the question is will a new Ceo really do any good?
The Answer Please if at all Possible
Well, Microsoft is facing some strange times. According to people I've spoken with, a big part of the Windows 8 paradigm is to get as many users as possible locked into the Windows app store and Windows services. At the same time MS would like to be first to unify a touch-based mobile platform with a desktop platform (that was the Metro-or-bust push).
So the new CEO faces a primary dilemma there: Microsoft's operating system userbase is primarily desktop, and many professional users rely on full-on applications like AutoCad and Photoshop, while PC gamers go full-screen with processor-intensive programs. Both groups will tend not to use the Metro GUI.
The move to cloud services -- Windows Azure, OneDrive, etc -- may be retarded by the continuing revelations about data insecurity online. (The new CEO comes from the cloud services division, I believe.) I don't know how that's playing out in boardrooms -- if Corporate is saying, "Wait on the cloud storage, keep stuff on our own servers until we know whether our business plans and R&D docs are really secure out there or not." Maybe most businesses are OK with current encryption and storage.
As far as breaking into tablets and phones, MS has a big problem. Historically, an effective market break-in occurs when a dominant company focuses on high-end, high-profit units, and allows a start-up to out-compete them in low-end, low-profit units. Think of Toyota marketing the Corona in the USA -- it was a shoebox on wheels with caged squirrels under the hood, and Detroit big iron laughed and let Toyota have the low end. Now Toyota owns a big chunk of the market, and -- as Lexus -- sells to the luxury market.
The problem with phones and tablets is, while Apple has the high end, there are now a LOT of low-end units that run Android. So there's no easy break-in spot for Microsoft. (Or Canonical, for that matter.)
I don't think a new CEO will change the basic market structure there!
So would I buy stock? No. MS stock has been pretty stagnant as far as growth is concerned. I think that won't change.
Last edited by Don_Stahl; February 5th, 2014 at 04:02 PM.
"Gates said he would step down as chairman to assume a new role on the board as founder and technology adviser..."
Given that Gates famously poo-poo'd the Internet, I'm not sure he's the right guy as "technology adviser". Gates has always struck me as a one-trick pony. Seems he ought to remain focused on condoms. And then there's this:
"In a note to investors, analysts at FBR Capital Markets said the appointment of Nadella was a "safe pick" compared to choosing an outsider. Microsoft was among the first to innovate in areas like smartphones, tablets and cloud services. But it has seen those ideas better executed by rivals including Apple and Amazon, the note said."
I bought stock when Ballmer announced his retirement. Nadella doesn't inspire confidence.
Linux: You reap what you tweak.
Yeah, I agree with "more money than God... they'll make the market." If they have the ability to make the "killer app" move then they've certainly got the money to back it. In phones, I think the "killer app" would be just what Canonical is chasing: a phone that plugs into screen and keyboard hardware and becomes a PC. But MS is primarily a software company. The phone concept takes special hardware.
Microsoft now owns NokiaBut MS is primarily a software company.
It is a smart move for Microsoft not to bring in an outsider. Nokia did that and brought in an ex-Microsoft man as CEO and now he is back in Microsoft and he brought Nokia with him.
Imagine what would happen if Mark Shuttleworth became CEO of Microsoft!
It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530
Windu! I like it.
Bill Gates isn't the Chairman of the Board anymore either I read somewhere.. I'm wondering though how that's going to work. A simple title change isn't going to do much, I can't imagine how much weight he still pulls at Microsoft. He is a co-founder after all. It's the same story with Ballmer, he still holds his seat on the board. It almost seems like a lateral move. The ole' boys network still have the strategic vision firmly in control, just another insider running the day to day. Am I misinformed about something?
Apparently if you want to be Microsoft's CEO, one of the terms is that you have to be bald