MS Shareholder asks why company doesn't split up

[amauk]

Thought this was interesting
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/ballmer-and-gates-heres-why-were.html

Of particular note is this bit of Ballmer's response

Divesting something only means creating a harder time competing for all relevant parties . The operating systems that are popular on clients also tend to be popular on servers. They’re all based around Linux technology. We happen to build our server business on Windows technology. It creates dis-synergy in fact to split our server and enterprise business from our client business.

[slackthumbz]

"dis-synergy" ?! methinks someone's been at the bull**** generator! (http://www.dack.com/web/********.html) :lolflag:

[amauk]

It just struck me as a really odd (and, from a "trying to quell stockholders' fears" POV, stupid) thing to say

"There's us, and there's our many competitors. We use Windows, they all use Linux."

[KiwiNZ]

Mr Balmer is correct and it baffles me as to why a shareholder would suggest such a self destructive move.

[Tristam Green]

Thought this was interesting
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/ballmer-and-gates-heres-why-were.html

Of particular note is this bit of Ballmer's response

methinks you took that quote out of context.


Divesting something only means creating a harder time competing for all relevant parties . The operating systems that are popular on clients also tend to be popular on servers. They’re (the competitors) all based around Linux technology. We happen to build our server business on Windows technology. It creates dis-synergy in fact to split our server and enterprise business from our client business.

emphasis mine.

[endotherm]

Mr Balmer is correct and it baffles me as to why a shareholder would suggest such a self destructive move.
well, it would settle the antitrust issue once and for all. basically the only way they can in fact.

that and while I am not entirely certain how they would approach the split, I do know that a majority of their departments are not hauling in cash cows. just Windows, Office, Enterprise, and Xbox. the entertainment division in particular would benefit from being separated from the rest, as there is basically no integration there, and it would allow them to set their own goals and plans.

[earthpigg]

Emphasis mine. I think he meant to say "unix technology", wich would have been an accurate statement if you consider Desktop Linux, Server Linux, OS X, iOS, Google Search, and Android to all run "unix-like" operating systems.


All of the people we compete with in devices will be in phone, PC and TV, which in our case means Xbox, windows and Windows Phones. It’s Apple, it’s Google, it’s us. Divesting something only means creating a harder time competing for all relevant parties . The operating systems that are popular on clients also tend to be popular on servers. They’re all based around Linux technology. We happen to build our server business on Windows technology. It creates dis-synergy in fact to split our server and enterprise business from our client business.

[tgalati4]

We all joke about the "Ballmer Reality Distortion Engine". But it really does run on dis-synergy.

[Tristam Green]

Emphasis mine. I think he meant to say "unix technology", wich would have been an accurate statement if you consider Desktop Linux, Server Linux, OS X, iOS, Google Search, and Android to all run "unix-like" operating systems.

Oh....so OP had out-of-context usage *and* omission of details?

Stay Classy, OP

[amauk]

Oh....so OP had out-of-context usage *and* omission of details?

Stay Classy, OPErrm, whatever
It's a direct quote from MS's CEO
If you don't like what he said there's no use complaining to me
but anyway...


I don't see how breaking the company up would be self-destructive
(Only destructive in the fact that there is no longer a big mega-corp, but now several smaller businesses)

Take MS Office,
if it were run by an independent company, it could diversify into whatever fields are deemed profitable
Be that a port to Linux, port to Android, etc.
or used as a front end to web-based services (MS Office graphical front end to, say, Drupal)

As a separate entity, it can enter markets that are currently closed to it, due to it's tight-nit relationship with an OS by the same company

Remember IBM's days as a big mega-corp?
Hamstrung by their own monoculture
The consumer PC market only took off once IBM broke up their consumer, server and hardware divisions into separate entities

[KiwiNZ]

Errm, whatever
It's a direct quote from MS's CEO
If you don't like what he said there's no use complaining to me
but anyway...


I don't see how breaking the company up would be self-destructive
(Only destructive in the fact that there is no longer a big mega-corp, but now several smaller businesses)

Take MS Office,
if it were run by an independent company, it could diversify into whatever fields are deemed profitable
Be that a port to Linux, port to Android, etc.
or used as a front end to web-based services (MS Office graphical front end to, say, Drupal)

As a separate entity, it can enter markets that are currently closed to it, due to it's tight-nit relationship with an OS by the same company

Remember IBM's days as a big mega-corp?
Hamstrung by their own monoculture
The consumer PC market only took off once IBM broke up their consumer, server and hardware divisions into separate entities

Corporate history is littered with the corpses of such break up. Go and do some searches.

Also IBM is still huge.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

Errm, whatever
It's a direct quote from MS's CEO
If you don't like what he said there's no use complaining to me
but anyway...

Yeah it's a direct quote but you failed to use reading comprehension.