The not so terrific reign of error of Microsoft under Steve Ballmer:


Source: WSJ

Category: Corporate Management, Digital Media, Technology

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

9 Responses to “The Ballmer Years”

  1. capitalistic says:

    Sheeesh. Crappy management. I hope they don’t hire Mullaney. They need a young mobile savvy CEO.

  2. chartist says:

    The only stock holder that benefitted from Balmer’s tenure at the helm was Balmer. Talk about a guy who produced so little but took so much. Only John Chambers of Cisco compares, imo.

  3. washunate says:

    I have been intrigued by how much of the media discussion has inadvertently implied that Ballmer and Gates are separate executives rather than members of the same team, as if the strategy changed on January 1, 2000.

    Is it an overt PR effort behind the scenes by Bill Gates to keep his name clean and stay relevant at Microsoft in a post-monopoly world? Lazy journalism looking for an easy story? Interesting both for historical purposes in the development of personal computing as well as a case study for the cognitive biases we carry around between our ears.

    The reign of error of the past decade and a half or so has been one William Gates III. Telling that story would be great journalism for the WSJ.

  4. pjmason says:

    I think showing a chart like this without mentioning Microsofts insane valuation in 2000 leaves out some pretty important information.

    • It was hardly insane compared to some of its peers!

      • hack says:

        Then why not show CSCO compared to MSFT over the same time while talking about Chambers’ stupid acquisitions and missed opportunities. Or better yet compare MSFT’s price to revenues and net income growth over the years.

        Revenues 2000 $22,956, p/s 20x; 2013 $77,849, p/s 4.3x
        Net Inc 2000 $9,421, p/e 40x; 2013 $21,863, p/e 13.3x

        That would be more informative.

        I am no cheerleader for MSFT and couldn’t care less about the company or Balmer but this chart adds nothing and seems to point toward your bias against this single company. It is contantly brought up as the poster child of shitty companies. You’d have more credibility if you gave it a rest on MSFT and showed another company as an example. There are literaly hundreds if not thousands of examples that have done much, much worse.

  5. Mike in Nola says:

    Ballmer was doing what Cook is doing: trying not to screw up a money machine. It’s the curse of being on top. Who’s gonna risk changing a game plan that is generating lots of moolah, esp. with Gates looking over his shoulder. To his credit, Ballmer did manage to double revenues over the past decade without a lot of innovation, though the market never gave the stock credit for it. Will see if Cook does as well.

  6. Yofish says:

    A nice 13 year trading channel there….