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 570740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by skpg on Tue 27th Aug 2013 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
skpg
Member since:
2012-09-21

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.


Yes some people got rich and benefited from Microsoft's success, and I quote "some people". The real value in Microsoft is if they benefited everyone, and they haven't. They are still a monopoly, one that is destructive to the market and harmful to the consumers. Think back in the 1990s and even today on how much money it cost for businesses and consumers to repair PCs that have windows preintalled. How much money businesses waste to pay for over-inflated windows licenses because of their monopoly. Think back of the vendor lock-in tactics that Microsoft did over the years (such as the case with IE6) to kill off open standards and incorporate their own standards which is "every software will only be compatible with Windows".

Think of the all the garabge operating systems that Microsoft released (Me, XP SP1, Vista) while profiting millions or even billions of dollars off of bad software.

Microsoft is probably the most notorious and destructive monopoly in the history of the U.S.

Edited 2013-08-27 19:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Tue 27th Aug 2013 20:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

IE6 was better (also more standards compliant) than its competition, at the time it was released

Reply Parent Score: 2