In the most recent print issue (June) of
Fast Company, columnist Farhad Manjoo had an article on why Bill Gates needs to replace Steve Ballmer
at Microsoft, where the general idea was that Ballmer is too polarizing
and without the vision that guided the company to their current
position of domination. While the idea for the return of Gates to
Microsoft is great, Manjoo’s reasoning, however, is faulty.
Steve Ballmer is known for being a Microsoft fanatic and having a
temper – both traits also famously held by Bill Gates, but apparently
implemented better for Gates than Ballmer. Since Ballmer began his
transition to Supreme Leader (CEO) of Microsoft, a number of things
have gone wrong for the company: an almost complete failure to be
relevant in the online world, the disaster known as Windows Vista,
the various Windows-based devices that failed to garner any market
share, and a number of smaller programs that made little-to-no
difference to customers. That’s not to say that Microsoft hasn’t seen
success under his leadership, because there’s also been the XBOX, XBOX 360, smartphones with Windows Mobile, and, most importantly, Windows 7.
The problem, though, is the time it takes Microsoft-by-Ballmer to
come to the proper conclusions. XBOX and its iterative child were both
successful immediately, but this is due in large part to its
segregation from the rest of the company and the large freedom the
development teams have – almost all other Microsoft successes take far
too long or are far too painful to win customers over in the initial
launch. Windows 7 is a perfect example:
Windows XP was released in 2001, and generally loved, but it wasn’t until 2006 that Windows Vista launched, and was immediately hated.
It took Microsoft five years of both development and grand public
statements to transition from XP to Vista, and the result was an
operating system that was essentially XP with a visual refresh, some
faux-security measures, and features no-one wanted. Most importantly,
Vista was unbelievably slow, almost to the point of being unusable.
Fast forward three years to 2009 where Windows 7 is released, and
quickly became one of the most loved and respected Microsoft products
in memory.
The key that makes Windows 7 great is its focus on performance,
usability, and changes central to the way the operating system works,
rather than layering new features and GUIs on top of an already shaky
codebase. If Bill Gates had still been at the helm, it seems unlikely
this misstep would have happened, or been executed so poorly, for one
simple reason: Bill Gates is a programmer, and Steve Ballmer is not.
To people like Ballmer, code is confusing and sometimes scary, so
visual details and tangible evidence become more important than what’s
“under the hood” – the GUI refresh of Vista is, in all probability, a
direct result of this syndrome. Ballmer may have the vision and the
manhandling attitude, but he simply doesn’t have the technical
knowledge to deeply question the technical aspects of products, as
Gates was so famous for doing.
Whether or not the current CEO understands his shortcomings is unclear,
so it remains to be seen if Windows 7 was more of an accident than a
moment of brilliance.
The simple truth is that even without Bill Gates, the man who
essentially created the world of modern computing, Microsoft is
regaining steam and is looking ever-more like it’s 1990’s self, where
it dominated every facet of life: they’re once again hiring all the
best programming talent they possibly can, rumors circulate about the
new life breathed into the company and its employees, their R&D departments are hyperactive,
and their clout is being thrown around with the confidence and swagger
of a previous decade. Ballmer may be no Gates, but he’ll continue to
navigate the company to a point of dominance as long as he asks himself
“What would Bill do?” and doesn’t engage in the ultimately futile act
of micromanaging programmers.
Bill Gates is gone from Microsoft, and probably for good, but it’s
not a stretch to imagine how the last decade might have been different,
possibly better, had he still been in full control. He picked Steve
Ballmer for reasons of similarity and confidence, so the world now must
look to Ballmer for monolithic Microsoft power and leave Gates to his valiant attempts to save the world.
