The End of Ballmer? | Hacker News Reader

The End of Ballmer?

techcrunch.com

26 pointsaneesh29 comments

Microsoft has made some missteps, but in the end, they really just have two problems they need to address now, and two they need to address over the next couple of years. Ballmer has the potential to handle them, but if he doesn't get them sorted out, they'll need someone else who can.

The current problems are that they have a failed product cycle with Windows Vista, and they refuse to admit it, and they've set a goal of beating Google on Google's home turf, and they have no hope of attaining it. They need to own up to their mistakes with Vista, and announce that they will support XP side-by-side with Vista until Windows 7 ships. They also need to admit that they have no hope of winning in the search and contextual advertising businesses, and dial back their internet ambitions to try to focus on moving their Office business forward to clients interested in software-as-a-service.

Their longer-term problems are that they're losing market share to Macs and that they've ceded leadership in the browser and internet standards space to others. They need to make sure that with Win7, they deliver something people actually want, and they need to open up their internet roadmap and try to really work with standards groups instead of blowing them off.

All these problems are correctable, and Microsoft will have to make even more serious mistakes going forward to really implode their whole business. Whether Ballmer is the right guy to fix things remains to be seen.

From the article, it sounds to me like Microsoft's biggest problem is that Ballmer's direct reports are tired of dealing with him, and want him to fail.

Gates got away with the temper tantrums because everyone at Microsoft had a deep and abiding respect for him and his accomplishments, but Ballmer doesn't have that. If they can't have a living legend, they need a CEO with a little more charisma.

Walking away from over-paying for Yahoo is probably the smartest thing Ballmer has done since becoming CEO. Did Yahoo manage to convince anyone that they really have a strong go-it-alone strategy? Why pay now when you can pay half in 12 months time.

My prediction is Ballmer will still be comfortable in the CEO suite by the end of the year.

I am surprise that people speculate about the end of Ballmer when in fact it's the end of Jerry Yang that we will see very soon. I can't wait for the stock market to open in a couple of hours, my popcorn is ready. (It's not so much that I wish Yahoo to go down but more that I am exited to see what will really happen).

Let's count Ballmer's winners:

- MSN search vs. google?

- hotmail vs. gmail?

- xbox vs. wii?

- zune vs. ipod?

- Silverlight vs. AJAX?

- Windows vs. linux?

- Vista vs. OSX?

- .net vs. anything that works?

At what point do you stop blaming the soldiers and hold the general acountable?

Ballmer's performance has been questionable but its not wise to fire a CEO without a ready replacement....I dont think Microsoft have anyone.

All the more reason to go outside. How many more buses are they willing to miss?

Good points.

But I'm pretty sure hotmail still has higher market share than GMail. And though I use Ubuntu over Windows, but the world is still all about Windows. From a revenue perspective, Windows made more money this year than in any previous year. That's good news for Ballmer.

And Surface is really cool. MS Research does incredible work. Office is still king, and no one has come up with anything close to an Outlook-killer yet.

I don't actually use any of the products you or I mentioned, but MS has plenty of strengths and smart people to balance it's blatant failures.

Edit: Photosynth is yet another highly impressive product from MS Live Labs.

Now.

Do you think Microsoft's board is smart enough to know how fast the tech world is changing?

</rhetorical question>

I think you should ask if they're informed enough. More data (informed) beats better algorithms (smart).

I think this is the problem. The c-suite at MSFT is full of people who were in the software industry in 1980. I don't really know who all is on the board, but they definitely need to get some fresh blood in the executive offices.

The problem with products like Photosynth and and Surface is that they don't really address the things Microsoft has problems with (like search).

The Office/OS cash cow was really created during the 1990s. I just don't see Ballmer as doing anything except maintain the status quo - which isn't sustainable over the long term.

half of these arguments are of the Facebook vs. Myspace variety -- or the Yang should be outed argument as well

1. Same could be said for Yahoo vs. Google

2. Hotmail/Live mail has more users than Gmail (ditto with MSN messenger and Gchat, or Yahoomail/Yahoo messenger vs. Gmail/Gchat)

3. How many years did the iPod have on the Zune? You should be making an argument why Ballmer/ MSFT didn't release a Zune Phone, not comparing the iPod to the Zune.

4. Xbox v. Wii? Are you serious?

Wii is heavily targeting a casual gamer market, while Xbox is more geared towards a more hard-core gamer, which is OK. Apples and Oranges. Wii outsells in systems, but not in games -- many dont even buy one game but just play what comes on the system.

I've had both the Wii and the Xbox/Xbox 360, btw, and I know many who do, just as I know many who have an Xbox and a PS3 for the game variety (i.e. Gears of War, Halo, Tom Clancy games on one and MGS, FF, etc. on the PS3)

Don't know any non-hackers who use Linux.

what about synch, surface, or photosynth?

You think OSX has Vista beat in the business world? Nice try. Most consumers and businesses buy machines not for the OS, but for the brand name of the machine --- Apple, Dell, HP, etc. so I'm not sure I see how OSX is a big winner over Vista. Gaining market share, sure, but Vista as a non-winner?

you obviously dislike MSFT but aren't really making any logical arguments why Ballmer should be outed other than that you prefer competing products.

You're right on number 4. You really can't compare things to the Wii. The Wii is a black swan of sorts.

Nintendo is really firing on all cylinders right now. You can't expect MSFT to be able to beat a company entirely focused on gaming, with over 100 years of experience in the industry, in their own arena in that short of a time.

In fact, given the number of large companies that have tried and failed to make a dent in the console gaming industry over the last couple decades, the fact that MSFT has become a viable contender in such a short time period is actually quite impressive. The Xbox360 would be my vote for the most intelligent thing they've done in a very long time.

They embraced the web before their opponents and did it in a better way with Xbox Live. Features they added first (downloadable games or movies for instance, or the ability to stream media from a computer) are becoming standard elsewhere. In a lot of ways, they're ahead of the curve.

"You can't expect MSFT to be able to beat a company entirely focused on gaming"

Then why do they continue to insist on doing it? They have "focused" competitors in every market.

They compete with google in search.

They compete with Oracle in data bases.

They compete with SAP in enterprise apps.

Except for GE, who has an unfair advantage thanks to your tax dollars, the conglomerate has been dead for 20 years. Is Microsoft still so arrogant that they think they can be the only high tech conglomerate? They became big with a monopoly on the desktop and have long since lost their focus.

This is a problem of leadership. The days of the bully are over.

Ha, the old chop the relevant half of the sentence out and argue against the remainder technique. Always a classic in internet debate. How many votes that comment has shows the bias here.

The "in that short of a time" part was the qualifier. Microsoft knew going in that they weren't going to take the lead. It's called an investment, and it's the same thing they did with the Zune. Unlike the Zune though, they've captured an impressive amount of market share quickly with the Xbox 360. Even the original console fared well.

The analogy you note between the Zune and the Xbox is maybe more similar than you think. People forget the Xbox first came out 2001. It takes years for an investment in a new market like that to get big, even if executed perfectly. I'm interested in seeing how the Zune looks 3-5 years from now. Mostly because I think J. Allard's a genius.

"Ha, the old chop the relevant half of the sentence out and argue against the remainder technique."

Isn't that exactly what you did to me, Matt?

I started this thread questioning Microsoft's leadership trying to be all things to all people instead of focusing of their core strength. As any shareholder should. I cited a half dozen examples. You and others chose your favorite example and drilled into it. How is that different?

What has made this thread so interesting is how many downvotes AND upvotes I keep getting. Microsoft's pretty polarizing, huh? I wonder how many of their employees visit this board.

"Always a classic in internet debate."

Second only to "That's not fair." Welcome to the world of Microsoft.

That's not what I did to you at all. You made a list of Microsoft's failures, someone else simply pointed out that one of them was in fact a success. (In fact, a few probably are by any non-hacker's definition, including Windows vs. Linux.) I didn't take it out of context, I simply seconded someone who pointed out that you were contradicting yourself.

expecting MSFT to beat a company and expecting them to be competitive are two different issues. as you've said in another post about all that $$ their sitting on -- they should be competing in several different markets, but showing up with a bunch of cash is simply not good enough to beat a well-worn competitor like Nintendo.

Game consoles are as much about the franchises as they are about the consoles themselves (Marios, Zelda, Mario Kart, Metroid, Smash Brothers, etc. for Nintendo ). That being said, it's nearly impossible to build a game franchise from nothing. Most best selling games are multiple-edition franchises (see: GTA IV, Halo, Mario, Smash Brothers, Call of Duty, All Tom Clancy games, Final Fantasy,etc.) MSFT hit the jackpot with HALO, and has a couple other interesting original titles such as Gears of War, Mass Effect and others.

In fairness, he's been with them since 1980. Who knows what role he has played in their many successes over that time period.

Also, hotmail is far larger than gmail. That one belongs on a non-ironic winners list. If you want to make fun of him, go with hotmail vs. yahoo mail.

It might be best for all involved if he moves on though.

I'll agree that Microsoft hasn't had a stellar record for the past 10 years or so, but this is just ridiculous.

+ I'll give you MSN search vs. Google, which is of course what the whole Yahoo bid was about.

- Hotmail was the first widely-used web mail client, and still has a very significant market share vs. Gmail and Yahoo Mail.

- The xbox has a very good market share of consoles, particularly considering the history of its competition in Sony and Nintendo.

+ The Zune is admittedly an also-ran. Then again, there are a lot of also-rans to the iPod. Microsoft isn't the only company who tried to mimic it and failed.

- Silverlight is still extremely new, and is more a competitor to Flash than AJAX. It has potential, but the jury is still very out.

- You're kidding, right? Maybe in the server market, but the desktop market is still completely dominated by Windows.

+ Vista was a huge mistake, and OSX beats the crap out of it.

- .NET works just fine as a competitor to Java. You need to substantiate this more if you want to make sweeping claims like that.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but it irks me when people blindly bash them. I know it's trendy to be anti-Microsoft (it has been for years), but it's tunnel vision.

I didn't intend to "bash" them. (Well, maybe a little.)

I'm just playing stockholder's advocate, questioning the people who are supposed to represent my best long term interests. $40B on the left side of the balance sheet covers for a lot of missteps, but sooner or later, someone's gotta start asking the hard questions like, "What is our focus?", "How do we position ourselves for the massive tech shifts about to happen", "What business are we going to be in in 10 years?", and "Why should I keep my dollars here?"

Bullys have a tough time with those questions. Visionaries don't.

- xbox vs. wii?

Microsoft is doing extremely well with the XBox. It has produced a leading product across multiple generations of the console market and ensured that commercial game development uses DirectX instead of migrating to OpenGL.

Yes, but let's not forget the most important part of any business, making money. I think he's won where it matters most.

MSFT (billions) Mar '08 2007 2006 Revenue: $14.4 $51 $44.3 Net Inc: $4.4 $14 $12.6

He probably does a great job with all those Microsoft haters out there (and here)

But I love Ballmer!

He does in fact perfectly fit Minisoft (...and thinking that I wanted to make it BIGGER.)

Doubt it!

Regardless of how this has gone thus far, Yahoo will sell to MS at a lower price than $33/share. And even if it doesn't, Steve will order some restructuring to advanced their search ambitions. Steve is safe. And worst come worst, he'll be left with his hundreds of millions. So sad!? Right!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com