bigtroyjon
Member
Profits are increasing and they are buying back stock so the dividends are going to keep increasing, the price doesn't need to rise in order for the shareholders to make money.Tron 2.0 said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Beginning of the end? Steve Ballmer is being asked to step down...
- Thread starter Dreams-Visions
- Start date
- Status
outunderthestars
Banned
Korey said:
Oh God, I'd forgotten about the purchase of Danger and how little came of it.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I agree. Either way, the road will be difficult.linsivvi said:
Competition has never been more tough.
No, the scale is sensible. A $2 gain on a stock that was originally $1 is HUGE compared to a $2 gain on a stock that is $20. In the first case, a person who invested $1000 walks away with $3000. In the second, a person who invested $1000 walks away with $1100.kottila said:
On the graph, proportional changes in value are accurately reflected as linear.
travisbickle
Member
Tron 2.0 said:
?
Come on guys, I mean has any IT-based company really increased in share price since the year 2000?
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
travisbickle said:
misterchef
Neo Member
Tron 2.0 said:
Then again, it had something like $6 of dividends in these past 10 years. So although bad, it isn't AS bad as some make it out to be.
A good company != a good stock to own.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Ballmer is directly responsible for Microsoft being unable to combat Apple and Google. It's a company that didn't want to take even the smallest of risks. His worst sin is the death of the Courier, one of their last truly innovative concepts. J Allard had every right to leave that company. It doesn't help them that they have no unifying vision and often competes and sabotages itself with internal competing projects (eg Kin and Windows Mobile 7).
Meus Renaissance
Member
outunderthestars said:If he leaves does that mean that I can finally buy this?
I only time where I've felt takemymoneydammit.jpg
this is what happens when you let business men run your company. having people like bill gates and steve jobs at the top ensure the company releases quality products because they know their shit. ballmer doesnt give a shit about the product just the money it could bring in.
this is also why so many companies fail at making better phones/tablets than apple. apple products leave a lot of room for improvement yet know one can make something thats of better quality because the business side fucks things up.
this is also why so many companies fail at making better phones/tablets than apple. apple products leave a lot of room for improvement yet know one can make something thats of better quality because the business side fucks things up.
I don't think Ballmer is a good company front man from a perception level, I can't really speak to a business level. Gates and Jobs are both quite charming speakers, very different, very 'Mac vs PC' advert guys actually, but Ballmer's always come off as an asshole to me. As menial as it is, I'd like them to have a public face that doesn't make me want to punch it.
Overhauls aren't easy. They usually take place after all else fails and Microsoft isn't even close to that level. It's taken IBM something like 20 years to get back to their glory days.
Their stock is undervalued because they are compared to other companies like Apple.
They need to refocus on the net and realize that doesn't just mean Explorer upgrades. I think they should let Apple & others have the consumer markets and focus on business services like IBM does.
They would keep their popular entertainment lines like Xbox but realize that their money comes from business services who prefer stability over the latest & greatest.
He seems like a nice guy in interviews, but definitely not a influential speaker and takes a horrible picture most of the time.
Their stock is undervalued because they are compared to other companies like Apple.
They need to refocus on the net and realize that doesn't just mean Explorer upgrades. I think they should let Apple & others have the consumer markets and focus on business services like IBM does.
They would keep their popular entertainment lines like Xbox but realize that their money comes from business services who prefer stability over the latest & greatest.
To me, at least, Ballmer is a Bill Gates 2.0. He's more visionary, not less, but Gates was a visionary at the right time.StuBurns said:
He seems like a nice guy in interviews, but definitely not a influential speaker and takes a horrible picture most of the time.
Angry Fork
Member
Was going to say this. I don't like Ballmer at all but the chart comparison isn't really fair imo. We don't know if Gates would've been able to keep up this last decade either, Gates was definitely in the right place at the right time during the early 90s for things to explode and his product was the best one there for consumers.XMonkey said:
Same here. I wish they'd get someone likeable again if Gates doesn't want to come back.StuBurns said:
He wouldn't have. He paid lip service to internet but in the end was far more focused on making sure Windows, Office, & Explorer survived while at the same time ensuring other compnaies failed. He & Ballmer are the primary reasons for Microsoft backlash to begin with. Ballmer & Gates are near identical except that Ballmer is more open minded, not less.Angry Fork said:
Gates won't & shouldn't come back except as a figurehead only. Gates was the better speaker though. They need someone completely new if they are actually wanting to change image. However, there's not much reason to think they actually need to switch at all.
Jobs had the benefit of not just taking on the CEO position but Ipod, Iphone, & Ipad. They have all become the standard. Microsoft did not have the innovation or technology to come out with those to begin with- just like the rest of the companies out there. Unless there is a major leap from those standards, Microsoft will be doomed to 2nd or 3rd place (or 4th) place, meaning it's time to find a string of new CEO's. A newer version of the same smartphone/tablet/mp3 player ain't going to cut it.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
JGS said:
Gates was a competitive animal. Ballmer is not. Any choices Jobs made in the 90s were mostly right for the growth of his business. He wasn't tied to any philosophy as such other than for MS to grow. You can't honestly think that he wouldn't be cutthroat right now and ahead of the game on most matters. Gates would adapt.
Gates is not so much competitive as he is protective of his babies. Both he and Ballmer are ruthless but their hands are tied because of past monopolistic practices. Their friendlier attitude is the result of an image change already where they claim they can compete fairly.Salvor.Hardin said:
Overall they have been successful with that philosophy, just not with products that compete with Apple's hardware. This isn't surprising because NO ONE can compete with Apple. Their strategy also would automatically result in market share drops too. So the mere presence of Gates being there is not going to change their market share woes in the consumer line. They have already adapted, their products just aren't as good. I personally think they're holding their own with Google or improve against Google.
If they adopt the strategy that IBM has, which is basically sell packages of services and goods to business partners and then let Live take care of the consumer end while merely keeping a presence in the other lines they are currently in, they will be fine. They're fine now.
However, if they want to change, IBM is a good example of what it takes to survive and they deserve their fortunes (Apple too). Unlike Apple, they gave up their primary lines (Except mainframes) & name recognition to the public but are making more money than ever. Microsoft could learn from the ones they were known to school on a regular basis.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Me, either. I know what I wanted them to do with some of it, though.Staccat0 said:
I worked for a company 6 years ago that was desperately trying to get Microsoft to buy them for an outrageous premium. At the time Microsoft was buying everything in the supply chain management area because they were building out the Dynamics platform. Instead our management screwed that up and Microsoft became hostile toward us, to the point of telling other customers of ours they would halt support in other areas if they didn't drop us and use Microsoft. So I just found another job because that was the beginning of the end for that company.
I wish that would have worked out, because that would have been payday for sure. Ballmer was at the helm then and they were playing some hardball to be the leader in that market segment. But instead of innovating they were focused on buying the innovations of others. Maybe that's part of the problem with the Ballmer philosophy.
No one should be surprised by this. He doesn't understand what Apple is doing, and can't match what Google is doing. Anyone could sit in that chair and tread water for the past decade.
Ballmer's biggest mistake was letting the mobile division burn to the ground. They're still so far behind.
Ballmer's biggest mistake was letting the mobile division burn to the ground. They're still so far behind.
tycoonheart
Member
At this point Steve Jobs is a salesman too, a fantastic one at that. He makes it happen, Ballmer doesn't. MS needs someone charismatic at the helm. Ballmer always came off as a douche.alphaNoid said:
ReBurn
Gold Member
This is the realization that many companies are coming to as we come out of this latest recession. It happened where I'm working now. They stacked everything up, prioritized it, and killed off what didn't fit by eliminating the budget. They re-assigned as many people as possible to avoid big layoffs and removed people from the organization who didn't fit with the shift in philosophy.rezuth said:
That said, I'm not convinced that Ballmer should survive a re-focus like that. He's one of the reasons that Microsoft's tendrils are so long and brittle in many places.
When Ballmer took over it was right around the time Microsoft lost it's antitrust case so it is difficult to solely blame him for Microsofts "troubles". Simply put...the Microsoft way wasn't going to fly under US and European oversight and a handcuffed Microsoft was simply beat to the punch in the next eaves of growth.
Tobor said:
I am sure most companies would love to tread water like Microsoft. Tripling revenue and doubling profits at a company already raking in billions of dollars a year is nothing to scoff at.
As others have mentioned the stock graph, while shocking, is hardly informative. Around the time of the tech bubble MSFT was trading at a PE Ratio of 50! This from a company already making billions of dollars a year not a speculative investment like pets.com. It currently trades at less than 10. Earnings per share are roughly five times the 2001 level.
Maybe it would better for the company's stock price to go with a different figurehead, but I don't necessarily believe it would be better for their bottom line. The fact of the matter is that people have been predicting the demise of Microsoft for years, yet here they are stronger than ever.
I think you are confusing strong with stable.venne said:I am sure most companies would love to tread water like Microsoft. Tripling revenue and doubling profits at a company already raking in billions of dollars a year is nothing to scoff at.
As others have mentioned the stock graph, while shocking, is hardly informative. Around the time of the tech bubble MSFT was trading at a PE Ratio of 50! This from a company already making billions of dollars a year not a speculative investment like pets.com. It currently trades at less than 10. Earnings per share are roughly five times the 2001 level.
Maybe it would better for the company's stock price to go with a different figurehead, but I don't necessarily believe it would be better for their bottom line. The fact of the matter is that people have been predicting the demise of Microsoft for years, yet here they are stronger than ever.
GregLombardi
Member
PhoncipleBone
Banned
It will never happen. MS is just too big and has its hand in the corporate world. Apple may get all the press, but MS still rules with marketshare.TacticalFox88 said:
I would like to see some new blood at the top to streamline their stuff.... it seems they have a ton of good ideas (probably more than any other company) but they never actually get anywhere with those good ideas until its too late because of all the levels you have to go though.
I'd be a fan of Allard taking over.... he seems like he could be the guy to get them going again.
The funny thing is if this happens whoever they choose will probably be viewed as a winner eventually because when jobs finally gets away from apple (and it will happen in the next few yrs) I bet we see apple have a similar downturn unless they find a new steve jobs.
I'd be a fan of Allard taking over.... he seems like he could be the guy to get them going again.
The funny thing is if this happens whoever they choose will probably be viewed as a winner eventually because when jobs finally gets away from apple (and it will happen in the next few yrs) I bet we see apple have a similar downturn unless they find a new steve jobs.
Oppo
Member
I wonder if, when the history is written, people will point to the moment that Ballmer declared that the iPhone would be an abysmal failure as a major inflection point.
I think part of Microsoft's problem is that, they are really kind of the General Electric of computing, but they still want to have flashy/startup-like initiatives in many respects.
I remember my father's take on their guys in the 90s; he worked for one of the major Canadian banks as VP of net architecture. IBM was the one always joined at the hip to the banks and MS was trying to get in there. They were always described as pushy. Anyways I remember hearing a story once about one of the bank guys cracking wise over the Xbox. Something to the effect of, "so what are you guys, really? I mean what are you trying to do? You have this desktop OS, this productivity suite that you badly support, you have this Enterprise stuff you want to sell us, and you also sell this game-box toy? You think IBM is distracted like that?"
I'm really paraphrasing here and it was ages ago, but that was the gist of it. It's like they never got over the Windows 95 launch/Rolling Stone moment, and always have tried to get it back.
If I were the emBallmer I would march into that ridiculous R&D lab where they've money-locked some of the brightest minds on the planet, ostensibly to keep them from enemy hands, and ask them for a skunkworks project to redefine the home PC using Surface and Kinect, and a prototype in 9 months. But that sounds like something Steve Jobs would do so I can hardly see it. They either need to really do something new and fulfill their fantasy or diminish and recede into the West and remain Microsoft.
I think part of Microsoft's problem is that, they are really kind of the General Electric of computing, but they still want to have flashy/startup-like initiatives in many respects.
I remember my father's take on their guys in the 90s; he worked for one of the major Canadian banks as VP of net architecture. IBM was the one always joined at the hip to the banks and MS was trying to get in there. They were always described as pushy. Anyways I remember hearing a story once about one of the bank guys cracking wise over the Xbox. Something to the effect of, "so what are you guys, really? I mean what are you trying to do? You have this desktop OS, this productivity suite that you badly support, you have this Enterprise stuff you want to sell us, and you also sell this game-box toy? You think IBM is distracted like that?"
I'm really paraphrasing here and it was ages ago, but that was the gist of it. It's like they never got over the Windows 95 launch/Rolling Stone moment, and always have tried to get it back.
If I were the emBallmer I would march into that ridiculous R&D lab where they've money-locked some of the brightest minds on the planet, ostensibly to keep them from enemy hands, and ask them for a skunkworks project to redefine the home PC using Surface and Kinect, and a prototype in 9 months. But that sounds like something Steve Jobs would do so I can hardly see it. They either need to really do something new and fulfill their fantasy or diminish and recede into the West and remain Microsoft.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Blocking the monopoly behaviors have not been the problem. It's the inability to be at the forefront of emerging tech.Retrocide said:
Do you take notes with your finger? In the context of the courier, the stylus fit the bill. Shame that it got scrapped though.dc89 said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this news, hope its better for MS. Anyways, as a recent buyer of a windows phone 7 device, and seeing the upcoming mango update, i'm quite satisfied with it.
Logarithmic scale...kottila said:
Afro Thunder
Member
Tron 2.0 said:
Yeah. Anyone can download it for free!. Ohh MS. /sarcasm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked