Does Steve Ballmer quit Microsoft?

from my Hatena Bookmark

On April 29, Betsy Schiffman wrote a controversial blog post:

Schiffman begins with facts, admitting: "The investment community likes Steve Ballmer. He's competent, aggressive and occasionally crazy(.....)And although Microsoft hasn't always kept up, it has remained ridiculously profitable."
What Schiffman argues here is that Wall Street could as well give thumbs down on Ballmer.

But Wall Street loves a winner, and what happens when one of the most-feared companies in the world becomes a limp, lame underdog? Nothing good. And it usually starts with the CEO's ouster.

It is notable that Schiffman attaches importance to Microsoft's financial effort to make good quarter earnings, for its "third-quarter earnings topped Wall Street estimates." Nevertheless, Steve Ballmer has something to do with "CEO's ouster." Why?
Here's a list of Schiffman's observation:

  • Nobody really wants Vista
  • Though an early preview release in 2003 was strategically brilliant, Vista was too ambitious
  • $40-plus billion Yahoo takeover was Ballmer's mismanage from the beginning

Asserting that it is a problem of Ballmer's handling, Schiffman criticizes Microsoft-Yahoo lengthy pending talks. Why does Microsoft keep Ballmer around?

1) There isn't an obvious replacement, and 2) It's not clear that anyone could get Microsoft out of its current strategic mess. But if we were talking about any other company, Ballmer would have been kicked to the curb already -- other CEOs have gotten canned for lesser crimes.

The former reason would be true. In fact, Mary Jo Foley made a counterpart in her blog post.

There's just one problem, as Wired notes in an aside. No one's ready to step up within the company and fill Ballmer's big shoes.

A superior insight. Mary Jo Foley has been contributing to ZDNet her "All about Microsoft" posts for long. In this CNET Tech news blog, she advocates Microsoft with a clear tech vision:

Up until now, Microsoft has been a company where science mattered more than sales. Specifically, Gates valued technology more than marketing and built Microsoft to reflect his priorities. Gates' tech vision was evident through the people Microsoft hired and promoted, the projects that got funding, and the amount of commitment the company put behind various initiatives.

On the other hand, she does not abandon the Ballmer concern:

The balance of power is set to change drastically, come this summer. And while Ballmer is no technical slouch, he admits that "one of the biggest mistakes I've made over time is not wanting to nurture innovations where I either didn't get the business model or we didn't have it."

Besides, Mary Jo Foley keeps pondering in following posts.

With all the threats, promises and negotiations around the pending acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft, it’s easy to lose sight of the key driver of the deal: Increased ad inventory.

What is the increased ad inventory, then?
From my point of view, her consideration on Microsoft could be muddling through along Microsoft river. As Microsoft river runs through the hardest part in their history, tech reporters are coming to their hardest part. Struggling to find ways through the mess, Microsoft & crew got to transform, to become another online advertising agency.
For instance, Steve Ballmer told his employees in a Town Hall conference call:

We are absolutely 100% determined to build the most interesting position in the world in online advertising media and the kind of social connected social media experience.

The increased ad inventory, therefore may be considered as providing alternatives of Google Ads inventory. Google achieved its monopoly of search advertising empowered by huge amount of Silicon Valley brains. Google had to compete against Microsoft empire to become the leading online search company, because Microsoft had already achieved considerable MSN online display ads generating revenue. The (as Betsy Schiffman pointed out)"ridiculously profitable" company is not only made of its software, but also its internet property. Nevertheless, the problem is "scale."
Scale is one of the most valuable competitive power, when it comes to discussing the internet property. Google at first achieved its position of virtual no.1 search engine, by building scalable data centers of cheap cost. Then Google monetized its search. That seems the only way Google could pioneer.
To come back to increased ad inventory, Mary Jo Foley gives an suggestion:

Microsoft positioning itself to collect on next-generation ads across just about all of its consumer and small/mid-size business (SMB) product lines.

Good suggestion.
I should keep on discussing...