Live data from Hacker News

Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

afr.com

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#61

If you're curious why this run-of-the-mill PR piece is rising on HN, keep in mind that Microsoft (and other FAANG) posts like these are gamed by employees. https://www.kickscondor.com/satya-nadella-'reads''games'-hac...

Wow, 'mtgx are you really hellbanned? No one is safe...

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#62
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates built an amazing airplane. Steve Ballmer crashed it in the desert. Satya Nadella rallied the survivors, put it back together, and got it flying again. Yes, he absolutely deserves the credit just as Ballmer absolutely deserves the blame.

If you’re only looking at stock price then Ballmer did exceptionally well.

Go look at the stock history, the moment Ballmer became CEO in 2000 the price stopped growing, lulled back down into the ~20-30's and stayed there until he stepped down in 2014. He did "exceptionally well" at keeping it where it was...

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Ballmer did quite well at MS. He consistently increased earnings via Windows and Office during his tenure as CEO. He was a very good businessman. He was not, however, a product guy. Witness their failures with the Zune, mobile, early cloud computing. His problem was that he always tried to do what would be best for Microsoft and not the customer. You can get away with this if you already have an install bas…

I feel that reflects quite well Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook as well. Jobs just wanted to make 'insanely great' products [for their users], with the side effect of profit, while Tim Cook is probably fixated on efficiency and Shareholder value. Apple has had record profits and performance, but most will tell it's not the same and its future is not so certain. It seems paradoxical that trying to maximize shareholder value at…

Product development, especially in brand-new markets, requires a visionary with excellent taste, and the trust and respect of his team to revise with confidence.

I can imagine what happened with Zune, cloud, etc is that (an enormously successful) MS assigned senior engineers to head up potentially prestigious new projects as professional rewards, but what they should have done was acquire-hire startup founders with fire in their belly (and strong vision) about the space. Ironically anyone with that much belly fire probably would have left MS to pursue it, basically disqualifying everyone left. :)

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Ballmer did quite well at MS. He consistently increased earnings via Windows and Office during his tenure as CEO. He was a very good businessman. He was not, however, a product guy. Witness their failures with the Zune, mobile, early cloud computing. His problem was that he always tried to do what would be best for Microsoft and not the customer. You can get away with this if you already have an install bas…

I feel that reflects quite well Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook as well. Jobs just wanted to make 'insanely great' products [for their users], with the side effect of profit, while Tim Cook is probably fixated on efficiency and Shareholder value. Apple has had record profits and performance, but most will tell it's not the same and its future is not so certain. It seems paradoxical that trying to maximize shareholder value at…

Vision Master vs Execution Master

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#65
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re only looking at stock price then Ballmer did exceptionally well.

Go look at the stock history, the moment Ballmer became CEO in 2000 the price stopped growing, lulled back down into the ~20-30's and stayed there until he stepped down in 2014. He did "exceptionally well" at keeping it where it was...

Correlation does not imply causation

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re only looking at stock price then Ballmer did exceptionally well.

Go look at the stock history, the moment Ballmer became CEO in 2000 the price stopped growing, lulled back down into the ~20-30's and stayed there until he stepped down in 2014. He did "exceptionally well" at keeping it where it was...

If you looked at historical p/e, the low for msft was the last year of ballmer. I think their p/e was 8... it was never a dog stock but an 8 is kind of like what you get if your p&g or coke. It’s not a growth stock anymore. That was about the time we started seeing the precursors to office365. So good things had started back then, but to assume a the role it has today where it’s equally a peer to Apple and google and not just relegated to be a waning player with a solid book in the enterprise (ie, sap, Oracle, etc) is quite an accomplishment. It’s as if msft finally did what gates and ballmer both failed to do: Become cool and strategic to an emerging / now dominant tech paradigm. It’s hard to give credit to one person ... credit goes to everyone there who not just went along with the pivot to cloud but took it to a whole new level.

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#67
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates built an amazing airplane. Steve Ballmer crashed it in the desert. Satya Nadella rallied the survivors, put it back together, and got it flying again. Yes, he absolutely deserves the credit just as Ballmer absolutely deserves the blame.

If you’re only looking at stock price then Ballmer did exceptionally well.

He did very well the day he stepped down. IIRC his personal net worth jumped like $700M as Microsoft rose 9% on the news of his retirement.

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#68

First: A stock can rise for reasons having zero to do with the reality of the business behind the stock, for example mispricing, availability or the lack thereof of alternative investments, inflation, currency devaluation etc. Second: To me it always leaves a very foul aftertaste when the achievements of a team are ascribed to whoever the visible front-person is. I find it hard to believe that among the other 149999…

Another reason for a stock to rise these days is stock buybacks. Great work if you're in upper management and can compensate yourself via corporate buybacks using "free money".(with interest rates being near zero and artificially suppressed)

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#69
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates built an amazing airplane. Steve Ballmer crashed it in the desert. Satya Nadella rallied the survivors, put it back together, and got it flying again. Yes, he absolutely deserves the credit just as Ballmer absolutely deserves the blame.

Actually, Ballmer did quite well at MS. He consistently increased earnings via Windows and Office during his tenure as CEO. He was a very good businessman. He was not, however, a product guy. Witness their failures with the Zune, mobile, early cloud computing. His problem was that he always tried to do what would be best for Microsoft and not the customer. You can get away with this if you already have an install bas…

Words cannot express my contempt for the stack-ranking system that Ballmer liked. I saw perfectly good engineers being forced out because managers had to find five or ten percent of their staff to let go. Some groups deliberately hired under-performers so they could fire them and protect the "real" members of their teams.

His "everything has to be Windows" philosophy was toxic, too. (Then I realized that he didn't really care about the underlying technologies of things, and as long as you called your embedded system that had an event loop and some interrupt handlers "Windows Event Loop And Some Interrupt Handlers, Enterprise Edition" you would be politically safe).

Re: Satya Nadella Added $850B to Microsoft

#70
Does anyone know what this $850,000,000,000.00 looks like in reality? Where was that value created?

Did they sell that many more … what exactly? I am just trying to understand where that value is.

Or was this essentially all stock buybacks that artificially inflate the "value" as established by the market cap?

Ironically too is that when you control the MSFT market cap against the Trump inflated stock market, there is actually no actual gain, especially when you control for stock buybacks, aka, corporate stock self-inflation.

Post reply on HN