Quote

However, he doubts Mr. Baller will do it because of internal Microsoft politics and his own increasing impotence.

IMO That sums up a lot of the troubles M$ is having. mediocre leadership and inefficient management is preventing them from producing quality products or reacting rationally to market changes.

I thought Yahoo explicitly rejected the original M$ offer because there wasn't enough $ coming from M$.

Are you crazy? If they fire Ballmer then Microsoft might actually start innovating and developing software that works. They could actually come up with something almost as good as what Apple has now, rather than a lame imitation that's four years behind.

Besides, if Ballmer goes, what is Mac Observer going to do for humor articles?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Are you crazy? If they fire Ballmer then Microsoft might actually start innovating and developing software that works. They could actually come up with something almost as good as what Apple has now, rather than a lame imitation that's four years behind.

Besides, if Ballmer goes, what is Mac Observer going to do for humor articles?

As Napoleon Bonaparte said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Of course Mr. Kedrosky is in the investment advisement racket and not the computer/software business. I, on the other hand, being an Apple stock holder consider MicroSoft a competitor.

Seriously our Guest is correct. MicroSoft is a sleeping giant that doesn't know that it is withering away, well maybe it does.

You'd pretty much have to have been in a coma to not be aware that Yahoo wanted more money; rejection of offer based on a figure that "undervalued their stock price". What's up with this hypothesizing on Kedrosky's part - is there any such thing as professional journalism these days?

Quote

geoduck wrote:
mediocre leadership and inefficient management is preventing them from producing quality products or reacting rationally to market changes.

I know everyone likes to quote Steve Jobs (I know I do), but a couple of points that I think are right on: "If you want to see what happens to a company that is run by a salesman, just look at Microsoft", and "the problem with Microsoft is that they don't bring culture to their products". 10-15 years from that 2nd quote, and that hasn't changed ONE IOTA. Ballmer's biggest problem is that his competitive response is a one-note tactic: "bully our vendors and flood the market with uninspired products, we'll win eventually by sheer weight of numbers."... which is exactly what's been going on w/ the Yahoo thing. Still, even if he were to get fired it wouldn't solve M$' problems... it would take a looooong time and a massive shift of company culture to become a real leader and trendsetter. I really don't think they can ever match Apple, on that note.

Quote

xmattingly wrote:
Still, even if he were to get fired it wouldn't solve M$' problems... it would take a looooong time and a massive shift of company culture to become a real leader and trendsetter. I really don't think they can ever match Apple, on that note.

I disagree...Leadership is a one person job. Napolean, Jobs, FDR were all persons who stepped in and changed history. IF the right person could be found, Microsoft could change quickly. I'm just not sure that right person for Microsoft exists.

Fire Ballmer? Are you kidding he has been the best thing for Apple since... well... sliced bread; and he doesn't even work for Apple! Keep him forever I say.

Aside: Napoleon was a putz, but tactically brilliant on the battlefield (a tad bit sloppy in the strategy department; witness the invasion of Russia).

Another aside:

I question Napoleon's tactical brilliance. He won by brute force and sheer numbers, smashing the French columnns into the enemy's formations and causing them to flee in panic. Only the first two ranks of the columns could fire their muskets. The men in the interior of the columns were useless cannon fodder. Just there to make sure that enough soldiers survive to reach the enemy formations.

The Brits figured this out and deployed in line abreast so that everyone was able to fire into the columns. The French columns would invariably break and flee in the face of the overwhelming rate of fire.

Brute artless force, sheer weight of numbers --sounds very Ballmerian to me.

Napoleon also had no clue at all how to fight a sea war.

I question Napoleon's tactical brilliance. He won by brute force and sheer numbers, smashing the French columnns into the enemy's formations and causing them to flee in panic. Only the first two ranks of the columns could fire their muskets. The men in the interior of the columns were useless cannon fodder. Just there to make sure that enough soldiers survive to reach the enemy formations.

The Brits figured this out and deployed in line abreast so that everyone was able to fire into the columns. The French columns would invariably break and flee in the face of the overwhelming rate of fire.

Brute artless force, sheer weight of numbers --sounds very Ballmerian to me.

Napoleon also had no clue at all how to fight a sea war.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I question Napoleon's tactical brilliance. He won by brute force and sheer numbers, smashing the French columnns into the enemy's formations and causing them to flee in panic. Only the first two ranks of the columns could fire their muskets. The men in the interior of the columns were useless cannon fodder. Just there to make sure that enough soldiers survive to reach the enemy formations.

The Brits figured this out and deployed in line abreast so that everyone was able to fire into the columns. The French columns would invariably break and flee in the face of the overwhelming rate of fire.

Brute artless force, sheer weight of numbers --sounds very Ballmerian to me.

Napoleon also had no clue at all how to fight a sea war.

I guess Wellington learned from Napoleon to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Napoleon also said "One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority." He should have taken his own advice. Which leads us back to topic; Perhaps this Yahoo coup d'état is a way for MicroSoft to change tactics, to stay viable. They are losing their operating system dominance to Apple, Linux, and others. Office can be replaced by other programs, MicroSoft needs something new and maybe I need to switch to DreamWeaver.

Quote

Play Ultimate wrote:
I'm just not sure that right person for Microsoft exists.

Sure that person exists. His name is Steve Jobs.
THAT is what Apple is going to do with all that money they have in the bank. Once M$ shares drop enough they will buy M$ out and put the Mac Business Unit in charge.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Brute artless force, sheer weight of numbers --sounds very Ballmerian to me.

Napoleon also had no clue at all how to fight a sea war.

And Ballmer seems to have no clue at all how to fight a search war.

I'm so witty, aren't I?

Keep Ballmer so Apple can keep getting farther ahead. And yes Yahoo rejected MS offer because it was under valued. Doesn't have anything to do with Ballmer except Ballmer won't offer more money. This is a GOOD thing!!! I don't want MS taking over Yahoo anyways. They will just make a mess out of Yahoo and make people PAY for it like everything else they make! I don't see anything good out of MS taking over Yahoo.

Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!Developers!