3 ms·

During Ballmers tenure, the company massively increased it's revenues and profits, and they were exceptional in other areas. 'Missed paid search' and 'missed m

During Ballmers tenure, the company massively increased it's revenues and profits, and they were exceptional in other areas. 'Missed paid search' and 'missed music player' etc. etc. are all haughty claims - MS was never an internet oriented business, it's like saying 'Oracle missed the search business' - well sure. Just like Google missed social? Or Facebook missed mobile? Or missed photo-sharing? I'm no fan of Ballmer or MSFT, but if the goal of MSFT is to make money via decent products that work well enough in the eyes of their buyers, he did that. Just not in the way that you might want or expect them to. I like Satya more, but give it a few years and we can judge then.

mgkimsal 8y ago
> it's like saying 'Oracle missed the search business' did Oracle spend lots of $ and resources trying to get in to search?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  If MS didn't then they would be lambasted just the same. As it stands, at least MSFT has a presence which entails at least strategic advantage. Not trying would be worse than trying and failing. But it doesn't matter - they're not a search company, it's such a different beast. Why on earth do people expect that MSFT should have been the king of that domain I have no idea.
nojvek 8y ago
Satya is already wayyyy more succesful as a CEO than Steve Ballmer ever was. MSFT stock price took a big dip after 2000 and never recovered in Ballmer from 2000 - 2014. He was a decent CEO in the sense that he didn't kill MSFT like Marissa Mayer did to Yahoo. He missed a ton of opportunities and messed a lot of things like Nokia and Skype acquisitions that barely panned out. He let Apple and Google steal the mobile show when Windows Mobile had been the smart phone king for a long time. Microsoft used to be #1, now they are behind Apple, Amazon and Google. Granted, he was good at milking the Windows and Office cash cows that had been gifted to him from Gates era, but he spent an insane amount of money on things that never panned out. MSFT has a lot of money in the bank account so I'm sure they'll be fine even if they put a rock in the CEO seat.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No. The stock crash was really not about Ballmer, you can't blame it on him - he basically just took over as the whole world was going under. Also - Satya has not yet had any real such things to 'miss'. AI and blockchain are not products, there are no household-name dollar companies coming around on that yet. It will be some time before we can judge Satya.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Should have specified that. Other tech companies recovered better from the crash than MSFT did. Once Satya came on, it’s been a nice rise. It’s a clear cut difference. I used to work at MSFT. We all felt it. Satya thought about things very differently than Ballmer.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Ballmer massively increased MSFT's business. Revenues grew quite substantially under him. Under Satya ... not so much. Have a look here: [1] Satya is a better communicator, and he seems like a nicer guy. This is naturally going to make employees 'feel better', but really that may not be what drives the business. The stock price was obviously trailing revenues for whatever reason, maybe analysts just didn't like Ballmer, but irrespective, he massively grew the business and the reflection in stock price would have been inevitable. Jury is still out on Satya. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-revenue-since-2002/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global...
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  > like Marissa Mayer did to Yahoo Sorry to nitpick, but for some reason this comment irks me. Your comment seems to imply that yahoo was healthy, they hired Mayer, and then Yahoo died as a result. Yahoo was a sinking ship, and it would have been a tough turn around for anyone. Not that I think Mayer was the world’s best CEO or anything, but the idea that she “killed” yahoo seems absurd. It’s like accusing a surgeon of killing someone that died in ER surgery; the reason the person was in the ER in the first place was because they were dying. Microsoft dying under Ballmer would have been night and day different as Microsoft was basically the world’s most valuable company, not a clusterfuck like 2012 yahoo.

mgkimsal 8y ago

> it's like saying 'Oracle missed the search business' did Oracle spend lots of $ and resources trying to get in to search?

sonnyblarney 8y ago
If MS didn't then they would be lambasted just the same. As it stands, at least MSFT has a presence which entails at least strategic advantage. Not trying would be worse than trying and failing. But it doesn't matter - they're not a search company, it's such a different beast. Why on earth do people expect that MSFT should have been the king of that domain I have no idea.

nojvek 8y ago

Satya is already wayyyy more succesful as a CEO than Steve Ballmer ever was. MSFT stock price took a big dip after 2000 and never recovered in Ballmer from 2000 - 2014. He was a decent CEO in the sense that he didn't kill MSFT like Marissa Mayer did to Yahoo. He missed a ton of opportunities and messed a lot of things like Nokia and Skype acquisitions that barely panned out. He let Apple and Google steal the mobile show when Windows Mobile had been the smart phone king for a long time. Microsoft used to be #1, now they are behind Apple, Amazon and Google. Granted, he was good at milking the Windows and Office cash cows that had been gifted to him from Gates era, but he spent an insane amount of money on things that never panned out. MSFT has a lot of money in the bank account so I'm sure they'll be fine even if they put a rock in the CEO seat.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
No. The stock crash was really not about Ballmer, you can't blame it on him - he basically just took over as the whole world was going under. Also - Satya has not yet had any real such things to 'miss'. AI and blockchain are not products, there are no household-name dollar companies coming around on that yet. It will be some time before we can judge Satya.
- nojvek 8y ago
  Should have specified that. Other tech companies recovered better from the crash than MSFT did. Once Satya came on, it’s been a nice rise. It’s a clear cut difference. I used to work at MSFT. We all felt it. Satya thought about things very differently than Ballmer.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Ballmer massively increased MSFT's business. Revenues grew quite substantially under him. Under Satya ... not so much. Have a look here: [1] Satya is a better communicator, and he seems like a nicer guy. This is naturally going to make employees 'feel better', but really that may not be what drives the business. The stock price was obviously trailing revenues for whatever reason, maybe analysts just didn't like Ballmer, but irrespective, he massively grew the business and the reflection in stock price would have been inevitable. Jury is still out on Satya. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-revenue-since-2002/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global...
jaredklewis 8y ago
> like Marissa Mayer did to Yahoo Sorry to nitpick, but for some reason this comment irks me. Your comment seems to imply that yahoo was healthy, they hired Mayer, and then Yahoo died as a result. Yahoo was a sinking ship, and it would have been a tough turn around for anyone. Not that I think Mayer was the world’s best CEO or anything, but the idea that she “killed” yahoo seems absurd. It’s like accusing a surgeon of killing someone that died in ER surgery; the reason the person was in the ER in the first place was because they were dying. Microsoft dying under Ballmer would have been night and day different as Microsoft was basically the world’s most valuable company, not a clusterfuck like 2012 yahoo.