4 ms·

From my recollection, Ballmer continually overpaid for random acquisitions that screamed “in the moment hot thing” versus well-thought, strategic. From an outsi

From my recollection, Ballmer continually overpaid for random acquisitions that screamed “in the moment hot thing” versus well-thought, strategic. From an outsiders view, the whole we must take over the world syndrome manifested into trying to buy a way into everything that could be big versus fit well with Microsoft.

jariel 7y ago
You mean like Google's $3.2 B acquisition of Nest, which has nothing to do with their core offer and is losing money? Or FitBit, another money losing entity for $2B? Or Alphalbet's other substantial moonshot investments none of which have panned out? They're all 'strategic' but that's what all bad investments are pinned as. I think your statement might be driven by narrative (which is my point about Ballmer's public perception) because if you have a look at the acquisitions, I don't think MS comes out looking bad at all next to G. Have a look at G's acquisitions [1] , and MS [2] MSFT looks actually a little more tame by the numbers. Satya will have to do much more than amp up all the products and services that Gates and Ballmer launched in order to keep the reputation he has right now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
- pmart123 7y ago
  I completely agree on Alphabet as of late. Maybe they can justify having a hardware division for phones as a necessary cost center in order to facilitate R&D developments for Android. I’d even give Veerily the benefit of the doubt as it seems to relate to cloud offerings for healthcare. Ballmer’s Microsoft era was similar to Google from 2014 onward.

4 ms·

From my recollection, Ballmer continually overpaid for random acquisitions that screamed “in the moment hot thing” versus well-thought, strategic. From an outsi

by pmart123 7y ago

jariel 7y ago
You mean like Google's $3.2 B acquisition of Nest, which has nothing to do with their core offer and is losing money? Or FitBit, another money losing entity for $2B? Or Alphalbet's other substantial moonshot investments none of which have panned out? They're all 'strategic' but that's what all bad investments are pinned as. I think your statement might be driven by narrative (which is my point about Ballmer's public perception) because if you have a look at the acquisitions, I don't think MS comes out looking bad at all next to G. Have a look at G's acquisitions [1] , and MS [2] MSFT looks actually a little more tame by the numbers. Satya will have to do much more than amp up all the products and services that Gates and Ballmer launched in order to keep the reputation he has right now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
- pmart123 7y ago
  I completely agree on Alphabet as of late. Maybe they can justify having a hardware division for phones as a necessary cost center in order to facilitate R&D developments for Android. I’d even give Veerily the benefit of the doubt as it seems to relate to cloud offerings for healthcare. Ballmer’s Microsoft era was similar to Google from 2014 onward.