I can't believe that the article doesn't contain the slightest mention of any of the numerous disasters that took place under Ballmer's leadership. The writer makes it sound like Ballmer's only fault was that he was only a little too slow to change the company. In reality Microsoft lost billions due to tactical business errors like the Surface, Xbox hardware failures, Windows Phone, and the Zune.
It's refreshing to see Ballmer's attitude towards Microsoft: he's willing to do whatever's in the best interests of the company, even if he personally would prefer to stay around longer (and make more money in so doing). How many professional CEOs can you say the same of? How many people who worked their way up the rungs of leadership would voluntarily step aside, thinking they weren't the right person for the job?
The thought of the CEO of Ford taking over Microsoft just seems crazy to me.<p>I'm sure he's a competent manager, as Balmer seemed to be, but is he a tech visionary?
The larger the company and its existing revenue streams, the greater the resistance to any significant change. Even with Ballmer out, this law of corporate inertia still holds.<p>As entrepreneurs, the above is actually good news - it's why we have a decent chance of blowing past the incumbent.
Regardless of what some may say about him, spending 30+ years at a company and serving as CEO of your remaining years shows the trust that Steve had. Similar to when Bill Gates left, it will be a sad day when Ballmer is not around.
"The Ballmer Years" stock price graph is extremely misleading because the number of outstanding shares has changed. If they want to track Ballmer' performance they should graph market cap.
"Steve was a phenomenal leader who racked up profits and market share in the commercial business, but the new CEO must innovate in areas Steve missed—phone, tablet, Internet services, even wearables."<p>Why does MS insist it has to be everywhere there's any money to be made? Apple is happy being a phone/tablet company, Google is the Internet gig, but MS has to have a finger in every pie, right?
My question is what's next for Steve? Being Bill's bulldog has been pretty much a lifelong career for him. In his place I don't know that I'd be happy anywhere else; I might decide to enjoy the huge sacks of cash money I'd made and spend more time with my kids.
To me Ballmer = Cook where Bill = Steve. Cook is taking over a company dominant in it's markets. It's raking in huge sums of cash selling legacy products. There's no sign that Cook can ensure Apple makes the leap to the next big thing. Indeed, coming up through Apple he's probably not the right guy just as Ballmer is now realizing his deeply engrained MSFT strains makes him not the right guy for a new environment.