7 ms·

The bigger news here might be that Bill Gates has stepped down from his role as Chairman of the board! Although this has been rumored to happen for some time,

The bigger news here might be that Bill Gates has stepped down from his role as Chairman of the board! Although this has been rumored to happen for some time, its still a big "changing of the guard" step for Microsoft. Good luck to Bill in his new roll on the Board as "Founder and Technology Advisor".

fro 13y ago
A step down from chairman, but a step up in involvement. Gates says he will be "substantially increasing the time that I spend at the company."
- skywhopper 13y ago
  I hope that this is just doublespeak to reassure people who think Gates is important to Microsoft's future success. Personally, I think both Microsoft and the world would be better off if Gates stepped away completely and focussed all of his efforts on the Gates Foundation's work.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    I understood the Foundation's primary problem to be figuring out how to efficiently spend all of their money they are required to spend every year without accidentally funding Al Qaeda. Does Gates have to be around for that?
    - raverbashing 13y ago
      I don't know, but unfortunately I am very skeptical of NGOs, and charities It looks like 80% of the money goes for "management" and the rest goes to the actual people in need. Not to mention the contracted "fundraisers" that are paid poorly. (I have nothing against the fundraisers per se, they're usually college kids trying to make some money)
      - batmansbelt 13y ago
        It's true that governments are much more efficient at delivering funds than charities. It's an economy of scale. Also governments have a lot more oversight than charities do.
        moron4hire 13y ago
        That is the complete, 100% opposite of reality. Charities have tons of reporting requirements that they have to meet to demonstrate--to the government--that they aren't at least a money laundering operation, say nothing about using the funds appropriately. There is no such equivalent oversight of government bureaus.
        batmansbelt 13y ago
        You're right in a way, but wrong in a more important way. Charities can spend their money on administration, marketing, etc., such that very little can end up going to their chosen task. A government is the opposite. There are millions of people clamouring to whinge about any amount of waste in government. So you end up with governments being up to 6 times more efficient at delivering aid. The classic example is the cancer cure charities that deliver almost no research funding, while government grants are an excellent source of funding.
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        Full disclosure: my mother and my sister both work in fundraising. I've also done some freelancing for university fundraising departments. 80% is pretty good in the fundraising industry. Usually it's closer to 90%. Don't ever do one of those "text 12345 to donate to hurricane victims in the tropics" sort of thing, the returns on those are abysmal. But really, what do you expect? People doing work have to get paid. Most of the fuel in a rocket is for getting the rest of the fuel in the rocket off the ground. One of the ways that fundraising departments try to keep the costs down is to use volunteer work (i.e., a form of donation of time) and internships to do the grunt work of calling people on the phone. Nobody expects those college kids to stay in those internships for their entire careers. Usually, they're only there for the "busy season", the end of the year where people rush to get donations in to count towards their tax writeoffs. For many of the kids, it's either that or a completely unpaid internship in advertising. And government is actually a lot worse. In the US, only about 55% of your tax dollar goes towards social services. Then you have to take the admin percentage off the top of that. To beat an 80% number like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they'd have to keep overhead down to less than 64%. That's so absurdly low that I can't imagine it is possible. My comment in my original post refers to the fact that every charity in the US is required to spend a certain percentage of their endowment every year. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a HUGE endowment. They have to spend so much that they can't find enough outlets for it. They have to fund projects that aren't necessarily part of their core goals because they can't fund their core goals anymore. And the snarky comment about Al Qaeda is a commentary on the nature of Al Qaeda, they are not a single organization that operates above the board, they are themselves more of a foundation and loose conglomeration of various groups for mutual benefit. But the way our government casts it, if you help any organization that has any ties to Al Qaeda, then you are helping The Al Qaeda Man Who Is A Single Person Who 9/11 9/11 9/11. So, when you have more money then you literally know what to do with, just tossing it around makes it very easy to hit Al Qaeda.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    I think you're missing the point that Gates will be spending more time at Microsoft to lend gravitas to Nadella amongst the other Microsoft managers he beat out for the job. I imagine once they get the message and give the guy a chance to get his sea legs, Gates will back away.
    - forgotAgain 13y ago
      I agree with your assessment but I think its a negative. Nadella needs to be able to command respect on his own. If you're right in your thinking then it indicates that the board really doesn't have confidence in him.
      - michaelwww 13y ago
        It was mentioned several times he has a calm and thoughtful approach, which is 180 from Balmer. It will be interesting to see if they can all make the adjustment.
  - sbt 13y ago
    I agree, I find it difficult to see how Gates lurking around would be productive for Microsoft. A new CEO needs to establish their own direction and rapport among employees, but the mere presence of Gates could prove too much in the way of politics there. I think Bill Gates is brilliant, but if I was a major shareholder in MSFT, I would have him focus all his efforts on his foundation.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      The new CEO actually asked Gates for help, so I guess it would be cooperation more than anything.
      - hga 13y ago
        If the new CEO wants to change the culture for the better, Gates could be helpful, the Ballmer regime eliminated a lot of the failsafes Gates put into it. Without a cultural change Microsoft should end its here to now futile attempts to expand outside of its core (has the Xbox, at net, ever made the a lot of money?), put Windows and Office in maintenance mode after restoring the utility of the former for normal desktops, and mostly become a stodgy enterprise software company.
        Encosia 13y ago
        The Xbox as a foothold in the living room is huge.
        hga 13y ago
        I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking have they been able to make serious money off of it, and while I'm at it, what's the potential for the future? I assume the first generation wasn't wildly profitable due to the costs in establishing the ecosystem. The second generation's hardware execution was infamously botched; we know they took a $900 million write-down on that debacle, and can be sure there were massive additional costs in e.g. brand equity. How has it done since then?
        13y ago
mathattack 13y ago
It will be very interesting to see what this means. When he dropped the CEO title, the goal was to be more of a visionary too. An open question... What's the big thing he brings to the table? Strategic thinking? Vision? Competitiveness? Respect in the Company? All of the above? What's the best way to harness this? (Ok, that's open questionS)
- fidotron 13y ago
  The further question might be does having Bill around reduce the freedom of the actual CEO? MS clearly need a rethink, but I'm of the view it's time for Bill to walk away to give more space to the others.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Good point. It's very hard to be partially committed to either technology or running a huge firm. Mastering the internals of a huge company is a full time job. So is staying on top of technology in the marketplace. Hiring an insider does help on the first point.
r0h1n 13y ago
Kara Swisher was totally on the ball on this, both about Bill Gates stepping down as well as playing a more active role: http://recode.net/2014/01/31/heres-why-bill-gates-would-step-down-as-chairman-of-microsoft/ http://recode.net/2014/01/31/heres-why-bill-gates-would-step...
- npmanag 13y ago
  Satyas public interview with Om Malik is also interesting as he talks about the future of technology. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Hiss2EkE http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Hiss2EkE
higherpurpose 13y ago
> Good luck to Bill in his new roll on the Board as "Founder and Technology Advisor". Probably more of a honorary title than anything else. I doubt he'll be as active as Microsoft makes it seem. If anything, Microsoft would be smart to let the new CEO follow his own visions, not Gates's visions.

fro 13y ago

A step down from chairman, but a step up in involvement. Gates says he will be "substantially increasing the time that I spend at the company."

skywhopper 13y ago
I hope that this is just doublespeak to reassure people who think Gates is important to Microsoft's future success. Personally, I think both Microsoft and the world would be better off if Gates stepped away completely and focussed all of his efforts on the Gates Foundation's work.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  I understood the Foundation's primary problem to be figuring out how to efficiently spend all of their money they are required to spend every year without accidentally funding Al Qaeda. Does Gates have to be around for that?
  - raverbashing 13y ago
    I don't know, but unfortunately I am very skeptical of NGOs, and charities It looks like 80% of the money goes for "management" and the rest goes to the actual people in need. Not to mention the contracted "fundraisers" that are paid poorly. (I have nothing against the fundraisers per se, they're usually college kids trying to make some money)
    - batmansbelt 13y ago
      It's true that governments are much more efficient at delivering funds than charities. It's an economy of scale. Also governments have a lot more oversight than charities do.
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        That is the complete, 100% opposite of reality. Charities have tons of reporting requirements that they have to meet to demonstrate--to the government--that they aren't at least a money laundering operation, say nothing about using the funds appropriately. There is no such equivalent oversight of government bureaus.
        batmansbelt 13y ago
        You're right in a way, but wrong in a more important way. Charities can spend their money on administration, marketing, etc., such that very little can end up going to their chosen task. A government is the opposite. There are millions of people clamouring to whinge about any amount of waste in government. So you end up with governments being up to 6 times more efficient at delivering aid. The classic example is the cancer cure charities that deliver almost no research funding, while government grants are an excellent source of funding.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      Full disclosure: my mother and my sister both work in fundraising. I've also done some freelancing for university fundraising departments. 80% is pretty good in the fundraising industry. Usually it's closer to 90%. Don't ever do one of those "text 12345 to donate to hurricane victims in the tropics" sort of thing, the returns on those are abysmal. But really, what do you expect? People doing work have to get paid. Most of the fuel in a rocket is for getting the rest of the fuel in the rocket off the ground. One of the ways that fundraising departments try to keep the costs down is to use volunteer work (i.e., a form of donation of time) and internships to do the grunt work of calling people on the phone. Nobody expects those college kids to stay in those internships for their entire careers. Usually, they're only there for the "busy season", the end of the year where people rush to get donations in to count towards their tax writeoffs. For many of the kids, it's either that or a completely unpaid internship in advertising. And government is actually a lot worse. In the US, only about 55% of your tax dollar goes towards social services. Then you have to take the admin percentage off the top of that. To beat an 80% number like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they'd have to keep overhead down to less than 64%. That's so absurdly low that I can't imagine it is possible. My comment in my original post refers to the fact that every charity in the US is required to spend a certain percentage of their endowment every year. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a HUGE endowment. They have to spend so much that they can't find enough outlets for it. They have to fund projects that aren't necessarily part of their core goals because they can't fund their core goals anymore. And the snarky comment about Al Qaeda is a commentary on the nature of Al Qaeda, they are not a single organization that operates above the board, they are themselves more of a foundation and loose conglomeration of various groups for mutual benefit. But the way our government casts it, if you help any organization that has any ties to Al Qaeda, then you are helping The Al Qaeda Man Who Is A Single Person Who 9/11 9/11 9/11. So, when you have more money then you literally know what to do with, just tossing it around makes it very easy to hit Al Qaeda.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point that Gates will be spending more time at Microsoft to lend gravitas to Nadella amongst the other Microsoft managers he beat out for the job. I imagine once they get the message and give the guy a chance to get his sea legs, Gates will back away.
  - forgotAgain 13y ago
    I agree with your assessment but I think its a negative. Nadella needs to be able to command respect on his own. If you're right in your thinking then it indicates that the board really doesn't have confidence in him.
    - michaelwww 13y ago
      It was mentioned several times he has a calm and thoughtful approach, which is 180 from Balmer. It will be interesting to see if they can all make the adjustment.
- sbt 13y ago
  I agree, I find it difficult to see how Gates lurking around would be productive for Microsoft. A new CEO needs to establish their own direction and rapport among employees, but the mere presence of Gates could prove too much in the way of politics there. I think Bill Gates is brilliant, but if I was a major shareholder in MSFT, I would have him focus all his efforts on his foundation.
  - pmelendez 13y ago
    The new CEO actually asked Gates for help, so I guess it would be cooperation more than anything.
    - hga 13y ago
      If the new CEO wants to change the culture for the better, Gates could be helpful, the Ballmer regime eliminated a lot of the failsafes Gates put into it. Without a cultural change Microsoft should end its here to now futile attempts to expand outside of its core (has the Xbox, at net, ever made the a lot of money?), put Windows and Office in maintenance mode after restoring the utility of the former for normal desktops, and mostly become a stodgy enterprise software company.
      - Encosia 13y ago
        The Xbox as a foothold in the living room is huge.
        hga 13y ago
        I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking have they been able to make serious money off of it, and while I'm at it, what's the potential for the future? I assume the first generation wasn't wildly profitable due to the costs in establishing the ecosystem. The second generation's hardware execution was infamously botched; we know they took a $900 million write-down on that debacle, and can be sure there were massive additional costs in e.g. brand equity. How has it done since then?
        13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

It will be very interesting to see what this means. When he dropped the CEO title, the goal was to be more of a visionary too. An open question... What's the big thing he brings to the table? Strategic thinking? Vision? Competitiveness? Respect in the Company? All of the above? What's the best way to harness this? (Ok, that's open questionS)

fidotron 13y ago
The further question might be does having Bill around reduce the freedom of the actual CEO? MS clearly need a rethink, but I'm of the view it's time for Bill to walk away to give more space to the others.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Good point. It's very hard to be partially committed to either technology or running a huge firm. Mastering the internals of a huge company is a full time job. So is staying on top of technology in the marketplace. Hiring an insider does help on the first point.

r0h1n 13y ago

Kara Swisher was totally on the ball on this, both about Bill Gates stepping down as well as playing a more active role: http://recode.net/2014/01/31/heres-why-bill-gates-would-step-down-as-chairman-of-microsoft/ http://recode.net/2014/01/31/heres-why-bill-gates-would-step...

npmanag 13y ago
Satyas public interview with Om Malik is also interesting as he talks about the future of technology. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Hiss2EkE http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Hiss2EkE

higherpurpose 13y ago

> Good luck to Bill in his new roll on the Board as "Founder and Technology Advisor". Probably more of a honorary title than anything else. I doubt he'll be as active as Microsoft makes it seem. If anything, Microsoft would be smart to let the new CEO follow his own visions, not Gates's visions.