Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 13:12 UTC

Microsoft Corp. today announced that Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer has decided to retire as CEO within the next 12 months, upon the completion of a process to choose his successor. In the meantime, Ballmer will continue as CEO and will lead Microsoft through the next steps of its transformation to a devices and services company that empowers people for the activities they value most.

“There is never a perfect time for this type of transition, but now is the right time,” Ballmer said. “We have embarked on a new strategy with a new organization and we have an amazing Senior Leadership Team. My original thoughts on timing would have had my retirement happen in the middle of our company’s transformation to a devices and services company. We need a CEO who will be here longer term for this new direction.”

This was long overdue. Microsoft needs fresh blood at the top - not a salesman, but a visionary.

Permalink for comment 570519
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

"Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.

Except that was IBM that promoted the standard and Microsoft was asked to build an OS to run on it and not the other way around.

And...? That doesn't change the fact that virtually every PC that has been actually built & sold was intended to run a Microsoft operating system. Or the fact that the PC's success went hand-in-hand with Microsoft's success.

"So having a standard hardware architecture, and compatible implementations from multiple vendors... that's a BAD thing? Because that wouldn't have come about if there hadn't been a single dominant OS/OS vendor to necessitate a standard hardware architecture.

It is a wonderful thing but, it seems to me, his point was that MS was irrelevant, to a degree, to what happened then

Let's imagine if, back in the day, Microsoft had, say, kowtowed to IBM and introduced measures to prevent their OS from running on non-IBM PC clones. By your reasoning & shmerl's, that wouldn't have had any impact on the relative success of the PC platform.

Reply Parent Score: 3