Steve Ballmer Not To Blame For Microsoft's Woes

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Who cares whether or not Steve Ballmer is actually to blame for Microsoft's woes? Aren't CEOs supposed to always take the blame for everything that happens on their watch (good or bad) anyway?

Armchair critics have loudly dismissed the Ballmer years. He's been the CEO and so they say he deserves the blame. That's true. But I'd argue for a Gentleman's "C" rather than an "F" when you consider that Microsoft's strategy for success in the 20th century has kept it from similarly dominating the 21st century tech scene.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not a Ballmer fan but I don't hold the guy personally responsible for not being the right person for the job. That's on the board who selected him, knowing his personal characteristics and also lacking the vision of where technology was headed.

That board put a hyper-aggressive salesman who demanded a high degree of personal loyalty and control in the CEO role. Some would argue that drove away the visionaries that could have helped him and they may be right. But Ballmer did what a hyper-aggressive sales CEO should do. He milked every market he could dryer than dust. That just doesn't make for long term success as we know despite the success of Xbox, their only truly new and successful product under Ballmer.

Microsoft has a LOT of really talented people. If they can find the right CEO who can let them have their time in the sun it will do well. From what I read I'm not very optimistic.
 
PiSquared said:
I'm not a Ballmer fan but I don't hold the guy personally responsible for not being the right person for the job. That's on the board who selected him, knowing his personal characteristics and also lacking the vision of where technology was headed.

That board put a hyper-aggressive salesman who demanded a high degree of personal loyalty and control in the CEO role. Some would argue that drove away the visionaries that could have helped him and they may be right. But Ballmer did what a hyper-aggressive sales CEO should do. He milked every market he could dryer than dust. That just doesn't make for long term success as we know despite the success of Xbox, their only truly new and successful product under Ballmer.

Microsoft has a LOT of really talented people. If they can find the right CEO who can let them have their time in the sun it will do well. From what I read I'm not very optimistic.
Click to expand...

Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on (IMO).

He's a businessman 100%, but not a nerd. Gates was a nerd that fell into the ruthless business man role. He could do both. Ballmer couldn't. He didn't have the technology background, just the diehard business guy. They need someone that gets excited with new technology, and not just for the potential profit. A nerd that can run a business. A guy that will put 100% into the company, but still be checking out the R&D department and getting excited. I doubt Ballmer was ever in the MSFT research department checking things out. Gates? I'd wager he was.
 
Put it shortly, he was really good at sailing the ship in a veering off course direction.
 
Ur_Mom said:
(snip)

I doubt Ballmer was ever in the MSFT research department checking things out. Gates? I'd wager he was.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said except for one thing. I bet Ballmer did go into R&D. But I'd also bet that his problem was a lack of perspective. That is, I think it's more likely that Ballmer defaulted to "what market does this fit into?" instead of "what market does this create and seed?"
 
Tweak42 said:
Put it shortly, he was really good at sailing the ship in a veering off course direction.
Click to expand...

I'd say he more likely was good at maximizing directions already picked for him. That's what sales is, after all.

We can see plain as day that he wasn't good at picking new directions except for Xbox. I suspect that's the result of a controlling personality that demanded loyalty but I don't think we'll ever really know.
 
I doubt Ballmer had anything to do with Microsoft's recent failures. It's not like he's the one who decided to create Vista and Windows 8. That takes a team of people. If anything Ballmer makes a great escape goat.
 
Ashbringer said:
I doubt Ballmer had anything to do with Microsoft's recent failures. It's not like he's the one who decided to create Vista and Windows 8. That takes a team of people. If anything Ballmer makes a great escape goat.
Click to expand...

He had the final say on Sinofsky's Metro takeover of Windows and forced removal of the start menu. He signed off on it, Metro has tarnished the entire product line, he's paying the price now.
 
Oh look at how much money they have made.
Sure they have done nothing but go backwards and repackage the same old same old.
Forget that, lets F another customer.
did I mention how much money they have made.
Again Forcing junk and calling it candy is not in anyones benefit but microcrap.
 
DPI said:
He had the final say on Sinofsky's Metro takeover of Windows and forced removal of the start menu. He signed off on it, Metro has tarnished the entire product line, he's paying the price now.
Click to expand...

But did he really or did he have to just trust him? I've read where there were some pretty big power struggles in the company between the leaders of certain divisions that also affected quite a few projects? Not saying this is the case but the restructuring recently suggests he didn't have enough control and synergy among top level execs?
 
Ballmer may have had to trust the "geeks" for the technical aspects of Win8, but he certainly influenced the false notions that the OS was selling like "hot cakes." We all are aware of the standard operating procedures of MS: put out product, lie about sales, lie some more, keep lies going, then when the evidence is insurmountable- tell the truth.
Link if you think I'm lying about Ballmer's lies: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...s-Not-Selling-Well-Enough-Report-370840.shtml
 
I think Ballmer was just a really easy guy to hate. He didn't appear to have much in the way of charisma or style, and with the sales background you had to wonder about his technical aptitude. I think Microsoft, more than anything was caught off-guard by good-enough computing. There's a reason that people didn't upgrade from XP and Office 2003.
 
It was their vision to make Metro a fresh new take on the way a user interacts with Windows. They took a huge gamble by centering Windows 8 around it. After some very lousy feedback from the beta community once the traditional start button and menu were removed, instead of listening to that feedback and doing something positive about it, MS decision makers (Ballmer included and wielding the power for the final say-so) instead stayed course and forced it on to every OEM's new mobile or desktop PC product, thus making for the huge negativity towards this new OS...especially from the enterprise segment, which is the largest source of Windows OS revenue and profit.

Sorry, but I give not a single fuck for a person in charge of a large corporation making millions of dollars per year, make a shit load of bad choices essentially from the get-go, and then get paid even more million of dollars for "resigning". I really hate the fact that corporations allow golden parachute clauses in contracts for positions of leadership. Fuck that. Should be a pay-for-performance structure, so at least there's some guarantee of a leader being truly connected to, focused on, and motivated towards the company that entrusts him/her for the ongoing well-being and growth of said company, innovating and releasing the correct products, taking care of all the people that it employs, and take an accurate pulse of each and every customer segment so that everything that was just mentioned is what happens.

Ballmer was a salesperson. A salesperson is largely motivated by money and person gain, and not much else. Read the paragraph above one more time if it hasn't sunk in yet. Enough said.
 
aquabusa said:
Ballmer may have had to trust the "geeks" for the technical aspects of Win8, but he certainly influenced the false notions that the OS was selling like "hot cakes." We all are aware of the standard operating procedures of MS: put out product, lie about sales, lie some more, keep lies going, then when the evidence is insurmountable- tell the truth.
Link if you think I'm lying about Ballmer's lies: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...s-Not-Selling-Well-Enough-Report-370840.shtml
Click to expand...

That's what salesman do.... It doesn't matter what company they work for.
 
I agree with Steve, you blame the guy on top no matter if it's righ tor wrong and he should accept it gracefully. You can't really blame the board, but you sure can blame Bill Gates because up until this fiasco he *was* the board and he *was* the guy on top.

I personally think Microsoft will do better with a new CEO if they pick a true young visionary like J Allard (father of Xbox). If they hire another business man or non-tech type then it's ADIOS! to my beloved Microsoft.

I'm already cheating on them with Apple, so don't give me another excuse to completely call it quits!
 
Terminus said:
I agree with Steve, you blame the guy on top no matter if it's righ tor wrong and he should accept it gracefully. You can't really blame the board, but you sure can blame Bill Gates because up until this fiasco he *was* the board and he *was* the guy on top.

I personally think Microsoft will do better with a new CEO if they pick a true young visionary like J Allard (father of Xbox). If they hire another business man or non-tech type then it's ADIOS! to my beloved Microsoft.

I'm already cheating on them with Apple, so don't give me another excuse to completely call it quits!
Click to expand...

Really? Your gonna pull apple into this? Have you seen IOS 7 that completely rips off both Windows 8 and Android?

Frankly the only people who have issues with Windows 8, are people who have not used it extensively. In fact it offers superior features to windows 7 in many ways. UEFI BIOS for one, significantly improved memory management, SIGNIFICANTLY faster cold boot times. Im sick of this BS about how horrid windows 7 is when its superior in every way except minor UI nitpicks that can be corrected for less than 5 bucks

I exclusively use windows 8 at home on my gaming rig and have not a single complaint about it
 
VladDracule said:
Really? Your gonna pull apple into this? Have you seen IOS 7 that completely rips off both Windows 8 and Android?

Frankly the only people who have issues with Windows 8, are people who have not used it extensively. In fact it offers superior features to windows 7 in many ways. UEFI BIOS for one, significantly improved memory management, SIGNIFICANTLY faster cold boot times. Im sick of this BS about how horrid windows 7 is when its superior in every way except minor UI nitpicks that can be corrected for less than 5 bucks

I exclusively use windows 8 at home on my gaming rig and have not a single complaint about it
Click to expand...

Try using it at work...
 
VladDracule said:
Really? Your gonna pull apple into this? Have you seen IOS 7 that completely rips off both Windows 8 and Android?

Frankly the only people who have issues with Windows 8, are people who have not used it extensively. In fact it offers superior features to windows 7 in many ways. UEFI BIOS for one, significantly improved memory management, SIGNIFICANTLY faster cold boot times. Im sick of this BS about how horrid windows 7 is when its superior in every way except minor UI nitpicks that can be corrected for less than 5 bucks

I exclusively use windows 8 at home on my gaming rig and have not a single complaint about it
Click to expand...

I'm a Windows 8 and iOS developer.

Haven't used Windows 7 since 2011.

So how about them Apples?? :cool::p:rolleyes::D
 
VladDracule said:
Ok, I regularly use it for software development, and find minor changes like the corner swapping to be faster than windows 7. Open suse and many other linux distros use similar UI features
Click to expand...

Most people don't swap corners or will ever have the need/want to...I find clicking on the desktop icon in Win 7 to be faster...but whatever, don' throw a tantrum and pretend everybody uses it the same way.
 
pcjunkie said:
Most people don't swap corners or will ever have the need/want to...I find clicking on the desktop icon in Win 7 to be faster...but whatever, don' throw a tantrum and pretend everybody uses it the same way.
Click to expand...

you arent doing the same thing by saying "Most people dont..."? Seriously, a little $5 change to your UI makes the shell pretty much identical to windows 7, and gives you better/newer BIOS support and options, will give you directx 11.2 among with another list of major improvements, the UI is such a minor little nitpick when mods to it can be done
 
VladDracule said:
you arent doing the same thing by saying "Most people dont..."? Seriously, a little $5 change to your UI makes the shell pretty much identical to windows 7, and gives you better/newer BIOS support and options, will give you directx 11.2 among with another list of major improvements, the UI is such a minor little nitpick when mods to it can be done
Click to expand...

That $5 change is a good reason Ballmer is leaving...not going to argue and what is this better newer bios support options? You mean EUFI...um Win 7 handles that just fine? Plus DX 11.2...really? Grow up and realize other people use the OS's in different ways...
 
pcjunkie said:
That $5 change is a good reason Ballmer is leaving...not going to argue and what is this better newer bios support options? You mean EUFI...um Win 7 handles that just fine? Plus DX 11.2...really? Grow up and realize other people use the OS's in different ways...
Click to expand...

Ok your telling me to grow when your criticizing a OS, and then go on to tell me to acknowledge that people use OS's in different ways? hypocritical much?
 
VladDracule said:
Ok your telling me to grow when your criticizing a OS, and then go on to tell me to acknowledge that people use OS's in different ways? hypocritical much?
Click to expand...

I'm a Network Administrator that is also in charge of upgrading several hundred people in the organization...we tested Win 8 rather extensively, it brings nothing to the table from a business stand point for basic usability vs. Win 7. The only thing it would bring is major training costs just for the UI itself not even adding in the additional licensing costs. When I hear some rant from some one off developer telling me how easy it is to use and how much it brings to the table vs. Windows 7 it makes me want to laugh...basically I'm thinking you probably never have been in charge of any amount of people and or budgets...so yes grow up and think outside your tunnel vision.
 
pcjunkie said:
I'm a Network Administrator that is also in charge of upgrading several hundred people in the organization...we tested Win 8 rather extensively, it brings nothing to the table from a business stand point for basic usability vs. Win 7. The only thing it would bring is major training costs just for the UI itself not even adding in the additional licensing costs. When I hear some rant from some one off developer telling me how easy it is to use and how much it brings to the table vs. Windows 7 it makes me want to laugh...basically I'm thinking you probably never have been in charge of any amount of people and or budgets...so yes grow up and think outside your tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

an OS is not exclusively used in large organizations. So grow out your shell in only looking at it from that perspective. End of Story, just because it does not directly offer a reason to upgrade in a large organization doesnt mean it doesnt offer reasons for individuals.
 
Terminus said:
I'm a Windows 8 and iOS developer.

Haven't used Windows 7 since 2011.

So how about them Apples?? :cool::p:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

haha I think you are supporting his argument!

and Win8 user here, love it, hate going to work and being forced to use 7 now.
 
pcjunkie said:
LOL...wut?
Click to expand...
Yeah, lol. That was some prime cherry picking from a Windows 8 specific support page.

I'll handle this... Windows has supported UEFI since Vista SP1, at least on 64-bit versions of the OS.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824898.aspx

Windows support of UEFI
The following Windows editions include support for UEFI:
Windows 8.1 and Windows® 8 support native UEFI 2.0 or later on 32-bit (x86), 64-bit (x64), and ARM-based PCs. They also support BIOS-based PCs, and UEFI-based PCs running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode.

Some features such as Secure Boot require UEFI 2.3.1 Errata C or higher.

Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows Server® 2012 support native UEFI 2.0 or later on 64-bit systems. Some features such as Secure Boot require UEFI 2.3.1.

Windows® 7, Windows Vista® with Service Pack 1 (SP1), Windows Server® 2008 R2 and Windows Server® 2008

Support UEFI 2.0 or later on 64-bit systems. They also support BIOS-based PCs, and UEFI-based PCs running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode.

Support on Class 2 systems running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode by using a CSM, so they can use the legacy BIOS INT10 features.

Are not supported on Class 3 systems, because these operating systems assume the presence of legacy BIOS INT10 support in the firmware, which is not available in a Class-3 UEFI implementation.

Windows Server® 2008 R2 and Windows Server® 2008 also support EFI 1.10 on Itanium-based systems.​

The biggest difference in support for UEFI are: 1) 32-bit versions of Windows 8 & RT support UEFI and 2) both OSs support Secure Boot.
 
VladDracule said:
an OS is not exclusively used in large organizations. So grow out your shell in only looking at it from that perspective. End of Story, just because it does not directly offer a reason to upgrade in a large organization doesnt mean it doesnt offer reasons for individuals.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it doesn't offer things for certain people. My point is people use OS's in different manners and just because you find it easier in certain situations doesn't mean others do or use it that way. Now your just ranting...
 
pcjunkie said:
I'm a Network Administrator that is also in charge of upgrading several hundred people in the organization...we tested Win 8 rather extensively, it brings nothing to the table from a business stand point for basic usability vs. Win 7. The only thing it would bring is major training costs just for the UI itself not even adding in the additional licensing costs. When I hear some rant from some one off developer telling me how easy it is to use and how much it brings to the table vs. Windows 7 it makes me want to laugh...basically I'm thinking you probably never have been in charge of any amount of people and or budgets...so yes grow up and think outside your tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

Hey pcjunkie I do have one thing to comment about what you're saying. It seems this is the opinion of Desktop-only IT shops. Do you guys use Windows 8, Android or iOS out in the field for anything? Out IT guys have to support those OSes in Active Directory and over time they have come to appreciate Windows 8 (actually I'm lying, they just really like the new PowerShell :D)

They all have iPhones or Androids now (we got rid of BlackBerry) but I still fight with them all the time for making me install ClassicShell. I told them don't bother supporting my PC then because I'm taking it off :p
 
Trimlock said:
haha I think you are supporting his argument!

and Win8 user here, love it, hate going to work and being forced to use 7 now.
Click to expand...

I'm supporting usage of new technology and forward progress. I just wanted to point out to him that he is ranting to the wrong person.
 
pxc said:
Yeah, lol. That was some prime cherry picking from a Windows 8 specific support page.

I'll handle this... Windows has supported UEFI since Vista SP1, at least on 64-bit versions of the OS.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824898.aspx

Windows support of UEFI
The following Windows editions include support for UEFI:
Windows 8.1 and Windows® 8 support native UEFI 2.0 or later on 32-bit (x86), 64-bit (x64), and ARM-based PCs. They also support BIOS-based PCs, and UEFI-based PCs running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode.

Some features such as Secure Boot require UEFI 2.3.1 Errata C or higher.

Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows Server® 2012 support native UEFI 2.0 or later on 64-bit systems. Some features such as Secure Boot require UEFI 2.3.1.

Windows® 7, Windows Vista® with Service Pack 1 (SP1), Windows Server® 2008 R2 and Windows Server® 2008

Support UEFI 2.0 or later on 64-bit systems. They also support BIOS-based PCs, and UEFI-based PCs running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode.

Support on Class 2 systems running in legacy BIOS-compatibility mode by using a CSM, so they can use the legacy BIOS INT10 features.

Are not supported on Class 3 systems, because these operating systems assume the presence of legacy BIOS INT10 support in the firmware, which is not available in a Class-3 UEFI implementation.

Windows Server® 2008 R2 and Windows Server® 2008 also support EFI 1.10 on Itanium-based systems.​

The biggest difference in support for UEFI are: 1) 32-bit versions of Windows 8 & RT support UEFI and 2) both OSs support Secure Boot.
Click to expand...

Extended support and optimization includes increased functionality does it not? Not all versions of windows 7 supported UEFI you stated that yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

"Microsoft introduced UEFI for x86-64 Windows operating systems with Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista Service Pack 1 so the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 are compatible with EFI. 32-bit UEFI was originally not supported since vendors did not have any interest in producing native 32-bit UEFI firmware because of the mainstream status of 64-bit computing.[44] Windows 8 includes further optimizations for UEFI systems, including a faster startup, 32-bit support, and secure boot support.[45][46] There do appear to be some issues with Windows 7 machines not properly supporting the use of MBR as data disks as per Microsoft's own implementation specifications[citation needed]. The typical behavior is a refusal to recognize the presence of any operating system to boot from."

this means windows 7 does NOT have full native support of UEFI
 
Terminus said:
Hey pcjunkie I do have one thing to comment about what you're saying. It seems this is the opinion of Desktop-only IT shops. Do you guys use Windows 8, Android or iOS out in the field for anything? Out IT guys have to support those OSes in Active Directory and over time they have come to appreciate Windows 8 (actually I'm lying, they just really like the new PowerShell :D)

They all have iPhones or Androids now (we got rid of BlackBerry) but I still fight with them all the time for making me install ClassicShell. I told them don't bother supporting my PC then because I'm taking it off :p
Click to expand...

I work for an ISP and our tech support call center supports mainly Windows 7 and older. We have a dedicated vm setup with Windows 8 on it to help guide customers with Win 8 trying to set up certain things. Our shop is uses Windows 7 and Office 2010 for the foreseeable long term future. The outside techs use laptops but were looking at Android/Windows tablets for them to use in the field. Problem is some of our proprietary programs don't work well with tablets and or the touch interface with a stylus. We might be looking at vdi outside the office for BYOD users...that's a whole nother headache!
 
VladDracule said:
Extended support and optimization includes increased functionality does it not? Not all versions of windows 7 supported UEFI you stated that yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

"Microsoft introduced UEFI for x86-64 Windows operating systems with Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista Service Pack 1 so the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 are compatible with EFI. 32-bit UEFI was originally not supported since vendors did not have any interest in producing native 32-bit UEFI firmware because of the mainstream status of 64-bit computing.[44] Windows 8 includes further optimizations for UEFI systems, including a faster startup, 32-bit support, and secure boot support.[45][46] There do appear to be some issues with Windows 7 machines not properly supporting the use of MBR as data disks as per Microsoft's own implementation specifications[citation needed]. The typical behavior is a refusal to recognize the presence of any operating system to boot from."

this means windows 7 does NOT have full native support of UEFI
Click to expand...

Wow...you really had to dig deep to find that one? ;)
 
pcjunkie said:
Problem is some of our proprietary programs don't work well with tablets and or the touch interface with a stylus.
Click to expand...

We have consultants in the field and they all are saying it looks really sad when they have to show customers things inside desktop (Winforms) apps.

So guess who's job is to come up with a portable solution for our current desktop apps?

I gotta build web services and UIs that can support all three major mobile platforms.
Fun but sometimes at night I get real :(:(:(:(:(:( about how much work I have ahead of me.
 
Ballmer got the money. That is NOT fail.

Could he have gotten even more money? One can always do better.
 
VladDracule said:
Extended support and optimization includes increased functionality does it not? Not all versions of windows 7 supported UEFI you stated that yourself.
Click to expand...
Back up there, cowboy.

You questioned that Windows 7 didn't handle UEFI fine. That's a separate issue from versions of the OS not supporting it. Where Windows 7 supports UEFI (64-bit, the most popular version by a wide margin) it supports UEFI just fine.

Please explain what doesn't work fine with Windows 7 support of UEFI. Try backing up your claim without changing the subject again, or simply concede you have no clue what you're talking about. We all already understand the latter. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top