Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Balmer Vows to Kill Google 766

Posted by Zonk
from the it-would-be-hard-to-kill-a-corporate-entity dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Probably due to the Microsoft suit against Google over human resources, some very heated exchanges have turned up in some court documents. Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer has apparently vowed to kill Internet search leader Google, according to documents filed in the increasingly bitter battle between the rivals." From the article: "At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google,'' Lucovosky said in his statement. Lucovosky replied that he was joining Google. 'At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office,' Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Balmer Vows to Kill Google

Comments Filter:
  • by j.a.mcguire (551738) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:07AM (#13469674)
    isn't it slander and defamation to post quotes like that without the evidence to back it up?
    • by David Horn (772985) <davidNO@SPAMpocketgamer.org> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:09AM (#13469682) Homepage
      No, if anything, it's libel. Very roughly, slander is spoken, libel is written.
    • by Lifewish (724999) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:11AM (#13469697) Homepage Journal
      It's a quote, hence (if I understand correctly) it's not required of Slashdot that it be true, only that it be an accurate representation of what that person said.
    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:14AM (#13469715) Homepage
      Court filings are protected. You can't be sued for libel in a civil action over what you tell a court; you can, however, be jailed for perjury if you're caught lying.
      • Clarification (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:46AM (#13469849) Homepage
        You can't be sued over what you only say in court. If you repeate the same slander or libel outside of court, you can be sued for that after the case has ended (regardless of whether you're found guilty of perjury), as SCO's executives might find out soon.
        • Re:Clarification (Score:4, Informative)

          by iamplasma (189832) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:52AM (#13469876) Homepage
          That's correct, but there's no prohibition (generally at least) against reporting factually about what happened in court. Indeed, such reporting is generally given very generous protection by the courts. So by simply framing the newspaper report as "it has been said in documents filed in court that...". In doing so, the newspaper aren't claiming that the facts are true, only making the completely true factual statement that a certain thing was said or submitted in court.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:14AM (#13469718)
      listen, jerk, this clearly unstable guy has armies of "developers, developers, developers!" standing by ready to crush anything he doesn't like. intead of attempting to help prop up this man's onviously twisted tyranny infomred by his unhinged world view, you should be using your lofty powers as a slashdotter to bring him down.

      we have hundreds of thousands of socially mal-adjusted virgins at our fingertips i say we pool respources and attack microsft this weekend unless they have a whole bunch of females stockpiled at the microsft campus nothing can stop us!
       
    • by Aim Here (765712) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:15AM (#13469727)
      Sworn testimony in a court case is usually considered 'evidence'.

      Hope this helps.

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:09AM (#13469684)
    RE:["Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."]
    what an immature neanderthal...
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:09AM (#13469686)
    That the CEO of Microsoft is a calm and collective guy. With good management come good software. I am glad that 90% of the worlds computers are running software by responsible and rational managers.
  • by minginqunt (225413) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:10AM (#13469688) Homepage Journal
    It comes as something of a surprise that Steve Ballmer doesn't know how to spell the word "fuck".

    Or maybe "f***ing" is the poster's way of representing Ballmer's dribbling, shouting, flobbing, ranting, malsonorous splange of words laughingly called his voice.

    Nice man.
    • by yog (19073) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:20AM (#13469752) Homepage Journal
      Give the guy a break. He's got a high pressure job. He works for the most demonized tech company in America, if not the world, and MS's products and services are constantly being hacked by hundreds of thousands of virus/worm writers with apparently nothing better to do than try to destroy his company.

      On top of all that, his city, state, and federal governments are all hoping to find a way to grab his $46 billion either through lawsuits, taxes, or confiscation. That's the way of things. When you're successful, everyone else tries to tear you down.

      I heard plenty of stories of such behavior when I was at Fidelity Investments. These upper level analysts who were getting high six figure salaries would scream and throw their phones against the wall when things didn't go their way. The pressure was really getting to them.

      I'm not defending all of Microsoft's actions but you've got to feel for the guy when he's caught on tape/web/whatever acting like an ordinary, flawed human being with emotions. Frankly I'm rather relieved to hear that Ballmer is not some kind of icy monster. Heh. I wonder how many Aeron chairs he goes through in a month!
      • by Dr. Evil (3501) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:30AM (#13469793)

        I worked for one of these guys, I'd rather the icy monster any day.

        This kind of explosion reeks of a fellow who feels indestructable in his current position. Breaking out in a violent, destructive rage in the office is not normal, even for these guys.

        Just think of his assistant who has to go in afterwards, brief him about his next meetings then contact facilities to send somebody to fix the wall and replace the chair.

        I feel for them, not the multimilliondollar exec throwing a tantrum like a four year old.

        Besides, a tantrum like that would really make me glad I'm leaving.

      • by rocjoe71 (545053) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:42AM (#13469835) Homepage
        You know, CEOs of many companies feel a similar way towards their competition. Passive, happy-go-lucky people do not wind up being CEOs of anything. He's not an ordinary person.

        To understand more about CEO's rent "Gorillas in the Mist" and pay close attention to the silverback male.

      • by no-body (127863) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:17AM (#13469962)
        Give the guy a break. He's got a high pressure job.

        Nobody forces him to do this job. He sure got enough cash to live comfortably several life times on it.

        But that's not what this is about. It is dominating others, succeeding with manipulation and violence - compulsively, for decades. Does he have a choice? Probably not - regrettably.

        Throwing chairs and tantrums is abusive behavior. You seem to tolerate this kind of behavior as "human". I think, it's not yet quite human.

      • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:59AM (#13470127) Journal
        Give the guy a break.

        You know, I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Sweaty One, if he wasn't so... What's the word? Oh, yeah: culpable.

        -jcr

  • Steve Jobs was right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eminence (225397) <akbrandt@ g m a i l .com> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:11AM (#13469694) Homepage
    Microsoft lacks class. It's visible in their products and apparently shows also in personal behavior of their leaders. It's interesting to watch Microsoft's Channel 9 [msdn.com] to see this in their corporate culture. No wonder they get mad at Google.
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:19AM (#13469745)
      Steve Jobs was right ... Steve Jobs was right

      Oh, please. Check with people at Apple or Pixar and ask if Jobs has ever had a maximum-flake-factor freaky tirade in their own personal cubicle before. Don't let the sandals fool you. He's no paragon of zen-like level headedness when confronted with contrary news, uppity employees, or a marketplace that doesn't always see things his way.
  • by Augusto (12068) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:11AM (#13469700) Homepage
    He looks a bit like Tony Soprano on that article's picture, this is truly scary.

    I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.
    • by BWJones (18351) * on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:17AM (#13469734) Homepage Journal
      He looks a bit like Tony Soprano on that article's picture, this is truly scary.I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.

      Hardly. This is the sort of crap that you expect from the overly indulged geek who becomes CEO or from the jock CEO. Look, anytime somebody exhibits this sort of behavior, there is something fundamentally wrong with their character. I've had a boss in the past that pulled this kind of crap on me and I simply told him that it would not be acceptable behavior and I would not tolerate it. I then walked out of the room treating him like the child he was. The guy leaving for Google made the right decision.

      • by hey! (33014)
        there is something fundamentally wrong with their character.

        Perhaps. I think everyone has a potential for these kinds of displays of anger. And some people are simply more prone to emotional displays than others.

        If this Ballmer anecdote is true, it is very interesting and possibly enlightening. Anger and fear are both responses to threats -- the difference is that you feel fear when there is no clear action to take, anger is for when you have something specific that you can do. They often alternate toge
    • by MouseR (3264)
      I think it was always pretty clear that MonkeyBoy is totally a deranged maniac. And I mean this in the most flattering way I can given he's probably worse than what his public figure make him out to be.

      This is serious stuff. He basically made a death threat to the Google CEO.

      Balmer sometimes acts like a cocaine addict. Snappy, choleric, over-hyped ("developers developers developers!").

      He's certainly not a role model of mine.

      Gates might have been an evil corporate henchman, but at least he didn't have this d
    • by dabigpaybackski (772131) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:39AM (#13469823) Homepage
      I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.

      "Say hello to muh lil' chair!"

  • Bury? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chemisor (97276) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:13AM (#13469709)
    I see that he has remembered the "We will bury you" line without having remembered the fate of the utterer which he is likely to emulate in some near future.
  • by b3x (586838) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:14AM (#13469713) Journal
    two men enter, one man leaves
    two men enter, one man leaves
    TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!
  • by Altima(BoB) (602987) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:16AM (#13469730)
    Steve Ballmer can kill anyone he wants! Steve Ballmer throws chairs ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. This guy is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that Steve Ballmer was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon Ballmer killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw Steve Ballmer totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

    And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • by Rahga (13479) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:26AM (#13469773) Homepage Journal
    The scene was more like this:

    Balmer: 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.'

    BillG: YEAH!
    Balmer: Then I'm going to take this frikkin chair, smash his face with it, and lick the blood off the ring.

    BillG: Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Watcha gonna dooooo....

    Balmer: BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REALLY PUMPED UP ABOUT!?!?!

    BillG: Oooooh Yeah!

    Balmer: I just saved a boatload of money by switching to Geico.

    (Running on excercise machine)
    BillG: You can dooo it!!!
  • by moviepig.com (745183) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:28AM (#13469780) Homepage

    Assuming that the chair-throwing and the mindset it implies are true... whose stock do you buy or sell?

    Google?... Microsoft?... (OfficeMax?)

  • Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:32AM (#13469797) Journal
    I was shocked to see this was actually not a The Onion article like last time.

    That monkey dancer never cease to amaze me.
  • Why kill? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel.hedblomNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:40AM (#13469824) Homepage Journal
    I dont understand why its so important for Microsoft to kill any competition. If they succeed in creating a bigger market they still earn more money even with lots of competitors. Is Microsoft really nothing more than a wanking session for two really pathetic men? One would have thought they would have matured by now and start to think about what they leave after they die. Why not start doing good things for computing for a change? MS has been the biggest roadblock in software evolution to date and nothing can change that if Microsoft doesnt start to behaive like grownups.
    • Re:Why kill? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @10:09AM (#13470169) Journal
      I dont understand why its so important for Microsoft to kill any competition.

      It's probably because they're intensely aware of the mediocrity of their products. The only validation they can get is market share, so they fight tooth an nail against any potential threat to that market share. Witness in particular the way they torpedoed Netscape, and made damn sure that BeOS couldn't make any OEM deals.

      -jcr
    • Re:Why kill? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Reziac (43301) * on Saturday September 03, 2005 @12:08PM (#13470750) Homepage Journal
      Because some people cannot be "winners" unless they make everyone else into losers.

      Ballmer has often displayed that attitude.

    • Re:Why kill? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by horza (87255)
      I dont understand why its so important for Microsoft to kill any competition. If they succeed in creating a bigger market they still earn more money even with lots of competitors.

      Hmmm, they've become the world's most profitable company and have an obscene cash surplus by illegally crushing all competition (and have a carte blanche from the President). I can't see any incentive for them to change.

      Why not start doing good things for computing for a change?

      Because it's detrimental to shareholder value.

      MS has b
  • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:50AM (#13469869) Homepage
    Microsoft can't coexist with anyone. To them, "the competition" is anyone in the computer industry who is making money or gaining power who is not them. You cannot possibly say MSN search or, say, microsoft netmeeting were serious products Microsoft cared about or which were serious competitors to google or skype when they started up; you cannot possibly say the appearance of skype or google threatened any product that Microsoft was even meaningfully supporting. Yet skype and google gain mindshare, and suddenly making the "google killer" or the "skype killer" become huge priorities. Or at the other end of things, Microsoft ignored Adobe for years as long as they were powerless, profitable but consigned to a "niche", predictable; but suddenly Adobe starts having influence on popular file formats in the form of PDF (invented) or Flash (bought), starts showing signs of growth, and suddenly it becomes absolutely essential for some reason that Microsoft create a PDF Killer.

    Microsoft keeps demonstrating, again and again, that they believe no one may have power but them, and keep killing companies to attain that goal. And people just keep pretending this is somehow good for the market, because the idea that market forces could lead to something other than the perfect outcome is just something some people just don't want to admit could happen.

    But this is hurting the market, in the most direct way possible: Microsoft's expansion strategy is based not on finding the next big thing, but on stopping it before it starts.

    Supposedly the computer industry lives and thrives on small discoveries that grow to the "next big thing". You know, the proverbial cliche of the startup in somebody's garage, a new way of looking at things, an idea that could change the world, yadda yadda yadda. But more and more the fact is-- and most people see this-- if you find that brilliant idea, if you sweat and pour your life and blood and tears into making the new next greatest thing, ... then the first thing that happens is the most powerful company in all of software suddenly has it as priority number one to take you out, duplicate your product and give it away for free, subsume your functionality into the OS, etc. They won't always succeed at this, but they have at least the ability to make your life and job very difficult without even breaking a sweat. And it has been demonstrated that even in the most flagrant case of destructive behavior, even if they are tried and convicted of illegal acts, there will be no consequences for them.

    What is the point of trying to build, or finance something revolutionary like Skype, if you know that whatever it is (even if it isn't something Microsoft does yet) Success will just result in Microsoft signing a corporate death warrant? The answer is obviously "because you love what you are doing", but what about the people who don't love what they're doing enough to take the risk of so much wasted effort? Are there people who would be going out and doing new and interesting things they aren't doing now in a world where trying to change the face of computing is rewarded rather than punished? What kind of chilling effect is this having?
    • by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:27AM (#13469988) Homepage
      What kind of chilling effect is this having?

      Go ask Google, Skype, Symantec, Apple, the local Linux guy, all of which benefit immensely from Microsoft not getting it until it's too late.

      I used to work for a company that had a mini MS complex: we thought everyone in IT industry services sector or reseller channel was a competition. The result: we fought a war on 900 fronts and could not bring critical resources to bear on our real competitors (other national mega resellers). Eventually, we were spending more money on trying to out-market and out business develop inconsequential competitors and our sales guys were losing sales because we were not able to deliver hardware on time to customers.

      Right now, MS is showing signs of what I saw at Inacom:

      * Changes and delays with their OS product.
      * Development of huge initiatives that business partners want and customers don't want like DRM and trusted computing
      * Not adapting to changing business models - open source for example.
      * Ability to market, but not deliver - like the MSN search that was going to be more accurate, etc...
      * Competing against yourself - AXAPTA, NAVISION, GreatPlains... how many competing and overlapping ERP/CRM packages do you need?
      * When was the last time there was a major real change in office, anyway?
      * Oh, and ceeding the entire low end of the computer industry to Linspire and linux (when was the last time you saw a new windowsXP computer for $250)?
      • There really is only one difference between your situation and theirs. They are Microsoft. Let me clarify what that means a little. BillG has more money than the bottom half of America. They have billions and billions of dollars and can wage this kind of war so long it is ridiculous.

        Jeremy
    • by jc42 (318812) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @12:08PM (#13470752) Homepage Journal
      But this is hurting the market, in the most direct way possible: Microsoft's expansion strategy is based not on finding the next big thing, but on stopping it before it starts.

      Well, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it's only hurting the American portion of the industry.

      Consider the origins of the things that Microsoft is trying to kill. Google is a bit unusual, in that it started in the US. How many other real innovations lately have come from the US?

      The "browser war"? Netscape was a commercialization of Mosaic, which was developed in Switzerland. Its descendants, mozilla and firefox, are completely international developments (and are finally starting to solve the "internationalization" problem.) The most notable independently-developed browser is opera, from Norway.

      Startup OSs? Linux was started in Finland, and was in part a spinoff of minix, which came from the Netherlands. Linus himself now lives in the US, but linux development is rather evenly distributed around the world. We've recently read here of iTron, developed in Japan, in use as an embedded kernel in billions of devices built around the world, but still nearly unknown in the US. (Why is this?)

      Much of Microsoft's clout is restricted to the US. There are serious signals that governments all over are getting very nervous about them, and are starting to take steps to limit their power. In the US, Microsoft was one of the biggest contributors to George Bush's two campaigns, which bought them the effective dismissal of the Justice Dept's attempt to reign them in, and an "agreement" that effectively indemnifies them against further charges in US courts.

      As a result, they are effectively free to take any actions, legal or not, against US competitors. But they are having little success at reigning in new developments outside the US.

      Google should just slowly shift their operation to a non-US base, preferably a widely-distributed one not under the control of any one government, as many big corporations are doing. And the rest of the US computer industry should continue moving its R&D to other countries, beyond the reach of Microsoft.

      American computer geeks might seriously consider learning a couple of languages other than English. (No, I don't mean Java or Ruby. ;-) If you want to continue developing new ideas, there might be safer places to do so.
    • It's their past... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Eminence (225397)
      Their paranoia comes from their past. They outwitted the IBM, because IBM thought it's invincible. They don't want to make the same blunder. So, they now go and try to stomp on any competition that might outwit them. It has nothing to do with rational business, it's a complex emotional attachment of their leaders to the company and its position coupled with fear someone would push them out of it.

      Of course, someone will at some point as everything is impermanent and all power ends some day. Before that, how

  • It Goes Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @08:58AM (#13469902) Homepage
    'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."

    You know Schmidy is just harboring some serious grudge against MS right now. If Balmer thinks he's the only one with the motivation to compete, he doesn't know what it's like to be driven vengenance. Schmidt is like the underdog who've been kicked around and have finally made his break. We all know how those stories end.

  • by nurhussein (864532) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:01AM (#13469909) Homepage
    Imagine, if you will, Dr. Claw, banging on his desk, alarming his cat:

    I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME GOOGLE! NEXT TIME!!!

  • by NigelJohnstone (242811) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:03AM (#13469918)
    Next time Microsoft gets sued and pretends it has destroyed the emails, they should point to this incident as an example of how they find emails when they want to - even deleted emails on a local PC.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:09AM (#13469938)
    Investors should take note of these types of situations.

    While we all think it funny, it offers insight into the emotional response of the CEO of the world's largest software company. It shows his a weakness, that he is personally threatened by Google, and a despiration, that he feels Google just one upped him. There is a difference between being passionate about your products and being threatened by your market mates.

    Is this the type of personality you would want running the company your 401(k) was invested in? Your retirement future, child's education, or second house at the lake, all riding on the ability of a short tempered reactionist who would scream and shout and create a personal vendetta not only aginst a competitor, but CEO-to-CEO?

    In many cases the CEO is a significant reason to invest in a company - that's why there are such massive stock sell offs or buy ins when leadership changes (look at HP recently as an example or further back to Chrysler, GM, etc).

    I'd rather invest in a company who's CEO is headstrong and confident enough to try to innovate their competition our of existance, not temper tantrem their CEO to death.
  • by RavenChild (854835) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:11AM (#13469949)
    I think Balmer is violating Nintendo's Insanity Patent.
  • by nastro (32421) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:18AM (#13469963)
    Overheard in the Google boardroom --

    Balmer: I've done far worse than kill you, Google. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. Buried alive.
    Google: BAAAAALLLLLMER!!!!!!
  • Antitrust issues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acordes (69618) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @09:54AM (#13470104)
    I find this story very interesting, because back when I was in college I interned at Intel. Very first day we went through antitrust training because Intel had been burned a couple of times on antitrust issues. One of the big points they made was don't ever claim that some technology is an "AMD-killer" or that we're going to "kill" a certain company. Statements like that can be used in antitrust proceedings as proof that you were actively trying to force a competitor out of the marketplace. Not sure if it applies here, but there are definitely some similarities.
    • Re:Antitrust issues (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordSah (185088) * on Saturday September 03, 2005 @04:28PM (#13472250)
      It applies. Until recently, I was a developer at Microsoft, and we had anti-trust training as well. We received quite the lecture on not using militant or aggressive product code names, team names, etc. We couldn't even name the dev who volunteered for process enforcement.
    • by mrchaotica (681592)
      On the other hand, Microsoft has already been convicted of illegal monopolistic business tactics, and got zero punishment anyway. Why would they be worried about stuff like that now?
  • "From the Article" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jimbolaya (526861) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @10:28AM (#13470265) Homepage
    "At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google'".

    I do not see that line anywhere in the article.

  • by doormat (63648) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @10:46AM (#13470359) Homepage Journal
    An original blog entry...
    http://battellemedia.com/archives/001835.php [battellemedia.com]

    At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." ....
  • by notaprguy (906128) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @10:56AM (#13470410) Journal
    Lucovosky is a smart guy but is also a prima donna quite capable of embellishment. Let's just say there are undoubtedly two sides to this story. I read the story linked to from the original post and note that Ballmer said that Lucovosky exaggerated the meeting. Based on my interactions with Lucovosky I would tend to believe Ballmer. That said, I have no doubt that Ballmer was passionaet and noisy. Anyone with an Internet connection knows that (Developers! Developer! Developers!).
  • by DroopyStonx (683090) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @11:01AM (#13470427)
    I never understood why Bill Gates didn't retire once he was worth an astronomical amount of money.

    You hear about Ballmer flippin out, throwing chairs because he lost someone to Google, but what does he care? How OLD is he?

    I'll guess... early 50's, and looking at him, he's not exactly in great shape and probably has a shitload of stress to deal with, which means he'll be dead in 20 years.

    Why not just fucking retire? You're worth billions... so what personal feeling of satisfaction is to be had by conquering google? Even if you don't conquer google, you'll still be filthy fucking rich.

    What's the point? It's not like they offer quality products..
    • You hear about Ballmer flippin out, throwing chairs because he lost someone to Google, but what does he care? How OLD is he?

      Physical age or intellectual age? ;-)
    • I never understood why Bill Gates didn't retire once he was worth an astronomical amount of money.

      I thought about a similar question once: with Gates's resources, he could do some seriously interesting stuff. If he wanted to retire, he could probably build his retirement home on freakin' Mars.

      The answer I arrived at was that the fact that someone with the drive and passion to do something like that wouldn't be sufficiently-committed to his "day job" (running Microsoft, in this case) to achieve the requisit
    • They are probably so obsessed with their desire of controlling anything computer related (I can remember one early interview with Bill where he said, he wanted to have anything computer related running Microsoft software) that they simply have forgotten, that they have to die as well as anybody of us... Add to that a shitload of stress and a lot of temperament and you get reactions like that, to me Ballmer is heavily in need over a bigger vacation where he should rething his life and what he wants to do wit

      • They don't want to just control anything computer-related.

        They want to control the PEOPLE that are computer-related. Every user, every developer. And then use that to proclaim themselves better than EVERYONE else.

        THAT's the bottom line of primate behavior - every human HAS to be better than everyone else (in their own mind), or they get panic-stricken from the fear of death.

        The Gnostics knew this two thousand years ago. They said that there was a need in humans that could not be satisfied by family, work, s
  • by cahiha (873942) on Saturday September 03, 2005 @12:58PM (#13471028)
    'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."

    What else do you need to know about Microsoft? The company is run by an ill-tempered bald ex-football player who's in it for the sport and kill, nothing else. Ballmer deals in concepts like "team spirit", "take no prisoners", and "offense/defense", not bits, bytes, and software.

    Ballmer is also overestimating his own business acumen. Ballmer didn't "bury" Novell or Sun; to the degree that Novell and Sun have problems, they are self-inflicted or due to changing market conditions. I can't think of much Ballmer has done as a businessman that was particularly clever; most of what he has been responsible has been shady or outright illegal bullying of other companies. Shady deals he really is good at.

    Sadly, there are some good engineers and technologists at Microsoft, but they are just pawns in Ballmer's grand game and strategy. Well, fortunately, they seem to be leaving for greener pastures. Which brings us back to Ballmer's chair throwing...

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...