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.

Thread beginning with comment 570451
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Worthy projects will endure. The damage to open technologies and standards caused by Microsoft way outweighs any sponsorships they offer.


Yes, yesssssssss.... let the trite, overblown hyperbole flow through you.

But please, don't let me stop you from ranting about all the damage that Microsoft has done to open technologies and standards... despite the fact that you are most likely posting from a computer using a hardware architecture that was created specifically for Microsoft's operating systems, and which became widespread entirely because of Microsoft's success.

Really no different than the creationists who use computers and the internet to endlessly ramble on about how science has only had negative effects.

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 16:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Pure bunk. First of all x86 (originating in Intel 8086) was not created because of any Microsoft.

While PC industry grew well, the rise of one huge monopolist there (operating systems wise) was the worst thing that happened to it.

Edited 2013-08-23 16:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 17:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

While PC industry grew well, the rise of one huge monopolist there (operating systems wise) was the worst thing that happened to it.


As if Microsoft was the only one to blame.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 17:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Pure bunk. First of all x86 (originating in Intel 8086) was not created because of any Microsoft.


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.

(Waiting....)

While PC industry grew well, the rise of one huge monopolist there (operating systems wise) was the worst thing that happened to it.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 17:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Just because they did things that doesn't fit into your value system, doesn't mean that they were the worst ever and doesn't mean they weren't/aren't beneficial.

Today my knowledge of Microsoft tech has got me a well paying job in a tax haven after I was head hunted.

Microsoft tech is not the only tech I know well, I've been learning node and Django on Fedora 19. But overwhelmingly that is where my experise is and where the money is in the industry I work in.

There are a lot of developers like me that think Microsoft have improved the ecosystem.

But I am sure you will continue to be blinkered to anyone elses feelings on the subject, because that fits your belief system.

Edited 2013-08-23 17:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by bnolsen on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 18:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

MS was fine for a while. The reason they initiall rose up was because the unix vendors and apple wanted to control everything and charge outrageously for that control. MS allowed quite a bit commoditization to occur and did start needed changes in the market.

Things didn't get nasty until MS starting using their control of the OS to leverage MS office (not a huge deal since their competition was sooo slow in porting their own office suites) and MS started making under the table deals which strongarmed all the OEMs. At that point MS generally switched from innovation to consolidation and protection of this cash cow monopoly.

Ballmer's main failure was that he followed this monopoly protection policy to the point that it hindered MS's ability to create new markets for fear those new markets would cannibalize their cash cow. And now MS are mostly followers and not leaders in growing markets.

So MS caused the market to go from computers costing 10's of thousands of dollars to thousands and hundreds of dollars. Now they are being threatened on the PC side by systems costing 10's of dollars.

Edited 2013-08-23 18:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Soulbender on Sat 24th Aug 2013 10:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Alternatively, you could say that Microsoft's success is due the how cheap and available the PC hardware was.

Reply Parent Score: 3