It doesn't matter how much money they make, it's their potential for making more money in the future. It's not about their current business or where they are sliding.

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...

You're correct in saying that Jobs isn't criticized for missing enterprise software. He is criticized for trying to break into it and doing a terrible job of it though. Remember the XServe? Fortunately, he had the good sense to can that eventually.

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.

Everything Microsoft does is about the domination of Windows and Office. These are their big moneymakers and they don't want to give them up. Are you sure that a royalty of $50 for practically every single PC manufactured in copyright-observing nations is worth less than their enterprise software? What about everyone that goes out and spends $100+ on a copy of Office? Those are some big markets and I'm not sure their value is so diminutive.

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.

Well, Jobs is not criticized for failing to break into enterprise software because he has had outrageously, unprecedentedly, massive success breaking into other markets. Failure is perfectly tolerable when you are good at something. Ballmer is an all around failure, and there are thousands of better candidates for his position.

I should hope to be such a failure. He served as the development manager for the original MS Windows, one of the greatest business franchises of all times. During his tenure as CEO he's taken what was already a mega-cap company and more than doubled their net income and tripled revenue.

Over ten years that's not stupendously amazing.

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.

> 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.

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?

It would be suicidal to focus on enterprise products. Their enterprise products only exist as continuations and tie-ins to their desktop products. Exchange exists to enable Outlook. Sharepoint exists to enable Office collaboration. Without control of the end-user environment, their advantage in the server space evaporates.

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

Paul Thurrott has a relevant blog post: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/commentary/microsoft-fix...

This whole thread gave me an idea:

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.

Pfft - rather skewed definition of interesting there. Enterprise stuff is everything I get stuff done with, wheareas my phone/tablet is purely recreational.