergies either don't actually exist or are not as powerful as assumed.
Right, so change the CEO and change the philosophy. Ok not trivial but could be a question of long (ok really long) term survival.
The biggest hang on the Microsoft stock is the overly split Microsoft stock.
That stock split so many times between the mid-80s to the year 2000 it's no wonder the stock won't move anywhere.
They should have accepted the break up into 3 separate corporations, if they were concerned with stock price.
Microsoft is dealing with 8.43 Billion Shares.
Apple is dealing with 921.28 Million Shares.
Then you combine that overly owned Microsoft stock with Ballmer taking the helm and you've got a decade of incompetence across the entire MS Executive Teams, not just Ballmer.
fair point! confused between uk and american billion here though. i assume billion is million million otherwise it wouldn't be such a biggie.
They just need to start innovating and stop copying. An order of magnitude I don't think Ballmer is capable of doing. Bless the man (or woman) who takes his lead.
And it has for years. Always hovering around US$25.
Good, stable investment for those hedgefunds, indeed.
Since begin 2000 no increases in MSFT, while AAPL really took off in 2004 (it first took 3-4 years to recover from being undervalued after the 2000 tech stock collapse) and has since risen by 2000%.
Had the pension funds invested in AAPL, many people may have been able to hold onto their homes in 2008-2009.
Of course, Microsoft can't be blamed for the poor performance of those funds. Instead some of those "prominent" hedge fund managers have been part of the problem.
Proclaiming to see the light now is just a ploy to try and prevent their heads from rolling.
One other thing to point out, while Balmer gets the heat, Microsoft's stock price has been flat for the last 10 years, extending back well into the Bill Gates era.
Very, very, true. A lack of vision can be attributed to Balmer and Gates.
And it has for years. Always hovering around US$25.
Good, stable investment for those hedgefunds, indeed.
Since begin 2000 no increases in MSFT, while AAPL really took off in 2004 (it first took 3-4 years to recover from being undervalued after the 2000 tech stock collapse) and has since risen by 2000%.
Had the pension funds invested in AAPL, many people may have been able to hold onto their homes in 2008-2009.
Of course, Microsoft can't be blamed for the poor performance of those funds. Instead some of those "prominent" hedge fund managers have been part of the problem.
Proclaiming to see the light now is just a ploy to try and prevent their heads from rolling.
I personally do not want M$ to fail. Im a big M$ Office user. They do need to pull their head out of their Ballmer though, and get a change of leadership.
But my god, who edited that article? I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with it. So many mistakes!
The day Ballmer leaves M$ is the day I'll build a new PC with Windows running on it. F U Ballmer. You ruined M$. (Then again Gates couldn't have been too smart for bringing this clown in to begin with.)
HAHAHAHA:
Quote:
I personally do not want M$ to fail... They do need to pull their head out of their Ballmer though, and get a change of leadership.
Should I really be surprised that people here seem to be passing judgement on Microsoft's products without even using them?
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
I think it's good for the industry and everyone else but Microsoft. But considering Microsoft could never innovate or produce anything worthwhile, it's kind of nice to have a symbolic idiot at the helm of the company too, making sure they don't suddenly start buying smart people and turning the course towards open standards, cooperation, the Internet and post PC computing era.
Should I really be surprised that people here seem to be passing judgement on Microsoft's products without even using them?
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
I use Windows 7 daily at work and it's just as clunky windows as ever. It still lacks polish, it's hard to drive, and frankly it looks hideous with fat, glowing, multicolored, out of theme title bars and borders etc. It's a valiant effort, but it just proves that Microsoft has no "soul" and can't do anything unexpected, stylish, toned down and usable.
Internet Explore always was and remains a joke, I can't believe someone actually brought that into conversation when mentioning good products. The only reason anyone at all uses IE is because it comes with Windows and Windows is a monopoly.
Windows Phone 7, consumers have voted on that one pretty well. In areas where Microsoft doesn't have monopoly, their products actually have to compete on merit. And there they do abysmally.
Microsoft bet their company on Windows and Office. And both are so entrenched on the desktop and have blinded Microsoft towards the Internet, distributed cloud computing and the world of opportunities and truly disruptive technologies that fundamentally change the way we do work and live. Internet somehow totally passed them by, because they were so busy making sure everyone keeps buying office and desktop crap. And now their major competitors have over a decade of head start that Microsoft simply doesn't have a internal culture needed to compete. It's a huge change and they might as well close shop and take the investor money and capital they have and start a brand new company. It's probably easier than changing your culture and mind set they now have.
I don't know how good or bad of a job he really is doing in the day to day running of the company. But i do feel like he is PERCEIVED as an asshat. And that cant be helping Microsoft's stock when so much of the value in the tech world is perception
True that but failure after failure doesn't help his cause.
After that performance, Ballmer became untouchable. It might be fun to talk about getting rid of him, but Uncle Fester has guaranteed him his job until he gets his own personal Blue Screen.
Should I really be surprised that people here seem to be passing judgement on Microsoft's products without even using them?
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
As a former Winodws lover and Apple hater, I just have to comment here.
Windows 7 - better than previous versions, but still has every one of the same problems
Office 2010/2011 for Mac - annoying to use, but better than most (prefer Pages, though)
Internet explorer 9 - there is a very good reason why the joke is that the only thing it's good for is to download another browser
Windows Phone 7 - better than windows mobile, and frankly I like it better than android, but still needs a whole lot of work
Zune - can you say: dismal sales? No market? Discontinued?
Xbox - their best product, and actually deserves it's position
Windows/MIcrosoft could be a lot better, but their biggest problem is legacy. They have to support so many hardware configurations and outdated software that any program becomes monstrously bloated and full of serious bugs. They need to ditch the NT system, drop a lot of legacy, and build a new system from scratch. Then they could just have a simple emulator to run .exe files for transition compatibility, kind of like Apple did when it switched from powerPC to intel
Balmer is a tool, but he is not the problem. The company is too diversified, lacking focus. Splitting the company up is probably what needs to be done. Something like this, perhaps:
● Computing. Windows, SQL Server, Office, and similar products.
● Entertainment. XBox, Windows Phone, MSNBC, Bing
The argument against doing this is you lose the synergies between the various divisions of MS. But it's starting to become clear those synergies either don't actually exist or are not as powerful as assumed.
Not too diverse, simply ineptly diverse. Want diverse: Sony, or Samsung, or pretty much any Asian conglomerate that do everything from growing mangoes to building sky scrapers.
Microsoft had a plan that worked for their time and never altered it - ever. They have to grow with the times because 'the times, they are a changin'! or have changed already.
Comments
I feel for the guy but I'm not so sure he's doing a BAD job. He's made some mistakes, but so have dozens of other CEOs; their replacements haven't always been much better. Microsoft is a monstrosity of a ship and it's slow to change course. Nevertheless, earnings look pretty damned good to me. Ballmer is not without his flaws and he is a victim of the times, but I doubt a changeup in CEO will do much for them. Better to stick with continuity with someone who understands the company. Anyone else coming in will be so overwhelmed that I imagine they'd divest most of the company before they make their investors happy. Yet IDK if that's what MS should be doing at this point. From where I'm sitting, you need as much vertical integration as possible to go up against Apple.
I have to disagree. He has made some horrendous calls and his arrogant panning of competitors products that go on to sell millions has to be galling for share holders. Bill Gates was a smart guy, ok copied a lot but still had some vision - right place right time also requires you to notcie! For a microsoft CEO to say windows 7 is vista done right is just plain incompetent, he basically openly admitted they released a sub standard product with no apology. I would be furious as a share holder and demoralised as an employee. Microsoft is still massive and can do great things given the right leader and we can all benefit as it drives competition. But this guy is just like shooting fish in a barrel for people like Jobs, google etc... We need more pressure from serious companies to make apple cheaper and better.
Balmer is a tool, but he is not the problem. The company is too diversified, lacking focus. Splitting the company up is probably what needs to be done. Something like this, perhaps:
● Computing. Windows, SQL Server, Office, and similar products.
● Entertainment. XBox, Windows Phone, MSNBC, Bing
The argument against doing this is you lose the synergies between the various divisions of MS. But it's starting to become clear those synergies either don't actually exist or are not as powerful as assumed.
Right, so change the CEO and change the philosophy. Ok not trivial but could be a question of long (ok really long) term survival.
The biggest hang on the Microsoft stock is the overly split Microsoft stock.
That stock split so many times between the mid-80s to the year 2000 it's no wonder the stock won't move anywhere.
They should have accepted the break up into 3 separate corporations, if they were concerned with stock price.
Microsoft is dealing with 8.43 Billion Shares.
Apple is dealing with 921.28 Million Shares.
Then you combine that overly owned Microsoft stock with Ballmer taking the helm and you've got a decade of incompetence across the entire MS Executive Teams, not just Ballmer.
fair point! confused between uk and american billion here though. i assume billion is million million otherwise it wouldn't be such a biggie.
Good, stable investment for those hedgefunds, indeed.
Since begin 2000 no increases in MSFT, while AAPL really took off in 2004 (it first took 3-4 years to recover from being undervalued after the 2000 tech stock collapse) and has since risen by 2000%.
Had the pension funds invested in AAPL, many people may have been able to hold onto their homes in 2008-2009.
Of course, Microsoft can't be blamed for the poor performance of those funds. Instead some of those "prominent" hedge fund managers have been part of the problem.
Proclaiming to see the light now is just a ploy to try and prevent their heads from rolling.
One other thing to point out, while Balmer gets the heat, Microsoft's stock price has been flat for the last 10 years, extending back well into the Bill Gates era.
Very, very, true. A lack of vision can be attributed to Balmer and Gates.
And it has for years. Always hovering around US$25.
Good, stable investment for those hedgefunds, indeed.
Since begin 2000 no increases in MSFT, while AAPL really took off in 2004 (it first took 3-4 years to recover from being undervalued after the 2000 tech stock collapse) and has since risen by 2000%.
Had the pension funds invested in AAPL, many people may have been able to hold onto their homes in 2008-2009.
Of course, Microsoft can't be blamed for the poor performance of those funds. Instead some of those "prominent" hedge fund managers have been part of the problem.
Proclaiming to see the light now is just a ploy to try and prevent their heads from rolling.
I personally do not want M$ to fail. Im a big M$ Office user. They do need to pull their head out of their Ballmer though, and get a change of leadership.
But my god, who edited that article? I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with it. So many mistakes!
HAHAHAHA:
I personally do not want M$ to fail... They do need to pull their head out of their Ballmer though, and get a change of leadership.
Couldn't agree more. :-)
Pllleeeeaaaaassseee let him stay, just one or two more product flops! Pllleeeaaaaasseeee!!!!
+1
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
Should I really be surprised that people here seem to be passing judgement on Microsoft's products without even using them?
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
I use Windows 7 daily at work and it's just as clunky windows as ever. It still lacks polish, it's hard to drive, and frankly it looks hideous with fat, glowing, multicolored, out of theme title bars and borders etc. It's a valiant effort, but it just proves that Microsoft has no "soul" and can't do anything unexpected, stylish, toned down and usable.
Internet Explore always was and remains a joke, I can't believe someone actually brought that into conversation when mentioning good products. The only reason anyone at all uses IE is because it comes with Windows and Windows is a monopoly.
Windows Phone 7, consumers have voted on that one pretty well. In areas where Microsoft doesn't have monopoly, their products actually have to compete on merit. And there they do abysmally.
Microsoft bet their company on Windows and Office. And both are so entrenched on the desktop and have blinded Microsoft towards the Internet, distributed cloud computing and the world of opportunities and truly disruptive technologies that fundamentally change the way we do work and live. Internet somehow totally passed them by, because they were so busy making sure everyone keeps buying office and desktop crap. And now their major competitors have over a decade of head start that Microsoft simply doesn't have a internal culture needed to compete. It's a huge change and they might as well close shop and take the investor money and capital they have and start a brand new company. It's probably easier than changing your culture and mind set they now have.
Pllleeeeaaaaassseee let him stay, just one or two more product flops! Pllleeeaaaaasseeee!!!!
its too horrible to watch !!!!
yrs ago i would been so happy to see msft eat a large shit bag for lunch ,
but now like who cares .
msft should sell xbox and all games to apple
yes
9
9
I don't know how good or bad of a job he really is doing in the day to day running of the company. But i do feel like he is PERCEIVED as an asshat. And that cant be helping Microsoft's stock when so much of the value in the tech world is perception
True that but failure after failure doesn't help his cause.
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
After that performance, Ballmer became untouchable. It might be fun to talk about getting rid of him, but Uncle Fester has guaranteed him his job until he gets his own personal Blue Screen.
Should I really be surprised that people here seem to be passing judgement on Microsoft's products without even using them?
Clearly none of you saying things like "crummy products" and "crappy OS" have used Microsoft's offerings lately. If you had, you would be praising what is on offer:
Windows 7
Office 2010
Office 2011 for Mac
Internet Explorer 9
Windows Phone 7
Zune
Xbox
All of these are truly excellent products, most of them worthy of being the market leader. Certainly the Windows of today is the best ever and I now have far more confidence in the reliability and stability of Windows than I do in Mac OS X.
Microsoft also offers incredibly good support for previous versions, continuing to release updates long after a new version is on sale. This means that Windows XP and Windows Vista are now rock solid (a long way from where they were 6 or 7 years ago).
As a former Winodws lover and Apple hater, I just have to comment here.
Windows 7 - better than previous versions, but still has every one of the same problems
Office 2010/2011 for Mac - annoying to use, but better than most (prefer Pages, though)
Internet explorer 9 - there is a very good reason why the joke is that the only thing it's good for is to download another browser
Windows Phone 7 - better than windows mobile, and frankly I like it better than android, but still needs a whole lot of work
Zune - can you say: dismal sales? No market? Discontinued?
Xbox - their best product, and actually deserves it's position
Windows/MIcrosoft could be a lot better, but their biggest problem is legacy. They have to support so many hardware configurations and outdated software that any program becomes monstrously bloated and full of serious bugs. They need to ditch the NT system, drop a lot of legacy, and build a new system from scratch. Then they could just have a simple emulator to run .exe files for transition compatibility, kind of like Apple did when it switched from powerPC to intel
Balmer is a tool, but he is not the problem. The company is too diversified, lacking focus. Splitting the company up is probably what needs to be done. Something like this, perhaps:
● Computing. Windows, SQL Server, Office, and similar products.
● Entertainment. XBox, Windows Phone, MSNBC, Bing
The argument against doing this is you lose the synergies between the various divisions of MS. But it's starting to become clear those synergies either don't actually exist or are not as powerful as assumed.
Not too diverse, simply ineptly diverse. Want diverse: Sony, or Samsung, or pretty much any Asian conglomerate that do everything from growing mangoes to building sky scrapers.
Microsoft had a plan that worked for their time and never altered it - ever. They have to grow with the times because 'the times, they are a changin'! or have changed already.