The head of Microsoft resigns. Optimistic version of the article
Today, Steve Ballmer announced that he will leave Microsoft within 12 months as soon as the board of shareholders finds and approves a new successor.
This step is part of a global reorganization within Microsoft.
')
It's funny to read the angry comments of some users who shout in every corner that Ballmer ruined the empire created by Bill Gates in the 2000s; Thank God that he is finally leaving, things will go uphill after him, etc. But is it?
Recall, Steve Ballmer is one of the good friends of Microsoft founder: Bill Gates (it is possible that after his resignation, Gates watched and managed the affairs within the company, communicating with Ballmer)
During his reign, Steve Ballmer was able to radically change the course of Microsoft, which many considered to be a cumbersome managerial body fat that was not capable of surprising the market. (just like Nokia at the time: habrahabr.ru/post/171325/)
Nevertheless, Ballmer was able to feel the market trends and gave the green light to the reorganization of the company.
What am I talking about? For an example, you should not go far. Recall the same Windows Mobile 6.x, which by 2007 could not already compete with products on the market because of its ancient architecture. To the credit of Ballmer and Microsoft, instead of releasing the unsuccessful product they had been working on for so long, they decided to stop and start anew. Thus, the world saw Windows Phone, the interface of which was much ahead of its time. You can discuss the minuses of the system itself for a long time, but the interface, as the basis of user interaction, has already cost a lot.
At the time of launch in 2010, the austere minimalism of Metro went beyond the usual, against the background of skeorphic (the term “skeomorphism” can be found here ) brilliant iOS and Android interfaces. It is now, in 2013, the whole industry is moving towards FLAT and minimalism. Then it was a risky move. Any other manager could calmly discard Metro and launch a product that looks like solutions from other manufacturers, so without anticipating changes in the market in a couple of years.
Later, when Ballmer also underwent a complete rebranding of Microsoft. From the conservative "old man" of the 2000s, the company was transformed into a completely different format. This video best describes it:
Following this, the unification of all products of different divisions of Microsoft began. So that they can interact with each other. You can kick Windows 8 - but this is a very good base for further development. Nobody says that Windows 8 is exactly what Microsoft imagines in the concept of combining all its products. There is still a lot of work ahead, but time is needed for everything. The App Store for the iPhone did not immediately appear either. At first, the iPhone was nothing more than a beautiful phone with a couple of pre-installed applications and without the Copy / Paste, MMS, 3G and other functions. While resources, time was enough only for this . But no one says that this is what the company seeks. Work full boils.
If such metamorphoses occurred inside a small company, then this would not surprise anyone. But when it comes to the “software giant,” with more than 80,000 developers at headquarters, whose products are used by billions of people, this is another case.
In my memory, few companies have managed to remain relevant in the face of radical changes in the market. Recall at least KODAK, Polaroid, Philips. At one time they were industry leaders, innovators, but the blindness of the leadership, which did not see the obvious, did not want to change and go ahead of its time led to the collapse of these corporations.
Now, it is worth considering whether Ballmer had a negative influence on the development of Microsoft during its reign? And what is the probability that, under a different scenario, we would have forgotten about Microsoft long ago, as it happened with Kodak?
This step is part of a global reorganization within Microsoft.
')
“Time is never ideal for such changes, but now it is suitable for them. We have already begun to implement a new organizational strategy, and we have an excellent team of top managers. ”Quotes Ballmer RBC.
â–Ś Now, actually what the topic was written for. Droplet imho and facts.
It's funny to read the angry comments of some users who shout in every corner that Ballmer ruined the empire created by Bill Gates in the 2000s; Thank God that he is finally leaving, things will go uphill after him, etc. But is it?
Recall, Steve Ballmer is one of the good friends of Microsoft founder: Bill Gates (it is possible that after his resignation, Gates watched and managed the affairs within the company, communicating with Ballmer)
During his reign, Steve Ballmer was able to radically change the course of Microsoft, which many considered to be a cumbersome managerial body fat that was not capable of surprising the market. (just like Nokia at the time: habrahabr.ru/post/171325/)
Nevertheless, Ballmer was able to feel the market trends and gave the green light to the reorganization of the company.
What am I talking about? For an example, you should not go far. Recall the same Windows Mobile 6.x, which by 2007 could not already compete with products on the market because of its ancient architecture. To the credit of Ballmer and Microsoft, instead of releasing the unsuccessful product they had been working on for so long, they decided to stop and start anew. Thus, the world saw Windows Phone, the interface of which was much ahead of its time. You can discuss the minuses of the system itself for a long time, but the interface, as the basis of user interaction, has already cost a lot.
At the time of launch in 2010, the austere minimalism of Metro went beyond the usual, against the background of skeorphic (the term “skeomorphism” can be found here ) brilliant iOS and Android interfaces. It is now, in 2013, the whole industry is moving towards FLAT and minimalism. Then it was a risky move. Any other manager could calmly discard Metro and launch a product that looks like solutions from other manufacturers, so without anticipating changes in the market in a couple of years.
Later, when Ballmer also underwent a complete rebranding of Microsoft. From the conservative "old man" of the 2000s, the company was transformed into a completely different format. This video best describes it:
Following this, the unification of all products of different divisions of Microsoft began. So that they can interact with each other. You can kick Windows 8 - but this is a very good base for further development. Nobody says that Windows 8 is exactly what Microsoft imagines in the concept of combining all its products. There is still a lot of work ahead, but time is needed for everything. The App Store for the iPhone did not immediately appear either. At first, the iPhone was nothing more than a beautiful phone with a couple of pre-installed applications and without the Copy / Paste, MMS, 3G and other functions. While resources, time was enough only for this . But no one says that this is what the company seeks. Work full boils.
If such metamorphoses occurred inside a small company, then this would not surprise anyone. But when it comes to the “software giant,” with more than 80,000 developers at headquarters, whose products are used by billions of people, this is another case.
In my memory, few companies have managed to remain relevant in the face of radical changes in the market. Recall at least KODAK, Polaroid, Philips. At one time they were industry leaders, innovators, but the blindness of the leadership, which did not see the obvious, did not want to change and go ahead of its time led to the collapse of these corporations.
Now, it is worth considering whether Ballmer had a negative influence on the development of Microsoft during its reign? And what is the probability that, under a different scenario, we would have forgotten about Microsoft long ago, as it happened with Kodak?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/191202/
All Articles