It's only a matter of time before Microsoft drops enough for Apple to buy them out!
I would like to think that Apple is not that stupid. Microsoft being around is part of what keeps Apple from being nailed with tons of antitrust charges. If they bought Microsoft that protection would disappear.
Perhaps if Microsoft spun out a couple of smaller items like the Xbox or the Zune, Apple might buy those but they should be keeping the computer side of things miles away
And as much as I don't like wishing unemployment on anyone, Microsoft needs to drop the whole retail store project. It's a total joke and from what I heard is bleeding money. Showcases in select major cities makes sense perhaps but trying to match Apple is just a waste.
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 want to agree with you but MSFT is almost solely responsible for holding up innovation.
I would like to think that Apple is not that stupid. Microsoft being around is part of what keeps Apple from being nailed with tons of antitrust charges. If they bought Microsoft that protection would disappear.
Perhaps if Microsoft spun out a couple of smaller items like the Xbox or the Zune, Apple might buy those but they should be keeping the computer side of things miles away
And as much as I don't like wishing unemployment on anyone, Microsoft needs to drop the whole retail store project. It's a total joke and from what I heard is bleeding money. Showcases in select major cities makes sense perhaps but trying to match Apple is just a waste.
I've said it before -- MS should release iPad versions of Word, Excel and PowerPoint ASAP.
I suspect that Apple, at WWDC, will announce a consolidated version OS X and iOS iWork and interface them through iCloud -- maybe other apps too.
The post-pc train is leaving the station -- All Aboard!
Indeed he is! Ballmer is a Tool and I hope he stays at M$. He doesn't have the vision, he doesn't have the foresight. He is arrogant and self promoting. All he has done is ride the M$ wave. Anyone one of us who has posted on this forum could do a better job than him. And that is no joke.
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.
While I agree with you that each division is lacking focus/vision, I don't see a need to split the company. MS's division heads just need to provide some direction and drive. Splitting the company WON'T solve that. Someone needs some vision for each division and needs to provide this vision to the division heads so that they can provide some direction.
Just look at Apple. Their Mac division is thriving. Although some professionals may say they are ignoring the Mac Pro, laptops are where it's at. Their iPhone and iPod division is thriving.
Time for Steve Jobs to give MS a pep-talk. I'm sure Steve could give the MS divisions some vision and direction!!! LOL
"The company's stock has stock has dropped by more than 50 percent"
should obviously read "The company's stock has dropped by more than 50 percent"
Anyways, I thought Microsoft was doing well these days. This guy just wants to get the stock to go up a little so he can sell. He doesn't really give a shit beyond that, and Ballmer isn't doing as bad of a job as he makes it seem.
I say Ballmer should step aside, but just because it's time for someone new, not because MS is fucking up.
Einhorn voiced strong concerns over Ballmer's ability to lead the company into the post-PC era, characterizing him as stuck in the past, Reuters reports. According to the report, Einhorn's remarks echoed comments that "some investors have said for years in private."
"His continued presence is the biggest overhang on Microsoft's stock," Einhorn said, as he called for Ballmer to "give someone else a chance" to lead. Shares of Microsoft closed the day at 24.19, up 0.17 percent. The company's stock has stock has dropped by more than 50 percent since Ballmer took over for founder Bill Gates as CEO in January 2000.
This analyst is just stating the obvious:
1- A CEO's position is not a life appointment, but a temporary assignment to meet stated, mutually agreed, business objectives;
2- 8 to 10 years is considered to be the optimal duration for a CEO's appointment, after which he should resign, retire or be fired by the Board of directors;
3- It is important to maintain a renewal of company executives to favour retention of talent, fight dictatorial leaders, corporate abuse of power, misappropriation of funds, escalation of costs, stock option giveaways and misallocation of funds or staff in dubious pursuits;
4- With each new executive, there is a reassessment of corporate objectives and the cost to meet them, as well as an opportunity to examine fresh ideas, new business ventures and corporate strategies.
Resisting change always lead to staleness and escalating costs. In the long term, this means a less profitable company.
Now, if only the Apple Board of directors could hear the call for change...
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.
That's funny because in the 1990s, Apple was nearly bankrupt and everyone including Microsoft was telling Apple that vertical integration was the wrong direction, that Apple should copy Microsoft's example of licensing their OS. Back then, Microsoft was in a very different position, and any company it competed against would soon find itself under the wheels of a speeding bus. How times change. If anything, Ballmer's failure isn't that he's a buffoon (he is), but that he failed to adapt and change. He's still going at it like it's 1990.
Agreed. Or rather he has done a bad job but it is not all his full fault. A captain is only as good as his crew and frankly I wonder about that crew. I wonder about their skills, particularly in speaking up to their boss.
Amazing how many people are clueless about what a CEO does. If you're the CEO and your crew stinks, it's your job to either improve them or replace them. Read Jim Collins "Good to Great" for example.
Blaming CEO failure on a bad crew is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Jobs is highly involved in all aspects. But he also hand picks his execs and trains them in his way of thinking and doing. They can talk to him in his terms because he taught them. He knows that he can go to them with an idea and say 'how do we make this happen' and they will do it and in a way that he will approve of.
Which is what a GOOD CEO does. If you aren't happy with the staff you have, replace them or train them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratsg
I'm going to argue this point. m$ word was never intended to write a book with. Its purpose is to write 1 or 2 page office messages.
Funny, but Microsoft disagrees with you. For example:
And this guy is absolutely right. Ballmer has been a horrible leader. What was the last new product MS made that really went anywhere? The original XBox. That was ten years ago. Since then, their only successes have been continuations of existing products. Their entire business strategy has been almost completely reactive rather than proactive. Apple tends to see a market and budding ideas before they take off, then takes the time to put those together and craft them into a product that sells. Microsoft waits until someone has ALREADY built the market, then arrives with a competing product that is too little, too late. Just look at the Zune, Zune HD, WinMo (6 and 7), Windows tablets, the Kin, and a whole lot more. Kinect is probably the niftiest new gadget to come out of MS in the past decade, and even that is arguable as it's just an extension of their existing console.
Ballmer is NOT a visionary. He is not nearly flexible and agile enough to lead a tech company. He needs to go and take the axe to a LOT of upper management before he does. I know a guy who worked for MS up until a few years ago. He described what happened under Ballmer: A whole lot of business school grads were hired and completely screwed everything with red tape. Teams now have to follow a buttload of procedures, submissions, and more just to implement ideas instead of just working on it with a bit of oversight like they should. The guys with ideas and those implementing them are tied down and can't get things done fast enough.
fair point! confused between uk and american billion here though. i assume billion is million million otherwise it wouldn't be such a biggie.
Here in the US a million is a thousand thousand = 1 000 000.00 (10^6)
and a billion is a thousand million = 1 000 000 000.00, which is known as a miliard or a mil million elsewhere. (10^9) [@diamondgeeza: What term do you use for this quantity?]
A trillion is a thousand billion or a million million = 1 000 000 000 000.00, which is also known as a billion in other cultures. (10^12)
If it was up to microsoft, we would all be running windows, and all the Unix platforms and the Mac would be dead. But, I really don't care what microsoft thinks. And I suspect that you don't either, or you wouldn't be here.
I think that the real question here is do you believe the m$ post that you quoted below? And if you do, is your belief based on your work experience, or something else.
As far as your FrameMaker comment, I am not a book author, but I have been required to work on and participate with technical documentation in the multi-3 figure range. FrameMaker is/was a godsend. I would not want to have performed the required work on ms word.
disclaimer - 99% of my FrameMaker work has been on Solaris, not Mac OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny, but Microsoft disagrees with you. For example:
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:
MS has never "offered" something, they've sold their items, they've licensed their OS, but they've never simply offered anything. It all comes with multiple strings attached.
As far as "on offer," I have used PCs equipped with an MS OS and that's exactly what it was: On then Off. we'd call it the "on-offer" OS.
Comments
It's only a matter of time before Microsoft drops enough for Apple to buy them out!
I would like to think that Apple is not that stupid. Microsoft being around is part of what keeps Apple from being nailed with tons of antitrust charges. If they bought Microsoft that protection would disappear.
Perhaps if Microsoft spun out a couple of smaller items like the Xbox or the Zune, Apple might buy those but they should be keeping the computer side of things miles away
And as much as I don't like wishing unemployment on anyone, Microsoft needs to drop the whole retail store project. It's a total joke and from what I heard is bleeding money. Showcases in select major cities makes sense perhaps but trying to match Apple is just a waste.
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 want to agree with you but MSFT is almost solely responsible for holding up innovation.
I would like to think that Apple is not that stupid. Microsoft being around is part of what keeps Apple from being nailed with tons of antitrust charges. If they bought Microsoft that protection would disappear.
Perhaps if Microsoft spun out a couple of smaller items like the Xbox or the Zune, Apple might buy those but they should be keeping the computer side of things miles away
And as much as I don't like wishing unemployment on anyone, Microsoft needs to drop the whole retail store project. It's a total joke and from what I heard is bleeding money. Showcases in select major cities makes sense perhaps but trying to match Apple is just a waste.
I've said it before -- MS should release iPad versions of Word, Excel and PowerPoint ASAP.
I suspect that Apple, at WWDC, will announce a consolidated version OS X and iOS iWork and interface them through iCloud -- maybe other apps too.
The post-pc train is leaving the station -- All Aboard!
If you are going to write a book, you need to be using FrameMaker, or something appropriate.
. Word also crashes on 500+ page documents with Track Changes turned on.
Ballmer is the best employee Apple's ever had.
Indeed he is! Ballmer is a Tool and I hope he stays at M$. He doesn't have the vision, he doesn't have the foresight. He is arrogant and self promoting. All he has done is ride the M$ wave. Anyone one of us who has posted on this forum could do a better job than him. And that is no joke.
The same person who has always been the visionary for Microsoft -- Steve Jobs. What's the problem here?
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.
While I agree with you that each division is lacking focus/vision, I don't see a need to split the company. MS's division heads just need to provide some direction and drive. Splitting the company WON'T solve that. Someone needs some vision for each division and needs to provide this vision to the division heads so that they can provide some direction.
Just look at Apple. Their Mac division is thriving. Although some professionals may say they are ignoring the Mac Pro, laptops are where it's at. Their iPhone and iPod division is thriving.
Time for Steve Jobs to give MS a pep-talk. I'm sure Steve could give the MS divisions some vision and direction!!! LOL
should obviously read "The company's stock has dropped by more than 50 percent"
Anyways, I thought Microsoft was doing well these days. This guy just wants to get the stock to go up a little so he can sell. He doesn't really give a shit beyond that, and Ballmer isn't doing as bad of a job as he makes it seem.
I say Ballmer should step aside, but just because it's time for someone new, not because MS is fucking up.
"But, who will be the visionary for the future? And, who will be ready to step in as CEO when Ballmer leaves? Those are billion dollar questions."
The same person who has always been the visionary for Microsoft -- Steve Jobs. What's the problem here?
lol funny, but stupid
Looks like trouble...
The "public vote of confidence" usually precedes a decision to leave and spend more time with the family...
UPDATE 3-Microsoft board backs Ballmer over Einhorn
"But, who will be the visionary for the future? And, who will be ready to step in as CEO when Ballmer leaves? Those are billion dollar questions."
The same person who has always been the visionary for Microsoft -- Steve Jobs. What's the problem here?
The uncertainty about Steve Jobs' health is holding down MSFT stock?
Einhorn voiced strong concerns over Ballmer's ability to lead the company into the post-PC era, characterizing him as stuck in the past, Reuters reports. According to the report, Einhorn's remarks echoed comments that "some investors have said for years in private."
"His continued presence is the biggest overhang on Microsoft's stock," Einhorn said, as he called for Ballmer to "give someone else a chance" to lead. Shares of Microsoft closed the day at 24.19, up 0.17 percent. The company's stock has stock has dropped by more than 50 percent since Ballmer took over for founder Bill Gates as CEO in January 2000.
This analyst is just stating the obvious:
1- A CEO's position is not a life appointment, but a temporary assignment to meet stated, mutually agreed, business objectives;
2- 8 to 10 years is considered to be the optimal duration for a CEO's appointment, after which he should resign, retire or be fired by the Board of directors;
3- It is important to maintain a renewal of company executives to favour retention of talent, fight dictatorial leaders, corporate abuse of power, misappropriation of funds, escalation of costs, stock option giveaways and misallocation of funds or staff in dubious pursuits;
4- With each new executive, there is a reassessment of corporate objectives and the cost to meet them, as well as an opportunity to examine fresh ideas, new business ventures and corporate strategies.
Resisting change always lead to staleness and escalating costs. In the long term, this means a less profitable company.
Now, if only the Apple Board of directors could hear the call for change...
Uh oh...
Looks like trouble...
The "public vote of confidence" usually precedes a decision to leave and spend more time with the family...
UPDATE 3-Microsoft board backs Ballmer over Einhorn
Also note that Ballmer sold over a billion dollars worth of MSFT stock last year. Another clue?
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.
That's funny because in the 1990s, Apple was nearly bankrupt and everyone including Microsoft was telling Apple that vertical integration was the wrong direction, that Apple should copy Microsoft's example of licensing their OS. Back then, Microsoft was in a very different position, and any company it competed against would soon find itself under the wheels of a speeding bus. How times change. If anything, Ballmer's failure isn't that he's a buffoon (he is), but that he failed to adapt and change. He's still going at it like it's 1990.
Agreed. Or rather he has done a bad job but it is not all his full fault. A captain is only as good as his crew and frankly I wonder about that crew. I wonder about their skills, particularly in speaking up to their boss.
Amazing how many people are clueless about what a CEO does. If you're the CEO and your crew stinks, it's your job to either improve them or replace them. Read Jim Collins "Good to Great" for example.
Blaming CEO failure on a bad crew is absurd.
Jobs is highly involved in all aspects. But he also hand picks his execs and trains them in his way of thinking and doing. They can talk to him in his terms because he taught them. He knows that he can go to them with an idea and say 'how do we make this happen' and they will do it and in a way that he will approve of.
Which is what a GOOD CEO does. If you aren't happy with the staff you have, replace them or train them.
I'm going to argue this point. m$ word was never intended to write a book with. Its purpose is to write 1 or 2 page office messages.
Funny, but Microsoft disagrees with you. For example:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/te...030000125.aspx
Their Word advertising is full of claims that it's suitable for anything from writing a memo to writing a novel. And Framemaker is overkill.
Ballmer is NOT a visionary. He is not nearly flexible and agile enough to lead a tech company. He needs to go and take the axe to a LOT of upper management before he does. I know a guy who worked for MS up until a few years ago. He described what happened under Ballmer: A whole lot of business school grads were hired and completely screwed everything with red tape. Teams now have to follow a buttload of procedures, submissions, and more just to implement ideas instead of just working on it with a bit of oversight like they should. The guys with ideas and those implementing them are tied down and can't get things done fast enough.
fair point! confused between uk and american billion here though. i assume billion is million million otherwise it wouldn't be such a biggie.
Here in the US a million is a thousand thousand = 1 000 000.00 (10^6)
and a billion is a thousand million = 1 000 000 000.00, which is known as a miliard or a mil million elsewhere. (10^9) [@diamondgeeza: What term do you use for this quantity?]
A trillion is a thousand billion or a million million = 1 000 000 000 000.00, which is also known as a billion in other cultures. (10^12)
I think that the real question here is do you believe the m$ post that you quoted below? And if you do, is your belief based on your work experience, or something else.
As far as your FrameMaker comment, I am not a book author, but I have been required to work on and participate with technical documentation in the multi-3 figure range. FrameMaker is/was a godsend. I would not want to have performed the required work on ms word.
disclaimer - 99% of my FrameMaker work has been on Solaris, not Mac OS.
Funny, but Microsoft disagrees with you. For example:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/te...030000125.aspx
Their Word advertising is full of claims that it's suitable for anything from writing a memo to writing a novel. And Framemaker is overkill.
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:
MS has never "offered" something, they've sold their items, they've licensed their OS, but they've never simply offered anything. It all comes with multiple strings attached.
As far as "on offer," I have used PCs equipped with an MS OS and that's exactly what it was: On then Off. we'd call it the "on-offer" OS.