Today was a big day for Microsoft, with the Windows 8 and tablet launches, and potentially a very big day, too, for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. It had better be, because some pundits think Win8 is Ballmer’s last hurrah, that he’ll be forced to step down if the new operating system isn’t a big success. That might be true, though I have a hard time imagining who would replace Ballmer at this point and how the company would change as a result. I’m not saying there isn’t room for improvement — heck, I’m among those who have called for Ballmer to go — I’m just not sure what would be any better. More on that in a future column.
Today, rather than look to the future or even to Windows 8, I’d like to write more about Ballmer, putting his reign at Microsoft into some context.
Ballmer became Microsoft’s CEO in 2000, taking over for Bill Gates, who had run the company for the previous decade. It’ hard to imagine that Ballmer has been running Microsoft longer than Gates did but it’s true.
Back in 2001, in addition to writing this column, I was a columnist for Worth magazine — a monthly business book that lives on today in name only. The magazine failed years ago but the title was eventually sold to The Robb Report, which covers conspicuous consumption and luxury goods. So while there is a Worth published today it isn’t the one I wrote for and, interestingly, they don’t own the back issues (I checked).
In 2001 I was asked to write for Worth its cover story on the CEO of the year. Ballmer shared the award that year with — get ready for a shock — Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling. I wasn’t asked to write about Skilling, just Ballmer. Of course Skilling was out of Enron just three months later as that house of cards began to fall. Five years after that Skilling was in a minimum security federal prison in Littleton, Colorado where he remains today not due to be released until 2028.
Here’s the story I wrote about Ballmer back in 2001, which I’m fairly sure is unavailable online anywhere but right here. Remember this was 11 years ago. The Ballmer of today isn’t dramatically different from the one I describe. He’s still willing to bet big and expects to win. Note that .NET and xBox, both mentioned in this piece as important new products for Microsoft, have been just that. The big question for 2013, of course, is whether Ballmer can pull off something similar again?
“Use the picture where I look friendly!” Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer boomed to Worth design director Deanna Lowe during the photo session for this month’s cover. “When you work at Microsoft, you always try for friendly.” That could be the theme for Ballmer’s reign as head of the world’s largest software company, a role he assumed a year ago from Bill Gates, who often acted as though friendliness was not in his job description. And that’s the whole point, because it is Ballmer’s job to remake Microsoft for the post-personal computer, post-Department of Justice, post-Gates reality of the new century. But don’t be fooled by Ballmer’s legendary exuberance, because he’s a shark, too, just a shark of a different color.
Ballmer’s challenge — and what makes him a good CEO — is different from that of most other chief executives. With market share big enough to attract the attention of government anti-trust lawyers, with $10 billion in annual profits, and $27 billion in available cash, Ballmer’s job is to keep that money machine oiled and running smoothly. This is harder than one might expect. It’s not just the economic downturn or even the maturing personal computer market that presents the greatest challenge. It’s what Ballmer calls the “large number problem” — simply that it is hard to keep sales and earnings growing at 20 percent a year when a company gets to be the size of Microsoft. Yet it was exactly that kind of sustained growth that made Microsoft stock the darling of the ’90s and made Ballmer, himself, a billionaire. The challenge is finding new ways to repeat old results.
With year-on-year PC sales dropping, Microsoft can’t count on growth to be driven by traditional customers like Compaq, Gateway, and Dell. Nor are new Internet businesses the growth center that Microsoft — and almost everyone else — thought they would be. Ballmer is quietly moving out of those operations — Expedia, Citysearch and others — closing them, selling them outright, or taking partners to share risk. Even Microsoft network properties like MSN and MSNBC have to function under a new reality that means no more $400 rebates for committing to two years of MSN service. Under Ballmer, this richest of all U.S. companies is doing everything it can to save money.
Yet he’s raising salaries. Part of the new reality is that Microsoft can’t continue to count on stock options to keep its employees happy. So Ballmer is giving raises throughout the middle ranks with the goal of paying Microsoft’s 42,000 employees better than they would be at 60 percent of Microsoft’s competitors.
And Ballmer is investing heavily in two new Microsoft businesses. The first, called .Net (pronounced “dot-net”) is a tech-heavy bet that people and businesses can be convinced to essentially rent their software over the Internet if it is more powerful and easier to use. But .Net means more to Microsoft than just rent payments, since it quite intentionally requires a very Windows-centric server infrastructure that could lead to gains for Microsoft against traditional Big Iron companies like IBM. If .Net works, Microsoft will not only have more deterministic revenue, it will finally have made it past Fortune 500 desktops and into those companies’ even more lucrative computer rooms.
The second new business for Microsoft is X-Box, the company’s first-ever video game system, to be introduced later this year, going head-to-head with Sony’s PlayStation 2. X-Box, which also plays DVDs and sure looks like a PC on the inside, is Ballmer’s bet just in case the home computer as we know it today goes out of fashion. It doesn’t hurt, either, that video games are a $16 billion market that’s brand new for Microsoft and not likely to cause a stir at the Department of Justice.
Ah, the Department of Justice. One reason Ballmer probably has the top job at Microsoft is because of the DoJ. No matter what is the final outcome of the anti-trust case, Microsoft’s youth is gone, as is much of the cachet of Bill Gates, who came across in his video deposition as arrogant and evasive. In the last year dozens of Microsoft executives have found it not so much fun anymore to be in the software business and moved on. One could argue that list even includes Gates, who continues as Microsoft’s Chairman and Chief Software Architect, but Ballmer runs the company.
This rise of Steve Ballmer says as much about Gates as anything. Ballmer’s first office at Microsoft wasn’t even a desk, it was the end of a sofa in Bill’s office. He has always been subservient to Bill, and that subservience has been an important aspect of Ballmer’s success at Microsoft. When they were students at Harvard, Ballmer and Gates competed for the Putnam national mathematics prize and while neither won, Ballmer scored higher than Gates, a fact that neither man chooses to mention.
But Ballmer is much more than just a straight man to Gates. He finished Harvard (Gates didn’t) and went on for a Stanford MBA. Except for a short stint in product management at Proctor & Gamble, Ballmer has spent his entire working life at Microsoft. Over the years he has run nearly every Microsoft division including and for a decade managed what was the company’s all-important relationship with IBM. So Ballmer knows what big companies are like just as he knows Microsoft inside and out.
And Ballmer has guts, once taking an individual business risk that pales by comparison anything accomplished by Gates. In the late 1980s, when Microsoft was approaching the release of Windows 3.0 — the first version of the software to do more or less what it claimed — Ballmer borrowed almost $50 million against his Microsoft stock and anything else he owned, using the money to buy more Microsoft shares. Software tycoons don’t do things like this. They don’t buy shares in their company, they sell them. Gates has never bought a single share of Microsoft, but Ballmer did, and that $50 million grew over the following decade to more than $14 billion, earning him the CEO job he has today. Ballmer, more than any other Microsoft employee, is literally invested in his job.
Microsoft just feels different under Ballmer’s direction. Gates was focused inward on dominating by force of will the company’s thousands of programmers, a role he still performs as Chief Software Architect, instilling fear on video or by proxy. Ballmer could never do that and won’t even try, yet he gains much the same result simply by raising salaries. He’s a jock to Gates’s nerd. Ballmer’s focus goes the other direction, toward customers. And in a soft market, paying attention to customers pays off.
The feel of Microsoft may be different under Ballmer, but some things never change. Ballmer talks frequently about his wife and three young children. During one of these stories, the husky CEO referred to himself as being six feet two inches tall. Looking straight into Ballmer’s forehead I knew this couldn’t be true since I am only six feet even, so I called him on it. Then a miracle happened. Muscles popping, tendons straining, Ballmer somehow expanded his body, growing three inches on the spot. If companies reflect their CEO’s, then Microsoft is as competitive as ever.
> and made Ballmer, himself, a billionaire.
I dunno. Not that I like the guy, but why the heck does someone over fifty, who has a few thousand bales of “fuck you” money, keep coming to work every morning? Especially considering all the negative adulation is getting in the press?
Sense of duty? Trying to do, or prove, something? Intends to ascend to a higher plane? Childishly stubborn? Addicted to the role?
His pal Bill is doing his best Carnegie maneuver attempt, I get it. Ballmer, not so much.
At least Bill Gates while arrogant is competent also………..unlike Obama who is only arrogant.
Do the right thing. Vote Obama out of office.
I think you have your timelines a bit confused. Bill Gates ran Microsoft for 25 years, not 10. From Wikipedia: “They officially established Microsoft on April 4, 1975, with Gates as the CEO.”
Bill may have held that title at the beginning, but it was Paul Allen who flew to Albuquerque that year and negotiated with Ed Roberts at MiTS. Ed told me Allen was the boss. When I met BillG for the first time in 1978 I don’t think he was introduced as Microsoft’s CEO. And when I spent some serious time with him in 1987-88 I KNOW he wasn’t the CEO. Other executives were hired over time with varying degrees of success until Jon Shirley was hired from Radio Shack to be Microsoft’s CEO in 1983. Shirley stayed until 1990 and I remember interviewing him on his last day on the job. Surely Wikipedia mentioned some of this, right? It didn’t say Gates ran the show all the way from 1975 to 2000?
i agree
The real Paul Allen replying? Cool.
The real Dr John replying to the real paul allen? Awesome!
The only CEOs mentioned are Gates and Ballmer. The page for Jon Shirley says he was President and COO, not CEO.
I thought it was common knowledge that Gates set the company strategy throughout all the early years? Just because he let others handle the administrative details doesn’t mean he wasn’t in control.
When you think about some of the hot products Microsoft wished they had, I would have to suggest, Facebook, Wikipedia, a travel booking site, a news site for eyeballs and a hot search engine company and maybe a few technology sites that lead the direction of the Internet.
In 2000, Microsoft had:
MSN – face it, still more feature-rich than Facebook
Expedia – I have zero idea why they sold this
MSNBC – how did they let that unravel?
Encarta – wikipedia wasn’t even created for another year and dead by 2010.
MSN, then Live, now Bing. Finally have a competitor to Google
Rifff – content generated by music artists that was well before it’s time
Hotmail – Seriously, are they going to kill this to bring us outlook.com?
They pissed away the lead and along the way spent tens and tens of billions in development. Seriously, I mean tens of tens of billions. It would have been cheaper to save the cash and buy properties like Facebook, then what they got for the expenditure.
What do they have to show for it? A graveyard of dead ideas.
I’m not so sure that’s an accomplishment.
“MSN – face it, still more feature-rich than Facebook”
MSN and Facebook are totally different animals. MSN was an old-school pay-for-access online service with dial-in lines and paid staff to generate and organize content. Facebook is all about milking “user generated content” and 3rd party app developers in order to generate money from advertising.
“Expedia – I have zero idea why they sold this”
Too far outside of their core competencies?
“MSNBC – how did they let that unravel?”
Deals between tech companies and old-school media are just ill-fated. See also: AOL/Time-Warner, News Corp’s purchase of MySpace, NBCi, etc.
“Encarta – wikipedia wasn’t even created for another year and dead by 2010.”
Wikipedia launched in 2001. Encarta was discontinued in 2009.
“MSN, then Live, now Bing. Finally have a competitor to Google”
Just as web search is becoming less relevant, thanks to mobile apps.
“Rifff – content generated by music artists that was well before it’s time”
“Rifff,” with three “f”s? Never heard of it. Wikipedia hasn’t, either. Even a web search returns no definitive result. (Clippy says: Perhaps you meant “GarageBand”? [“That’s a *joke*, son!”])
“Hotmail – Seriously, are they going to kill this to bring us outlook.com?”
So all that spam can now come from an @outlook.com email address now, instead? Really a @hotmail.com email address has only had about the same cachet as an @aol.com email address for years now. In the end Microsoft only held Hotmail back by buying them.
In the end a single word winds up describing the fate of most of these: Disruption.
Expedia is a travel agency. They got a nice chunk of money for that.
Lun,
Rifff really did exist at one time. It featured a different music artist. Everything from Deborah Harry, Philip Glass, Mark Mothersbaugh and Sir Mixalot. It featured original interactive content like games centered around the artist. The user could modify the experience. It was the perfect showcase of how using Microsoft Technology, people could create phenomenal interactive content. It never worked out that way.
The same with MSN. Yes, it was a for-pay network, but it also had content accessible from the Internet. You could pay a subscription fee for dial-up access. It was flawed because it required Windows software to run at first and Microsoft could never get it’s head around the fact that it could have become a destination site much like Facebook. They had all the pieces, but they were too busy trying to become an AOL killer, when even then we could see the dial-up would be a dead end in a few years.
Encarta could have survived and thrived as a feature-rich, ad driven encyclopedia Web site, just like wikipedia. Except for the ad part. There was no vision to do this at Microsoft.
I would agree Microsoft held back hotmail. My point is that they’ve held back all of their properties. It’s also people’s default email address for more than a decade. To kill it off seems ridiculous. Why not keep it running and start outlook.com to become a gmail killer? It’s another example of Microsoft being unable to figure out the Internet.
Microsoft has spent tens and tens of billions to own the Internet and they mostly pissed it all away. MSN could have become what Facebook is today. Encarta could have been a big revenue generator and become how we see wikipedia today. IE should not be a joke Web browser it has been for the last 17 years. The same with a host of other properties Microsoft owned and abandoned or let their lead slip through their fingers.
It’s interesting that Microsoft was facing a “large number problem” in 2001 at $10 billion in annual profits, and $27 billion in available cash, since they were at 90%+ marketshare.
Compare Apple’s just announced *quarterly* profits of $8.2 billion (up 25% y/y), and $121.4 billion in available cash, from their computer marketshare of less than 10% and smartphone marketshare of 35% in the U.S., and less elsewhere.
And Apple’s (usually conservative) estimate for their next quarter earnings is $11.75 per diluted share, or $11.1 billion total–just for one quarter.
Yep, it’s a different world, now. Remember when “profit is all in software”? 🙂
I suppose Microsoft can be heartened by the fact that they’re nowhere near facing a “large number problem” in smartphones and tablets, today. 🙂
> He’s still willing to bet big and expects to win. Note that .NET and xBox, both mentioned in this piece as important new products for Microsoft, have been just that.
X-Box itself was owned by the Playstation 2. The X-Box 360 has done well, partially by getting out of the gate well ahead of the Playstation 3 (which has been clawing the inital lead back).
.NET has not really been a success. Have a look at the TIOBE programming index figures (https://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). .NET could be considered a success if the intent was to divert people from migrating their Visual Basic 6 stuff to platform-neutral Java (which Microsoft could not stand; after all, “On order for Microsoft to ‘win’ the customer must ‘lose’ “).
If either of those products had been produced by companies with less deep pockets they would already have disappeared off the IT scene. Because Microsoft can carry large losses for so long, and has advantages of vast marketing budgets and the unique ability to match .NET to the internals of Windows and Office then it has been able to eek out middling results with the X-Box and .NET. .NET hasn’t even surpassed Java in usage and looks like it never will (especially as computing is now getting more homogenous over time).
The money they wasted on these was supposed to prevent their customers from going elsewhere, but it turns out by focusing on these things they really missed the boat in the meantime with the massive opportunities of the Web (that they tried to cripple with half a dozen awful versions of Internet Explorer; trying to make the desktop experience better than that of the web). They also missed the massive shift to less-is-more computing experiences that Apple has lead in (first with the iPod, then the iPhone and now the iPad).
Microsoft are late to the party because they are always looking in the wrong direction. In this sense the X-Box and .NET ought to be considered for their opportunity costs (as well as their drain on the rest of the company). From this point of view I’d say that they were failures as products. The PS2 and PS3 beat their Microsoft equivalents and C#.NET lacks the massive appeal of Java’s “Write Once Run Anywhere” (which means the customer can run it on the platforms they choose – like cheap Linux farms – instead of the expensive server and tool licenses from Microsoft).
So, I disagree with the premise that the X-Box and .NET have been successes. They haven’t been failures either. Just wastes of effort and money that meant Microsoft was distracted and was eclipsed in important mind-share by Google, Apple and even Facebook.
Windows 8 is fortunate there is not a realistic alternative for most businesses but I expect consumers to turn to Google’s Android, and Apple’s iOS and Mac in increasing numbers.
In this case, .Net refers not to just the development platform, but the direction they were taking the entire Windows platform towards, which today is known as Azure. Windows 2003 was originally going to be Windows.Net Server. Everything was going to have .Net after it. That plan was killed and they ended up rebranding only the Dev Suite.
Well, Azure has been a failure as well, compared to say, Amazon Web Services. It is simply incredible that Azure had a global outage this year, and then to find out it was due to leap year date handling which is amateur stuff.
.NET itself has moved out of the limelight (as Microsoft does with all its technologies every few years, since it needs to induce change to sell people new versions of already working tools). It has been replaced by an emphasis on mobile and HTML5 technologies. .NET developers have been vocal about this shift. Sure, .NET is not going away (even crufty old COM/DCOM/OLE etc are still supported in some form) but it will no longer get the same love and focus that it used to. This is where vendor-independent or multi-vendor technologies (C,C++, Java) have some advantage, since they don’t change at the whim of a vendor (who must make change to get revenue).
This is why I think the assertion that X-Box and .NET have been successes is overstating the case. They’ve been mediocre, effective in getting Microsoft in the game, but not really effective in getting Microsoft setting the direction or taking developer ‘mindshare’.
Success is a relative thing, I suppose, but both xBox and .NET are profitable businesses for Microsoft, so while they might not be as successful as Windows or Office, it isn’t proper to call them failures, either.
okay . cool technology, but if you look at these pelopes lives, they are SO simple, that, its almost a waste of life . why would u wanna go through life with everything easy, it would be boring. its like a game filled with cheats. its fun for the first half hour, then it just gets boring and it sucks. by the time this comes to reality, there wont be people working at those jobs, it will be run by a computer. lol.
Surface is … tricky…. could be what ties everything together and the worm in the Apple… or a Total Bust.
World one: the development suite allows casual folk to be able to easily program for tablet to phone to desktop through a windows 8 environment. Everybody ports over to Windows, It has biggest app gain that will ever be seen in human history. The surface is able to interface with everything and allows desktop sharing by being next to each other. The surface allows transparent e-commerce to everything. It’s gets a set of biomarker readers (retinal reading, fingerprint, signature, reaction patterning, ekg) that make it more secure of a portal than what they have at Quantico. Hooking up surface computers allows new apps such as air hockey (and hooking up !). The ability to hook to DVD players and memory cards make it the best porn player. The next model allows taking and playing 3D (more porn) It Takes Over The World.
World 2 (sadly, more likely): Microsoft holds onto the surface so hard it breaks even gorrilla glass II (btw… corning.. up 10+% this year….3% dividends). .Net is impossible for any but the most dedicated to use. Windows 8 doesn’t help that. Security prevents anything from working on anything. Security means 50% of the memory of the surface is used up before you turn it on and it runs like a 3 toed sloth. Every product has quirks and they all seem rather Zune like. And yet, while their places in the world diminishes, for some unknowable reason, the European Union decides they only way they can support their inefficient morally and economically bankrupt Socialism is by putting taxes onto Microsoft.
The era of PC growth if over. I think Ballmer finally realizes this.
Microsoft Office on the tablet is their hope for the future.
If this ever becomes a reailty I wouldn’t want to be a part of it. People these days are already way too dependent on technology. Everyone will be overweight from lack of what we think to be everyday activities. There will also be less jobs out there, but more people. I don’t see a way for that to work.
It’s not just the economic downturn or even the maturing personal computer market that presents the greatest challenge.
The more things change…
My view of Ballmer is entirely based on Zune, and….
“Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers”
In 2001 you wrote “it is Ballmer’s job to remake Microsoft for the post-personal computer … reality of the new century.” It’s rather amusing given we now have Ballmer out there saying this isn’t the post-PC era.
You may be amused to know that Google is serving H1B recruiter ads at the top of your pages. URL goes like
http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/3d1b/2/0/%2a/x%3B244691605%3B0-0%3B0%3B33718255%3B3454-728/90%3B43472315/43490102/1%3Bu%3D%2Cidgt-11515262671_1351369195%2C12ac7a34ef8f5a8%2Cnoc%2Cax.%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/c3/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=Cw0k88kGMUK_EGIn56AH1vIDoBpbB6rsClr2t5xnAjbcBEAEg28-9F1Dn-p6OAWDJBqABrujZ_gPIAQOoAwHIA50EqgRhT9DoSg760deCH9nzySsXAxfBUZEGtIllfLEt6GR9jZUYv5Gkt1f_8e9o_DcO6m84Ze_HwvSu1-aAsDQ7snCmFyIUFHbHqJFOpzJ4U3EkAuKwz6loihQlJ8rJX92Z9FW8YqAGAw&num=1&sig=AOD64_16qJd8RPiPfqiwONVXS6hhtUEiLg&client=ca-pub-7443704194229694&adurl=https://www.corp-corp.com/js/js_signup.aspx%3Faid%3Dgoogleh1b&nm=5&nx=266&ny=59&mb=2
[…] October 27, 2012 Cringely – 11 years ago […]
Maybe Balmer should Skilling? Its called insider trading?
“In the late 1980s, when Microsoft was approaching the release of Windows 3.0 — the first version of the software to do more or less what it claimed — Ballmer borrowed almost $50 million against his Microsoft stock and anything else he owned, using the money to buy more Microsoft shares.”
Bob’s main point “And Ballmer has guts, once taking an individual business risk…” is that it was risky since the value of the stock is only obvious in hindsight. True, one could argue that anyone who invests money in his own company has insider knowledge but that’s what the legal system is for…to decide whether or not a law was broken and to what extent.
Did you wrote “Post-PC” in your article? I wonder what you meant by that at the time.
I’m not Ballmer’s biggest fan, but I have to give him cred for being friendly. I met him in the early 90s, and even though I was just a flunkie working in a hotel he let me play with his laptop for a couple minutes, the first I’d ever seen with a color screen.
With Ballmer its a kinda mixed bag of emotions, he has made MS a better company in many ways but he has also had some right clangers.
It looks like he will continue the “one good OS, one bad OS” routine, Vista was terrible, 7 was Vista on a fitness plan and 8 is just a complete mess. (that’s from a desktop point of view).
A still don’t understand why MS are enforcing desktop users to work with no start menu or allowing Metro and touch components to be switched off.
When MS force changes in their OS, people ignore that OS and 8 does a good job at ignoring its traditional users needs.
Now before anyone starts that lemon of a argument about “fear of change”, i have no problem and even enjoy learning new tech, but with Windows i just want to get my work done as quickly and stress free as possible, i don’t want to play “hunt the settings game” anymore and 8 takes that to a new level.
Ballmer has missed the point of tablets, a light OS for a light device with small apps and not dragging a thousand years of legacy crap behind it.
The “one size fits all” approach is Ballmer believing that everything is based around Windows when the tablet market has done fine with no Windows devices.
MS need big changes and when you have someone like Ballmer in charge those changes will never come as he can’t think outside Windows, he still thinks that bringing out a new OS every 3/4 years is a good idea, this time it may see him finally leaving as MS wont get away with producing another broken operating system….
Paul Thurrott has just come out with some concluding remarks about Windows 8. Although he acknowledges that not everyone will choose to upgrade, overall it was a necessary step to the future: https://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-review-part-8-verdict-144708 , concluding with “And Windows 8 was made for the future, not the past. This is exactly as it should be.”
[…] managers who are managing managers — and has for the most part lost its way. Ballmer, whom I have always liked by the way, is trying to lead like Jack Welch because he can’t lead like Bill Gates, simple as […]
[…] managers who are handling managers — and has for a many partial mislaid a way. Ballmer, whom we have always favourite by a way, is perplexing to lead like Jack Welch since he can’t lead like Bill Gates, elementary as […]