My personal opinion is that for Microsoft this is a much better solution than to hire an external CEO with an MBA and no background in software/technology. If the news are true then I wish all the luck to Mr. Nadella.
Observations:<p>⚫ This spot's proving very difficult to fill. Both in terms of finding the right person, and in getting them to accept. It's been 160 days from the initial announcement of Ballmer's retirement.<p>⚫ Given Ballmer's long-standing deficiencies and publicly-voiced dissatisfaction with his performance, this also speaks to very poor succession planning on the part of the Board. This would be they: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/bod.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/bod.aspx</a><p>⚫ Enterprise + cloud is probably a safe pick for now. It suggests a de-emphasis of consumer and mobile, and a retrenchment to core strengths, if not enduring ones.<p>⚫ I'm not sold that bringing in external talent solves problems that insiders can't tackle. The insiders will be well aware of strengths and weaknesses, the challenge is in acting on them given existing internal relationships and politics.
I think an interesting side effect of this; his vacating of the Cloud/Enterprise role provides a natural succession up the chain for Scott Guthrie. It also gives Scott (who has more of an effect on the Microsoft dev community than any other person) a direct pipeline and solid personal relationship with the CEO.
As I said 50 days ago[1] Nadella was always the most likely internal candidate. It's a choice that makes some sense to me - he's a technologist, which I think is important (note that at some point the Ford CEO was tipped). However, his background is all in Enterprise software.<p>Microsoft's most successful products recently have all been in the Enterprise field, so that reflects well on him. But there have to be questions about his experience with consumer software.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871957" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871957</a>
Background != Direction<p>All this banter about it being a bad choice or a good choice because Satya's current role is enterprise focused is just goofy. Had Elop been chosen we would not be acting as if Microsoft is only a phone company now and is abandoning the enterprise.
All the talk of needing a turn around specialist, I personally don't see it. Really, a visionary or someone who can actually come up with a constructive, actionable plan that grows market share (in realm of focus) and revenues makes sense to me. I would like someone less steeped in the monoculture that is Redmond, but Satya will be a solid choice. Tony Bates would be my preference for "internal candidate".<p>Of course these are just my personal opinions.<p>If Bill Gates is removed as Chairman that will be a major change.
The selection of an internal post IPO candidate makes the most cultural sense. If Sinofsky had not incurred a billion dollar fine by failing to include browser choice in the EU version of Windows 8, it might have been him.
Amid suspicions that Microsoft is having trouble finding the perfect person to fill this role, Satya makes sense. I've always thought of him as an incredibly talented administrator rather than a brilliant general. He's a known person within Microsoft who can be a caretaker for the organization while the hunt for a CEO who can lead the next charge can continue.
Nadella is a perfect fit for MSFT CEO.<p>MSFT's power and potential is in everything enterprise and Nadella understands this (or rather passionate about this) universe from top to bottom better than any other candidate.
Big mistake IMO. I can't imagine Satya "the enterprise guy" being CEO of the devices company (he's probably qualified to be CEO for the "services" part of Microsoft). I'm wondering if him and Elop would work as co-CEOs, but history shows that's not a good idea either.
Satya is no Steve Jobs or Larry Page. He is typical corporate ladder climber who took 22 years in the company to get to where he is. Before you credit with all the profits in server & tools, make a note that he was in Bing and did not had any major impact in direction or turnaround. Microsoft divisions are setup in such a way that if you put a monkey on the top (or even Steve Ballmer, for that matter) for a year or two, it will still make same amount of profits because of licensing deals. Satya also hasn't brought anything dramatic or revolutionary in his current job. Azure is still irrelevant and Dev Tools still has little impact on Windows or vice versa.<p>So Satya would be your choice if you want "stability", no fear of any dramatic changes and "easy as she goes" attitude. Honestly that is the least what Microsoft needs right now. Microsoft is currently pretty much in same situation as Apple was when Steve Jobs arrived. I know, I know, I see you jumping off your chairs quoting last quarterly results and telling me it is far from bankruptcy like was Apple. <i>But</i> have noticed a chart of PC sales for last 3 years? Have you noticed a giant slump in Office that is only matter of time to eat away the growth in server and tools?<p>In any case, I really think Micosoft needs a bold bet, not someone conservative. It needs someone who would come in and say, this size of 100K employees is bullshit, who has courage to remove about 60% of crud that has been accumulated in form of MBAs, PMs, "Business Managers", GMs and their 13+ levels of hierarchy. Someone who would have balls to say managers are overhead, less important and there needs to be 30 reports per manager (instead of current 3-7). Someone who can personally deeply dive in to products and send out "30 things to fix and improve" every Friday night. Someone who will go to end of the Earth to get the best talent in industry. Someone who insist on best customer experience and signs off his/her name on each product release saying that he personally has tested and used every customer facing aspect of the product and is happy with it. Someone who would never let crapeware like Windows 8 get through the door. Someone who insist on same OS for Phone and Tablets. Someone who would not hesitate to move org charts if things don't work out as intended.<p>As far as I'm aware Satya is neither of these. He is your regular MBA with tech experience who can keep the ship steady in good weather.
That's disappointing. I was really hoping that it would be someone external to the company who would be visionary enough to take them to new heights. Instead, they're picking the safe, enterprise bet, who won't change things too much.<p>I would say Microsoft's consumer facing days are numbered.
His twitter seems to suggest he really is into keeping up with the latest trends. <a href="https://twitter.com/satyanadella" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/satyanadella</a> The article states there was a 5 month search. I'm glad they are hiring within the ranks.
On topic:
I do not think this guy (or any CEO) of Microsoft is going to be able drive Microsoft in any true sense of the word. Gates is not going anywhere.<p>Off topic:
I might be the only one who came in here excitedly expecting to see a Female CEO of Microsoft. Kind of disappointed when I saw the picture and it's just another balding dude.<p>No I'm not female or a feminist, just kind of excited for drastic progressive change that I personally favor (I think more girls should be in tech, especially in leadership)
This won't end well. Microsoft is a bubble with an echo-chamber internally. Their employees are in the 1990s era, which is making DVD application software (Word, etc.). The problem is that they still think that way. Senior managers are from the 1990s. Or they hired from colleges and sheep dipped people in the same thinking. People from startups and industry don't last long there, and definitely don't rise in management.<p>The reason startup or industry people don't rise in Microsoft is that they are rejected as not matching the 1990s way of doing things.<p>Examples: Their UI innovation was in WPF because someone forgot to tell them that UI dev now happens on web pages and iPhone. Hotmail is a joke. MSN is a joke. Web hosted office 365 is a joke. Exchange web UI and client main usage is for 1990s customers and not 2010 customers. C# is charging in the opposite direction of the entire webapp industry's development platforms. (aka, they were late to MVC, Hadoop, Linux server hosting, etc.) They push Windows OS lock-in to win (but that fails).<p>The right leader comes from Silicon Valley in a startup gone big. That right leader will then replace many of the other leaders in MSFT with Silicon Valley highly strategic leaders. When the CEO is a Microsoft person, they will keep the same Microsoft 1990s style internal leaders and nothing will change in the category of what needs to change.
The biggest priority for new CEO is to get the two major divisions OS and Devs on the same page instead of bickering and reinventing the UI several times over from other groups. Secondly, he needs to put focus on UI design and usability instead of having engineering lead the way.
From one former Milwaukeean to another, I hope this kicks more recruiters to the area. With three major universities in the city, there was a dismal number of national recruiters dropping by when I lived there (about a decade ago now, maybe things are different).