>In many ways, the change is still not a bad idea, because Gates has been pretty ill-suited to the tasks of the job. I’ll say it if no one else will — he’s a terrible schmoozer of investors, is not someone who cottons to kissing up to Wall Street and, well, he’s still awkward around the niceties required in such a job. (By the way, this is the part of Gates I like!)
How often does Microsoft need to go to outside investors for money? It's obviously not in as good a position as, say, ten years ago, but the company still makes lots of money. Over the years the big problem has been Microsoft has been unable to find good places to spend all its extra cash.
Hiring an enterprise guy as CEO seems like an admission of defeat in the consumer market for Microsoft to me. Yes, Ballmer wasn't a "consumer" guy either, which is precisely why they've missed so many consumer waves already since he's been at the helm. I don't know if they can afford another "Ballmer" in the consumer space.
I think Nadella will do what "feels natural" to him, and will move Microsoft "up-market" from the consumer space, which will probably become increasingly less profitable for them, so moving "where the profits are" (i.e. not in the consumer market) will start to make a lot of sense to them.
An enterprise guy cannot be a consumer guy is a big assumption. He did well with the previous task he was assigned to - enterprise. It is not so obvious that he will be bad for microsoft's consumer business. The two areas are not mathematical disjoints.
if this means MS dominance of the consumer space is a dying legacy, I'm all for it. Let them force their outdated tech on the captive audience of enterprise while they slowly decay into a has-been company with a dwindling but servilely dependent user base.
Rather than taking the perspective of enterprise guy vs. consumer guy, Ballmer as well as most other Microsoft executives are operational guy. The notion of moving towards where the profit is, is indicative of that. They work on Wall Street agenda, lack of vision, short and mid term revenue chaser. Safe bet is not going to take Microsoft up against apple or google. But keep the boat floating, bring in profit until it's over is what these generation of Microsoft leaders are. It will not change. The demise of Microsoft is inevitable.
That was a difficult article for me to follow. I kept getting sidetracked by the feeling that it was just speculation built on speculation, and then confirmed by speculation. Besides, even if Gates did step down, I have to wonder how much influence he's actually had over the direction of Microsoft as COTB. Despite being profitable, they don't seem like they have a clear direction.
TL;DR: linkbait saying Gates would step down as Chairman and more involved in to tech and design.
I don't think so. Being involved in tech/design of these products is very consuming and Gates has made clear many times he doesn't want to work in "this space".
My bet is Ballmer is going to get in board, likely going to fight for chairman position and may even get it. He had given strong indication of this in Company Meeting 2013 video that Microsoft had released.
I think that Ballmer in board is likely improbable.
It seems to me that microsoft is trying to "refresh" itself a bit, so putting a man of the "old wave" into board would not be coerent with their actual mission.
How often does Microsoft need to go to outside investors for money? It's obviously not in as good a position as, say, ten years ago, but the company still makes lots of money. Over the years the big problem has been Microsoft has been unable to find good places to spend all its extra cash.