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 570583
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by skpg on Sat 24th Aug 2013 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

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.

Microsoft rode it's success off the IBM PC. dos was never Microsoft's invention, it was Gary Kildall's. Their licensing deals with desktop manufacturers to have their os be the most widely used, any company would have done if ms never existed. Remember ms-dos was a buggy piece of crap compared to other dos operating systems like dr-dos. And Microsoft never standardized anything, the IBM PC was not Microsoft's invention, and neither was dos.

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.

Microsoft got lucky because a deal with Digital Research and IBM fell out, and so IBM told MS to find a CP/M like clone which would eventually be dos. The IBM PC became a huge success, and MS profited from the success and that allowed to break them off from IBM and start their licensing deals with desktop manufacturers. In other they piggy backed off IBM.

What MS did was never either innovative or beneficial to consumers overall. What MS did was it allowed them monopolize the market and standardize the destkop in their favor. And now they are the gigantic monopoly you see today.

Edited 2013-08-24 18:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2