Yawn. Given iPad for Office was started before Satya was CEO, Ballmer made serious bets on mobile (yes, the WP ecosystem, but something different for MSFT), <i>AND</i> Gates was on the board, discounting Ballmer and Gates at the start of the second paragraph is ... I'll say interesting, my gut says "dumb". Both Gates and Ballmer are on the board and were likely well aware of what's up <i>and</i> Gates gave up chairmanship to help Satya on technology issues.<p>I suspect parts of Redmond are still Windows uber alles, but, Microsoft has been doing non-Windows products for 30+ years.
How can someone say that Microsoft is bleeding with a straight face? I know media likes to skew that way, but it's not like the numbers aren't available. <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/TrendedHistory/AnnualStatements.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Tre...</a>
Settled for relevance would indicate they are currently not relevant which is a mindset only accepted in a few square miles on the planet. How different would the valley view Microsoft today had they been headquartered in SV instead of Redmond?
Microsoft is hell-bent on market domination, it's just they're failing to capture emerging markets. Their attempt at creating tablets, smartphones, music players, etc have all flopped. Yet each attempt all have the traits of classic EEE.<p>Getting office on the iPad isn't an example of Microsoft fighting for relevance, it's an example of them ensuring market domination at the office.
I mentioned DR-DOS for a reason when I was discussing the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco. And yea, personally I have several things on my wishlist for Satya: <a href="http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/#comment-14856" rel="nofollow">http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/...</a>