Microsoft Chops CEO Shortlist

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm going to laugh when no one on this list gets the job. :D

In this group is Ford CEO Alan Mulally, former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop, Microsoft Executive VP Tony Bates, and Microsoft cloud and enterprise chief Satya Nadella. Reuters was unable to get other names, but a source familiar with the matter said there was at least one other internal candidate and a total of more or less five contenders.
Click to expand...
 
Does it matter, old school Gates will be guiding his decision(s) anyway. :rolleyes:
 
Gates should just go ahead and put his son Rory in as CEO since he's 14. He could do as good a job as Ballmer did and probably better than the list of replacements. If Gates Sr. is going to give the orders anyway, might as well give them to someone used to taking them. :D
 
MajorDomo said:
Gates should just go ahead and put his son Rory in as CEO since he's 14. He could do as good a job as Ballmer did and probably better than the list of replacements. If Gates Sr. is going to give the orders anyway, might as well give them to someone used to taking them. :D
Click to expand...

Haha! This. Its the only logical choice.
 
The Crack must be flowing freely in the Microsoft boardroom these days, because they are seriously on it.

The first two (Mulally and Elop) both ran their company into the ground, and the 4th one has been slowly losing the cloud service game for the last few years (hotmail used to be the number one web-based email service, and now it's a joke)

If you want to win, don't start with a shortlist of losers.
 
Clearly nobody here knows the background of the Ford CEO. Consider the fact that Ford was the only company not requiring a bailout, and then returned to profitability under his watch.

He has an extensive engineering background making contributions to the Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 projects. He led the cockpit design team on the 757/767 project.
 
sir-gold said:
The Crack must be flowing freely in the Microsoft boardroom these days, because they are seriously on it.

The first two (Mulally and Elop) both ran their company into the ground, and the 4th one has been slowly losing the cloud service game for the last few years (hotmail used to be the number one web-based email service, and now it's a joke)

If you want to win, don't start with a shortlist of losers.
Click to expand...

How the hell did Mulally run ford into the ground? They were the ONLY American car manufacturer to not need a bailout and remain extremely profitable. Your comment makes absolute shit sense
 
sir-gold said:
The Crack must be flowing freely in the Microsoft boardroom these days, because they are seriously on it.

The first two (Mulally and Elop) both ran their company into the ground, and the 4th one has been slowly losing the cloud service game for the last few years (hotmail used to be the number one web-based email service, and now it's a joke)

If you want to win, don't start with a shortlist of losers.
Click to expand...

I'm diggin' your lack of resources. An editor would be proud.
 
VladDracule said:
Clearly nobody here knows the background of the Ford CEO. Consider the fact that Ford was the only company not requiring a bailout, and then returned to profitability under his watch.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought when I saw his name. I know the American car market is fucked, but if there is one that rose above since the bailouts, it's Ford.
 
VladDracule said:
How the hell did Mulally run ford into the ground? They were the ONLY American car manufacturer to not need a bailout and remain extremely profitable. Your comment makes absolute shit sense
Click to expand...

Hey now, don't let facts get in the way of perfectly good irrational hate.
 
It looks like Mulally is the man. Microsoft's stock closed at a 12 year high on the news from a respected analyst that Mulally will be named CEO next month.
 
VladDracule said:
Clearly nobody here knows the background of the Ford CEO. Consider the fact that Ford was the only company not requiring a bailout, and then returned to profitability under his watch.

He has an extensive engineering background making contributions to the Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 projects. He led the cockpit design team on the 757/767 project.
Click to expand...

Who cares. The guy knows shit about technology. MS needs an innovator in charge, not a politician who has never spent a day in high tech.
 
VladDracule said:
Clearly nobody here knows the background of the Ford CEO. Consider the fact that Ford was the only company not requiring a bailout, and then returned to profitability under his watch.

He has an extensive engineering background making contributions to the Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 projects. He led the cockpit design team on the 757/767 project.
Click to expand...
While Ford may not have taken the "bail out" they sure have took their share of "loans". Funny how people forget.
 
shade91 said:
Who cares. The guy knows shit about technology. MS needs an innovator in charge, not a politician who has never spent a day in high tech.
Click to expand...

He has degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering, which took him immediately to a job as an engineer at Boeing. Clearly, you know shit about Alan Mulally.
 
VladDracule said:
How the hell did Mulally run ford into the ground? They were the ONLY American car manufacturer to not need a bailout and remain extremely profitable. Your comment makes absolute shit sense
Click to expand...

ford did get kickbacks from the amercian and i believe the canadian goverments. not a lot, but they did.
 
shade91 said:
Who cares. The guy knows shit about technology. MS needs an innovator in charge, not a politician who has never spent a day in high tech.
Click to expand...

Because none of the Boeing jets he served on as an engineer had anything to do with engineering? Seriously wheres the freaking logic in that statement?
 
Stiletto said:
He has degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering, which took him immediately to a job as an engineer at Boeing. Clearly, you know shit about Alan Mulally.
Click to expand...

In a time when personal computers didn't exist. The man is 68 years old and totally out of his element running a software company. He will add NO value to Microsoft and just send it further down the drain it is circling.

Citation of his academic credentials means shit. Gates, Jobs, Branson, Ellison, Dell, Zuckerberg - the brightest of our time who all lacked degrees and built empires.

VladDracule said:
Because none of the Boeing jets he served on as an engineer had anything to do with engineering? Seriously wheres the freaking logic in that statement?
Click to expand...

Yes because 1960's aerospace technical knowledge and mechanics are so useful 40+ years later at the age of 68. You're probably the same people who think Meg Whitman was good for HP :rolleyes:.
 
shade91 said:
In a time when personal computers didn't exist. The man is 68 years old and totally out of his element running a software company. He will add NO value to Microsoft and just send it further down the drain it is circling.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is just his name being credibly rumored as the next Microsoft chief added almost 5% to the stock price to set a 12 year closing high. Before a day on the job he just added billions in value. It seems clear that Mulally is the guy that investors want and it looks like that's what they are going to get just in time for Christmas.

I really don't have a good feel for how he will actually perform but I think that Microsoft's course is pretty well set for next few years and that they really need excellent management more than a ground breaking visionary. I think that's really been the Achilles Heel for Microsoft the last few years, slow and poor execution more so than lack of vision.
 
shade91 said:
In a time when personal computers didn't exist. The man is 68 years old and totally out of his element running a software company. He will add NO value to Microsoft and just send it further down the drain it is circling.

Citation of his academic credentials means shit. Gates, Jobs, Branson, Ellison, Dell, Zuckerberg - the brightest of our time who all lacked degrees and built empires.



Yes because 1960's aerospace technical knowledge and mechanics are so useful 40+ years later at the age of 68. You're probably the same people who think Meg Whitman was good for HP :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Yeah you have shit for knowledge when it comes to aviation. The 777 uses a huge amount of software. Mechanical systems arw dying off in the industry and he was a key contributer to the 777. He has knowledge of software. Extensive knowledge. Software is being seen in severely increasing numbers in aviation and has been since before the 777 introduction. My source? The fact that I am an active engineer in the aviation industry
 
shade91 said:
In a time when personal computers didn't exist. The man is 68 years old and totally out of his element running a software company. He will add NO value to Microsoft and just send it further down the drain it is circling.

Citation of his academic credentials means shit. Gates, Jobs, Branson, Ellison, Dell, Zuckerberg - the brightest of our time who all lacked degrees and built empires.

Yes because 1960's aerospace technical knowledge and mechanics are so useful 40+ years later at the age of 68. You're probably the same people who think Meg Whitman was good for HP :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
VladDracule said:
Yeah you have shit for knowledge when it comes to aviation. The 777 uses a huge amount of software. Mechanical systems arw dying off in the industry and he was a key contributer to the 777. He has knowledge of software. Extensive knowledge. Software is being seen in severely increasing numbers in aviation and has been since before the 777 introduction. My source? The fact that I am an active engineer in the aviation industry
Click to expand...

Yup, the aviation industry has been moving more and more towards stuff like fly-by-wire systems now. Modern avionics are getting more and more integrated and advanced. I'm always amazed by all the advancements that's been going on in the aviation industry since the Wright brothers. The whole point of moving towards a fully digital electronic cockpit is to reduce the number of mechanical failures and mechanical complexity. You compare the cockpit of an airliner from the 1950s to one in the 1970s then to the 1990s and now, there are less and less instrumentation. Just almost everything is integrated into three or six screens with a few pieces of software managing just about everything. It's a carryover pretty much from the advanced jet fighters like the F22 Raptor. I believe they call this the "glass cockpit". Even the Space Shuttles underwent this upgrade decades ago moving from CRTs to LCDs in the cockpits.

Compare something like the avionics in the Cessna Citation Mustang to a Cessna Citation III from the early 80s (without any avionics upgrades) and it's vastly different in the 20-plus year span between the two jets.

Regardless of the mechanical issues of the 787 Dreamliner such as the battery issues, it is a rather significant aircraft for the industry with its widespread use of composite materials and electronics. It's more impressive than the Airbus A380. The 787 is more efficient and uses less fuel. I can't wait to see the 777X get first used by airliners, which is also designed by Alan Mulally as well. It may end up replacing and succeeding the aging, continually upgraded 747.

So, if I only had to choose from these list of CEOs to be the next one to lead Microsoft, I'd put Mulally at top. Neither him or Elop are perfect, but Mulally beats Elop.

The point of a CEO is have someone that can lead a company, understand consumer trends, market trends and direction, manage the company from top to bottom, and be visionary, bold and forward-thinking for the company so long as it benefits the company as a whole. I doubt Ballmer had this, but Gates certainly did and he did so with brute force tenacity to get Microsoft to where it is today. You just have to look back at his history and run-ins with the Justice Department over monopolistic practices and behind-the-curtain deals to get Microsoft and Windows ahead of a company like Apple with their OSX and earlier Mac OS software.

Ballmer, in my opinion, was late to respond to market changes and market trends. Microsoft paid dearly for it. Apple and Google are farther ahead in the mobile market and ecosystem with iOS and Android than Microsoft is with Windows Phone OS. Even Bill Gates said it himself many years ago that the future of computing is going to be more mobile. We're seeing this trend even now-- smartphones and tablets are getting more powerful and are exceeding sales of desktop PCs. And, whether we like it or not, Windows is going to have to reflect these trends even if it means unifying the UI and OS from mobile to desktop.

But, Microsoft will need someone at the top that can respond to these changes in the market and consumer choices at the right time with the right products. Mulally did this with Ford. The US auto industry was seriously lagging behind Japanese automakers because majority of our vehicles, to put it bluntly, were crap. Our vehicles before the auto bailouts were inefficient and lacked quality and reliability, and consumers responded to this by going to Honda and Toyota for fuel efficiency and reliability, and value. Ford under Mulally changed this around and many of the newest vehicles reflect these changes-- responding to what consumers wanted such as better fuel efficiency and pushing for better quality in their vehicles. General Motors is slightly behind and Chrysler-Fiat is much farther behind for all intents and purposes.

So, if there was a better person to lead Microsoft when it needs one especially in the face of Google and Apple, then I would put my vote on Mulally. You don't necessarily need experience in programming software or how to build vehicles, you just have to know how to lead the company and how to respond to changes in the market to push your company into that arena. Failure to adapt effectively and respond quickly to these changes in economics and the market, and you will fail the company in the end.
 
VladDracule said:
Yeah you have shit for knowledge when it comes to aviation. The 777 uses a huge amount of software. Mechanical systems arw dying off in the industry and he was a key contributer to the 777. He has knowledge of software. Extensive knowledge. Software is being seen in severely increasing numbers in aviation and has been since before the 777 introduction. My source? The fact that I am an active engineer in the aviation industry
Click to expand...

Look at the software in Ford vehicles that drives their current in-car systems. Have you ever tried MyFord Touch w/ Sync? I have. It sucks and you'll find that is the common sentiment from auto reviewers and users. If MyFord Touch is a sign of things to come of what Mr. Mullaly has to offer, things won't be so pretty for Microsoft ;). He may not make epic failures like Ballmer (i.e. Bing, Metro, Surface, Sweaty-Dancing-Monkey-Man) but he isn't the innovator Microsoft needs. Gates and Jobs were innovators. This 68 yearold geezer isn't.

For those saying Microsoft's course is charted?

Surface Tablets - Failure
Windows 8/8.1 - Failure
Mobility markets - Failure
Bing - Failure

The only good thing I've seen out of them in the past number of years is Office 365 and Windows 7.
 
They need a kid with wild ideas, lots of dreams, and enthusiasm.

Wait. That's what they started with, and apparently it didn't work... :D
 
shade91 said:
The only good thing I've seen out of them in the past number of years is Office 365 and Windows 7.
Click to expand...

And yet they keep making record profits and the stock just hit a 12 year high. As far as Windows 8.x being a failure, how exactly do you define that? Mac sales are off just as much as PCs and I doubt that's due to Windows 8. And Windows Phone, while small seems to be growing at a decent clip, even beating out the iPhone is a number of mid to small markets.

Yes, Microsoft has it's work cut out for it, but it's nothing nearly as catastrophic as you're describing. But people have been saying for 15 years now how Microsoft's about to belly up, yet for some reason still continues to grow and make tons of cash.
 
shade91 said:
In a time when personal computers didn't exist. The man is 68 years old and totally out of his element running a software company. He will add NO value to Microsoft and just send it further down the drain it is circling.

Citation of his academic credentials means shit. Gates, Jobs, Branson, Ellison, Dell, Zuckerberg - the brightest of our time who all lacked degrees and built empires.
Click to expand...

Branson? The guy who was running record shops when computers were going through a revolution? How come he gets to be included on his list?

And Zuckerberg has built a paper empire that is folding before our very eyes.
 
shade91 said:
Look at the software in Ford vehicles that drives their current in-car systems. Have you ever tried MyFord Touch w/ Sync? I have. It sucks and you'll find that is the common sentiment from auto reviewers and users. If MyFord Touch is a sign of things to come of what Mr. Mullaly has to offer, things won't be so pretty for Microsoft ;). He may not make epic failures like Ballmer (i.e. Bing, Metro, Surface, Sweaty-Dancing-Monkey-Man) but he isn't the innovator Microsoft needs. Gates and Jobs were innovators. This 68 yearold geezer isn't.

For those saying Microsoft's course is charted?

Surface Tablets - Failure
Windows 8/8.1 - Failure
Mobility markets - Failure
Bing - Failure

The only good thing I've seen out of them in the past number of years is Office 365 and Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Windows 8/8.1 Gaining market share. and im so damn sick of the windows 8/8.1 bashing because it is a PERFECTLY functional OS that has several marked improvements over 7. People just dont want to learn how to use new shit.

Surface RT may have been a loss, but it was not because it was a failure and didnt have market penetration. its because the over produced. And the Surface pro is no where NEAR a failure.

Mobility Market is also gaining market share, and given their recent aquisition, it will continue to do so. The windows phone OS is superior to android in so many ways that once people actual give it a legitimate chance, it will gain ground.

Bing is also gaining a significant amount of market share.

Profitability is not what defines whether or not something succeeds, especially when your trying to produce market penetration.
 
Hey, Microsoft... John Sculley didn't work out for Apple, and some random guy who isn't really a tech guy wouldn't work out for you, either. If you want to join the corporate politics world of cycling through CEOs who you feel are qualified only because they were a CEO at some other company, you're doomed to fail. Which, given that all of your recent products are shitty and only getting shittier, I absolutely hope happens.

What kind of f***ing stupid board members do you have to even put Stephen Elop on the list? Really? He may have been a great asset in destroying Nokia from the inside so you can buy them, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good CEO for you. I guarantee you he would be awful at the job - so please hire him and run your company into the ground ASAP.

Thanks.
 
dandragonrage said:
Hey, Microsoft... John Sculley didn't work out for Apple, and some random guy who isn't really a tech guy wouldn't work out for you, either. If you want to join the corporate politics world of cycling through CEOs who you feel are qualified only because they were a CEO at some other company, you're doomed to fail. Which, given that all of your recent products are shitty and only getting shittier, I absolutely hope happens.

What kind of f***ing stupid board members do you have to even put Stephen Elop on the list? Really? He may have been a great asset in destroying Nokia from the inside so you can buy them, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good CEO for you. I guarantee you he would be awful at the job - so please hire him and run your company into the ground ASAP.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Ironically you dont realize what microsoft failing would do to the corporate world. The entire corporate world is dependent on microsoft so you can shove that boneheaded opinion back where it belongs
 
VladDracule said:
Ironically you dont realize what microsoft failing would do to the corporate world. The entire corporate world is dependent on microsoft so you can shove that boneheaded opinion back where it belongs
Click to expand...

Excuse me? You think you can control my opinions? Absolutely not, jackass.
 
As blunt as Vlad's comment is, it's true: Microsoft failing would be very detrimental to the computing world from both ends-- consumers to government to corporations and businesses that rely on their products and services.

There is no other company that can take up the slack or provide similar ubiquity and relevance in the computing industry. Microsoft's products and technologies are already too well entrenched into everything we do from productivity software to developer software to games. Losing Microsoft means we have to spend more resources to find a replacement that offered the same level of features and compatibility parity between software.

As much as I'd like Linux to take off and succeed, I'd like to see it succeed where Windows has always dominated-- gaming. Variety helps in this industry and brings upon good competition. It also gives more choices for consumers.

But, Linux cannot replace Windows unless a huge concerted effort can be brought upon by major software developers and hardware manufacturers. And, losing Microsoft would mean moving everything to alternative operating systems that many people-- normal everyday people-- are unfamiliar with or resistant to change whether that's Linux or OSX.

We have to consider the fact that the majority of consumers out there when it comes to technology are just plain stupid. If it's too different, they'll complain. If it's too complex, they'll complain. Microsoft has at least done something right with Windows when it first brought it to the masses-- bringing better familiarity with computer hardware and software while hiding the complexity beneath it. Valve is trying to do something similar but for gaming-- making PC gaming hardware and PC gaming simple enough for normal people.
 
octoberasian said:
As blunt as Vlad's comment is, it's true: Microsoft failing would be very detrimental to the computing world from both ends-- consumers to government to corporations and businesses that rely on their products and services.
Click to expand...

The great part about an opinion is that you don't need to consider what corporations care about. For all I care they can spend trillions of dollars to convert to something else when Elop kills MS. It's not my concern. It's not like I'm unaware of the fact that corporations depend on MS currently, but again, the point of an opinion is that it's your own. I work in IT and I'm comfortable in Linux and Windows and I realize Linux would be harder to support, but I still want MS to die.
 
dandragonrage said:
The great part about an opinion is that you don't need to consider what corporations care about. For all I care they can spend trillions of dollars to convert to something else when Elop kills MS. It's not my concern. It's not like I'm unaware of the fact that corporations depend on MS currently, but again, the point of an opinion is that it's your own. I work in IT and I'm comfortable in Linux and Windows and I realize Linux would be harder to support, but I still want MS to die.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and no offence but supporting and switching to Linux from an IT perspective is a hell of a lot easier and a smaller job than it would be in the engineering world.

Lets look at tools really quick. Lets say im wanting to use the tanner tool suite for VLSI Layout and verification. Guess what, it DOES NOT support linux. Which would mean Tanner would be required to port ALL of their software packages to linux. That is NOT a small/cheap/fast job. In fact it would likely require years of development.

Lets look at the aviation industry. Lets say im writing software for a 747 that is FAA Level A Safety critical. That means I am REQUIRED to verify source to binary, which means i have to prove the fact that the binary created by the compiler matches EXACTLY what the source code says, in every single possible way. There are NO qualify-able tools to do this in linux. That means companies like LDRA, and Vectorcast will not only have to port their software to Linux, but they will also have to come up with Tool Qualification packages for EVERY SINGLE disto of linux and 20x as many compilers.

Even Cad Modeling, this is extremely graphics card intensive. Which means Linux would have to SEVERELY increase their driver support for graphics hardware that is always, ALWAYS behind the windows support.

You can clamor all you want, but the porting of software tool suites like Tanner could likely bankrupt them, and other MAJOR players in the engineering market
 
step 1: get Elop hired at Nokia

step 2: Elop makes Nokia stock plummet

step 3: M$ buys Nokia for pennies

step 4: M$ hires Elop as new CEO. the circle is complete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top