You are correct the company has lost focus. Yet, if that is not the CEO's job, then what is? That is what Jobs offers Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj
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.
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.
So what do you think a CEO is supposed to do?
Look at Berkshire Hathaway. Or GE. Both well run companies that are an order of magnitude more diversified than Microsoft. The difference is that they all have competent CEOs who have created a vision and corporate structure that allows them to succeed in multiple markets.
Focus and leadership is ALL ABOUT the CEO. Ballmer failed - miserably.
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 They have to support so many hardware configurations and outdated software that any program becomes monstrously bloated and full of serious bugs.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
I believe there's a lot of corporate customers who "designed" their "solutions" around the assumption that 'Windows XP/IE 6 is Everything We'll Ever Need'.
I don't think Rosetta will cut it for them. Oh, Visionaries!!!
Ballmer should go. Microsoft should be split up. The crummy products, which means most SKUs, should be tomb-stoned. Then they might have a chance of making something innovative and beneficial.
Splitting up Microsoft is an interesting idea as a fix (and ironic given that some in the government wanted to split them up a punishment). I think this idea has merit. I for one really like MS Office 2011 on the Mac -- I think it's a very solid product. But as good as it is, you can still see ways in which they artificially restrict it in order to make the Mac a second class citizen. I'd love to see the application division spun off into its own platform-agnostic company that just focuses on making great programs for Windows, Mac, iOS, and whatever other platform is worth the investment. I suspect that an MS Apps company would end up being the most valuable of all of the pieces of Microsoft.
As for the rest of the company, I don't really care what they do with it.
I agree Balmer appears to be navigating the ship in big loops and Microsoft is getting no where fast. Remember it is very hard as most tech company CEOs will tell you to be Apple. Microsoft has a solid enterprise business but their consumer business is going to Apple at a steady pace. Perception is important and Microsoft is now thought of for its many failures in the past several years. The shine it once had is now dull. Perhaps if the DOJ had split them up in 2001-2 we would have a stronger more focused company today. That might be the behemoths only chance to grow in the future by shrinking or splitting into smaller more focused divisions.
Splitting up Microsoft is an interesting idea as a fix (and ironic given that some in the government wanted to split them up a punishment). I think this idea has merit. ...
It might be the best solution for some of the divisions it would be split into, maybe (or maybe not) it would do something for shareholder value, at least in the short term, it might even increase innovation out of the divisions (in other words, it might spark some). But splitting up the company doesn't help "Microsoft". It'll never happen while the old guard are still in charge: too much ego involved there.
From what I've read about the culture inside the company, though, I don't think there is any way to "fix" Microsoft. Which isn't to say they won't make piles of money for many years to come, just that I don't think they'll ever be a force dictating the direction of the technology sector again. They'll either become like IBM, making (lots of) money off legacy systems and services, or they'll split up and perhaps one of the divisions will develop into something that has some innovative spark.
It could be interesting, if they split, to see what develops. But, either way, they need to get rid of Ballmer, he's simply an albatross around their neck.
Microsoft was not built on innovation, from the beginning Microsoft modus operanzi was to integrating outside technology by buyout small emerging company techs or to steal it. Basic, Dos, windows NT kernel, Internet Explorer and AVI are only few of their tech created outside from Microsoft.
The big problem Microsoft is facing right now is the fact that Microsoft can't do this easily anymore. Everyone knows Microsoft now and ask the big price from MS now. Look at Skype insane transaction, buying a company 10 times his revenue only for his consumer base. I wonder how much revenue MS is already made with Hotmail. This is puzzling me, Microsoft is not a consumer centric company, MS client are HP, DELL, HTC not the end user. Microsoft never got technical support right, when you call at M$ the first thing they ask for is you credit card.
Bill was at least a tech nerds that was very interested in new tech and look for way to integrated new emerging tech to Microsoft, look at how Bill jump into the Macintosh wagon before his launch to gain access to it and got a prototype to play with and to come out with the first version of windows a year later.
Ballmer is a manager type of guy, he got absolutely no clue for technology. Unlike Bill, he doesnt understand software from the inside out and got no vision on what is the next by bet.
Microsoft still surf on Windows 95 and Office tsunami waves, but those waves is in near end.
The only thing MS should focus on is increasing basic engineering skills.
They are already in an enviable position and have a great model for success as long as they remember what it is: supply OS platform and Office to businesses, listen to the feature requests of the world's most successful companies who are already their customers, and just do what you're told. Occasionally copy some consumer features from Apple. Don't try to think too much.
In the same way that leading is easy when you have a real pro team, innovation gets easy when you have great engineering. MS should start here, make evolutionary not revolutionary continuous improvement in stability and security, but not try to innovate from where they are now.
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.
A typical way to go in situations like this is for the company to re-assess and strip away the non-profitable parts. The new CEO gives long speeches on how they are going to "sharpen their focus" etc., and all the dead wood is let go and recorded on the books as one big loss so they can move forward afterwards.
So in Microsoft's case that means ditching almost everything in your second category. It means getting rid of their "cloud business" (Azure etc.), as well as X-Box, Windows Phone, MSNBC, etc. The biggest problem I see is X-Box. I don't see it surviving on it's own and I don't know who would want to buy it.
Comments
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.
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.
So what do you think a CEO is supposed to do?
Look at Berkshire Hathaway. Or GE. Both well run companies that are an order of magnitude more diversified than Microsoft. The difference is that they all have competent CEOs who have created a vision and corporate structure that allows them to succeed in multiple markets.
Focus and leadership is ALL ABOUT the CEO. Ballmer failed - miserably.
Bill Gates will return as "CEO SP2"
lol. you are cruel, give them a chance.
Deep inside, you know you want it too
I'd be more likely to believe something a drunken old hobo said than from the criminals who run hedge funds. They belong in jail.
Yeah, I'm too with Michael Moore in this one. Don't listen to the hedge fund manager, let Ballmer stay!
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
I believe there's a lot of corporate customers who "designed" their "solutions" around the assumption that 'Windows XP/IE 6 is Everything We'll Ever Need'.
I don't think Rosetta will cut it for them. Oh, Visionaries!!!
Ballmer should go. Microsoft should be split up. The crummy products, which means most SKUs, should be tomb-stoned. Then they might have a chance of making something innovative and beneficial.
Splitting up Microsoft is an interesting idea as a fix (and ironic given that some in the government wanted to split them up a punishment). I think this idea has merit. I for one really like MS Office 2011 on the Mac -- I think it's a very solid product. But as good as it is, you can still see ways in which they artificially restrict it in order to make the Mac a second class citizen. I'd love to see the application division spun off into its own platform-agnostic company that just focuses on making great programs for Windows, Mac, iOS, and whatever other platform is worth the investment. I suspect that an MS Apps company would end up being the most valuable of all of the pieces of Microsoft.
As for the rest of the company, I don't really care what they do with it.
Yeah, I'm too with Michael Moore in this one. Don't listen to the hedge fund manager, let Ballmer stay!
Should we start a please-let-steve-ballmer-stay-CEO-at-microsoft fan club?
Splitting up Microsoft is an interesting idea as a fix (and ironic given that some in the government wanted to split them up a punishment). I think this idea has merit. ...
It might be the best solution for some of the divisions it would be split into, maybe (or maybe not) it would do something for shareholder value, at least in the short term, it might even increase innovation out of the divisions (in other words, it might spark some). But splitting up the company doesn't help "Microsoft". It'll never happen while the old guard are still in charge: too much ego involved there.
From what I've read about the culture inside the company, though, I don't think there is any way to "fix" Microsoft. Which isn't to say they won't make piles of money for many years to come, just that I don't think they'll ever be a force dictating the direction of the technology sector again. They'll either become like IBM, making (lots of) money off legacy systems and services, or they'll split up and perhaps one of the divisions will develop into something that has some innovative spark.
It could be interesting, if they split, to see what develops. But, either way, they need to get rid of Ballmer, he's simply an albatross around their neck.
Should we start a please-let-steve-ballmer-stay-CEO-at-microsoft fan club?
How about a "We love the Microsoft Information Minister" web site?
"We are crushing the Apple and Google forces, we have retaken the technology industry."
....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..
i have no words
fair point! confused between uk and american billion here though. i assume billion is million million otherwise it wouldn't be such a biggie.
No. A Billion means a thousand million in US. A million million is called a Trillion.
The big problem Microsoft is facing right now is the fact that Microsoft can't do this easily anymore. Everyone knows Microsoft now and ask the big price from MS now. Look at Skype insane transaction, buying a company 10 times his revenue only for his consumer base. I wonder how much revenue MS is already made with Hotmail. This is puzzling me, Microsoft is not a consumer centric company, MS client are HP, DELL, HTC not the end user. Microsoft never got technical support right, when you call at M$ the first thing they ask for is you credit card.
Bill was at least a tech nerds that was very interested in new tech and look for way to integrated new emerging tech to Microsoft, look at how Bill jump into the Macintosh wagon before his launch to gain access to it and got a prototype to play with and to come out with the first version of windows a year later.
Ballmer is a manager type of guy, he got absolutely no clue for technology. Unlike Bill, he doesnt understand software from the inside out and got no vision on what is the next by bet.
Microsoft still surf on Windows 95 and Office tsunami waves, but those waves is in near end.
They are already in an enviable position and have a great model for success as long as they remember what it is: supply OS platform and Office to businesses, listen to the feature requests of the world's most successful companies who are already their customers, and just do what you're told. Occasionally copy some consumer features from Apple. Don't try to think too much.
In the same way that leading is easy when you have a real pro team, innovation gets easy when you have great engineering. MS should start here, make evolutionary not revolutionary continuous improvement in stability and security, but not try to innovate from where they are now.
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.
A typical way to go in situations like this is for the company to re-assess and strip away the non-profitable parts. The new CEO gives long speeches on how they are going to "sharpen their focus" etc., and all the dead wood is let go and recorded on the books as one big loss so they can move forward afterwards.
So in Microsoft's case that means ditching almost everything in your second category. It means getting rid of their "cloud business" (Azure etc.), as well as X-Box, Windows Phone, MSNBC, etc. The biggest problem I see is X-Box. I don't see it surviving on it's own and I don't know who would want to buy it.
As a former Winodws lover and Apple hater, I just have to comment here.
.......
Xbox - their best product, and actually deserves it's position
..........
I guess because it was designed on a MAC!