Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Ballmer May Reveal Microsoft Restructuring on Thursday

By - Source: AllThingsD | B 19 comments

Steve Ballmer may make Microsoft's reorganization public on Thursday.

AllThingsD reports that on Thursday Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer may finally reveal to the public his plan to overhaul the company management. That date could change, as there are reportedly still a number of issues that are still up in the air due to the "close-to-the-vest" planning by Ballmer.

Unnamed sources have pointed to one of the biggest changes in the halls of Redmond since former Microsoft boss Bill Gates stepped out of the office. Over the last several weeks they have outlined a number of changes within the upper management which will or already have taken place including former Xbox division Don Mattrick who left the company to helm FarmVille developer Zynga.

As indicated last fall, Ballmer said he plans to reorganize Microsoft to center on services and devices in both the consumer and business sectors. He's looking to create a "functional coherence", sources claim, to dump more resources into fewer efforts and eliminating overlapping functions. He intends to place products where they belong in the product cycle, but that also includes shuffling around executives in the process.

Sources claim that Larson-Green may be placed in charge of hardware engineering for all devices, including the Xbox One console and Surface tablets. Windows Phone software chief Terry Myerson may also be given the added responsibility for the Windows operating system engineering, as the two groups will likely be merged together.

They also said that Satya Nadella, current head of the server business, will likely oversee a unit focused on cloud computing and products for the enterprise sector. Qi Lu, which is currently chief of the online group, may run an applications and services engineering unit consisting of Bing, Skype and Office. Windows marketing head Tami Reller may oversee an entire marketing unit.

Skype president Tony Bates will probably lead strategy and business development, and work on building relationships with software developers and Microsoft partners who make hardware running Microsoft software products. Microsoft COO Kevin Turner is expected to keep his position along with current CFO Amy Hood and HR head Lisa Brummel. Chief lawyer Brad Smith is also expected to retain his current role as well.

So far it's not clear how this new restructuring will make Microsoft move faster at innovation, especially against agile competitors like Google. The Redmond company's online division has reportedly lost $10.9 billion USD since the first quarter of 2005, trying to disrupt Google's search dominance. As Business Insider points out, Bing has only succeeded in keeping Google locked at 65 percent in the search market, otherwise Google's share might be at 90 percent.

"It will take a while to see how this shakes out," one person told AllThingsD. "And it is very dependent on collaboration that is very hard to pull off even in much smaller organizations."

Another insider added that it won't matter what Ballmer presents on Thursday if the reorganization is all about an "org chart" and not about building better products. "Consumers buy products, not a management structure," the source said.

Display 19 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 5 Hide
    kawininjazx , July 10, 2013 6:10 AM
    They went from being on top with Windows 7 and the XBOX 360, now we got Windows 8 which they should just give people a real start menu option already and the botched reveal of the XBOX One. Windows phone and Windows RT are not gaining any momentum, they need to stop being like Apple, that is, ramming their ideas of what you should be doing with your computer down our throats instead of letting us decide.
  • 6 Hide
    quilciri , July 10, 2013 6:11 AM
    Ballmer: As of Today, my head will no longer be included within my lower intestine; it will exist as a wholly separate entity.
  • 1 Hide
    Shaun o , July 10, 2013 8:02 AM
    If I had been working on windows 8, I would of pointed out that it would be better to give the customer a choice of using the Metro interface or the classic Gui.
    The point was made by many end users/ customers using windows 8.
    Even today it has been completely ignored with the windows blue 8.1 update.
    What they announced with the Xbox one and it`s DRM also killed potential sales of the device. obviously the thinking process is at fault as much as the eye`s, and ears. There is the problem right there.!

    Restructuring will do nothing at all.



  • 7 Hide
    anononon , July 10, 2013 8:02 AM
    If only that restructuring involved the departure of Ballmer....

    I really hate that douche and what he has done to M$
  • 4 Hide
    Caffeinecarl , July 10, 2013 8:28 AM
    How to restructure: No more Windows 8.
    Problem solved.
  • -1 Hide
    stevejnb , July 10, 2013 8:31 AM
    Quote:
    If only that restructuring involved the departure of Ballmer....

    I really hate that douche and what he has done to M$


    I have to confess, any time I see someone refer to it as M$, I have trouble believing that, prior to the event in question which supposedly soured them on Microsoft, they actually liked the company.

    I also remember this old gem from Penny Arcade...

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/

    11 years later, Microsoft isn't the top tech company in the world any more, not the richest, not the largest profit margins, these days appears far from the most underhanded in getting your dollar and... Still "M$"
  • 1 Hide
    JamesSneed , July 10, 2013 10:00 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    If only that restructuring involved the departure of Ballmer....

    I really hate that douche and what he has done to M$


    I have to confess, any time I see someone refer to it as M$, I have trouble believing that, prior to the event in question which supposedly soured them on Microsoft, they actually liked the company.

    I also remember this old gem from Penny Arcade...

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/

    11 years later, Microsoft isn't the top tech company in the world any more, not the richest, not the largest profit margins, these days appears far from the most underhanded in getting your dollar and... Still "M$"


    The M$ works for me. It seems obvious to me they make decisions based on how much money they think they can get from consumers instead of how great they can make the user experience which of course would also bring in lots of money. Metro for example is to try and force apps down everyone's throats for obvious reasons since it has been very lucrative for Apple. Not even Apple forces this type of crap on its desktops / laptops. Microsoft has lost sight of the goal, the goal is make great products users want and let the money flow in from those innovations not the other way around.
  • -2 Hide
    back_by_demand , July 10, 2013 10:29 AM
    Too many negative naysayers, instead of jumping on the fanboi bandwagon at least give MS the credit it deserves, play devils advocate for 5 minutes and list all the things MS does right and well and you have to grudgingly admit that despite the things you "hate" you are still a million miles away from using another company. WP8 low market share? So what, it is a better OS and getting rave reviews, Apple used to moan for years that OSX was superior to Windows despite being outnumbered in sales 20 to 1 so now the situation is reversed the opposite is true? The XB1 reveal fiasco, they reversed their policy and gave you everything you wanted and more, and that's a bad thing? There's no pleasing some people.
  • 0 Hide
    JPNpower , July 10, 2013 10:43 AM
    Haters will be haters
  • 1 Hide
    stevejnb , July 10, 2013 11:26 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    If only that restructuring involved the departure of Ballmer....

    I really hate that douche and what he has done to M$


    I have to confess, any time I see someone refer to it as M$, I have trouble believing that, prior to the event in question which supposedly soured them on Microsoft, they actually liked the company.

    I also remember this old gem from Penny Arcade...

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/

    11 years later, Microsoft isn't the top tech company in the world any more, not the richest, not the largest profit margins, these days appears far from the most underhanded in getting your dollar and... Still "M$"


    The M$ works for me. It seems obvious to me they make decisions based on how much money they think they can get from consumers instead of how great they can make the user experience which of course would also bring in lots of money. Metro for example is to try and force apps down everyone's throats for obvious reasons since it has been very lucrative for Apple. Not even Apple forces this type of crap on its desktops / laptops. Microsoft has lost sight of the goal, the goal is make great products users want and let the money flow in from those innovations not the other way around.


    Are you actually telling me that you believe that MS is more profit oriented than companies like Apple and Google? You're seriously naïve enough to believe that? Apple, known for releasing dated hardware at markups *far* beyond their competitors, quite happily continuing to fleece their customers? Apple that dodges billions in taxes through having a "head office" in Nevada and laundering most of their money through Ireland? Apple, which was engaged in borderline price fixing against the interest of the consumer? Or Google, which quite happily scans private e-mails so they can monetize your the details of your personal life?

    The truth is, almost all major tech companies are guilty of similar infractions, more in one area, less in another... And they all have money as their first, last, and middle interest. This idea that some companies are really just so darned nice compared to others means you have bought their PR campaigns hook, line, and sinker.

    The funny thing is, MS still has a reputation for being the dirtiest when they might well be the cleanest and most giving of all the big ones... I don't give them credit for this because I think they are good in their hearts and are secretly just looking out for my best interests, but rather because they were outed - hard - in the early 2000's and know what they can't get away with. To some degree, people STILL blindly think that Apple and Google are somehow more ethical companies when the reality is they're just as dirty... Possibly more so. Personally, I believe these companies are as dirty and as unscrupulous as they can get away with - and MS can get away with less due to the outing of their policies in the 90's which people still remember, while to some degree blindly trusting the other big ones. Again, you're a perfect example, making a statement so utterly childishly naïve, to the effect that you believe the other big ones are less profit oriented... HAH!

    Of course the "M$" thing works for you. I doubt you've ever actually taken a step back and thought about the market practices of the big players, and rather accepted them at their reputations, most of which are over a decade old and in *serious* need of an update. On a side note, some reading for you:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-is-more-ethical-than-google-apple-or-facebook-2011-3

    http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/62207-google-vs-microsoft-the-hero-becomes-the-villain

    http://www.kimmoa.se/Google_is_more_evil_than_Microsoft_ever_was/
  • -2 Hide
    JPNpower , July 10, 2013 2:06 PM
    Dear STEVEJNB, this message is in reply to you. The quoting would have been a nightmare, so I skipped that.

    Your Apple example is a bit misleading. One thing common about apple products is that they simply work. While many PCs rushed to market with the newest bling don't. But the extra charge is not really to screw over customers. (first off, aluminum sleekness must be expensive). Apple buyers know, that they spent lots on their computer, and everybody seeing one knows too. They voluntarily buy this.
  • 2 Hide
    stevejnb , July 10, 2013 3:12 PM
    Quote:
    Dear STEVEJNB, this message is in reply to you. The quoting would have been a nightmare, so I skipped that.

    Your Apple example is a bit misleading. One thing common about apple products is that they simply work. While many PCs rushed to market with the newest bling don't. But the extra charge is not really to screw over customers. (first off, aluminum sleekness must be expensive). Apple buyers know, that they spent lots on their computer, and everybody seeing one knows too. They voluntarily buy this.


    Hello JPN,

    Interesting that you cherry picked one of several points. Oh well, to respond...

    First off, I well know that Apple products "simply work." I am "the computer guy" in my extended family and I've pushed that several members of my family use Apple products because of just that point. Simply put, they are the best computing solution for a lot of people, and you're right, people do willingly pay. Myself, I use a combination of Window based and Android devices because I do not have a problem dealing with a bit of hassle for the benefits of far lower cost for the same hardware and more freedom. This is not true for many people, and Apple IS the ideal solution for many people.

    That being said, the issue was this. Microsoft was accused that they "make decisions based on how much money they think they can get from consumer." When you look at Apple's pricing model and try and act like Apple doesn't have this same modus operandi, you're either *really* buying their hype or you're being wilfully deceptive.

    Apple uses their image and a series of misconceptions to prey on a - and let's be frank - consumer base that is ignorant of what is best for them and what they actually need in order to sell their machines at a *far* higher markup than any of their competitors. You would be foolish to deny these two points:

    1) These products are sold at a far higher markup than equivalent products of many of their competitors. (case in point: I got my Le Pan II android tablet, which has a metallic [aluminum, I believe] shell for $150, brand new, on a sale - regular $200. This was around mid way through the iPad 2's lifespan and has very similar guts to the iPad 2. At the time, the iPad 2 cost about 2.5 x that for, again, very similar hardware, functionality, etc. This is not uncommon for Apple's pricing scheme from computers to tablets to MP3 players to phones)

    2) Many people who think Apple would be their ideal solution - be it as a result of hype, marketing, reputation, or just outright misinformation of "It's always the most cutting edge!" - buy these products out of a position of ignorance. They are FAR from the ideal computing device for many people who own them and think they are "the best." If you're curious about what Apple people think they know about the products they spend $500+ on, go to a college campus and poll Apple users which is the more powerful machine with more software available for it - the iPad 3 or the Surface PRO. The results will be *laughable*.

    Apple is of course neither obligated to educate the consumer nor charge less than they can. But the fact is, they take advantage of this consumer ignorance to charge *far* higher prices than they need to for their products - in essence gouging them for the privilege of owning a cutting edge Apple product, usually with hardware that is not at all better than the competition, and a shiny case that cost them pennies but makes the thing seem very fancy. In doing so they perpetuate the myth - and it is a myth - of superior products and being a "luxury" type of company. They are the hardware equivalent of a brand name fashion designer that sells a purse for $1500 when it cost $10 to make, and people gobble them up assuming they are much better or some such. Simply put, Apple is not the ideal product for a lot of people who mistakingly believe that it is. Apple capitalizes on this widespread ignorance.

    Google's model is different and more insidious... They let you use their things cheap, but whatever you do on it is for sale. In essence, the digital you is for sale, and that keeps their software, their services, etc, nice and cheap. For Google, you pay in a very different way. Microsoft? We know their tricks, but I ask you... Is "M$" really justified these days when Google and Apple rip you off every bit as much, possibly even more these days, and manage to get off with this perception that they aren't as "evil" as the money grubbing Microsoft?


  • 1 Hide
    anti-painkilla , July 10, 2013 6:25 PM
    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer may finally reveal to the public his plan to overhaul the company management.

    In News Today: Steve Ballmer fires himself as part of his restructuring scheme.
  • 0 Hide
    milktea , July 10, 2013 7:42 PM
    "Ballmer said he plans to reorganize Microsoft to center on services and devices..."

    Ballmer seems to be missing the point...
    How can you succeed in services without good products?
  • 0 Hide
    24oz , July 10, 2013 9:03 PM
    Bill Gates coming back and firing Ballmer would be the best restucture.
  • 0 Hide
    24oz , July 10, 2013 9:06 PM
    *restructure.sorry can't edit.
  • 0 Hide
    cats_Paw , July 10, 2013 11:42 PM
    I used to throw a lot of hate at Ballmer... but truth be told, its the shareholders that are idiots by keeping him there. Ballmer is probably not smart enought to do the job, but they are even dummer for not seeing it.
  • 0 Hide
    back_by_demand , July 11, 2013 2:00 AM
    There is a "b" in "dumber"

    Ironic, really
  • 0 Hide
    ksio89 , July 18, 2013 7:01 AM
    Quote:
    Ballmer: As of Today, my head will no longer be included within my lower intestine; it will exist as a wholly separate entity.


    Hehehe.