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

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"
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

"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