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 570519
To view parent comment, click here.
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

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by acobar on Sat 24th Aug 2013 00:15 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

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.


This is a kind of futile experiment isn't it? History is done. Anyway, what could MS gain from it? Also, I bet Bill Gates would avoid the trap even if IBM asked.

IBM wanted PCs to be a driving to its big computers, Bill Gates and others were smart enough to see them as something way bigger than that.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 27th Aug 2013 15:51 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"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.


This is a kind of futile experiment isn't it?
"

Sure, just as futile as unfounded speculation about what an unspecified "someone else" might have done in Microsoft's position, right?

History is done. Anyway, what could MS gain from it? Also, I bet Bill Gates would avoid the trap even if IBM asked.


If IBM had properly grasped what they stood to benefit/loose, do you honestly think they couldn't have made it worth Gates' while?

IBM wanted PCs to be a driving to its big computers, Bill Gates and others were smart enough to see them as something way bigger than that.


Exactly, and there's no guarantee that anyone else would have had the same degree of vision or the independent will to avoid simply being IBM's puppet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by skpg on Sat 24th Aug 2013 18:16 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

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

RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 27th Aug 2013 15:46 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"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.
"

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's been almost 20 years since DOS was the primary OS for any new computer sold in any significant volume. Since the beginning of the 90s, Microsoft's flagship OS has been something called "Windows", perhaps you've heard of it?

So unless you're running a 286 or older, my original point stands: it's hilarious to watch people impotently rail against Microsoft, while using a computer where nearly every component was built with the specific purpose of running Microsoft's operating system (and which wouldn't exist if it weren't for that purpose).

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.


Seriously?!?!? You're holding up software from the company that later became SCO, as an example of "what could have been"? If your goal was to argue that things would have better without Microsoft, then congrats - you just completely torpedoed your own argument.

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.


When it comes to Apple, people always overstate the contributions of the individuals involved, while pretending that the circumstances were irrelevant.

But when it comes to Microsoft, people like you are desperate to make the exact same error, just in reverse: you exaggerate the importance of the circumstances to the exclusion of all else, while dishonestly trying to pretend that the individuals had no role. Same bullshit, just a different pile.

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.


A for-profit corporation doing something in their own favor?!?!?!? No shit, welcome to remedial economics. Of course, what you and the other anti-commerce ideologues fail to grasp is that individual businesses are not isolated islands - and that good fortune for one business can lead to good fortune for other business, as with the case of Microsoft and the various PC OEMs. Shocking, I know.

Reply Parent Score: 2