Uh, you realize that he was the one who led his company into the situation in the first place. He's only been gone since Feb, I'm sure this was planned in the transition way before it was announced.
Uh you might be sure, but I'll trust more reliable sources such as Forbes than your opinion, sorry.
Though I agree completely that Ballmer was (at least partly) to blame for leading MS into its current catatonic state.
One way -- MS gets out of the hardware business entirely (never should have entered it). Then provide a software and services model for the major mobile players.
And spin/sell off the Xbox!
I agree and I mentioned higher up the thread that, that is what I was half expecting from my readings thus far, this new thing (if I understand correctly) seems a disaster in the making. However, they would then be up against IBM, Oracle and SAP, but I agree perhaps they could do well there, they already do in fact. Yet that isn't what this guy is saying. He wants to put moble first ... unless he means supporting mobile on iOS ... then that I would applaud. Or perhaps he intends to be the equivalent of IBM/ iOS as in Microsoft/ Android. Nah ... what am I thinking ...
Uh you might be sure, but I'll trust more reliable sources such as Forbes than your opinion, sorry.
Though I agree completely that Ballmer was (at least partly) to blame for leading MS into its current catatonic state.
It was inevitable, 'the catatonic state' that is, the entire success of Microsoft was built on the ripped off Apple OS (pre OS X) aka Windows, QuickTime aka Windows Media Player and Apple's Mac Office (conceived and commissioned from Gates by Steve for the original Mac). They have flogged those horses to death while Steve continued to move with the times. Their demise has taken a long time, they should be grateful for the free ride they have had and go away.
Being serious for a moment, I have a feeling this guy is too honest about Microsoft's terrible position and at some point he will get yanked out of the big chair by the powers behind the scenes.
I hope not. The honestly and ability to see what is wrong with the company is the first step in making the needed corrections.
In fairness, Microsoft needs to get rid of almost all Nokia employees. This is actually an absolutely necessary move.
In other words, MS should never have purchased Nokia.
Somehow, we've got to stop the madness of these mergers and acquisitions--they seem to generate debt rather than profit, and they eliminate jobs, rather than generating them. It's the opposite of what we should be encouraging business to be doing. Keep small, keep competitive, keep the eggs in many baskets.
I hope not. The honestly and ability to see what is wrong with the company is the first step in making the needed corrections.
I agree totally, in fact they needed this dose of reality years ago but the PR is going to be horrible. I would have said the stock will tank but of course Wall Street loves layoffs ... but how long can that go on?
On a lighter vein ... Who is going to be the one to suggest they close up and give the share holders their money back ...
Lay-offs, the laziest business strategy. This just proves Ballmer's incompetency even further.
Or it's the most painful way to realize a change in direction.
This is no different than when Apple said 'NO' to the 10 or so products when Steve came back. Focus, refocus, and focus again. Microsoft has a couple really hard decisions. Does it want to be the OS at the endpoint, or the SW people use, because the former means it has to own the Hardware (Nokia, Surface). I'm reading that they want to be the SW people use, which is now App and Cloud based, not WINDOWS based.
IBM has been doing this sort of thing for 30 years (every 5 years lay off 1-5% of their workforce). While you may consider them a non-factor in your technology world, their profits are pretty close to Microsoft. (15B compared to 20B).
On that point, Microsoft doesn't have that consulting income that is the gold standard of corporate technology revenue. You put 3-4 people in a corporation at a $200/hour, and they 'spec' the technology roadmap for your company (because the CEO and CIO don't want techies choosing the 'hot' or the 'legacy' technology to bet the business on. IBM is pretty much agnostic in most areas of tech, and still control the queen bee (that zOS mainframe that has been churning out the corporate financials for 30 years), have professional and managed services for everything, can cloud if you need to, and has a virtual workforce in India, Brazil, Mexico that generate a huge profit for the mundane 'get ur done' projects. My guess is that Microsoft will take it's Azure business (effectively what is the access control for every corporate LAN in the F1000) as the spear to the same consulting path, and virtualize MS office to a new app/cloud model, and be expert in milking that for 20 more years.
Hence, MS and IBM are now competing for the corporate dollar on 'how' to integrate iOS into the corporate world, yet leaving an 'out' for if android (which the corporate bean counters really want to win, because 'open' (e.g. price competition) is better than 'better').
It's a strange new world. Up is down, east is west, cats sleeping with dogs. IBM and MS struggling to maintain significance in the technology world, a 1996 Stanford Graduate project, and a company who was 90 days from bankruptcy in 1998, less than 20 years later are calling the shots, and pushing the how the world works.
I agree totally, in fact they needed this dose of reality years ago but the PR is going to be horrible. I would have said the stock will tank but of course Wall Street loves layoffs ... but how long can that go on?
The 5 Stages of Loss
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Acceptance is a good thing. They might ultimately fail but at least now they can work on potential solutions that aren't the same dead ends they've been pushing.
I think Microsoft should spin off its hardware businesses into a separate company. Trying to be horizontal and vertical at the same time makes no sense. And I think it's a worrying sign if the CEO needs 3,000 words to describe the company's mission.
This is how Jony Ive described Apple's mission in a Businessweek interview last year:
"This is probably a clumsy definition, but I think we try to make tools for people that enable them to do things they couldn’t without the tool. But we want them to not have to be preoccupied with the tool."
Simple two line statement that succinctly explains what Apple is all about. That's what Microsoft needs to get down to. Especially the last sentence about users not having to be preoccupied with the tool. Having said that. I do think some of the reactions anytime Microsoft does something remind me of the cliché things haters say about Apple. Obviously Wall Street is giving Nadella/Microsoft the thumbs up. Stock is up over 16% this year and I wouldn't be surprised if it passes Google in market cap soon.
When founders leave (Gates, Ballmer, Jobs, Dell, etc.) the bean counters usually take over. It then becomes all about maximizing profits, cutting costs, maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat. Tim Cook has shown signs of that behavior too, just not as much. Time will tell with him.
I think it's a bit more complex than that ...
Frequently, when a company grows rapidly, it exceeds the founders' ability to understand and manage the growth. Often, as Gates did , the founders will step aside and hire an experienced professional.
John Shirley from RadioShack in Gates case, Erick Schmidt in Brin's case.
Some times the founders will watch, learn and participate -- OTJ training to earn their big-boy pants ... Then, later, reassume the leadership role.
I suspect, that in the Jobs2 era, Cook was brought on board to manage the operations side of things. As Apple entered into a period of explosive growth, Cook, having proven himself, was promoted to COO and Jobs stepped aside to manage the creative side.
It was inevitable, 'the catatonic state' that is, the entire success of Microsoft was built on the ripped off Apple OS (pre OS X) aka Windows, QuickTime aka Windows Media Player and Apple's Mac Office (conceived and commissioned from Gates by Steve for the original Mac). They have flogged those horses to death while Steve continued to move with the times. Their demise has taken a long time, they should be grateful for the free ride they have had and go away.
Yup. They seem to have such a hard time in new product segments, apart from the Xbox, which is their only real home-grown success story. They add useless bloat that no one wants, using these new "features" as an attempt to justify incompatibility with new versions that are bundled on new PCs. This of course bumps up sales since people can't open the new format on their older version of Office/whatever.
I think part of the reason why their "Windows" branded stuff (phones/tablets/media players etc) flops is due to the bad stigma attached to the Windows name. They don't seem to realise people associate Windows with buggy/slow/virus ridden/insecure/businessy and so continue plastering "Windows" on everything. People associate the same with their phones too, even if it's not really warranted as much. Xbox wasn't associated with Windows and enjoyed pretty good sales, which maybe be the disassociation of it and Windows. Though since most gamers use Windows anyway, if it was "Windows Xbox" they'd likely ignore the association (since they're usually a bit fanboyish toward MS).
I agree totally, in fact they needed this dose of reality years ago but the PR is going to be horrible. I would have said the stock will tank but of course Wall Street loves layoffs ... but how long can that go on?
On a lighter vein ... Who is going to be the one to suggest they close up and give the share holders their money back ...
I'm kind of surprised Wall Street is cheering this on so much considering Microsoft was bloated before acquiring Nokia and most of the cuts are coming from that acquisition. They should be asking why Microsoft spent $7.2B on Nokia in the first place.
As much as I dislike just about everything MS has done, (except give Stevo $150 mill. and allow Apple to develop a much superior version of Office for the Mac), I hate to see this happen to people.
I know it's part of life, but it's tough to be one of the laid off workers. Tough on the families, too.
In other words, MS should never have purchased Nokia.
Somehow, we've got to stop the madness of these mergers and acquisitions--they seem to generate debt rather than profit, and they eliminate jobs, rather than generating them. It's the opposite of what we should be encouraging business to be doing. Keep small, keep competitive, keep the eggs in many baskets.
Thankfully the US is not a completely command economy, although there is a strong element of corporatism.
When founders leave (Gates, Ballmer, Jobs, Dell, etc.) the bean counters usually take over. It then becomes all about maximizing profits, cutting costs, maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat. Tim Cook has shown signs of that behavior too, just not as much. Time will tell with him.
As far as I can tell, Tim has NOT cut costs (other than the standard practice of stiff negotiation with suppliers, which he has been doing for decades as COO). He has NOT maintained status quo (Beats, IBM, Dividends, Buybacks, etc). He definitely HAS rocked the boat (see previous). And he has implemented numerous policies (charity matching, standing up for civil liberties) and processes (moving to green energy, green packaging, green product components ) that actually cut into profits but are aimed at making the company a better one socially and ecologically, which may pay dividends over the long run. Or it may not. I'm not here to argue those details, just pointing out that he has done them. Remember his stern rebuke about the "bloody ROI" to a questioner at a recent quarterly conference call?
So I don't think your characterization of Tim Cook's behavior is at all accurate. It seems to me that his biggest problem is that he is not Steve Jobs. But then who is? People point to the fact that Apple hasn't come out with any new world-beating product categories post-Steve (even though Steve himself always took his sweet time for that) and they point out that Tim is doing a lot of things that Steve would never have done. Their conclusion is that Tim is just a bean-counter and Apple will suffer for it. He may be a bean-counter, but he knows it. And he knows who to count on for the other stuff. I fundamentally disagree that Apple will suffer. We won't know the truth of that until Apple finally lets the products out of the lab and we get them in our hands. Then, and only then, will we know whether Apple is still Apple even without Steve. Time may prove that Tim is actually (dare I say it?) a better CEO for Apple than Steve could have been going forward. (Not talking about the past, and I'm not saying that Steve's unique talents aren't sorely missed.)
But at this point in time, Tim has done nothing to deserve a shred of negativity and has done plenty to applaud. That is debatable, I realize. But I truly don't understand your comment that Tim has shown any behavior as CEO that smells like your quote: "It then becomes all about maximizing profits, cutting costs, maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat."
Uh, you realize that it will take much more than 6 months for the effects of any changes made by his successor to be noticeable, right? These layoffs have been coming for a long time, Ballmer simply left before they were implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg
Uh, really.
Yes, really. Note that the changes he's announcing today will take the rest of the year to complete. Their effects will take much longer to be felt. Not everything (read: most things) takes affect when a decision is made.
If you read the post I quoted, you'd see it was a reply to AjbDtc826 claiming Ballmer was to blame for these cuts, when he wasn't the one directly instigating them.
Comments
Uh you might be sure, but I'll trust more reliable sources such as Forbes than your opinion, sorry.
Though I agree completely that Ballmer was (at least partly) to blame for leading MS into its current catatonic state.
I agree and I mentioned higher up the thread that, that is what I was half expecting from my readings thus far, this new thing (if I understand correctly) seems a disaster in the making. However, they would then be up against IBM, Oracle and SAP, but I agree perhaps they could do well there, they already do in fact. Yet that isn't what this guy is saying. He wants to put moble first ... unless he means supporting mobile on iOS ... then that I would applaud. Or perhaps he intends to be the equivalent of IBM/ iOS as in Microsoft/ Android. Nah ... what am I thinking ...
It was inevitable, 'the catatonic state' that is, the entire success of Microsoft was built on the ripped off Apple OS (pre OS X) aka Windows, QuickTime aka Windows Media Player and Apple's Mac Office (conceived and commissioned from Gates by Steve for the original Mac). They have flogged those horses to death while Steve continued to move with the times. Their demise has taken a long time, they should be grateful for the free ride they have had and go away.
I hope not. The honestly and ability to see what is wrong with the company is the first step in making the needed corrections.
In fairness, Microsoft needs to get rid of almost all Nokia employees. This is actually an absolutely necessary move.
In other words, MS should never have purchased Nokia.
Somehow, we've got to stop the madness of these mergers and acquisitions--they seem to generate debt rather than profit, and they eliminate jobs, rather than generating them. It's the opposite of what we should be encouraging business to be doing. Keep small, keep competitive, keep the eggs in many baskets.
I agree totally, in fact they needed this dose of reality years ago but the PR is going to be horrible. I would have said the stock will tank but of course Wall Street loves layoffs ... but how long can that go on?
On a lighter vein ... Who is going to be the one to suggest they close up and give the share holders their money back ...
Lay-offs, the laziest business strategy. This just proves Ballmer's incompetency even further.
Or it's the most painful way to realize a change in direction.
This is no different than when Apple said 'NO' to the 10 or so products when Steve came back. Focus, refocus, and focus again. Microsoft has a couple really hard decisions. Does it want to be the OS at the endpoint, or the SW people use, because the former means it has to own the Hardware (Nokia, Surface). I'm reading that they want to be the SW people use, which is now App and Cloud based, not WINDOWS based.
IBM has been doing this sort of thing for 30 years (every 5 years lay off 1-5% of their workforce). While you may consider them a non-factor in your technology world, their profits are pretty close to Microsoft. (15B compared to 20B).
On that point, Microsoft doesn't have that consulting income that is the gold standard of corporate technology revenue. You put 3-4 people in a corporation at a $200/hour, and they 'spec' the technology roadmap for your company (because the CEO and CIO don't want techies choosing the 'hot' or the 'legacy' technology to bet the business on. IBM is pretty much agnostic in most areas of tech, and still control the queen bee (that zOS mainframe that has been churning out the corporate financials for 30 years), have professional and managed services for everything, can cloud if you need to, and has a virtual workforce in India, Brazil, Mexico that generate a huge profit for the mundane 'get ur done' projects. My guess is that Microsoft will take it's Azure business (effectively what is the access control for every corporate LAN in the F1000) as the spear to the same consulting path, and virtualize MS office to a new app/cloud model, and be expert in milking that for 20 more years.
Hence, MS and IBM are now competing for the corporate dollar on 'how' to integrate iOS into the corporate world, yet leaving an 'out' for if android (which the corporate bean counters really want to win, because 'open' (e.g. price competition) is better than 'better').
It's a strange new world. Up is down, east is west, cats sleeping with dogs. IBM and MS struggling to maintain significance in the technology world, a 1996 Stanford Graduate project, and a company who was 90 days from bankruptcy in 1998, less than 20 years later are calling the shots, and pushing the how the world works.
The 5 Stages of Loss
Acceptance is a good thing. They might ultimately fail but at least now they can work on potential solutions that aren't the same dead ends they've been pushing.
This is how Jony Ive described Apple's mission in a Businessweek interview last year:
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/155086-apples-jonathan-ive-and-craig-federighi-the-complete-interview
Simple two line statement that succinctly explains what Apple is all about. That's what Microsoft needs to get down to. Especially the last sentence about users not having to be preoccupied with the tool. Having said that. I do think some of the reactions anytime Microsoft does something remind me of the cliché things haters say about Apple. Obviously Wall Street is giving Nadella/Microsoft the thumbs up. Stock is up over 16% this year and I wouldn't be surprised if it passes Google in market cap soon.
MS can afford to keep them monetarily. It's not good for business to have too many redundant employees. Hence why WS loves layoffs.
If MS were to go out of business that would cause the greatest productivity increase in 30 years
I think it's a bit more complex than that ...
Frequently, when a company grows rapidly, it exceeds the founders' ability to understand and manage the growth. Often, as Gates did , the founders will step aside and hire an experienced professional.
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/28/business/business-people-tandy-executive-made-president-of-microsoft.html
John Shirley from RadioShack in Gates case, Erick Schmidt in Brin's case.
Some times the founders will watch, learn and participate -- OTJ training to earn their big-boy pants ... Then, later, reassume the leadership role.
I suspect, that in the Jobs2 era, Cook was brought on board to manage the operations side of things. As Apple entered into a period of explosive growth, Cook, having proven himself, was promoted to COO and Jobs stepped aside to manage the creative side.
That was the right move for both, IMO.
Yup. They seem to have such a hard time in new product segments, apart from the Xbox, which is their only real home-grown success story. They add useless bloat that no one wants, using these new "features" as an attempt to justify incompatibility with new versions that are bundled on new PCs. This of course bumps up sales since people can't open the new format on their older version of Office/whatever.
I think part of the reason why their "Windows" branded stuff (phones/tablets/media players etc) flops is due to the bad stigma attached to the Windows name. They don't seem to realise people associate Windows with buggy/slow/virus ridden/insecure/businessy and so continue plastering "Windows" on everything. People associate the same with their phones too, even if it's not really warranted as much. Xbox wasn't associated with Windows and enjoyed pretty good sales, which maybe be the disassociation of it and Windows. Though since most gamers use Windows anyway, if it was "Windows Xbox" they'd likely ignore the association (since they're usually a bit fanboyish toward MS).
As much as I dislike just about everything MS has done, (except give Stevo $150 mill. and allow Apple to develop a much superior version of Office for the Mac), I hate to see this happen to people.
I know it's part of life, but it's tough to be one of the laid off workers. Tough on the families, too.
I wish them all the best!
Chris
Thankfully the US is not a completely command economy, although there is a strong element of corporatism.
When founders leave (Gates, Ballmer, Jobs, Dell, etc.) the bean counters usually take over. It then becomes all about maximizing profits, cutting costs, maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat. Tim Cook has shown signs of that behavior too, just not as much. Time will tell with him.
As far as I can tell, Tim has NOT cut costs (other than the standard practice of stiff negotiation with suppliers, which he has been doing for decades as COO). He has NOT maintained status quo (Beats, IBM, Dividends, Buybacks, etc). He definitely HAS rocked the boat (see previous). And he has implemented numerous policies (charity matching, standing up for civil liberties) and processes (moving to green energy, green packaging, green product components ) that actually cut into profits but are aimed at making the company a better one socially and ecologically, which may pay dividends over the long run. Or it may not. I'm not here to argue those details, just pointing out that he has done them. Remember his stern rebuke about the "bloody ROI" to a questioner at a recent quarterly conference call?
So I don't think your characterization of Tim Cook's behavior is at all accurate. It seems to me that his biggest problem is that he is not Steve Jobs. But then who is? People point to the fact that Apple hasn't come out with any new world-beating product categories post-Steve (even though Steve himself always took his sweet time for that) and they point out that Tim is doing a lot of things that Steve would never have done. Their conclusion is that Tim is just a bean-counter and Apple will suffer for it. He may be a bean-counter, but he knows it. And he knows who to count on for the other stuff. I fundamentally disagree that Apple will suffer. We won't know the truth of that until Apple finally lets the products out of the lab and we get them in our hands. Then, and only then, will we know whether Apple is still Apple even without Steve. Time may prove that Tim is actually (dare I say it?) a better CEO for Apple than Steve could have been going forward. (Not talking about the past, and I'm not saying that Steve's unique talents aren't sorely missed.)
But at this point in time, Tim has done nothing to deserve a shred of negativity and has done plenty to applaud. That is debatable, I realize. But I truly don't understand your comment that Tim has shown any behavior as CEO that smells like your quote: "It then becomes all about maximizing profits, cutting costs, maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat."
Uh, you realize that it will take much more than 6 months for the effects of any changes made by his successor to be noticeable, right? These layoffs have been coming for a long time, Ballmer simply left before they were implemented.
Uh, really.
Yes, really. Note that the changes he's announcing today will take the rest of the year to complete. Their effects will take much longer to be felt. Not everything (read: most things) takes affect when a decision is made.
He knows that’s your point. That’s not his point.