Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Computers' started by mattCR, Aug 23, 2013.
Big news out of MS this morning
Could be good, could be horrible.
Product wise I think Microsoft has suffered under Ballmer.
But from a corporate perspective there was nobody better to run the show than Ballmer during the packaged goods sales days of MS. I don't get a good feel for him being savvy enough in the digital realm yet tho. Someone could turn that around and make MS's sales outlets better even than Apple's.
They need someone with a head for:
LESS and not MORE
That's a tough bill to fill and those are not Microsoft's current strengths or focuses. I'd go external.
Who'd be on your short list?
I bet Jon Rubenstein is tan rested and ready! Ooh, bring Nathan Myrvold back! =)
In the John Grisham version, its Elop. MS exec, loyal to company goes to crucial supplier as savior. But he instead destroys them from within. Sells it to ms for a pittance. Returns as conquering hero. Ascends to rightful place as president.
I think people love this conspiracy, but Nokias market share was falling bad before he got there, to the point the originally thought they were going to close divisions. The influx of cash pretty well stopped that, and while it seems like pittance to the heyday, selling just the cellular division and keeping all other divisions (mapping, and European software services) works out well for both.
It's a fascinating conspiracy, tying up the basic scenario is a Hollywood, blockbuster story. And the whole thing does have does seem askew, with the Elop connection. I mean, if it was anyone else, from any other company that took over Nokia, brought it to its final doom, and sold it off to MS, there wouldn't be this idea.
The other thing I like about the story is it actually ties into the notion that these executives are actually reallly smart, savvy, and capable of complex scheming. Because it often seems like they're overpaid schmoes doing a re-org every five years hoping to stumble into some success. This sort of perverse tactical genius would seem the sort of wicked brilliance one should have to be CEO of MS.
But it is, almost certainly, complete nonsense. I don't really understand what the benefit would be for MS to buy a dying cellphone maker that was already making them the best phones possible. This outcome doesn't seem in MS's best interests, versus Windows Phone being a smash hit, capable of sustaining both Nokia and MS as independent companies.
What this points out is that Android completely disrupted the market for software licensing in mobile. Apple is fine since they're really selling hardware. But how in the world is MS going to sell licenses for Windows Phone when all the OEMs can get the much more popular Android OS for free? They don't even have to join Google's consortium for this -- anyone can go ahead and fork their own version.
If MS is going to keep Windows Phone viable (and really,with the way things are going, they have to), they need to sell it as hardware like Apple.
The plot thickens...http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-admits-giving-misleading-information-about-elops-compensation/