[Microsoft] Steve Ballmer to retire in the next 12 months

[Qbah]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/aug13/08-23StatementPR.aspx

Wow, I did not expect this to be honest. Though MS didn't really take the mobile market by storm... could it be because of that?

I wonder who will become the new CEO? An outsider?

 

[Zaap]

 

[MontyAC]

Good for MS. This is being discuss in the OT forum atm.

 

[nemesismk2]

this is good for microsoft

 

[taq8ojh]

Was he bad? I mean, I thought Bill Gates ran Microsoft, lol. Yes I admit I don't follow Microsoft at all

 

[HeXen]

this is good for microsoft

How? Their board is full of idiots and will just put someone else who is already there in place along with a good chance that they will screw up a lot of things. CEO's take a special breed of person and most don't really do a great job of it from a consumer's standpoint.
Ballmer isn't with the trends, but he does have good business skills. His problem is running a tech company and is far from an enthusiast. That and MS is way too big of a company for one to manage well. You have to really have passion and knowledge about tech products and the people that use them, most of which are idiots too.

 

[TheSlamma]

Was he bad? I mean, I thought Bill Gates ran Microsoft, lol. Yes I admit I don't follow Microsoft at all

Gates >>>>>>>>>>> Ballmer

 

[Ketchup]

How? Their board is full of idiots and will just put someone else who is already there in place along with a good chance that they will screw up a lot of things. CEO's take a special breed of person and most don't really do a great job of it from a consumer's standpoint.
Ballmer isn't with the trends, but he does have good business skills. His problem is running a tech company and is far from an enthusiast. That and MS is way too big of a company for one to manage well. You have to really have passion and knowledge about tech products and the people that use them, most of which are idiots too.

Time will tell I guess. But yeah, it's a public company with a board, so it will probably just be more of the same, unless they aren't happy with what Ballmer has been doing.

 

[Zaap]

...unless they aren't happy with what Ballmer has been doing.

So people really believe he's just stepping down on his own and that the board didn't give him the option of a face-saving exit vs. outright axe? Heh.

One thing is for certain, the entire board would have to be out of their minds if they were happy with what Ballmer has been doing.

 

[Ketchup]

So people really believe he's just stepping down on his own and that the board didn't give him the option of a face-saving exit vs. outright axe? Heh.

One thing is for certain, the entire board would have to be out of their minds if they were happy with what Ballmer has been doing.

If they were upset with him about anything, he would have been pushed out/told to step down, yesterday. Why would they give him an option? And yes, I think he is probably at the same level of "out of his mind" as the rest of the board.

 

[$panky]

If some of you are hoping for a new direction I wouldn't count on it. They aren't hiring somebody to change direction, they are hiring somebody that will be around long enough to see it through from the (relative) beginning. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is just beginning IMO. It will be a fun ride.

 

[Qbah]

Maybe it's also related to the Xbox One and Microsoft's change in some of the things it was supposed to have? Could be it was also Ballmer who gave the direction there? MS is still getting quite a PR beating about this.

 

[Mushkins]

Maybe it's also related to the Xbox One and Microsoft's change in some of the things it was supposed to have? Could be it was also Ballmer who gave the direction there? MS is still getting quite a PR beating about this.

These sorts of high level changes are very rarely reactionary in that sense. All these changes with Windows 8, Xbox One, and the direction of the company are things the board and internal executives have known about for quite a long time. More than likely Ballmer has been planning to step down for over a year now and they all knew it. Whether it was highly insinuated by the board that he take a hike or it was his own decision, we'll probably never know unless he writes an autobiography.

You don't typically get fired as a CEO unless you get caught doing something criminal directly to the company. You get asked to leave so you can keep your golden parachute and the company can save face.

 

[akugami]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/aug13/08-23StatementPR.aspx

Wow, I did not expect this to be honest. Though MS didn't really take the mobile market by storm... could it be because of that?

I wonder who will become the new CEO? An outsider?

A multitude of reasons.

Now, to be fair to Ballmer, MS's revenues have increased exponentially. The problem is that it's more a natural progression of their traditional markets like Office and Windows OS than anything Ballmer did.

Let's look at everything else that has happened under Ballmer.

Portable Music Player - Everything MS did was a disaster or barely affected the market at all. Plays For Sure? Zune? Yeah...that really killed the iPod.

Xbox - Most of the early success was under Billy G's reign. The Xbox One has been a PR disaster so far. It's a salvageable situation but Sony looks to be the king of the next gen of consoles. The only consolation is that Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U.

Phones - Let's face it, Windows Mobile had a decent market share when the iPhone just came on the market. Android was not out yet. MS had a chance to really take the market by piggy backing on the hype created by the iPhone. We all know how that went and Windows Phone (the successor to Windows Mobile) has been irrelevant for the most part.

Tablets - Tablet PC's have been around forever really. They are kind of an extension of laptops. I remember using a touch based Windows tablet years before the iPad came out. This niche is now dominated by Apple and Android. Seriously, Apple and Android should NEVER have eaten MS's lunch in this area.

Windows Vista - I'm not going to call Vista a failure but it wasn't good PR wise for MS. I always thought this OS got short changed. Most of Vista's problems was due to hardware OEM's pressuring MS to lower the "Vista Ready" specs so many people who upgraded were stuck with slow PC's that weren't really Vista Ready. Peripheral makers also had a lot of problems getting Vista drivers out so a lot of devices did not work out of the gate with Vista. This put a lot of the blame on Vista because the end user doesn't know/care what the problem is. All they know is their printer or whatever worked in Windows XP but it doesn't in Vista.

Windows 8 - Puzzling OS. Lots of good, coupled with one idiotic design decision. There are lots of under the hood refinements in the OS. The problem is some of the UI elements that FORCE you to use touch or gesture based controls when you don't want to. The removal of the Start Menu didn't help. All they had to do was allow you the choice to use a traditional UI that you've been using for the last 20+ years or a touch based one.


If you go down the list (not just what I listed), MS has failed at practically every single new market it has tried to enter.

 

[Zaap]

If they were upset with him about anything, he would have been pushed out/told to step down, yesterday. Why would they give him an option? And yes, I think he is probably at the same level of "out of his mind" as the rest of the board.

It's not as simple at that level of business to just axe the CEO willy-nilly. Major shakeups affect things like the stock price and the appearance that the company is in disarray. It's common that even when the board wants to remove a CEO that the person will be given a parachute that normal employees don't when getting the axe: usually the option of stepping down, even after a set timeframe. It saves face for both the company and the CEO and keeps the appearance of instability at bay.

Now, does anyone but the insiders know for sure this is the case? No. But come on- Baller's presided over more failures than most other CEO's or major corporations could ever survive. (Good list of them above). There comes a time after a dismal track record like that where the CEO simply has to be held accountable. (For Ballmer, that time was long overdue.)

My guess is it was probably put to him that it's probably a good time he stage his own exit or else it'll be enacted for him far less 'gracefully'.

 

[Maximilian]

A multitude of reasons.

Now, to be fair to Ballmer, MS's revenues have increased exponentially. The problem is that it's more a natural progression of their traditional markets like Office and Windows OS than anything Ballmer did.

Let's look at everything else that has happened under Ballmer.

Portable Music Player - Everything MS did was a disaster or barely affected the market at all. Plays For Sure? Zune? Yeah...that really killed the iPod.

Xbox - Most of the early success was under Billy G's reign. The Xbox One has been a PR disaster so far. It's a salvageable situation but Sony looks to be the king of the next gen of consoles. The only consolation is that Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U.

Phones - Let's face it, Windows Mobile had a decent market share when the iPhone just came on the market. Android was not out yet. MS had a chance to really take the market by piggy backing on the hype created by the iPhone. We all know how that went and Windows Phone (the successor to Windows Mobile) has been irrelevant for the most part.

Tablets - Tablet PC's have been around forever really. They are kind of an extension of laptops. I remember using a touch based Windows tablet years before the iPad came out. This niche is now dominated by Apple and Android. Seriously, Apple and Android should NEVER have eaten MS's lunch in this area.

Windows Vista - I'm not going to call Vista a failure but it wasn't good PR wise for MS. I always thought this OS got short changed. Most of Vista's problems was due to hardware OEM's pressuring MS to lower the "Vista Ready" specs so many people who upgraded were stuck with slow PC's that weren't really Vista Ready. Peripheral makers also had a lot of problems getting Vista drivers out so a lot of devices did not work out of the gate with Vista. This put a lot of the blame on Vista because the end user doesn't know/care what the problem is. All they know is their printer or whatever worked in Windows XP but it doesn't in Vista.

Windows 8 - Puzzling OS. Lots of good, coupled with one idiotic design decision. There are lots of under the hood refinements in the OS. The problem is some of the UI elements that FORCE you to use touch or gesture based controls when you don't want to. The removal of the Start Menu didn't help. All they had to do was allow you the choice to use a traditional UI that you've been using for the last 20+ years or a touch based one.


If you go down the list (not just what I listed), MS has failed at practically every single new market it has tried to enter.

/agree with all this

 

[AdamantC]

GFWL and Steve Ballmer are getting axed? What strange reality have I waked up in?!

Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

 

[Bonesdad]

A multitude of reasons.

Now, to be fair to Ballmer, MS's revenues have increased exponentially. The problem is that it's more a natural progression of their traditional markets like Office and Windows OS than anything Ballmer did.

Let's look at everything else that has happened under Ballmer.

Portable Music Player - Everything MS did was a disaster or barely affected the market at all. Plays For Sure? Zune? Yeah...that really killed the iPod.

Xbox - Most of the early success was under Billy G's reign. The Xbox One has been a PR disaster so far. It's a salvageable situation but Sony looks to be the king of the next gen of consoles. The only consolation is that Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U.

Phones - Let's face it, Windows Mobile had a decent market share when the iPhone just came on the market. Android was not out yet. MS had a chance to really take the market by piggy backing on the hype created by the iPhone. We all know how that went and Windows Phone (the successor to Windows Mobile) has been irrelevant for the most part.

Tablets - Tablet PC's have been around forever really. They are kind of an extension of laptops. I remember using a touch based Windows tablet years before the iPad came out. This niche is now dominated by Apple and Android. Seriously, Apple and Android should NEVER have eaten MS's lunch in this area.

Windows Vista - I'm not going to call Vista a failure but it wasn't good PR wise for MS. I always thought this OS got short changed. Most of Vista's problems was due to hardware OEM's pressuring MS to lower the "Vista Ready" specs so many people who upgraded were stuck with slow PC's that weren't really Vista Ready. Peripheral makers also had a lot of problems getting Vista drivers out so a lot of devices did not work out of the gate with Vista. This put a lot of the blame on Vista because the end user doesn't know/care what the problem is. All they know is their printer or whatever worked in Windows XP but it doesn't in Vista.

Windows 8 - Puzzling OS. Lots of good, coupled with one idiotic design decision. There are lots of under the hood refinements in the OS. The problem is some of the UI elements that FORCE you to use touch or gesture based controls when you don't want to. The removal of the Start Menu didn't help. All they had to do was allow you the choice to use a traditional UI that you've been using for the last 20+ years or a touch based one.


If you go down the list (not just what I listed), MS has failed at practically every single new market it has tried to enter.

Full disclosure please...you need to include Win 7 in this list. I'm no fan of Ballmer, believe me, but make a complete list.

 

[akugami]

Full disclosure please...you need to include Win 7 in this list. I'm no fan of Ballmer, believe me, but make a complete list.

I did forget it, and that's a good and bad thing. Bad because we do want a fair assessment of Ballmer, and missing out on any successful products is not fair. Good because Win7 "just works" and that we forget about it what OS we're using and just go out and be productive or game or whatever.

I like Windows 7 and it has done very very well. This is my opinion but Win7 was more of a refinement of Vista than anything revolutionary. Everything was about fixing issues from Vista or refining the UI changes made in Vista.

As far as fixing goes, there wasn't a whole lot to do outside of the normal feature updates and bug fixes. The hardware side of things kind of took care of itself as better computer hardware came out. You didn't have weak computers trying to run an OS with higher resource requirements. That was a major issue that MS should never have caved in on with the "Vista Ready" certifications.

The other big issue with Vista IMHO was driver support. Again, Vista got the blame but it was really peripheral makers who weren't ready to support Vista or had buggy drivers (I'm looking at you nVidia). By the time Win7 rolled around, driver support for Vista was a lot better. Win7 and Vista uses practically the same drivers. This translated to Win7 having good/great driver support vs Vista.


I'd also like to add that as for music players, Plays For Sure was when Bill Gates was still with MS, so he's got to take a large share of that blame as well. Though I believe the Zune was all (or mostly) Ballmer.

Either way, there is a huge list of failures and very little success.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I agree with most of Akugami's list but I feel it really comes down to the mobile space and Microsoft's inability to adapt to it. Microsoft maintains its dominance in the desktop space and the collective frustration over Windows 8 won't really change that (despite all the wailing about it, there isn't a strong move over to Linux and MacOS).

The real problem is that the PC is losing the casual user. Most people just use their computer as a media consumption device, which a Roku and Tablet will easily replace. I think Microsoft was hoping that having a unified interface between phones, tablets, and PCs was going to give them an advantage, but enough people have ditched PCs altogether that there's no real reason for that continuity. Those that do use both tablets and PCs are generally comfortable enough with computers that learning to use iOS or Android along with windows isn't really that big a deal.

I really don't see a good way for Microsoft to make a real play in this space. Microsoft managed to gain traction in the 90s by being the most open and available operating system out there. Linux/Unix wasn't user friendly enough and Mac was limited only to Apple computers. Unfortunately, Android has already taken that route and has been quite successful. I think it's too late for them to gain any real traction.

I think Microsoft will become like IBM. They'll still be a very profitable company with a large base in the business world, but they'll become less and less of a household name as time goes on.