* Who would you replace him with?

* How much money do they make from enterprise vs consumer stuff?

* If they make most of their cash from enterprise, is it reasonable to criticise him for missing the phone/tablet revolution? I mean, we don't criticise jobs for missing the enterprise software market.

Just some thoughts. Maybe they're simply drifting into becoming another IBM: all enterprise stuff, nothing interesting but certainly money to be made.

The market hasn't seen that potential in Microsoft in 10 years, pretty much corresponding with when Ballmer took control.

MSFT: http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...

IBM: http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...

Unfortunately, MS doesn't seem to be as introspective. I agree that it's best to see MS focus on their enterprise products. That requires them to... well... focus on their enterprise products rather than continuing their half-assed attempts to make consumer products.

Additionally, such a platform allows tight integration of things like .NET, attracting developers to Windows' platform and allowing MS to sell dev tools and servers. Would .NET be worth less if Microsoft's desktop share were diminished? Almost definitely, imo.

Please don't underestimate the value of desktop dominance.

And clearly the market seems blase - if you improve your top and bottom line and your valuation gets cut in half, that generally means investors don't think your future is all that bright.

Apple is a very focused company that competes in a few select markets (rare for tech giants). Enterprise is not one of them. You can't criticize Steve Jobs for not succeeding in the enterprise market any more than you can criticize him for not succeeding in the search engine/online advertising market. Enterprise has never been a core part of their business.

Microsoft has been trying, and failing, for 10 years to create a market for their tablets. Another company created that market. It's been 18 months since the iPad was announced. Google, RIM, and HP all have operating systems appropriate to compete in the tablet market. Microsoft still has nothing.

Ballmer mocked the iPhone when it was introduced. Apparently he genuinely believed what he was saying, because instead of mocking the iPhone publicly but scrambling to bring Windows Mobile up to what would clearly be the new standard for smartphones, he let three years pass before Microsoft released a credible competitor. Meanwhile the smartphone industry exploded and as of now is dominated by other companies.

In these two crucial markets that are part of Microsoft's core business, Microsoft has been incompetent. At what point is it appropriate for the board to hold the leadership accountable?

Who in his right mind would pick Exchange or Sharepoint alone?

How about Microsoft focus exclusively on enterprise and enable all these consumer devices to work seamlessly with their enterprise software? I don't believe Ballmer can do that.

I find this to be the most interesting point the article makes. Perhaps the reason why Balmer has failed as CEO is because he does not use Google. Could your search engine of choice has any effect on the quality of your decisions?

Related, but not the same, is the monkey which throws darts at a poster on the wall to decide which stock to buy. Who needs financial analysts?

And while I'm sympathetic to the notion that anyone would be better than Ballmer, it really is hard to find a good CEO.

Incorrect. They own about 6.7%. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2587008

You can see them steadily selling off shares here: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp?action=getissuer&CIK...

"Mr. Einhorn’s calls at the Ira Sohn conference Conference a year ago, however, have not panned out, as Zero Hedge noted earlier on Wednesday. Going short Moody’s and McGraw-Hill, while going long African Barrick Gold, would have meant double-digit declines."

A CEO that knows WTF he's doing in the consumer space? Ballmer has proven that he handles the enterprise products just fine, but if MS wants any hope of hanging onto consumer products (consumer Windows, electronics, mobile, gaming, etc) I'd get rid of Ballmer and write J Allard a blank check to come back.

A guy who will fire talent to make himself secure is a huge liability.

IMO the loss of Allard (and consequently now, Pioneer Studios) is the worst mistake MS has made in the field of consumer products.

"because synchronizing files is just not a killer application. I'm sorry. It seems like it should be. But it's not."

Dropbox is useful because it's in essence a simple product. Every time Microsoft designs something, it has to include everything but the kitchen sink.

People doubt his talent and his cluefulness level.

Another tangential favorite is when Mossberg asked Ballmer about the, at the time, new fangled "post PC" devices at the All Things Digital interview. Clueless is a very apt description.

This guy is completely out of touch with consumer reality.

I'm not sure what kind of logic would cause a CEO to look at throngs of millions of people, lined up to buy the most hyped, most-published consumer electronics device ever produced. Then completely dismiss it altogether.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Maybe leave Ballmer in place for the enterprise products, but they need to give everything consumer-related to Allard and give him carte blanche and the entire MS fortune to do what he wants. There's a man who has a pulse on consumer products. He might be the closest thing to Jony Ive or Steve Jobs that MS has ever seen.

He can milk the Office cash cow, but has he really driven innovation in the enterprise? Amazon is considered a pioneer of enterprise cloud computing, yet they started as an online retailer, not a platform/infrastructure provider.

Apple's enterprise hold last quarter grew 66%. This should scare Microsoft.

Our company has now pretty much set their sights on developing in HTML5 for internal line of business apps which used to be heavily desktop Windows based applications. This will eventually lead to less reliance on Windows and Microsoft, which is a good thing for the company but a terrible blow for Microsoft.

Apple seems to get it as to how to grow their business and keep the competitor from cannibalizing it. Apple has been downplaying HTML5 support in Safari/Webkit and almost purposefuly leaving things broken. This is a smart move on Apple's part in my opinion.

I've been mostly a loyal MS supporter but with the way things are going I'm strongly considering moving over from Windows to coding Apple apps and learning Objective C despite how nice C# coding is.

There's still time and hope to see if they change things around and announce something good at PDC in September, otherwise say goodbye to stagnant Microsoft.

Mr. Einhorn, a long-time Microsoft shareholder, said at the Ira Sohn Conference that the company had floundered under Mr. Ballmer’s stewardship, missing major opportunities in establishing tablet products to compete with Apple and wasting money on ill-conceived mergers and acquisitions.

Second paragraph. Emphasis added

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-26/greenlight-s-ein...

> Greenlight Capital Inc. President David Einhorn called for Microsoft Corp.’s board to replace Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer, saying the software maker suffers from “Charlie Brown management."

Einhorn is the president of Greenlight capital, a hedge fund.

> Greenlight, a New York-based hedge fund, added 1.39 million Microsoft shares last quarter, for a total of 9.07 million, according to a filing. The stake is worth $230.2 million. Microsoft’s shares have underperformed the S&P 500 in four of the past five quarters.

Also from this article:

> Ballmer is the company’s second-biggest shareholder -- with more than 333 million shares, or almost 4 percent. Co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates owns more than 561 million shares, or a 6.7 percent stake, according to Bloomberg data.

So Bill Gates + Steve Ballmer don't own 33%, as has been stated elsewhere, but "only" 6.7 percent of this $200bn company.

  333 million shares =  4.0% for Ballmer
  561 million shares =  6.7% for Gates
  So the combined total is:
  894 million shares = 10.7% for Gates + Ballmer

I guess I thought the first line of the linked article (the one this whole post is about) was sufficient:

David Einhorn, the head of the hedge fund Greenlight Capital

I suspect that many thought that "lead investor" meant that he is personally a lead investor in Microsoft. English has plenty of room for everyone to be right there (but you are correct - I'd have preferred people to explain their downvotes). I didn't write the title, though.