Microsoft's Ballmer: If I had it to do all over again...

By | January 12, 2012, 8:43am PST

Summary: Steve Ballmer’s last three years as CEO is the subject of Businessweek’s cover story this week. Here’s what I found interesting in the story.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is no more Mr. Monkeyboy.

That’s the premise of the new January 12 Businessweek cover story about how Ballmer has put his stamp on Microsoft over the past few years.

To me, the most interesting bit came at the very end of the multi-page piece, where Ballmer conceded that he and Chairman Bill Gates might have done better to spend less time on vision and more time on the actual product development process. From the story:

“During a reflective moment, Ballmer says that if he had it to do all over again, he would dedicate more time to watching over the development process of products rather than just issuing a vision to his employees. “I’d say probably Bill and I were spending a lot more of our energy on where to go,” he says. ‘And we should balance our energy better on how to make sure we’re going to get where we want to go.’”

I think many current (and former) Softies, not to mention many customers and partners, would most likely concur with that statement.

A couple of other lines that stood out to this Microsoft watcher:

  • “People might have missed this fact, but I got a new job three and a half years ago,” Ballmer says, referring to Gates’s retirement from day-to-day activities at Microsoft. (Not everyone missed that watershed moment. But Microsoft execs did their best at the time to try to make sure that everyone did.)
  • “Ballmer has replaced almost every major division head at Microsoft and overseen a dramatic shift away from the company’s PC-first heritage. He ordered the product groups to work together instead of operating as talent-hoarding fiefdoms.” (I’d give former Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie some of the credit for working to break down silos. Ozzie is yet another of those who is gone, and Ballmer has said he doesn’t see a need — at least for now — for someone in the Chief Software Architect role.)
  • “Microsoft grew up doing massive launches every three to five years for its blockbuster products. Now its rhythms have started to change.” (One place they still haven’t changed is in the Windows division, however. Windows is still on an every 2.5 to 3 year release cycle, as is the accompanying Windows Live Essentials bundle of add-on services.)
  • “Lady Gaga, he likes. ‘Gnarls Barkley, I hate,’ he says.” We also know Ballmer has a room where he can privately break bread in some unnamed Bellevue, Wash. steakhouse. (El Gaucho? John Howie’s? Daniel’s? Bing it, baby!)

There’s no mention in the Businessweek story as to when Ballmer plans to retire — something Ballmer said back in 2008 that he planned to do around 2018 — or of the constant nagging by Wall Street for him to do so because of the stagnant stock price. Maybe that’s the point: The Redmond management is hoping to put to rest the impression that Ballmer is teetering on the brink of be ousted or leaving any time soon.

One more time: Bill Gates is gone and he’s not coming back.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

55
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Anyone who says Microsoft has been visionless hasn't been paying attention
rbethell 18th Apr
Microsoft paid attention to tablets nearly a decade before Apple did. Microsoft anticipated the kind of fully online workflow (in NetMeeting) that Skype would adopt a decade later (and which Microsoft bought.) Applications for quick tablet based capture (i.e. EverNote, etc.) were introduced by Microsoft (OneNote) a decade ago.

On the business products side, the integration of the whole stack - treating server products as though they were an MS Office style suite - certainly had not been done, or at least well done, prior to Microsoft.

Now one can certainly look at execution, approach, and wonder if it might have been better. But there are certainly no grounds to say that Microsoft has not had vision.
0 Votes
+ -
Ballmer? _Vision_?
Allen_Wentz Updated - 12th Jan
Wow. The idea that Ballmer et. al. spent too much time on vision is the most laughable thing yet - funnier even than Gates/Ballmer repeatedly laughing at products that would go on to become market-dominant. Those guys never even saw the internet until long after the rest of the world did.

A visionless Board and particularly visionless CEOs is why MS has lost about a third of shareholder value in the last few years.
@Allen_Wentz - Erm. 3 years ago today, Microsoft's stock was trading at around $19.71. Today it's trading at $27.91 - an increase of almost 30%.

Therefore, if you bought MS stock three years ago today, you'd have a 30% increase in value today.

MS isn't visionless. Far from it.

But it has had a number of difficult years, all while operating under DOJ oversight as part of the consent decree. This oversight ended in March 2011. Now MS can return to really competing, but in a far more ethical way than the rough and ready bar brawling evident throughout the industry during the mid to late '90's.

Microsoft has been executing very well indeeed in terms of product delivery over the last 3 years Windows 7, Office 2010, Office 365, XBox & Kinect, Visual Studio 2010 all winning significant accolades. Even Windwos phone - a completely brand new phone UXP, OS & platform, which has been in the market for just over a year now is starting to gain significant accolades and interest.

I think that stating that Microsoft is utterly clueless is somewhat ignorant and myopic.
0 Votes
+ -
yeah its easy to bash M$
otaddy 12th Jan
@bitcrazed But you are correct, they do have some good products too.

XBOX 360 has been a quiet success...bashed all the time in these comments as being non-profitable..but it's done quite well in the marketplace.
@bitcrazed
But microsoft stock price have remained the same from almost 10 yrs ago..
It had it ups and down but the price is pretty much remained the same give or take 2 dollars..
@bitcrazed

Ignoring the long term trend in the stock is a good example of myopic.
@bitcrazed Ok I will bite... Here are other tech names 3 years ago, ok? Remember you pointed out, not I. And you happen to have picked the lowest point. So I will do the same.

IBM : 80 -> 180 = 125%
AAPL: 90 -> 425 = 372%
AMZN: 42 -> 172 = 311%
INTC: 12 -> 25 = 108%

Do I need to go on? Ballmer bites doughnuts! He needs to be fired because he is incapable of guiding Microsoft and getting people excited about the company. There is NOTHING positive that Ballmer has done that has not been done earlier before his time.

Yes yes Windows Phone 7 is out. But is it selling? Did it come out on time? Not even Kinect was Microsoft's own invention. They only managed to get access to it because Steve Jobs refused to sign a contract. Otherwise Apple would have sold yet another technology that Microsoft missed.

I will correct the phrase and say Microsoft *management* is utterly clueless and imbecile!
0 Votes
+ -
@bitcrazed "Erm. 3 years ago today, Microsoft's stock was trading at around $19.71. Today it's trading at $27.91 - an increase of almost 30%."

MS market capitalization 2005-2008 was ~$280 B - 330 B; this last year has averaged ~$220 B. _Huge_ loss of shareholder value.

Over the same period Apple, for instance, went UP more than 300%.

MS execs get fat while shareholders lose their butts.

-Allen
0 Votes
+ -
@bitcrazed "But it has had a number of difficult years, all while operating under DOJ oversight"

Duh. MS horribly stifled true innovation through its ILLEGAL business practices, and you are treating it as some kind of uncontrolled outside influence? MS were bad guys with a net stifling effect on tech innovation, and in spite of huge legal resources appropriately lost on two continents.

MS illegal behavior was intentional and falls to Gates and his Board. Without the Bush administration bailing them out consequent to $$ contributions MS would be in even worse shape.
@Allen_Wentz
microsoft never asked or got bailout money from washington, that was an april fool joke from infoworld.

microsoft didn't prevent innovation in the tech sector IMHO; in fact they have only enabled it with common APIs like DirectX, and pushing a common desktop standard every year, upping the spec of hardware and software. Did some product or company have problem pushing their product? Perhaps -like android tablets stuggeling against ipad today, or any other vs a stronger competitor - but that's not what innovation really is, and where it has mainly taken place in the last two decade. look at a company like Autodesk, Apple, Adobe, google, all the internet companies, how were they prevented from innovating? there were not. a great desktop OS, pervasive internet browsers, common hardware standards, API to get the grunt work done, all are enablers, or at least didn't get in the way of the world moving on. Platforms help innovation.
@bitcrazed - It never fails to amaze me how many people measure a company's performance by its stock price alone.

The ONLY think governing a company's stock price are the whims of major stock market traders. Most stock market traders are 25-30 year old flyboys who are concerned, not about the companies they trade, but about the value of their portfolio. They're easily excitable and eager to create and follow trends.

A FAR better measure of a company's performance are its revenue and profit numbers. If a company generates significant profits vs. overall revenues then it's doing something right.

Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world. in FY 2011, for example, Microsoft generated more than $23Bn net profit vs. $18Bn for 2010.

Apple is enjoying very healthy numbers today too - $26Bn in 2011.

Microsoft and Apple are both well ahead of IBM and the three are the only IT tech companies in the top 10 most profitable companies in the world.

If, on the other hand, you were to measure the "value" of Google, that generated $8.5Bn in profit last year and which makes money from one source only - search & advertising - how would you logically be able to determine that it had a value even close to approaching Microsoft or Apple?

Put it this way - if Google went out of business tomorrow, what would be the impact: everyone would switch to a different search engine and ad' network (of which there are plenty). Phone manufacturers already have the source to their free OS. I don't think anyone would miss ChromeOS.

Now imagine if Microsoft decided to close down tomorrow: the world would be thrown into turmoil.
I'm a Microsoft supporter (have been an ISV partner since the program started -- original number was 59). That being said, I think your example assumes one can "time the market." You picked a recent low point. Five years ago, MS stock was 31; ten years ago it was 35. It has been stagnant for an awfully long time.
@Allen_Wentz ... by incorporating Internet Explorer into Windows 95.
0 Votes
+ -
@Allen_Wentz >

" In this story's full version Steve Balmer was also recognizing the fact that profits at Microsoft have gone up three fold in the past few years; and their Enterprise Division did $17.1 billion in 2011. That would put it in the top five enterprise technology providers as a stand alone company outside of Microsoft."

" Also, Microsoft peaked at $68.72 per share back before the internet bubble popped and spiked for only a week into the low $90. After that they were always working from the mid $40 down toward their target $26 per share that has been common for the past decade since they became a complex corporation."

"Face it people Microsoft is so saturated in the marketplace as a holding company of all the other technology giants their position on how they lose money to balance their financials has never been a topic of discussion, they just do."
Microsoft paid attention to tablets nearly a decade before Apple did. Microsoft anticipated the kind of fully online workflow (in NetMeeting) that Skype would adopt a decade later (and which Microsoft bought.) Applications for quick tablet based capture (i.e. EverNote, etc.) were introduced by Microsoft (OneNote) a decade ago.

On the business products side, the integration of the whole stack - treating server products as though they were an MS Office style suite - certainly had not been done, or at least well done, prior to Microsoft.

Now one can certainly look at execution, approach, and wonder if it might have been better. But there are certainly no grounds to say that Microsoft has not had vision.
0 Votes
+ -
... He'd still screw it up.

Quoting from the article - Ballmer says if he had it to do all over again, he would dedicate more time to watching over the development process of products rather than just issuing a vision to his employees.

And yet, according to the article - Ballmer feels that there is no need to fill the role of Software Architect.

Some people don't see the forest for all the trees.

-Mike
Do you suppose he got that idea from the biography of a rather well-known ex-CEO?
0 Votes
+ -
@Userama

Better late than never.
To be blunt, whether you like Ballmer or not (I don't), companies go through cycles in terms of market share and innovation. No company can be "on" all the time. Apple, for instance, went through such a long drought that they nearly went bankrupt.

That said, innovation at MS isn't dead. Windows 8 (love it or not) has the potential to change the way people look at the desktop/laptop, especially with the touch-screen all-in-ones and tying those into tablets. The Xbox ecosystem is continuing to grow as a multi-media platform and has other companies chasing what it has accomplished there (Samsung copying the Kinect interface).

Some things have flopped, some have soared. Armchair quarterbacks need to get some perspective.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple went through problems
HollywoodDog 12th Jan
@Ididar ... when they put the wrong guy in as CEO. When they got rid of him, things got better.

In trying times, I often turn for guidance to the Bible. I opened this morning to the story of Jonah

See Jonah was on a ship, and God was so mad at him he threw storms at the ship, and the ship was tossed about and in danger of sinking and killing all the passengers and crew.

So they picked up Jonah and threw his butt overboard. And the storm abated and the ship was saved and sailed away unscathed. The end.

Understand?
0 Votes
+ -
man, that's classic
Davewrite 12th Jan
@HollywoodDog

nt
@HollywoodDog

Great, another Jesus nutter. Shouldn't you be in South Carolina bashing Romney for being the wrong sort of Christian or something?
  • Flagged
@OffsideInVancouver are you not supposed to be burning some trash or breaking some windows when the Canucks lose a game?

Oh wait I am making a stereotypical snide remark that is out of context of the thread?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Ididar

Innovation at MS is not dead because (relative to MS size) innovation never much existed there. Ever since Gates bought DOS, MS has always been about copying or about cutting (often anti-competitive) deals rather than innovating. Gates was very successful at such deals.

Your example Xbox for instance, was not innovative, it was just an application of huge MS resources chasing the Sony PS, five years later.

Similarly, your example Kinect was not innovative, it was just an application of huge MS resources chasing the Wii, four years later.

That refrain of dealmaking and/or of applying overwhelming resources using what _others_ innovated has always been what MS has mostly been about. This spoken as a real-time historian rather than as an armchair QB. Even today MS response to its failure to innovate in mobile was to cut a deal with Nokia and do without a Software Architect position at the top level.

The real reason for MS loss of share is because:

True innovation is rare at MS. Not good in the 21st century tech environment.

MS was slapped and is being watched by the US Supreme Court and by European regulators for its illegal business practices. This has emboldened true present-day innovators to resist MS predatory dealmaking.

Tech product innovation cycles have _way_ sped up, effectively driving the MS copy machine in the direction of extinction.

-Allen
0 Votes
+ -
well said
oneleft 12th Jan
@Allen_Wentz
i'll never understand how people use the word "competitive" for a company that simply throws unreal fortunes at something in order to be "competitive". brings to mind yankees and red sox. it's simply moneyball. after all, how could xbox have failed when over 10 billion dollars was thrown at it before it ever saw a profitable quarter? that's an unreal amount of money. that's an international space station amount of money.

it's innovation today? throw a new interface on smart phones. put apple style ms stores next to apple stores (but call the tech genius's guru's so they're "different"). throw billions more at "competing" with google (balmer said ms was willing to lose billions to become a player in the search game.

msn, live, search, hotmail, never a nickel inprofit in over 10 years of trying. estimates are loss's in the 8 billion range. that's a large hadron collider amount of money.

sure, it's their money, and it's "competing" by the strictist definition, but fair competition?
@Allen_Wentz
Might i add, the kinect took off when people hacked it and applied to other areas.. Which is what now microsoft is targeting the hw towards..
@Allen_Wentz so why didn't Nintendo create something better than Kinect and why is PS copying the Wii?
@Allen_Wentz I agree that Gates was likely a master at cutting "such deals" as much as Jobs was a master of brainwash marketing.
Its amazing that people think Microsoft innovated with Kinect. They *bought* Kinect from an Israeli, and then promoted it! It was never a Microsoft invention.
@serpentmage Microsoft is licensing the Kinect technology. All the software and actually making it work is their doing.
@Allen_Wentz - So by your reckoning then:

Android is a disaster because Google used its huge cash reserves to buy a company that had taken Linux and ported it to run on knock-off Blackberry-esque phones, later porting it to knock-off iPhone clones.

Apple is a disaster on many fronts:
MacOS was a disaster because its GUI was built on ideas and designs that Apple licensed from Xerox' PARC.

OSX is a disaster because it is largely built upon NeXT STEP - an OS that Apple acquired when it bought the company. OSX also rests atop a kernel based on FreeBSD plus bits of the NeXT STEP kernel. NeXT STEP's kernel was based on Carnegie-Mellon's MACH kernel and incorporated features from BSD. NeXT STEP's rendering engine was Adobe's Display PostScript. They also licensed ObjectiveC from StepStone.

Everything in the IT industry is built upon the shoulders of pre-existing work. There is practically nothing that is brand-spanking-never-before-seen new.

Any company has the right to take the risk of entering new markets and try to gain a foot hold. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. If the risk pays off, the company gains. If not, it can shut the company down.

Lotus was too slow to release a decent Windows spreadsheet and they lost the market and were purchased for a pittance. Same for Wordperfect, Notes Borland, Novell and many others.

Microsoft failed to make the Zune media players gain enough traction. It cost them $billions. Throwing lots of cash and resources at a problem doesn't in any way guarantee a decent return.
I have always felt the reason Microsoft beat apple in the early days was because Microsoft got the backing from the growing computer industry. One of the reasons for this is because Microsoft promised hardware companies a chance to compete.

I think most computer companies now hate to being locked into a relationship with Microsoft for client side computing. I think companies will support any legitimate options to break free of this relationship.
@richardgarrick Centralized management and Office applications. Sorry but nothing comes close. Sure they are now boring products, but I dont see any equivalent offerings and in most cases, IT is too lazy to want to change.
@richardgarrick that's an interesting point, I rarely heard this perspective, but more I think about it, it makes for a compelling argument. Apple has too much control over hardware, which turns off the competing hardware vendors. Google gives hardware vendors almost free reign of hardware differentiation. M$ is trying to succeed today by blending its model in the middle somewhere. I've always believed that M$ isn't really at war with Apple as it is with Google because M$ and Google have direct competition over the attention of OEMs.

M$ model is very risky unless they start out innovating Google and perhaps even grow more exclusive parternships with the likes of Nokia. There was a rumor of M$ buying Nokia. This wouldn't surprise me as it would be essentially copying the Apple model and come on the heels of Google/Motorola. One could argue that if Google/Motorola truly becomes a threat to other OEMs, it might actually be in M$'s best interest to not buy an OEM and continue it's model from the "old days" by allowing all other OEMs a chance to compete and reduce Google support. Very very interesting on how things might come circle back again. Even if this happens, there's no guarantee that M$ could continue to succeed if they are still perceived as lacking innovative features in the OS.
@erichon99
Exactly! MS hasn't cared much about Apple (and hasn't needed to) for a while (although they should care again, now that iCloud has been launched). Google is definitely way more threatening to them, but I do think you may be right about it coming back full circle. If Google decides to go into hardware, and adopts a strategy similar to Apple's, then all of a sudden MS just might become relevant again. This part of MS I do happen like (despite all their other oppressive practices) as MS's existence does give freedom to third party hardware manufacturers and thus promotes competition in the hardware market, which is MS's only redeeming characteristic in my opinion, and a fairly ironic one if you think about it. Only time will tell though how Google decides to conduct themselves.
@richardgarrick

The reason Microsoft beat Apple is due to the licensing deal that was originally cut by Bill Gates and Jim Allchin with IBM. Later this approach was used by Microsoft with all OEM's. License them to put their OS on every PC built on every OEM: IBM, Compaq, Dell, NEC, HP, Toshiba, etc.

Take that into account and also take into account that when Windows came about Microsoft included software checks within Windows (that they were found guilty of and later had to remove) that would not allow Windows 3.x or Windows 95 to run on any other DOS (PC-DOS, DR-DOS, etc). PLUS the fact that they had software checks to create fake errors when running Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect to "encourage" sales of Microsoft Office.

Apple had the inroads at the time with schools getting good deals and many businesses adopting Apple II's and using the first spreadsheet for any computer: VisiCalc. Then Microsoft came in with the OEMs and Apple was shut out. (No, I'm not a Microsoft hater, just telling it like it was - I was there)
0 Votes
+ -
@benched42 And then later, MS office was better. People realized you could do more for less with a PC.
@benched42
_Exactly_ correct. I was there too.
@benched42 The main reason for Microsoft's OS success was the clause within their deal with IBM that allowed them to produce their OS (which they bought, not invented themselves) on other vendors' hardware. Otherwise there would have been Apple's AppleDOS powering their own computers, IBM (and Microsoft's) PC-DOS powering IBM PCs, and the other vendors would have had to deal with rolling their own OS or using something like DR-DOS or CPM. This, along with Compaq's achievement of reverse-engineering the IBM PC to make an alternative computer that ran the exact same software as Big Blue's box, is what enabled the development of the PC-compatible industry in the 80's, as every OEM took Compaq's path to safety. This relegated all the other computer manufacturers who were not Apple or PC compatible to the dustbin of history. Commodore comes to mind as a company with potential that through mismanagement and marketing missteps failed to make good on its initial splash with the 64. I doubt that any of these OEMs relished the thought of having to pay Microsoft in perpetuity for the beating hearts of their products.

IBM tried to circumvent Microsoft by creating OS2, but in a strange bit of strategic thinking tried to get Microsoft to make it for them. Even if they had been successful, the genie had already left the bottle, as most companies were now invested in a diverse market of DOS (eventually Windows)-compatible machines. Apple tried to out-innovate by licensing Xerox's GUI OS into first the Lisa then the Macintosh, and managed to make the Mac a thriving business despite Microsoft's me-too invention of Windows, which was frankly a piece of crap until Win95 came out and became about 85% as easy to use as the Mac OS (and btw came bundled with Internet Explorer, Microsoft's reverse-enginneering of Netscape Navigator, which led to Netscape's demise and Microsoft's eventual appearance in the Anti-Trust crosshairs).

The main reason for Microsoft's success with Office was two-fold: it included the Office suite in enterprise bundling deals, and it controlled the APIs for Windows and made sure the Office team had first look at them. This allowed Office, which at versions 1 through 5 were execrable, to eventually leapfrog over its competitors because it took advantage of the secret Windows APIs while competitors had to devise workarounds. And Microsoft kept piling features into Office until Microsoft salespeople could respond that their software did more than any other single product, and by direct access to the OS were able to make this bloatware fast enough to be competitive with the competition. So the world began choosing Office as the default, no-brainer option, which continues to this day. Even now I do most of my writing in Word 2011, even though I have regular conniptions about the interface changes from 2008. I do it because my employer provides it to me for free.
0 Votes
+ -
Is that there is no way he's leaving, no matter how poor his performance. No matter how bad the upcoming quarters earnings are.

This should give Microsoft's competitors a spring in their step.
The sign of a good CEO knows what he can and can't do, where he could have improved and that is what Ballmer clearly stated in this article. Its good of him to recognize his shortcomings so that he can improve on them. He's been doing a pretty good job at Microsoft considering he has to run the entire company, which is no easy feat for a company of that size. I like the Lady Gaga too.
@Loverock Davidson-

The sign of a REALLY great CEO is knowing when to go away, and not come back. Sadly...very few of these on the planet.
@Loverock Davidson-

The sign of a really good CEO is not liking Lady Gaga because she sucks and just rips off a terrible decade in the 80's. wink
@maskman01
But she has some catchy beats in her songs!
0 Votes
+ -
Ballmer would like the Lady Gaga
HollywoodDog 13th Jan
@Loverock Davidson- ... there is nothing original about her, and she's just copying what Madonna and Dale Bozzio did (better) 30 years ago.
0 Votes
+ -
If I had to do it all over again ...
johnfenjackson@... 12th Jan
... I would:

- protect Netscape
- fine M$ billions several years earlier
- fine Gates for his evasive testimony
- fine Intel billions and give it to AMD just after the release of the ATHLON
- fine the WINTEL OEMs five times their 'subsidies'

... for starters ...
@johnfenjackson@... Sorry but Netscape did itself in! Microsoft only needed to stand back and let it collapse on its own. At the time we were trying to negotiate a 15,000 client browser license deal. Netscape rebuffed us as we were too *small*. They were more interested in Deutsche Telekom.

And when I attended the first and only Netscape developer conference I knew the company was fried...

Microsoft had little to do with Netscape collapsing. You have to remember at the time IE was a POS! The problem with Netscape was that instead of continuing to improve their product to make it a quality product it turned into a mess! Netscape also on purpose avoided implementing any type of Windows integration! I asked about this and they clearly said that Windows was not interesting for them. Come on, that was just pure lunacy... When Netscape open sourced itself it literally took about 3 years just to untangle the mess called Mozilla.
@serpentmage IE was indeed a POS, but it came with Windows. In the mid-90's, it was "good enough" to display sites that were still mostly text with a few pictures and minimal graphics. Netscape had a few more capabilities in the beginning, but could not compete with "free". Windows 95 rendered Netscape toast.
0 Votes
+ -
Just like the INS!
Robert Hahn 12th Jan
    He ordered the product groups to work together instead of operating as talent-hoarding fiefdoms.
Oh, come on. All companies operate as a collection of talent-hoarding fiefdoms. You can't "order them" not to unless you're prepared to reward the managers on something other than performance. The managers hoard talent precisely because it helps them deliver above-average performance.

The only way to get them to stop is to play musical chairs with them every year, so they have to go manage somebody else's collection of people.
0 Votes
+ -
THE BALLMER WAY....
CustomComputers 13th Jan
MJ You know what I think about the CEO mentioned in your post! Throw a billion here (Yahoo/Bing)), a few billion there (Nokia), 8 billion for something you do not have a clue what to do with (Skype). Offer 33 billion for something that is today worth less than half that number (Yahoo again).
* One begins to see where the real problem lies!
While Larry Page just "gets it done" quickly, efficiently,and profitably.
Save for XBox, I see MS as completely dead in the water within about 5 years, unless they can somehow miraculously start competing with Google and Apple (and Amazon for that matter) in online and cloud services. As for Windows: who cares about desktop operating systems anymore? I think Android and iPad tablets will make the desktop PC business obsolete in the very near future, which brings us to Windows phone? Sorry, but: too little, too late. The problem MS is having, as I see it, is relevancy. Neither Ballmer, nor Gates for that matter could see the mass exodus from desktop computing to online and cloud based computing coming, and neither had the vision to jump into that market in earnest. It's just too late (IMHO) for them to close the gap between themselves and Google and Apple's dominance in online computing. If they really want to make a comeback, they should try to figure out what comes next after that, and I just don't think Ballmer has the vision or creativity to do so, and if Gates ever did, he unfortunately no longer has the will to do so.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix