Manufacturer: Microsoft

If Microsoft was left to their own devices...

Microsoft's Financial Analyst Meeting 2013 set the stage, literally, for Steve Ballmer's last annual keynote to investors. The speech promoted Microsoft, its potential, and its unique position in the industry. He proclaims, firmly, their desire to be a devices and services company.

The explanation, however, does not befit either industry.

microsoft-ballmer-goodbye.jpg

Ballmer noted, early in the keynote, how Bing is the only notable competitor to Google Search. He wanted to make it clear, to investors, that Microsoft needs to remain in the search business to challenge Google. The implication is that Microsoft can fill the cracks where Google does not, or even cannot, and establish a business from that foothold. I agree. Proprietary products (which are not inherently bad by the way), as Google Search is, require one or more rivals to fill the overlooked or under-served niches. A legitimate business can be established from that basis.

It is the following, similar, statement which troubles me.

Ballmer later mentioned, along the same vein, how Microsoft is among the few making fundamental operating system investments. Like search, the implication is that operating systems are proprietary products which must compete against one another. This, albeit subtly, does not match their vision as a devices and services company. The point of a proprietary platform is to own the ecosystem, from end to end, and to derive your value from that control. The product is not a device; the product is not a service; the product is a platform. This makes sense to them because, from birth, they were a company which sold platforms.

A platform as a product is not a device nor is it service.

Keep reading to see what Microsoft... probably still cannot.

Steve Ballmer Resigns from Microsoft in 2014

Subject: General Tech | August 23, 2013 - 03:52 PM |
Tagged: microsoft, Steve Ballmer

The world, it feels, has been calling for this moment years running. Steve Ballmer has announced he will be stepping down from CEO position at Microsoft within the next twelve (12) months. This transition, appointing a successor and so forth, will occur within this window.

ballmerBW_web.jpg

Not saying, "next six months or, if necessary, the six thereafter" is a shame...

... because then it would be... transition... windows.

In a letter to all employees, Steve Ballmer implied his resignation was planned for the middle of his reorganization strategy. He also made a statement for the official press release:

We have embarked on a new strategy with a new organization and we have an amazing Senior Leadership Team. My original thoughts on timing would have had my retirement happen in the middle of our company’s transformation to a devices and services company. We need a CEO who will be here longer term for this new direction.

This should be demonstrably false, apart from some grandiose fluke, if his successor is any of the newly appointed division leads. It would not make sense to be placed at the head of a division, intentionally, for such a short time before becoming the new CEO; it would be too damaging to bungee-boss a whole division unless it was an unplanned decision. The other possibility would be placing candidates as division heads to groom them into lead-executive material; this, too, does not make sense as it would be a very abrupt, short, and disruptive grooming.

Then again, I am only running off logic, not business experience. Maybe I am wrong?

Speaking of selection, Bill Gates confirmed that he would be on the "succession planning committee". Other members include: John Thompson, committee chair; Steve Luczo, chairman of compensation sub-committee; Chuck Noski, chairman of audit sub-committee; and Heidrick & Struggles International Inc, a recruiting firm for executives... trust them, Struggles is their middle name. They are not only considering promotions for existing staff but also candidates from outside the company.

There will be a lot of cheering, especially in the comments, about this event... but not for me. Replacing Ballmer could be a good or a bad move for Microsoft; it could also be a good or a bad move for us, as PC users. Microsoft could become more focused on certification, even more than it currently threatens; they could also be more hostile to the open-source community.

On the other hand, they could be more open to those issues.

Cheers?

Source: Microsoft