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 570583
To view parent comment, click here.
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"
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

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by skpg on Wed 28th Aug 2013 01:40 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

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.


You don't get it. Microsoft's monopoly is a combination of the network effect and the intellectual property laws (copyright/patents/trade secrets).

Microsoft can standardize the desktop market because A) having the most widely used OS garners most of the supports as you can see today. And B) The intellectual property laws allows them to standardize the desktop market while ignoring open standards and making sure their software is incompatible with the competition. You've seen it, MS makes it difficult to inter-operate with their closed file formats and network protocols, MS dismisses and tries to destroy open standard APIs such as OpenGL, ignoring web standards such as what they did with IE6. Microsoft most likely learned how to abuse the market and IP laws probably from IBM. Also Apple played a part in helping Microsoft's monopoly when they sued everyone back in the 1980s for copying the look and feel of their GUI (the Apple Lissa).

It was very important for Microsoft to get those licensing deals with the PC makers and to make sure their OS is the most widely used in the world, that's why I made a big deal about. But once they did MS was able to lock the consumer to using their OS thanks. After 30 years MS is still a monopoly, some things never change.

To put is shortly Microsoft is a monopoly because of copyright and how Microsoft abuses the copyright to standardize the desktop market in their favor. This article will help you understand.

http://rudd-o.com/monopolies-of-the-mind/what-makes-microsoft-a-mon...

Reply Parent Score: 1