←back to thread

Steve Ballmer was an underrated CEO

(danluu.com)
371 points greggyb | 1 comments | 28 Oct 24 21:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
addicted ◴[29 Oct 24 02:19 UTC] No.41978723[source]▶
This article doesn’t understand what was fundamentally wrong with Ballmer’s leadership and what Nadella actually changed.

The specific technologies that were successful is irrelevant. Microsoft has and continues to invest in nearly every computer related technology that may come around the corner or they got late on.

The problem with Microsoft was everything went through Windows. The entire company was designed to promote Windows.

This was the fundamental flaw with Microsoft that Nadella changed. He quickly not just made Windows just another part of Microsoft’s business, to a great extent he actively devalued it.

The fact that Ballmer invested in Azure, etc before Nadella would all be irrelevant because under Ballmer Azure would have remained a red headed step child to Windows, so it’s unlikely to have seen much success under him anyways. Same goes for pretty much everything else Microsoft is doing right now.

replies(12): >>41978980 #>>41979581 #>>41979633 #>>41980308 #>>41982340 #>>41982669 #>>41983142 #>>41983652 #>>41985347 #>>41985738 #>>41988158 #>>41990754 #
_heimdall ◴[29 Oct 24 12:23 UTC] No.41983142[source]▶
Lately it has definitely felt as though Microsoft is resurrecting Ballmer's old meme as "AI! AI! AI!"

I was at Microsoft for the last couple years of Ballmer and the first few years of Nadella. He definitely did change the company and I remember at the time feeling that he handled the change really well, but from where I sat he spent the first part of his tenure evolving Ballmer's final push to move focus from Windows to developers. Everything Microsoft did prior to LLMs was to bring developers over, from VS Code to GitHub to WSL.

Now the company seems fully baked I to LLMs with everything they do chasing that. It would even make sense if the developer push was driven in part by the need to build up training sets for the eventual LLM work, though I really have a hard time believing that Microsoft was so well ahead of the game that they started grooming developers to provide data more than a decade ago.

replies(2): >>41983213 #>>41987196 #
toyg ◴[29 Oct 24 12:32 UTC] No.41983213[source]▶
> Now the company seems fully baked I to LLMs with everything they do chasing that

Them along absolutely everyone else. ChatGPT was an iPhone moment.

replies(6): >>41983511 #>>41984127 #>>41984313 #>>41984845 #>>41984903 #>>41986434 #
kranke155 ◴[29 Oct 24 13:12 UTC] No.41983511[source]▶
I would press X to doubt just because of profitability.

It’s cute that we now have image and video gen AI. Also we have now Turing test passing chat bots (Id say). But although they are very impressive, and I know lots of people who use them for various tasks, I haven’t seen a “killer app” yet.

For iPhone the killer app was making calls. It was the best phone you could get. Then it had apps. It was undeniably better.

LLMs are good at a lot of things, but they don’t seem to excel any particular task - yet. I’m not sure they are a revolution yet.

I’d say they’re more of Macintosh moment. A hugely useful technology no doubt - but useful for what exactly? For Mac it was desktop publishing.

replies(4): >>41983614 #>>41983918 #>>41984149 #>>41987331 #
paulluuk ◴[29 Oct 24 14:00 UTC] No.41983918[source]▶
I'd say the killer "app" for the iPhone was the touch-screen. There were plenty of other phones that could be used to make calls, at the same quality for a lower price. Frankly, I still find the iPhone to be way too expensive for what you get in return.

For LLMs, the "killer app", for me, is already here. And there's two of them right now.

The first is the chatbot (like chatGPT or Pi or Claude). Having someone who you can just ask for any kind of information, from book recommendations to hypothetical space travel situations to advice about birthday gifts, and to get answers that are better than what I'd get from 90% of real humans, is huge to me.

The second one is the coding assistant, in my code copilot. It has made me at least twice, if not thrice as productive as I was before.

replies(2): >>41984364 #>>41985131 #
1. TheOtherHobbes ◴[29 Oct 24 14:47 UTC] No.41984364[source]▶
A killer app in the like-an-iphone context is something that provides obvious value - if not outright delight - to a huge demographic.

Coding doesn't do that, because the demographic interested in coding is not huge compared to the rest of the population.

Chatbots don't do it either because they're too unreliable. I never know if I'm going to get a recommendation for something the LLM hallucinated and doesn't exist.

There's also huge cultural resistance to AI. The iPhone was perceived as an enabling device. AI is perceived as a noisy, low-reliability, intrusive, immoral, disabling technology that is stealing work from talented people and replacing it with work of much lower quality.

It's debatable how many of those perceptions are accurate, but it's not debatable the perceptions exist.

In fact the way OpenAI, Anthropic, and the others have handled this is a masterclass in self-harming PR. It's been an unqualified cultural disaster.

So any killer app has to overcome that reputational damage. Currently I don't think anything does that in a way that works for the great mass of non-technical non-niche users.

Also - the iPhone was essentially a repackaging exercise. It took the Mac+Phone+Camera+iPod - all familiar concepts - and built them into a single pocket-sized device. The novelty was in the integration and miniaturisation.

AI is not an established technology. It's the poster child for a tech project with amorphous affordances and no clear roadmap in permanent beta. A lot of the resistance comes from its incomprehensibility. Plenty of people are making a lot of money from promises that will likely never materialise.

To most people there is no clear positive perception of what it is, what it does, or what specifically it can do for them - just a worry that it will probably make them redundant, or at least less valuable.