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 $10.9 billion USD since the first quarter of 2005, trying to disrupt Google's search dominance. As Business Insider points out, Bing has only succeeded in keeping Google locked at 65 percent in the search market, otherwise Google's share might be at 90 percent.
"It will take a while to see how this shakes out," one person told AllThingsD. "And it is very dependent on collaboration that is very hard to pull off even in much smaller organizations."
Another insider added that it won't matter what Ballmer presents on Thursday if the reorganization is all about an "org chart" and not about building better products. "Consumers buy products, not a management structure," the source said.
The point was made by many end users/ customers using windows 8.
Even today it has been completely ignored with the windows blue 8.1 update.
What they announced with the Xbox one and it`s DRM also killed potential sales of the device. obviously the thinking process is at fault as much as the eye`s, and ears. There is the problem right there.!
Restructuring will do nothing at all.
I really hate that douche and what he has done to M$
I have to confess, any time I see someone refer to it as M$, I have trouble believing that, prior to the event in question which supposedly soured them on Microsoft, they actually liked the company.
I also remember this old gem from Penny Arcade...
11 years later, Microsoft isn't the top tech company in the world any more, not the richest, not the largest profit margins, these days appears far from the most underhanded in getting your dollar and... Still "M$"
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: