I generally hate microsoft-bashing (though a Linux user, I find it a waste of time), but this is actually insightful rather than just a "MICROSOFT SUXXORS" piece
I would describe this piece as criticizing Microsoft's management rather than criticizing Microsoft. The difference may seem subtle to people who dislike Microsoft, but while criticizing Microsoft usually means criticizing what they are trying to do (bully people, monetize other people's R&D, monopolize markets), this author is criticizing their ineffectiveness in doing it.
And he does a really good job of drilling down into detail.
oh man, i love this. microsoft is weaker than it's ever been, and it's only going to get worse. better, i mean!
i was working at be when the company went out of business, largely due to microsoft's monopolistic practices. what was left of be even won a small settlement from microsoft on just those grounds.
i wonder if this development means it's almost time for a new round of amigas, ataris, and yes, be's. that was an exciting time to be in the high-tech field, i'd love for those days to return.
This rant has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the company. It is a complaint about the under-performing stock. While I am a believer in the free market, I hardly think that the stock price is the be-all indicator. Let's face it, the stock price is a measure of the speculation of a company. As fashionable as it is to bash Microsoft, it's hard for MSFT to build speculative value. There's nothing that MSFT, with Ballmer or anyone else, can do to bring the wow-factor in this climate.
With MSFT bashing the "in" thing, the personal vendettas of the likes of Neelie Kroes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/technology/11soft.html), MSFT faces a futile battle if they want to raise the stock price. I applaud MSFT and Ballmer for not giving into Wall St. and foolishly trying to boost the stock price at all costs. I think MSFT is extremely well positioned to be an industry leader.
The other problem is that MSFT has become so diversified, that speculation is difficult since the success of any particular business unit gets diluted on the bottom line. In addition, no one seems to care or pick up on a lot of really great Microsoft successes. For instance, Microsoft’s Health Vault (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/business/10kaiser.html). You can bet that if Apple came out with a program like that, the stock price would shoot up 20% overnight.
In summary, I think MSFT is still a great company that is well positioned and I am happy to have Ballmer at the top. He is a great businessman that understands how the company operates. He certainly doesn't have the charisma and cult-following of Steve Jobs, but I don't think MSFT needs that to do well.
"I applaud MSFT and Ballmer for not giving into Wall St. and foolishly trying to boost the stock price at all costs. I think MSFT is extremely well positioned to be an industry leader."
Hello Mr. Investor? We want your money. What's that? No, you don't get any returns, we're going to become an Industry Leader.
Seriously, if they don't want to actually make money for their investors, they ought to go private. They need to buy all of the stock back from the public markets and then they can do whatever they want.
If they want to sink billions into XBox just so they can thump their chest about having a successful platform, as a private company they can do that.
If they want to release products like Zune just so they can thump their chest about being the hub of the digital media lifestyle, as a private company they can do that.
Isn't it like, the law, to increase share holder value when you're the CEO? All uncle fester has done is to increase the chair-throwings-to-earnings ratio.
