And Why I dont Want Stephen Elop Anymore to be a new CEO

[John Balacano]

Sure That Stephen Elop is a great CEO for Nokia and kind'a saved Nokia to bankruptcy but he should not be appointed as a new CEO for Microsoft

Here's Why:

1. he wants to sell the xbox division (i mean hey what is stephen elop thingking about this xbox have been a great division in Microsoft alongside its Azure Platform and other enterprise products if they sell the xbox business and focus on enterprise users what could be next killing windows phone)

2. considered killing BING (this one is more "alright" to kill because hands down google is reign in this segment although Microsoft is having a great footprint on search it hasn't match with google's market share)

although here's the thing
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen appears to feel the same way. Allen?s $15-billion asset manager, Paul Ghaffari, revealed recently that Bing and Xbox have been distractions for Microsoft. "My view is there are some parts of that operation they should probably spin out, get rid of, to focus on the enterprise and focus on the cloud." Nomura analyst Rick Sherlund claims Microsoft?s financial earnings could be boosted by 40 percent in fiscal 2015 if the company sold its Bing and Xbox businesses.



So what are thoughts guys i think Microsoft will be a lot different if Stephen Elop would be in seat as MSFT CEO

 

[anony_mouse]

Why do you think it's better for Microsoft's shareholders not to sell xbox and not to close Bing?

 

[psiu_glen]

Why do you think it's better for Microsoft's shareholders not to sell xbox and not to close Bing?

Xbox -- their established living room brand, everything they've done up till now is a waste. Plus the income from Xbox Live, cuts of app sales, the licensing fee from games...I've seen different reports about the profitability of that division.

Bing -- shoot, I use it everyday. With the backlash against Google Bing is poised to take advantage of it. Also the fact that it powers many of MS services. By itself, search is an expenditure, but what are the benefits to it? And a related question is, what are you replacing it with?

It sounds more like Paul Allen's investment manager, not Paul Allen himself, wants to have a short term boost to the stock, rather than a suggestion for a long term benefit to the company.

 

[ag1986]

It depends on your point of view. From a profitability perspective, Xbox and Bing are nothing compared to Windows and Office; the former is a low-margin highly competitive market and the latter has never made a profit... I guess one perspective is to consider the amount of time and engineering talent going into those two divisions and what that could do working on Office and those divisions instead.

 

[anony_mouse]

Xbox -- their established living room brand, everything they've done up till now is a waste. Plus the income from Xbox Live, cuts of app sales, the licensing fee from games...I've seen different reports about the profitability of that division.

Bing -- shoot, I use it everyday. With the backlash against Google Bing is poised to take advantage of it. Also the fact that it powers many of MS services. By itself, search is an expenditure, but what are the benefits to it? And a related question is, what are you replacing it with?

It sounds more like Paul Allen's investment manager, not Paul Allen himself, wants to have a short term boost to the stock, rather than a suggestion for a long term benefit to the company.

Hmm, I'm not convinced about Bing. As I wrote in another thread, even Microsoft employees don't use it in my experience. There are other search engines out there and MS could just use one of those. What do they gain by running their own?
BTW, as the first company to sign up to the NSA PRISM programme, I doubt MS will benefit from any "backlash against Google".

Xbox - yes this probably makes money. There might be advantages to selling it - perhaps the business would do better outside of MS. Right now, it seems resticted to being built on MS services (e.g. Bing). I suspect this entanglement with MS services limits its potential.
Remember that companies sometimes sell profitable divisions. After all, they are likely to get much more money from selling a profitable business than one that loses money! Having said that, I still doubt MS will sell xbox.

 

[techiez]

Sure That Stephen Elop is a great CEO for Nokia and kind'a saved Nokia to bankruptcy but he should not be appointed as a new CEO for Microsoft

Here's Why:

1. he wants to sell the xbox division (i mean hey what is stephen elop thingking about this xbox have been a great division in Microsoft alongside its Azure Platform and other enterprise products if they sell the xbox business and focus on enterprise users what could be next killing windows phone)

2. considered killing BING (this one is more "alright" to kill because hands down google is reign in this segment although Microsoft is having a great footprint on search it hasn't match with google's market share)

although here's the thing
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen appears to feel the same way. Allen?s $15-billion asset manager, Paul Ghaffari, revealed recently that Bing and Xbox have been distractions for Microsoft. "My view is there are some parts of that operation they should probably spin out, get rid of, to focus on the enterprise and focus on the cloud." Nomura analyst Rick Sherlund claims Microsoft?s financial earnings could be boosted by 40 percent in fiscal 2015 if the company sold its Bing and Xbox businesses.



So what are thoughts guys i think Microsoft will be a lot different if Stephen Elop would be in seat as MSFT CEO

Whether or not Elop was great at Nokia is debatable, he surely gave Nokia a new direction, Nokia did great with WP he more and more stifled innovation, killiing N950, meltemi projects etc etc, this shows his style of working, stick with whats making profit and not try to innovate, pureview etc were long running projects and hence they saw light of the day.
Problem is that in tech industry your money spinning division might soon become obsolete and you would'nt even know it. other than xbox & bing decisions there was one more thing notable. concentrating on making office available on ios / android and make money out of it, if MS does that it can forget that it can ever compete with these companies, it would also mean death of WP.

MS earns about 2billion$ revenue from android patents does that mean it helps android grow and make more money that way? Ipad and android would soon invade enterprise and throw MS out that way.

Elop as MS ceo is a big no, but I'm thinking if he's even good for heading the new devices division as MS.

 

[a5cent]

Why do you think it's better for Microsoft's shareholders not to sell xbox and not to close Bing?

Who said anything about shareholders? Sacrificing long term success for short term income is the best possible scenario for investors. They can't earn money with a stable stock price, which MS has had this last decade. A nice swing up, and then a rapid decline would be a goldmine for these people, but very bad for MS. Slow and steady is good for MS, but terrible for investors.

Pick a side....

That is also what Elop must do, because to become CEO, the candidate must share the board's interests. That is tricky business, because MS' board is split on these issues. The best possible play is likely to say that you'd sell Xbox and Bing divisions... under certain conditions... and hope both parties find something to like about those conditions.

 

[tcedwards]

**** shareholders, I only care about my phone/tablet/computer/console experience. And it elop eliminates Xbox and Bing, all that will go down the ****ter and any accomplishments ms has made would be for nothing. I would never buy another ms product if this happened, just couldn't ever trust them again, guess I would be an apple guy

 

[anony_mouse]

Who said anything about shareholders? Sacrificing long term success for short term income is the best possible scenario for investors. They can't earn money with a stable stock price, which MS has had this last decade. A nice swing up, and then a rapid decline would be a goldmine for these people, but very bad for MS. Slow and steady is good for MS, but terrible for investors.

Shareholders will ultimately make the decisions, one way or another. How can something be good for shareholders (in general, not the few who might make money from manipulating the share price), but bad for Microsoft?
Remember, most shareholders are people like you and me. Not directly, but via pensions, investments, etc. Microsoft matters most as a way to keep us warm and fed when we are old.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Please continue discussion in this thread.