Why Steve Ballmer Is Not a Failure

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Someone needs to ask Tim Cook if this is true or not. He's taking the blame at Apple just the same as Ballmer did after Gates left. ;)

Ballmer did not cause the stock to do poorly. Had Bill Gates stayed on as CEO, the stock still would have crashed. No one could have stopped the stock from falling because the valuation had become completely ridiculous. The dot-com boom had pushed the share price up so high that a correction was inevitable. Shareholders were lucky the stock didn't fall even further.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn't matter.

Ballmer was at the Helm. He was the Captain. Whatever happens under his watch he is responsible for.

Does anyone really feel bad for this guy? He already has more money than God and will probably has a Golden Parachute big enough to solve hunger world-wide.
 
Ballmer was behind the interface changes in Windows 8, and the concentration on a tablet like interface. While I liked them and could get used to them, many people could not, and that cost the company in considerable sales. He is to blame for that. Windows 8 and the new interface are flops. He does have to take blame for that.
 
I guess there are different ways to look at the situation with Ballmer. Maybe the stock price was destined to tank, so be it, wasn't Steve's fault. Another view is ,"OK, the stock tanked due to over valuation, how is the company positioned strategically to succeed in the future? "

To me that is Ballmer's legacy. He managed a company through a devaluation but never had a VIABLE long term plan, and never hired the people to implement a long term plan for success. Who is at Microsoft now that analysts, and to some extent Microsoft fanboys, are saying "That's the person we want.... that's the person with a vision!" No one I can think of. The fact that bringing back Gates in a temporary capacity is even being talked about, speaks volumes about Ballmer's failure(s).
 
As Harry S Truman once said, "The Buck stops here" ... he was at the top when things happened so he gets the blame ... I have always hated CEOs (or anyone at the top) who takes the credit for anything that goes well but passes on the blame for anything that fails ... the top boss should have the ultimate accountability ;)

Microsoft isn't down and out yet (anymore than IBM was out when they restructured in the 90's) their next CEO will be make or break for them though ... as the line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade went, "Choose Wisely" :D
 
The biggest choice their new CEO will have to make is how to balance Enterprise and Consumer ... those two markets are becoming more dichotomous and it is becoming harder and harder to serve both masters ... Dell is facing the same quandary ... I would still love to see Dell and MS merge as I think that is the best for both companies long term prospects (it won't happen though) :(
 
dgingeri said:
Ballmer was behind the interface changes in Windows 8, and the concentration on a tablet like interface. While I liked them and could get used to them, many people could not, and that cost the company in considerable sales. He is to blame for that. Windows 8 and the new interface are flops. He does have to take blame for that.
Click to expand...

I think that's the risk/reward for being a CEO of a huge corporation like Microsoft. He knew they would have to be innovative and Windows 8, with all its design changes, was either going to take off or it was going to fail. Ultimately it failed but if they had released another predictable bland product he would have been scrutinized as well. Gotta take risks, but sometimes they don't pay off.
 
Fendrix said:
I think that's the risk/reward for being a CEO of a huge corporation like Microsoft. He knew they would have to be innovative and Windows 8, with all its design changes, was either going to take off or it was going to fail. Ultimately it failed but if they had released another predictable bland product he would have been scrutinized as well. Gotta take risks, but sometimes they don't pay off.
Click to expand...

Yea it's like when you play blackjack and don't hit on your hand (15), the next person busts and the dealer still wins with a 17. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Fendrix said:
I think that's the risk/reward for being a CEO of a huge corporation like Microsoft. He knew they would have to be innovative and Windows 8, with all its design changes, was either going to take off or it was going to fail. Ultimately it failed but if they had released another predictable bland product he would have been scrutinized as well. Gotta take risks, but sometimes they don't pay off.
Click to expand...

Yes, they took a risk, but most of the risk could have been mitigated by simply giving users the choice of Metro or the Win7 layout. Instead they tried to force feed us what they wanted and said "tough shit". Every new iteration of Windows gets dumbed down further and further to try to appeal to the masses. The problem with this is the people who actually know how to use an OS suffer because of it.
In the end, whatever transpired all happened on Ballmer's watch, and I don't like the direction they're headed.
 
Fendrix said:
I think that's the risk/reward for being a CEO of a huge corporation like Microsoft. He knew they would have to be innovative and Windows 8, with all its design changes, was either going to take off or it was going to fail. Ultimately it failed but if they had released another predictable bland product he would have been scrutinized as well. Gotta take risks, but sometimes they don't pay off.
Click to expand...

Windows 8 (x86 only) isn't doing as well as Microsoft had hoped but I don't think one can call it a failure either, especially at this point. 8 is slowly but surely gaining market share but yes that market is shrinking. However plenty of people see the desktop market shrinking as completely inevitable and no desktop OS is going to change that due to the raise in mobile. Where Windows 8 is having a more difficult time is on the devices that were supposed to help offset the losses on the desktop, tablets and most touch devices. There simply have been enough good devices here are the right prices.

This fall that should begin to change as Haswell and Bay Trail devices enter the market along with 8.1. Intel's new chips should provide a big boost to Windows 8 tablets at the low end in performance over current Clover Trail devices and hopefully OEMs will have better pricing as Microsoft has cut licensing costs on smaller screen tablets and hybrids.

This was going to be a tough battle with 8, but there should be a lot of nice hardware on the way, a good number of holes in the Windows Store will get plugged with Facebook, Flipboard and other major apps coming online. And we could very well see an Windows 9 in the next year and that release will probably be much better received as is the pattern of "bad release, good release" of Windows and it's not going to drop the modern UI, but it will be more polished and there should be more options to appease keyboard and mouse users.
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows 8 (x86 only) isn't doing as well as Microsoft had hoped but I don't think one can call it a failure either, especially at this point. 8 is slowly but surely gaining market share but yes that market is shrinking. However plenty of people see the desktop market shrinking as completely inevitable and no desktop OS is going to change that due to the raise in mobile. Where Windows 8 is having a more difficult time is on the devices that were supposed to help offset the losses on the desktop, tablets and most touch devices. There simply have been enough good devices here are the right prices.

This fall that should begin to change as Haswell and Bay Trail devices enter the market along with 8.1. Intel's new chips should provide a big boost to Windows 8 tablets at the low end in performance over current Clover Trail devices and hopefully OEMs will have better pricing as Microsoft has cut licensing costs on smaller screen tablets and hybrids.

This was going to be a tough battle with 8, but there should be a lot of nice hardware on the way, a good number of holes in the Windows Store will get plugged with Facebook, Flipboard and other major apps coming online. And we could very well see an Windows 9 in the next year and that release will probably be much better received as is the pattern of "bad release, good release" of Windows and it's not going to drop the modern UI, but it will be more polished and there should be more options to appease keyboard and mouse users.
Click to expand...

You do know is almost a market impossibility for Windows 8 not to grow right?
Hurray for MS and their massive market control, clearly serves them well, even if they pump out a dog turd, so yes, the expectation is higher.. yes you have market control, and yes you will sell your dog turd no matter what, hence you are punished for sales that are known to be solely inherent to the market conditions, and your control.. you are rightly punished for not creating big market movement, excitement, value (other than replacement value) and fast adoption.
It has been about 10 years since I have not felt the urge to take my fist for my computer screen using windows (up to 7).20 minutes with windows 8 (second attempt) and I had this strong urge of just slamming it with my fist.. I was thinking about just twisting the tablet , seemed more effective.. alas I do not want to get arrested in an MS store..
I do recognize windows 8 is very flashy, and quite beautiful, they simply broke their own OS.
 
Ballmer did not cause the stock to do poorly. Had Bill Gates stayed on as CEO, the stock still would have crashed. No one could have stopped the stock from falling because the valuation had become completely ridiculous. The dot-com boom had pushed the share price up so high that a correction was inevitable. Shareholders were lucky the stock didn't fall even further.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bull if not outright deflection. The used car salesman from Reno sat on his fat ass for a decade (actually, 13 years) after the "dot com crash" coasting on inertia and didn't do a damn thing to invigorate the stock price. Now, revenues? Sure they were there thanks to monopolized market position. But stock has been flat for 13 years so best not to even go there.

"
msft-from-jan-2000.png
 
In the time since Ballmer took over, other tech companies have seen their stock prices shoot through the roof, in cases of more than 1000%. While stock prices are most assuredly not the end-all be-all of company success, they are very important for the continued flow of capital and investment to the expansion of the company. While MSFT is a safe stock to have because of how little fluctuation it has had, it is ultimately a flat investment with neither growth nor loss. If you were fortunate enough to have had stock in any number of other companies in the tech sector (AAPL, GOOG, INTL, AMZN, and so many others) you could have easily made a fat profit selling at some point in the past 13 years. While it's nice to say you have stock in a company for 13 years, ultimately you purchase it with the expectation of future gains. I think this is one of a great many facets to what ultimately cost Ballmer his position. Ultimately, shareholders want to see the growth that Microsoft had before and haven't seen in a very long time now. Dividends will only take you so far.
 
Whilst it might be unfair to lumber everything on Ballmer, he's always been a belligerent and stubborn arse and has not exactly done anything terrific during his tenure in of himself.

A true leader doesn't just manage good people but gives them a firm direction and guides the company.
 
HAQattaq said:
They missed the shift to mobile. For that, they fail.
Click to expand...

While they were the ones that helped start it, they also dragged their feet during the boom and fell out of the race.

Steve isn't the only one to blame for that but him being the CEO he should take the blame.
 
Ballmer is a failure because he helped create a hostile work enviroment. Walking around a meeting with a baseball bat seems like something a psychopath/sociopath would do. And has everyone forgotten "developers! Developer! Developers!" ?
 
viscountalpha said:
Ballmer is a failure because he helped create a hostile work enviroment. Walking around a meeting with a baseball bat seems like something a psychopath/sociopath would do. And has everyone forgotten "developers! Developer! Developers!" ?
Click to expand...

Psychopaths make good CEOs usually and they are 4 times as prevalent in that role as in the general population ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/ ... I would argue that the number of sociopaths in the CEO world is even higher :cool:
 
Ballmer probably paid to have this written as damage control,so he can con some other company to hire him with an outrageous salary.
 
who cares about stock price? this guy was in charge for windows 8, surface RT, and xbone. as a casual user i consider him a failure on those issues alone.
 
No one started mobile it was coming no matter what, the major failure for MS their fault or not was not putting the correct emphasis on it at the right time. They did what so many companies do and said well that's good enough. I am not sure they could have changed anything. Anymore than I give credit to jobs for his huge success in mobile it was sort of just the accident of market positioning. MS saw the importance of mobile, but they saw it too soon they tried to dominate it too early. Then they had a system in place that was better suited to older hardware. This isn't much different then how apple would constantly say well floppy drives are going to be gone and would strip them out of their computers 5 years too early.

I would argue that if MS would have been successful in mobile right now they would be in the middle of the break up, the fed would step in and say they are a monopoly and split them up. No way they could have pulled that off otherwise. Its almost a good thing for all of us that MS missed mobile, they might get back in it longer term. And they certainly allowed google to take it over. Now they must prepare for the real war which will be fought on 2 fronts. Google will try to use mobile to break into work stations / corp and MS will fight the exact opposite war. And ironically we will probably see apple get in bed with MS in fear of google.

The other problem is that there is no good replacement, no one here or anywhere else has a silver bullet. Even people who want to claim it are coming up short. It's impossible for old companies to accurately find the kind of young talent they once possessed.

Anyhow as others said ultimately the head must be held accountable regardless of whos fault it is.
 
michael.pa2 said:
Ballmer probably paid to have this written as damage control,so he can con some other company to hire him with an outrageous salary.
Click to expand...


lol what company on earth can pay ballmer more than he already has? This isn't about money its about pride, power, control, intangibles.
 
rudy said:
lol what company on earth can pay ballmer more than he already has? This isn't about money its about pride, power, control, intangibles.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure all those things play a big part,but ultimately they're all fueled by money. For guys like Ballmer it's an addiction,he can never have enough.
 
I don't know how they can call the Xbox a success. It's lost money, RROD was bad for their reputation, and the 360 came in third. Now the Xbone is already off to a bad start over the DRM fiasco, it's has less power than the PS3, and is still $100 more expensive.
 
BladeVenom said:
I don't know how they can call the Xbox a success. It's lost money, RROD was bad for their reputation, and the 360 came in third. Now the Xbone is already off to a bad start over the DRM fiasco, it's has less power than the PS3, and is still $100 more expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Sony came in third this time around. Nintendo grabbed an early lead,but the 360 has finished strong. What happens this generation is anybodies guess with all the changes being made before launch.
 
BladeVenom said:
I don't know how they can call the Xbox a success. It's lost money, RROD was bad for their reputation, and the 360 came in third. Now the Xbone is already off to a bad start over the DRM fiasco, it's has less power than the PS3, and is still $100 more expensive.
Click to expand...

So Sony is profitable now?
 
No one won this generation, sony is only now catching up after years of being behind, so now world wide at the end of the race they have a 1% advantage over MS, but in the best market to play in, the USA they still aren't ahead. If you declare winners based on consoles sold then Nintendo wins right? But what about the low attachment rate?

In reality this was just a really competitive generation of consoles, no one won or lost, everyone accomplished something big. For sony it was winning the BR format war, for MS it was actually becoming a household name in the console market and getting people used to subscription fees. For Nintendo it was just showing everyone they are still relevant and not to be ignored and putting billions in the bank to weather any future storms.

And as I will go back to these are all signs that the gaming market is growing still at good rates, when 3 major players can all have good success and turn to profitability that means that there is plenty of room, we could even see another player jump in for a 4th major console.
 
Jen-Hsun Huang & Ballmer: we use their products not because of but in spite of these people.
 
rudy said:
No one won this generation, sony is only now catching up after years of being behind, so now world wide at the end of the race they have a 1% advantage over MS, but in the best market to play in, the USA they still aren't ahead. If you declare winners based on consoles sold then Nintendo wins right? But what about the low attachment rate?
Click to expand...

Nintendo won in both numbers sold, and profits. While their attachment rate may not have been as high as the 360, it was competitive. I wouldn't call it low.
 
dgingeri said:
Ballmer was behind the interface changes in Windows 8, and the concentration on a tablet like interface. While I liked them and could get used to them, many people could not, and that cost the company in considerable sales. He is to blame for that. Windows 8 and the new interface are flops. He does have to take blame for that.
Click to expand...

Elon Musk has lost money on Tesla for 10 years straight and only now are profits starting to roll in. Taking a risk on change is a very difficult concept and we generally only recognize the spectacular failures or the very rare success stories, a lot of products are before their time and sometimes even great ideas flop. Betamax vs VHS, Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, so on and so forth.

Whether or not you enjoy Windows 8 is a topic for another thread but MS is correct that a paradigm shift is coming and they are trying to stay on top of it. It is going to take a few tries to get it right and sometimes the people need to be pushed along for change to happen.
 
I would never have called Steve Ballmer a failure. He's just an annoying fat fuck to have as the front for your company's products.
 
BladeVenom said:
No, but the PS1 and PS2 were massive success. So Sony is 2 for 3, while MS is 0 for 2, and it already looks the the PS4 is going to win this generation to.
Click to expand...

The PS4 might win this round, but it's going to cost Sony a LOT of money to do it. That's really the issue with consoles, they don't make a lot of money and winning is expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top