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

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 784 posts

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#491

Post by ignostic »

astrodust wrote: post #232
sker wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've mentioned Windows 7 twice in this thread. By what measure do you consider it a failure? If anything, Windows 7 is the best thing released under Ballmer.

Windows 7 is not a success. It's just a non-failure. The only reason people use it at all isn't because it's fantastic, but because it's incrementally better than Windows XP without all the garbage Vista foisted on the user. After having used it for an extended period of time, the only real improvements I've seen are in the explorer shell, which are minor at best, and the theme.

>"Windows 7 is not a success. It's just a non-failure."

So last I heard there were 630 million licenses of Windows 7 sold. Even at OEM prices, that's 63 billion dollars of revenue. If that's not success, you're probably setting the bar too high.

>"The only reason people use it at all isn't because it's fantastic, but because it's incrementally better than Windows XP without all the garbage Vista foisted on the user."

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Really, that's the ONLY reason?

And what's wrong with incrementally better? The iPhone has only been incrementally better since the first version, and that's even more true of the 4s to 5. The iPhone 5 is still a fantastic phone! Amount of change from prior versions is a poor measure of quality.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#492

Post by tedsanders »

gibybo wrote: post #371
ghshephard wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A MSFT share was worth about $35 dollars when Ballmer took over; it's worth about $35 now. " When doing this type of calculation, please adjust for Dividends, which have been substantial from Microsoft, and only recently started from Apple.

And inflation. Dividends averaged 1.5% during this period, inflation about 3%. So really we're looking at a ~15% decline in value.

No, inflation is irrelevant to whether owning Microsoft was a good or bad decision. You want to compare to an alternative investment, such as treasury bills.

Inflation is only relevant if you want to see how the purchasing power of Microsoft owners changed.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#493

Post by catnaroek »

Tloewald wrote: post #274
lbarrow wrote: post #23

He'll be remembered as a terrible CEO. Ballmer took over as CEO in 2000. In the 13 years since then, Apple has experienced an unprecedented resurgence. Google and Facebook have gone from being obscure startups to giants. The tech industry went through the bubble, recovered, and today is stronger than ever. What happened to Microsoft? While the rest of the tech sector exploded and prospered, it stayed still. A MSFT sh…

Well it could be worse. (Nokia, RIM.) I think he made one hideous strategic mistake -- deciding Microsoft was the Windows company instead of the Office (or "whatever makes money") company. If he had reacted to iOS and Android by selling Office for those platforms Microsoft would probably be making money off the mobile revolution instead of facing oblivion (or at least irrelevance). (Recall that Microsoft makes, or us…

Well, in all fairness, consumer computing is increasingly moving towards entertainment, which would make Office rather awkward as the center of their whole corporate strategy.

Betting on Windows was, I still think, the correct strategic decision.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#494

Post by niuzeta »

epo wrote: post #420
runjake wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one man, he sure has a lot of failures on his plate. As do all successful people. If success were easy, everyone would be doing it. For all the ways I disagree with Ballmer, this seems like a poor choice to point out.

OK, name his successes. How has Microsoft improved on his watch? Failures are acceptable if there is ultimate success, what is Ballmer's success? Retiring rich? (Most of which was accomplished on Gate's stewardship.) Perhaps his name could become a unit for excess inventory. The "Ballmer", 500 cubic metres of unsold goods. EDIT: or perhaps the name of a new airplane seat, "The Ballmer" the only chair to fly in!

.NET, C#, the enterprise share, xbox are the ones that come to my mind.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#495

Post by hnal943 »

tuananh wrote: post #404
selter01 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what determines a flop, though? Siri is definitely known, and added value to the iphone and the apple brand overall. While I use Google Now and think it is superior, I'm not sure if performance would be enough to label Siri as a flop. Bing on the other hand, not so much.

Probably the differences are only noticeable for non-native English speakers like me only. It's way too good that it makes me feel Siri is such a failure. Native speakers might not see a huge difference though.

I am a native English speaker and Siri constantly misunderstands me. Siri has become a punchline and certainly does not have the usual Apple Cool Factor.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#496

Post by mtdewcmu »

lbarrow wrote: post #23

He'll be remembered as a terrible CEO. Ballmer took over as CEO in 2000. In the 13 years since then, Apple has experienced an unprecedented resurgence. Google and Facebook have gone from being obscure startups to giants. The tech industry went through the bubble, recovered, and today is stronger than ever. What happened to Microsoft? While the rest of the tech sector exploded and prospered, it stayed still. A MSFT sh…

You can't claim that MS didn't try to jump onto every trend. I think it may be asking the impossible to expect trends to be predicted in advance. Consider that MS already had a business to run. It would be irresponsible to risk that business to bet all-out on something that might never happen.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#497

Post by nivla »

ant512 wrote: post #266
film42 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft saw social and search and thought, "we must create our own!" While apple saw social and search, and said, "that's not our market, let's have google handle that for us." Edit: Apple did acquire ping, but that was social music, which is a bit different. They also introduced siri, which simply plugged in to preexisting search services (Google in iOS 6, Bing in iOS7) so it really is agnostic on that front.

I think that's one of Microsoft's main failings. "Google are making baked beans? Why aren't we in the baked bean market? Let's make beans!" "What? Now Facebook are making Facebook Soda? We need to make Microsoft Soda!" Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention.

Well couldn't that be said about any company? If the competitor is doing something different, wouldn't you ask yourself why the heck am I not doing that, especially when there is an untapped revenue. Expecting companies not to follow/copy/learn from their competitors is a naive stand.

>Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention.

Similar to what Google is also trying to achieve with Google+, especially with muscling in part? Although I don't like their approach, I can't blame them for going with it. There is a huge untapped market in the social segment and they were right to put a footing on it.

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#499

Post by incongruity »

freehunter wrote: post #466
incongruity wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go so far as to argue that it really wasn't the same market - the one that Windows Mobile was in was not anything like the smartphone market created by Apple and Google. Tablets, you can make a case for, as above, I guess, but again, the leap with the iPad was so great that it wasn't just an iteration but a leap, leaving it open for a fast follower to come on (as Google did there too).

The difference I was trying to point out was that Apple and Google had no legacy involvement in the market at all. Microsoft had clearly defined strategies that were playing out, and were working on developments to further those strategies. Apple and Google didn't have Windows Mobile 6, 7, and 8 being planned and developed when iOS or Android were released. Microsoft did. It's slower to turn a ship around than it is…

What puts them in a different market now? Nothing.

What supports my claim that the market was created by Apple and Google? You cannot exclude "faster processors and a slicker UI", as you put it - nor what they're a part of. It was a revolutionary change in user experience.

Your point about neither Google or Apple having involvement in the industry is a good one and it's not completely uncommon for stories of disruptive innovation - which this clearly is...

Re: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months

#500

Post by incongruity »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #464
sheri wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tendency to believe that the companies which are doing well right now have 'won' in some sense. We need to understand that this is the state of affairs right now. There is a non-trivial possibility that Facebook/Google etc become lumbering giants just like MSFT.

>There is a non-trivial possibility that Facebook/Google etc become lumbering giants just like MSFT. It might already be true, how do you distinguish between a lumbering giant and not without the help of hindsight? The public consensus on such things lags a few years behind reality. What signs have you seen in 2013 that Google is not a lumbering giant?

I think it largely is - the late follow-on and then anti-user insistence that has driven Google+ is clearly out of the playbook of a lumbering giant.

That having been said, it still has points of excitement - things like glass and driverless cars and parts of the Android world still feel exciting to consumers and that's part of what keeps lumbering giant company syndrome at bay - innovation leading to consumer excitement, repeated again and again keeps companies lively.

Post reply on HN