Comments on: Microsoft A.B. (After Bill)

Microsoft has a huge problem: Steve Ballmer. He's shrewd and intelligent, but he's so obsessed with the past that he's bound to miss the train to future opportunities.

[zarrik]

Ballmer is a liability to the company. I think with Gates out of the picture, Ballmer's days are numbered.

[john55440]

Intel "snubbed" Windows XP too, so their Vista move doesn't mean anything. Ed Bott of ZDNet has an interesting blog on the subject. On the consumer side, Vista-preinstalled dominates the market. It's silly to call it a failure.

[Penguinisto]

The only reason Vista even exists in the OEM market is by contract and the razor-thin margins that OEM's live on. Even still, Dell (and HP in the enterprise space) are well on their way to cracking that one.

[shmooth2]

why does cnet never remember me? is this rocket science?

in other news, how many times does Gates get to retire?

and thank goodness someone is finally calling for Ballmer to quit. he's run what's left of that company into the ground. let's see if Techcrunch has the guts to do an about face and call for firing Microsoft's execs instead of Yahoo's execs.

[TheManInDboX]

HMMM... Microsoft, Lets see, Xbox360 had a mass recall for hardware failure, Vista doesnt like hardware, Windows mobile is about as stable as a "one legged ice skater"... Balmer, cancelled XP support, and sales, which puts them in some serious trouble as to mac and Linux are both increasing sales and stability. "Windows 7" doesnt look promissing for the hardware compatibility either. 2k8 should be stripped down and packaged as an OS for desktops... but that would mean balmer would need to admit that Vista is worse then ME... Yeah i would think MS is in need of some new "fresh" talent to run its company, as balmer is wrecking what Gates built....

[Penguinisto]

The funny thi9ng is, I seriously do not think that Microsoft can compete with what's coming. Ballmer is chasing Google instead of coming up with innovative ways to compete against it (see also his lust to own Yahoo). In the 1990's, consumers and businesses alike perceived all of the exciting and attention-getting news as coming out of Redmond. Nowadays, that is certainly not the case, as the public sees all of the excitement coming from nearly every other quarter, while Microsoft is moribund and floundering, in spite of (or IMHO because of) their size and power. five years ago, Microsoft had the chance to take the lead - instead they handed the opportunity to Google, Linux, and Apple. Apparently Microsoft was too busy throwing up barriers to their competition, when they should have been busy advancing the state of computing in ways that would have made their competition irrelevant. Their blinkered view meant that they lost sight of what it is that made them money in the first place. Instead of being proactive, they became reactive. Zune is a reaction to the iPod. OOXML is a reaction to ODF. Vista is a reaction to a whole massive host of internal failures. "Shared Source" is a reaction to the strength and nearly-unstoppable power of the Open Source Movement. Looking to buy Yahoo is a reaction to Google. Even Office 2007 is a reaction to the fact that office app suites have become mere commodities. If Microsoft expects to survive, they'd best be getting on with shifting towards proactivity... even a pile of money as large as theirs will only last but so long on a reactionistic mindset... If they need a parallel, they can look to IBM and Apple. These two corporations learned from their failures. They managed to shift their entire corporate outlook from a defensive and embattled bunker mentality into a force that is proactive and innovative. IBM got to survive. Apple got to survive. Both are thriving. Microsoft may not do either.