Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnte | Hacker News Reader

Logically, yes, but it doesn't always happen. Ballmer forgot MS was a software company, thought it was only a Windows company, and wasted a decade. Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.

View on HN

> Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.

Some do yes, but it's not a hard and fast rule. What I notice is that when oil companies start green energy projects, people immediately question their motives as if it's anything more complicated than wanting to make more money in a new industry. They ought to be commended.

Yes, I agree it doesn't always happen, but in aggregate it typically does. For example, Borders didn't get on with the digital trend, but B&N did. I agree that any one oil company might not be forward-looking enough, but overall, there will those that do and those that don't, and you can't assume any one company is in the latter group just because of their current industry.

https://danluu.com/ballmer/

For the argument Ballmer didn't waste a decade but setup MS up for the success it's seeing today.

If Microsoft is the wrong answer Kodak, who squelched their own digital photography stuff because they made so much from film, is a classic cautionary tale about a company getting too wed to its business model and allowing itself to become obsolete.

Yeah, I've read that, but I lived through it and even worked for them for 6 months during the period. No, Ballmer was not an underrated CEO. He was an overrated COO and a terrible CEO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com