Steve Ballmer should be fired

Posted on May 28th, 2011

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn has publicly called out Steve Ballmer saying that he should step down as CEO of Microsoft. According to Einhorn,  “his continued presence is the biggest overhang on Microsoft’s stock.”

 

Over the past 10 years under Ballmer’s reign, Microsoft’s stock has been on the steady decline. According to Einhorn, an investor who bought $100,000 of Microsoft stock in 2000 would currently have $69,000 worth. Microsoft has also repeatedly missed the mark when it comes to releasing new and innovative products. Most seem to be on or below par. The rare exception is the Xbox and Kinect. (Despite the Xbox’s 52% console failure rate, it has overcome this serious flaw.)

 

For example, Microsoft had the lead in mobile computing with the Pocket PC and the Windows Mobile and Windows CE platforms in the early 2000′s. Some pocket PC’s even had built-in phones and were considered the first smartphones. Microsoft had the opportunity to deliver the modern day smartphone long before Apple debuted the iPhone, but they completely missed the mark.

 

Ever since Steve Ballmer took the reigns of Microsoft, the company has been in a long downward spiral. Despite the anti-trust practices of the 90′s, Microsoft used to be a company that pioneered innovation under the leadership of Bill Gates. Then in 2000, Ballmer got behind the wheel and everything started to fall apart.

 

Ballmer has shown that he is unable or unwilling to accept that his competitors are killing his company. Back in October 2010, Ballmer claimed that they were early to the smartphone game with Windows Phone 7. WP7 was years in the making and when finally released, it lacked many features that were considered to be standard. This point only serves to illustrate Ballmer’s total lack of mental awareness.

 

Steve Ballmer should be fired. He’s an extremely poor salesman, terrible leader, and clearly should not be the face of Microsoft for the new generation of products.

 

What are your thoughts? Is Ballmer just a victim of the post-90′s antitrust issues, or is he incapable of bringing Microsoft to the next level?

 

 

Sony loses $24 billion; was it worth it?

Posted on May 7th, 2011

Despite DMCA rulings proclaiming that jail-breaking and rooting iPhone and Android phones is legal, other hardware is still under attack from manufacturers. Even though they already have their money, the manufacturer does not want you modifying or doing anything really cool with your stuff.

 

Sony is certainly no exception. Even though they once allowed the loading of Linux onto the Playstation 3, they have since removed that ability and the hacking community has set to work on rectifying this most egregious error.

 

Enter George Hotz, who successfully opened the PS3 back up for Linux. However, Sony came after him in a lawsuit and forced him to promise to never (publicly) hack Sony products. The hacktivist group, Anonymous, frowned upon Sony for their actions and began DDoS attacks on Sony and Playstation Network servers.

 

At the same time, some party unknown breached the PSN firewall and stole millions of credit card numbers and other sensitive data. Sony claims it was Anonymous, but the hacker group denies the allegations.

 

At this time, the hacking community has once again restored Linux to the PS3, and Sony has lost $24 billion and faces government hearings in regards to the PSN security breach. If only Sony had let the hackers do as they wish, perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

 

So, was it worth it, Sony? Was it really worth the billions of dollars and bad press just to prevent a small number of people from loading Linux?

 

What do you think? Should manufacturers just relent and let us do as we wish?

 

Troy

 

Follow on Twitter: @TechRageNews, @TheTroyKing

Dropbox FAIL: Security breach

Posted on April 26th, 2011

Dropbox has really stepped in it this week by making a number of bad decisions regarding their cloud storage service. In an effort to save on hosting space, Dropbox modified their service to deduplicate files on their servers. For example, if you upload a music file that someone also has on their Dropbox account, your file will be uploaded, but then deleted and your file marker will point to the other persons file. The idea is that Dropbox will only have to host one file for several people.

 

However, this idea is fraught with complications and security risks. What would happen if a malicious user put a virus or trojan in a popular file? Could that virus make it’s way into your Dropbox, thus onto your computer? I shudder to think what could happen, and am enraged that Dropbox would put me and my data at risk.

 

In addition, this new Dropbox functionality opens up a door for peer-to-peer-style sharing. Using a simple hack, one could trick Dropbox into thinking they have access to files which they do not really own. Thus copyrighted music, videos, and software, are at risk for piracy.

 

I can understand Dropbox’s concern for storage space and wanting to consolidated the data on their servers, but this half-baked approach really opens up a can of worms and impacts all of us Dropbox users. I am outraged that Dropbox would make such a dumb move!

 

What do you think about Dropbox’s actions? Do they infuriate you as well? Post your thoughts below

 

Follow on Twitter: @TechRageNews, @TheTroyKing

Designed by PCR Tech Web Services | Log in