Ballmer comments reflect deeper problems
Summary: Steve Ballmer's latest rant against open source, and Microsoft's internal reaction to it, reflect deep problems within the company.Part of the problem is that, as they say, Elvis has left the building.
Steve Ballmer's latest rant against open source, and Microsoft's internal reaction to it, reflect deep problems within the company.
Part of the problem is that, as they say, Elvis has left the building. Elvis in this case is Bill Gates, Ballmer's one-time Harvard classmate, the drop-out whose strategic vision and intense focus made Microsoft what it is.
Part of the problem is that Ballmer has never really acknowledged this. It was Steve Ballmer who built Microsoft's sales effort, Steve Ballmer who created its esprit de corps, and Steve Ballmer, whose chip on the shoulder attitude he's never been without that we recall, who doesn't understand how the game has changed.
You can't fight open source as you would fight IBM, or Novell, or the U.S. Justice Department, the enemies from the 1990s. Those foes put their pants on one leg at a time, just like Microsoft did. Open source is not like that.
Open source is not a person, or a company, but a movement. It's an idea. It's like water. You fight water you drown. Each time Steve Ballmer opens his mouth this becomes more obvious to observers on the shore. Yet it never seems to occur to him. And he's the boss.
The fact Ballmer made these remarks in England only compounds the problem. The EU still has an active antitrust case against Microsoft. The EU has not yet agreed with the U.S. policy on software patents. Bluster in the face of all this was ill-advised, yet Ballmer blustered away.
Bill Gates would have handled things differently. He would have smiled. He would have been diplomatic. He probably would not have commented at all, yet he would have left the impression that the EU is somehow working against competition in fighting Microsoft, and ignoring the interests of its own innovators in rejecting software patents.
Microsoft is going through a tough transition. It is an entrepreneurial company whose entrepreneur has left. Steve Ballmer was as close to Gates as anyone, and has long felt he could fill his shoes, but can he really make Microsoft an ad-driven company when his sense of public relations is so poor?
None of this really matters to open source. Open source, like water, will flow around Microsoft the way a stream flows past a rock in its path. But Microsoft needs a swimmer to succeed in this new environment, and its leader keeps doing cannonballs.[poll id=55]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Yes, Microsoft is it's own worst enemy here. or maybe better said, BALMER
But, to be honest, the transition to an ad driven company will be extremely painful. It will mean huge drops in revenue and a falling stock price. It will probably mean that Google will eventually have a higher market cap than Microsoft, something unbearable to Steve Balmer. The problem for Microsoft is when to jump ship. How much water do they have to take on before they realize the twin cash cows can not carry them anymore. Right now they are only staring at the iceberg, watching Google improve online aplications, make them work offline, figure out all the ins and outs. Well, they do have one mate below reinforcing the hull, Ozzie is doing his best to create a version of web applications that depends on Windows, hoping that will keep them afloat a while longer.
Is advertising really the only way to go?
IBM makes a ton of money in all these areas, and I see most of what Microsoft is doing now to be aimed in that direction.
Problem is they don't do it as well.
Ballmer
This is a wonderful statement. I wonder then why he doesn't do as he states here and state what he believes violates their IP, and instead resorts to vague threats?
I also disagree that they should HAVE to pay for the infringing IP, they should equally have the opportunity to remove/rework the infringing IP.
Well, Balmer does not want any infringing IP to be removed, that would
Kind of funny to watch him squirm.
Glass houses, etc...
RE: Ballmer
That was superb
RE: Ballmer comments reflect deeper problems
Ballmer Worst CEO Ever?
I wouldn't lay it all off on Ballmer
They made some objective sense when Microsoft was a one or two product company. You're right -- companies with lots of lines have to move more quickly. But when I hung around Redmond it was apparent that saying no to what would be a bad deal got as many attaboys as saying yes to a potentially good deal.
IMHO, product managers need to be given their head, and have those heads chopped off when they fail to perform. Treat these people like entrepreneurs and they will be behave more like entrepreneurs.
The risk is you get a lot of back-biting, but if the whole team's raises and bonuses are on the line for performance you can reduce that to a minimum.
You forgot VISTA
Need better poll questions
Best I could do on short notice
Need an option:
Exactly.
Monkey Boy is Microsoft's equivalent of Gil Amelio
Amelio is the wrong analogy IMO
And he let the first kid with a Clue knock IBM off its perch. That kid was Bill Gates.
I think what Microsoft needs right now is the equivalent of a Lou Gerstner.
RE: Ballmer comments reflect deeper problems
Bluster is his thing...
On the other hand the company's problems run deeper than one man, and today's piece on the Google business model reflects that.
Enjoy.
Software patents in the EU
Despite this economically illiterate and unethical EPO policy and practice, some EU states - most notably the UK - do more closely follow the EPC in letter and spirit. But patents can of course be used effectively even if they would almost certainly not survive litigation in any court. Acacia Research, the notorious "patent troll" company is believed to have managed to extract licence fees from European companies for European equivalents of its infamous US "streaming media" patents.
Lastly, it is said by some that the quality of examination is higher at the EPO than at the USPTO and that the requirement for non-obviousness is stricter. This may be the case - I don't expect to see the "combover" or the "cat laser" or multiple LZW patents appearing in the EPO database anytime soon - but in light of the actual contents of that database and in view of (among others) the shocking decision of the EPO to grant Microsoft, on appeal, "Data transfer with expanded clipboard formats" (EP0717354), it is clear that the EPO is at least not usefully better in this area.
plh.