Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

There's innovation and then there's merely change that pretends to innovate. There's been too much of the latter and not enough of the former under these later "Ballmer years".

Microsoft has always been known for lack of innovation. What real innovation are you thinking of?

I suppose there are lots of small innovations in each Microsoft release. Windows 8 couldn't boot so fast without innovations. But big innovations enabling new classes of products, such as the the Von Neumann architecture, the microprocessor, the mouse, the touchscreen, and eInk, do not come from end-user oriented companies like Microsoft and Apple.

As for Krugman's idea that Microsoft has a more secure future than Apple, I agree. Many corporate applications which automate Microsoft Office would thus be quite expensive to port to Linux, Mac, or a browser. So Microsoft has stronger lock-in.

[wizwor]

You guys must be twelve years old. Anyone who has held a job in the last thirty years appreciates the innovation coming out of Redmond and Cupertino. Whether you are an accountant, a publisher, or a programmer, you have benefited from the work of these people.

What exactly have you people done that compares? Do you dare to compare reading 180 books a year to inventing or perfecting cut and paste? Do you think posting idle thoughts to forums is on par with enabling workgroup collaboration.

What a pretentious bunch.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As for Krugman's idea that Microsoft has a more secure future than Apple, I agree. Many corporate applications which automate Microsoft Office would thus be quite expensive to port to Linux, Mac, or a browser. So Microsoft has stronger lock-in.

And that is merely at the desktop.
They have an entirely separate lock-in at the system management level, at the workflow level with Exchange, and at the document level with Sharepoint.

People focus overmuch on desktop Windows and forget the rest of their cash cows, forget that MS has built a multi-pronged interlocking system to serve corporate needs. Microsoft's challenges are in their attempts to grow beyond their current cash cows, much as Google and Facebook; Apple's challenges are in their *need* to protect their primary revenue stream.

I'm skeptical that Apple is in any imminent danger but I do agree with Krugman that they are more vulnerable than Microsoft simply because a larger fraction of their revenue comes from one source.

Whatever his failings as a CEO, Ballmer took MS from a Windows company to a diversified company that easily weather problems with any one or even three of their cash cows.

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

Lol, I bought Microsoft stock in 1999. I remember asking my dad if I could put some in Apple, and he said no.

Apple was a huge gamble in 1999 since there was no expectation that the company would survive, nevermind thrive. Microsoft was considered a safe investment, which it was. (Granted, 1999 was a terrible time to invest.)

[frahse]

I enjoyed the denials and counterclaims. Well done.

I still stand by my statement though.



I had missed Krugman's remarks. Interesting that he would say that, or admit it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by frahse

I had missed Krugman's remarks. Interesting that he would say that, or admit it.

Indeed, considering how deep the mainstream media is inside the RDF.

I think his diagnosis if off--IT managers don't stay with Microsoft out of conservatism but out of necessity; competitors only offer bits and pieces, not the whole kit--but his prognosis is accurate. MS will be fine.

It might help to think of Microsoft as an IT services utility, investment-wise, instead of as a tech company. MS stock pays dividends, holds its value, and is generally a safe investment for pension funds and retirement accounts. Company growth is slow but steady and there isn't much chance of the market going irrationally exuberant and bidding the stock beyond reason only to crash once the hype cools. Probably better than munis, these days...

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Indeed, considering how deep the mainstream media is inside the RDF.

I think his diagnosis if off--IT managers don't stay with Microsoft out of conservatism but out of necessity; competitors only offer bits and pieces, not the whole kit--but his prognosis is accurate. MS will be fine.

It might help to think of Microsoft as an IT services utility, investment-wise, instead of as a tech company. MS stock pays dividends, holds its value, and is generally a safe investment for pension funds and retirement accounts. Company growth is slow but steady and there isn't much chance of the market going irrationally exuberant and bidding the stock beyond reason only to crash once the hype cools. Probably better than munis, these days...

They used to say "No one every got fired for buying IBM." Now I guess it is "MS."

[fjtorres]

Duplicate post.
Duplicate post.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

They used to say "No one every got fired for buying IBM." Now I guess it is "MS."

These days buying MS likely gets them promoted.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

They used to say "No one every got fired for buying IBM." Now I guess it is "MS."

That's been the case for pushing 20 years.

At least Google wised up enough a few years back to require a VP signature first.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

These days buying MS likely gets them promoted.

Since over 99% do, I can see where you could make a case that they would be reprimanded or demoted for failing to do so. But there is no rational basis or even "business case" for making such a purchase grounds for promotion, much less promotion as a likely effect.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

While Ballmer was CEO, Microsoft grew revenue by $55B. Dell grew by $31B, Oracle by $27B, Intel by $19B, IBM by $16B.

BOb

During the same time the number of PC users has jumped 20 times the price of windows and Office is a few times more. All the growth Microsoft has enjoyed was for what Gates left them with and natural growth of pc and internet use.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Since over 99% do, I can see where you could make a case that they would be reprimanded or demoted for failing to do so. But there is no rational basis or even "business case" for making such a purchase grounds for promotion, much less promotion as a likely effect.

They get promoted for doing their job right.
And doing their job right requires buying and installing MS releases.
Ergo, buying MS gets them promoted.

[JAcheson]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Azure, Bing, Windows Phone 8 (which iOS 7 is copying some concepts of) is gaining market share, XBox 360 which took over the game console market, Office 365, Outlook.com etc are all doing well.

As far as I know, XBox 360 has still not turned a profit, though they sold a lot of them in North America. The RROD debacle is to blame there. And so far the XBox One release has been a train wreck.

And Office is terrible these days. The new versions are so buggy we can't use them at work.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by JAcheson

As far as I know, XBox 360 has still not turned a profit, though they sold a lot of them in North America.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean devices only revenue/profit... or do you mean overall Entertainment and Devices Division?

I know MSFT's EED earned $679 million in profit fiscal year ending June 30, 2010. Sure, not a lot, espessialy as a percentage of MSFT's overall P&L... but still to say "still not turned a profit" seems a bit of FUD and hyperbole.

Remember, XBox "revenue" is more than just selling boxes, it is license fees, XBox Live subscriptions, entertainment revenue (people buying TV shows and movies) etc.

BOb