Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ballmer Days Are Over

brooksreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#111

Post by stevenj »

thematt wrote: post #101
stevenj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I think the day Berkshire declares a dividend is a day when the stock goes down,” he says. “As it should.” -Warren Buffett http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/live-blogging-the-ber...

Interesting choice of words on his part. The stock goes down for every company. Anytime a dividend is declared the stock price is adjusted down by that same amount.

That's true.

Though he also said this (it was paraphrased by a reporter, so it's not a direct quote):

Shareholders benefit more from leaving their money with him and reaping a handsome return than by getting a regular payout and depleting the Berkshire war chest.

*Same source as above

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#112

Post by akronim »

wonnage wrote: post #98
pkteison wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make money by buying a stock, having the business get more valuable so the stock goes up, and selling the stock at a higher value. Or you can make money by buying a stock, having the business make money and pay it out to you in dividends. At the end of the day, what matters here is how much money you make and how long it took you to get it, which is a function of sell price - buy price + dividends received -…

Even a company that's growing ought to pay dividends in most cases. After all, if your shareholders have faith in continued good business they have the option of reinvesting their dividends. Companies that don't pay out are essentially telling you that your money's better off in the company, which strikes me as a rather arrogant way to treat your owners.

Dividends are basically saying "we're returning earnings because you can probably invest them better than we can". It's up to the investor balance their portfolio and decide how much money they have invested in the company, dividends are supposed to be that mechanism.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#113

Post by kenjackson »

brg wrote: post #57
asr wrote: post #31

I'm sorry, he lost me at comparing Microsoft stock to Apple and Google over the past 10 years. In retrospect, those are two of the most successful publicly traded tech companies of the period--not a fair comparison. Not to mention those were small companies in 2000. For Microsoft stock to have increased 1200% (as Google's did) it would have probably had to grow into some very significant portion of the world economy.…

You are correct in that perspective, but Microsoft is supposed to be the smartest kid in the class. They've said so. And taking them on their word, analysts are supposed to compare it against the other brilliant companies in the sector. Even so, look at the comparison this way. Google and Apple both created and captured new markets; Google with online advertising and Apple with mobile devices. This proves that there…

Even so, look at the comparison this way. Google and Apple both created and captured new markets;

The test isn't how a company does when its taking over a new market. It's what it does when its losing its old market.

The real comparison isn't is MS better than Google or Apple. MS has already had their climb. The real question is "is MS IBM or DEC?"

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#114

Post by rospaya »

ry0ohki wrote: post #55
brown9-2 wrote: post #47

Windows Mobile 6.5 was a powerhouse of a product. Pre-2007 most U.S. buyers of smart phones chose between BlackBerry and Windows Mobile 6.5. Both were small screened devices with a hardware keyboard — with exception to the few HTC devices with stylus based touch screens. Palm was struggling at the time and Windows Mobile was the dominate player in consumer minds, BlackBerry was the beast in boardrooms. This seems off…

You had to be one of the rare consumers who were purchasing a "smart phone". I remember writing software for the platform because it seemed like it was really going to take off, especially when things like the Dell Axim were starting to sell. Side note: Anyone want a Dell Axim?

I had an X5 long time ago. That thing was great.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#115

Post by togasystems »

ikono wrote: post #86
Groxx wrote: post #41

Particularly heinous for the Skype purchase: it's amazingly buggy. It's gotten shinier over the years, but they still payed 8.5 billion for a POS.

That's definitely overstating it. They are better than everyone else in the consumer space. Not enough to be worth 8.5 billion for but the core underlying technology is good(They suck at client development though). People underestimate how hard VOIP is because it sounds so simple.

The echo cancellation algorithms, the speed of their sip like algorithm as well as the infrastructure to run their entire network is an engineering marvel. While, Skype's UI could use an update as well as some usability testing, their backend infrastructure is most definitely not a POS.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#116

Post by zmmmmm »

I think Microsoft should break itself up and leave Ballmer in charge of the business focussed parts and put a new CEO in charge of WP7, xbox and the other consumer parts. Everyone heaps platitudes on Jobs but the reality is he has no understanding of or interest in business needs. On the other hand, you can make an argument that Ballmer has performed quite well on this front.

The simple fact is that it may be impossible to reconcile the different business styles needed to succeed in both the consumer space and the business space. Let them separate and have genuinely different corporate personas and both might succeed more.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#117

Post by lotusleaf1987 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #116

I think Microsoft should break itself up and leave Ballmer in charge of the business focussed parts and put a new CEO in charge of WP7, xbox and the other consumer parts. Everyone heaps platitudes on Jobs but the reality is he has no understanding of or interest in business needs. On the other hand, you can make an argument that Ballmer has performed quite well on this front. The simple fact is that it may be impossi…

>Everyone heaps platitudes on Jobs but the reality is he has no understanding of or interest in business needs. On the other hand, you can make an argument that Ballmer has performed quite well on this front.

Yeah Apple definitely doesn't need all that cash they're raking in.

Move along please, point to something substantive and back it up with evidence before you arrogantly dismiss Steve Jobs. He has valid criticisms such as how will he be replaced? But what you said, absolutely is not backed up by all the available evidence. You then go on to praise Ballmer? Bizarre.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#118

Post by boyakasha »

lotusleaf1987 wrote: post #117
zmmmmm wrote: post #116

I think Microsoft should break itself up and leave Ballmer in charge of the business focussed parts and put a new CEO in charge of WP7, xbox and the other consumer parts. Everyone heaps platitudes on Jobs but the reality is he has no understanding of or interest in business needs. On the other hand, you can make an argument that Ballmer has performed quite well on this front. The simple fact is that it may be impossi…

>Everyone heaps platitudes on Jobs but the reality is he has no understanding of or interest in business needs. On the other hand, you can make an argument that Ballmer has performed quite well on this front. Yeah Apple definitely doesn't need all that cash they're raking in. Move along please, point to something substantive and back it up with evidence before you arrogantly dismiss Steve Jobs. He has valid criticism…

I think he means _selling_ to businesses (i.e. B2B as opposed to B2C), not _running_ a business. Also, your nasty tone doesn't help.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#119

Post by redthrowaway »

swilliams wrote: post #109
brg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inside Microsoft, many hope it will be Steven Sinofsky.

Sinofsky is really good at running Windows & Office, but is he the right guy to successfully expand beyond that? MS is getting its butt kicked in mobile, social, and consumer electronics, all of which Sinofsky doesn't have direct experience.

Gates didn't have direct experience in any of the areas Microsoft ended up dominating. In the end, the CEO's role is more visionary than mentor. His job is to guide, not to teach. A good CEO can make smart choices about technologies with which he's unfamiliar, if he has a vision in mind. Compare Sculley and Jobs in their approach to Apple: neither was technologically gifted, but Sculley relied on the engineers to dictate direction, whereas Jobs (mk II) dictated direction to the engineers. The point is that a CEO need not be Gates: he need not have an intimate knowledge of the technology, so long as he has a clear and accurate vision of its future.

Re: The Ballmer Days Are Over

#120

Post by redthrowaway »

j2d2j2d2 wrote: post #40
callmevlad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any great examples of this besides Steve Jobs and Apple? Didn't seem to work too well for Yahoo.

Howard Schultz and Michael Dell come to mind first. Larry Page is the most recent. Yahoo is a good counterpoint, though I'd suggest externalities like a lack of visionary leadership or a lack of intellectual capital, compared to their rivals, are more to blame. Edit: Schultz wasn't a founder, but I believe he was their first visionary leader.

The Page example is far too recent to tell whether or not it will be successful.
Post reply on HN