backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on May 31 at 12:05 PM


Some top investors and former employees are calling for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's resignation.   (Source: Reuters)

IBM on Tuesday past Microsoft in market cap for the first time in decades. Some perceive Microsoft as a "dying" brand.  (Source: Silicon Angle)
No more "Developers, developers, developers"? Top investors demand Ballmer step down

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) Chief Executive Steve Ballmer has always had his critics.  His hard-nosed style of management offended some, as did his colorful personality.  But criticism of the CEO, who replaced Bill Gates in 2000 for the position, has been mounting of late as the company has struggled in certain sectors -- like smartphones and tablets -- and made questionable decisions, as well -- like purchasing video messaging service Skype at nearly twice its market valuation.

At a financial summit -- the Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference -- in New York on Wednesday, David Einhorn, an influential hedge fund star and manager of a fund at Greenlight Capital, delivered harsh words for Microsoft's boisterous chief.

He commented, "[G]ive someone else a chance.   His [Ballmer's] continued presence is the biggest overhang on Microsoft's stock."

Mr. Einhorn has vested interest in the company's success.  He recently executed a large purchase of the company's stock.  His firm now owns 9 million shares, or about 0.11 percent of the company's total shares.

While some properties like the Xbox console and the Windows 7 operating system have been well received and sold great, investors have largely focused on the company's misses.  CNN Money last year carried a scathing editorial in which it suggested that Microsoft was "dying".

With stock worth under 10 times the company's earnings, Microsoft shares are considered undervalued.  But not everyone is purchasing due to the cloud of doubts hanging over the company.

Last year Microsoft was notably passed in market cap by a familiar old foe -- Apple, Inc. (AAPL).  While many jeered at this news, Apple has since somewhat silenced critics by passing Microsoft on quarterly profits.  On Tuesday further concerns were raised when lumbering old giant International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) passed Microsoft in market cap for the first time in decades.

After years on top of the tech industry in stock, revenue, and profits, Microsoft is finding itself fading from the race.  Does that require a major leadership shift?  Some argue that it does.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By inperfectdarkness on 5/26/2011 7:44:55 PM , Rating: -1
sorry, but i must object here--even at the risk of being downrated to -50.

quote:
Maybe Microsoft was a little slow at getting into these markets, but look how late into the game XBOX came and now look at its position in the Market. Nothing monopolistic, greedy, dirty, slimy, or anything else was used to get there either.


wrong. so dead wrong. microsoft threw MILLIONS of dollars at the xbox to make it succeed. the marketing alone dwarfed everything from sony & nintendo combined. microsoft was willing to burn PILES of money to make the xbox succeed. this wasn't "smart business"; this was a win by attrition. very, very few companies can compete with this kind of spending ability.

and we know that it was a massive marketing campaign that caused the xbox's success; not microsoft's maligned product-quality with regards to hardware. microsoft would not have even gotten a foothold against the wild success that the ps2 had--if it hadn't marketed like a bully.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2011 7:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
....

They rolled out the worlds first true Internet capable console and revolutionized online gaming with X-Box live. But I guess that's all because of a "marketing campaign"?

Established markets are hard to get into, especially when there is a high entry cost. So MS could meet that cost, big deal. "Throwing money" around won't automatically make you a winner. Sorry but the X-Box was a quality product with a GREAT game library and a revolutionary online service. You can try to discredit this all you want, but you come off as being extremely biased.

quote:
not microsoft's maligned product-quality with regards to hardware.


You seem pretty confused. Yes, the 360 had some pretty major quality control issues. But the original X-Box was freaking bullet proof. Hell mine still works to this day.

I still remember those way early days of Halo online play. Sorry but NOTHING on the market at the time could come even close to delivering that kind of gaming experience. That wasn't "marketing" man, get a clue.


By Paj on 5/27/2011 8:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. Lets not forget that it was a lot more feature rich than PS2 as well. Graphically more powerful.

The PS2 was marketed extremely heavily too. Who remember those wacky 'third place' ads? WTF? They made no sense. Trying to be all 80s apple.


By robinthakur on 5/31/2011 12:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
I beg to differ. The first console was not 'Internet capable', there was no web browser, just as there isn't one for the 360. The Dreamcast was actually the first broadband capable console long before the Xbox and it had a Web browser!

The Xbox might have been a quality Product with a "GREAT" game library (this is open to opinion) but MS themselves cared not a jot when they killed it overnight and released the 360 because the hard disks were too expensive to manufacture and they wanted to steal a lead in the next generation, which did not exactly endear them to gamers or developers at the time in the slightest.

The 360 did have Major quality issues, and this vast one-off reparative cost together with the marketing and R&D on both consoles meant that MS only started making a modest profit only from 2008.

Re: Halo online play being 'revolutionary', this kind of thing had been out on the PC dating back to Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament on PC. Halo was unremarkable in terms of experience and its generic graphics and characters, even for the time (way before the OTT marketing came into play and the supposed 'Legendary' status) with the most notable thing being that it allowed 16 player system link play (Live was not available at the time it launched) which had not been done on console before. Apart from being the only fairly good game on the Xbox at launch, nobody actually accorded it that much attention at the time. What was the great experience exactly? Playing a cut down developed-for-Mac game on a console? I think you are letting marketing rewrite the past whilst looking back through your rose-tinted spectacles...


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki