There's little doubt that Ballmer has been a mediocre CEO in terms of innovating or at least properly catching the latest technology waves.
However, the Forbes articles ignores several important issues.
1) Ballmer has tripled the sales, and doubled the profits in the last ten years at Microsoft, while paying out $100 billion in dividends (and MSFT still has $60b in cash). This with a company that was already the most profitable tech company (2002). That is not a terrible performance, specifically because...
2) Had Microsoft gone with someone else, it's just as possible they could have ended up like HP, Dell or Yahoo. Microsoft is not in that boat however, and Ballmer has not destroyed the company. The article mentions Windows, but ignores server + tools, which has grown tremendously and is very profitable. Consumer Windows is not their lead profit machine any longer.
It's far more likely that someone would implode a company that is on top of the mountain, than that they would figure out how to create the first trillion dollar company. It's worth keeping that in mind: the only way Ballmer could have apparently succeeded by the article's qualification, is by creating a trillion dollar company out of a price per share ($60) that was derived from the greatest stock market bubble in world history.
There is a limit to how much money you can make at any given time in the global business eco-system. Microsoft had nowhere to go stock market wise, sideways from a stock market bubble price would have been a helluva accomplishment (just ask Intel or Cisco).
Everybody touts Apple today, but the most likely best-case outcome for their company is sideways (5% annual growth) for the next decade. Once you hit the top of the mountain, it becomes nearly impossible to keep soaring.
However, the Forbes articles ignores several important issues.
1) Ballmer has tripled the sales, and doubled the profits in the last ten years at Microsoft, while paying out $100 billion in dividends (and MSFT still has $60b in cash). This with a company that was already the most profitable tech company (2002). That is not a terrible performance, specifically because...
2) Had Microsoft gone with someone else, it's just as possible they could have ended up like HP, Dell or Yahoo. Microsoft is not in that boat however, and Ballmer has not destroyed the company. The article mentions Windows, but ignores server + tools, which has grown tremendously and is very profitable. Consumer Windows is not their lead profit machine any longer.
It's far more likely that someone would implode a company that is on top of the mountain, than that they would figure out how to create the first trillion dollar company. It's worth keeping that in mind: the only way Ballmer could have apparently succeeded by the article's qualification, is by creating a trillion dollar company out of a price per share ($60) that was derived from the greatest stock market bubble in world history.
There is a limit to how much money you can make at any given time in the global business eco-system. Microsoft had nowhere to go stock market wise, sideways from a stock market bubble price would have been a helluva accomplishment (just ask Intel or Cisco).
Everybody touts Apple today, but the most likely best-case outcome for their company is sideways (5% annual growth) for the next decade. Once you hit the top of the mountain, it becomes nearly impossible to keep soaring.