From Greg
Business Insider just posted a story entitled: Microsoft Is A Total Mess Because Of Steve Ballmer, And That's Why No One Wants To Be Its New CEO, Says The WSJ
Read more: businessinsider
The Wall Street Journal could not be more correct. Ballmer has run the wrecking ball through a great company. Whether it be the failed rack and stack employee review program or the stagnant growth in the former world's largest corporation Ballmer has almost ruined Microsoft.
Ballmer's support of the Xbox program is the only shining moment in what will go down as one of the worst corporate leadership tenures in history. My biggest fault lies with the Microsoft board not with Ballmer. Why did they stick with him for so long? The balance sheet speaks for itself and what it says is: Ballmer Sucks!
Good riddence Steve. Try the used cars business. Something about you makes me feel like you would excel there.
From Business Insider
Microsoft says it will have a new CEO in the "early part" of this year.
Whenever that may be, it will be behind schedule.
Microsoft was hoping to have a new CEO in place by November or December, say Shira Ovide and Joann Lubin at the Wall Street Journal.
The reason Microsoft doesn't have a new CEO right now, according to Ovide and Lubin, is that the job isn't all that appealing thanks to two big problems: One is called Bill Gates and the other is called Steve Ballmer.
"At least some external executives who discussed the CEO job with Microsoft directors have expressed concerns about being hamstrung if the two men continue to serve on the board, according to people familiar with their thinking," report Ovide and Lubin.
In particular, the Journal's reporters go after Ballmer pretty hard: "Some candidates for the top post at Microsoft seem to be particularly uneasy about Mr. Ballmer, according to people familiar with their thinking. He has made several recent decisions that have altered the company's strategy and generated controversy among managers and investors."
Just before Ballmer announced his retirement, he created a sweeping re-organization of the company. This has led to a lot of talented engineers leaving Microsoft as they either lost battles for promotions, or found themselves in new, less-desirable roles.
A new CEO will be stuck with Ballmer's re-org, which was done with the board's support. Or the new CEO will have to tear it up, which means another period of awkward transition for Microsoft, and for the new CEO, an awkward board dynamic, since Ballmer is still on the board.
Then, after announcing his retirement, Ballmer spent $7.2 billion buying Nokia, a dying handset maker. This is a turnaround project within Microsoft the next chief executive will have to deal with.
Ballmer is expected to be on Microsoft's board. And, as the WSJ notes, he's not a quiet guy who will sit idly if a new CEO tries to rip up everything he's done.
Then there's Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, the richest person in the world, a guy who is mostly revered in Microsoft, and has his own very strong opinions about what Microsoft should be doing next.
The problem, though, is that Gates isn't attuned to what's happening in tech the way he once was. He's busy saving the world. His time is spent meeting with heads of state, and figuring out how to cure poverty and global disease. His brain power is not trained 100% on iPads, servers, enterprise software, and web-based software. (When you're fighting Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook, who spend every second of the day thinking about tech, you need to be just as focused.)
Anyone that's CEO will have Gates bending his or her ear. And they can't just ignore Gates.
In addition to Gates and Ballmer, Microsoft is also about to add an activist board member. ValueAct, which took a stake in Microsoft, is getting its own board member starting this year. Although, the ValueAct board member could be helpful to the new CEO, since ValueAct wants Microsoft to change its ways.
If the board room dynamics weren't difficult enough, there's the actual company which has gone from a near-monopoly in computing to an almost also-ran status in consumer tech.
So, yeah, it's a tough job!
But, there is only 1 job like this available in the world. And if you're scared off by all the above, you shouldn't take the job. Microsoft is going to have to have to find the right person, even if it takes a little longer than expected.
Add to Cart
View detail
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Wall Street Journal. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Wall Street Journal. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 05 Januari 2014
Sabtu, 07 Juli 2012
The Daily Beast App

Price - Free
Category - News
Greg's Review
I'm a news junkie. Comes from my newspaper days. For about two decades the best source of national news was the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The news digest on the front page could be read in 15 minutes and you were as informed for the day. Remember this was before the 24 hour news cycle.
In the digital age news cames all the time not once a day. The Daily Beast reproduces the Wall Street Journal news digest and then updates it by constantly refreshing news stories. You on a cross country trip and up at 2 am? You can get an up to the minute breakdown of the news. No story goes more than a couple of paragraphs so you get all the facts quickly.
The interface is simple but very smooth. The app is one of the best free apps out there for news junkies. Give it a try! You can't beat the price!
From Developer
The Daily Beast's app is the quickest way to get breaking news from across the Web on your iPhone. Using a distinctive and fun interface, The Daily Beast offers instant summaries of the Web's must-read stories, as well as original news reporting, opinion, and photo galleries.
Features:
• The Daily Beast’s “Cheat Sheet” of the best stories from around the Web — the best way to get the latest summaries of breaking news on your iPhone.
• Original news reporting and features on politics, entertainment, culture, world news, and books.
• All of the articles and photo galleries from The Daily Beast’s Web site, www.thedailybeast.com.
• Customizable navigation to get you to your favorite stories faster.
• Share stories via email and Facebook.
• Distinctive, touch-friendly interface expressly designed for the iPhone and iPod touch.
Add to Cart View detail
Label:
Apple,
Daily Beast,
Handhelds,
iPhone,
IPod Touch,
MSNBC,
news,
Smartphones,
Wall Street Journal
Senin, 06 Juni 2011
The Chinese IP Address Fallacy In Cyber Attribution
Google recently announced a spear phishing campaign that had been going on for over a year and "which appears to originate from Jinan, China" that targeted the personal Gmail accounts of hundreds of various persons of interest presumably to the Chinese government. The proof to support the headline was that Chinese IP addresses were involved. What both Google and Siobhan Gorman who reported on the story for the Wall Street Journal failed to disclose was that other countries IP addresses were used as well including South Korea and the United States. Copies of the spoofed emails along with the originating IPs were disclosed back in February on the Contagio blog. Of the six IP addresses used in the military and government employee phishing scheme, 2 were from Hong Kong, 2 were from Beijing, 1 was from Seoul, and 1 was from New York:
In 2010, Telegeograhy rated China Telecom (55 million customers) and China Unicom (40 million customers) as the two largest ISPs in the world serving 20% of all broadband customers on earth. And neither company restricts its customer base to residents of the Peoples Republic of China. Anyone can buy server time on any of these mainstream Chinese ISPs:
Google probably chose to focus on the two IP addresses that resolved to Jinan, the capital of Shandong province, because its home to Lanxiang Vocational School, which was associated with the Google attacks of December 2009 - January 2010 and because it has a PLA regional command center. The problem with this argument is that Jinan is a high tech industrial zone with over 6 million people and more than a dozen universities. Sourcing an email to Jinan is like sourcing a fruit shipment to California's Central Valley. It wasn't good evidence back in January, 2010 and it's no better now. There are at least a dozen foreign governments that I can think of who have a vested interest in reading the personal email accounts of U.S. China policy makers, military leaders, government officials, etc. and all of them are standing up Cyber Commands and enjoy the benefit of their own nationalistic hacker crews from time to time.
None of this rules China out as the responsible party, of course. I'm simply arguing for a higher bar of evidence before making the leap that China did it. One alternative method, for example, is to try to answer "why" the spear phishing attack was done. Once you have a clear grasp as to why, you can move on to creating a list of those who would benefit and then look for reasons that might exclude each member of that list. The discipline of alternative analysis has been a difficult one to adopt even among those who do it for a living within the intelligence community because our individual perceptions are highly biased in favor of something called mirror-imaging; i.e., we imagine that everyone sees things as we do. Another obstacle to alternative analysis is fear: the feat of being wrong; of looking silly; of taking an unpopular stand and suffering the consequences; and so on. Now that the Pentagon has determined that a cyber attack may be sufficient to justify a kinetic response, it is even more imperative that corporate leaders like Google, government leaders like the U.S. Secretary of State, and influential media like the Wall Street Journal exercise more due diligence before leaping to conclusions that may have harmful, possibly irreversible international repercussions.
Add to Cart
View detail
- 113.28.117.4: Hong Kong (PCCW Business Internet Access)
- 115.160.146.16: Hong Kong (Wharf TT Ltd)
- 218.56.241.32: Beijing (China Unicom)
- 218.56.239.206: Beijing (China Unicom)
- 61.106.26.226: Seoul (Korea NIC)
- 69.147.251.108: New York (Nobis Technology Group LLC)
In 2010, Telegeograhy rated China Telecom (55 million customers) and China Unicom (40 million customers) as the two largest ISPs in the world serving 20% of all broadband customers on earth. And neither company restricts its customer base to residents of the Peoples Republic of China. Anyone can buy server time on any of these mainstream Chinese ISPs:
- China Telecom
- China Mobile
- China Unicom
- HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd
- Beijing Xinnet Digital Information Technology Co. Ltd
Google probably chose to focus on the two IP addresses that resolved to Jinan, the capital of Shandong province, because its home to Lanxiang Vocational School, which was associated with the Google attacks of December 2009 - January 2010 and because it has a PLA regional command center. The problem with this argument is that Jinan is a high tech industrial zone with over 6 million people and more than a dozen universities. Sourcing an email to Jinan is like sourcing a fruit shipment to California's Central Valley. It wasn't good evidence back in January, 2010 and it's no better now. There are at least a dozen foreign governments that I can think of who have a vested interest in reading the personal email accounts of U.S. China policy makers, military leaders, government officials, etc. and all of them are standing up Cyber Commands and enjoy the benefit of their own nationalistic hacker crews from time to time.
None of this rules China out as the responsible party, of course. I'm simply arguing for a higher bar of evidence before making the leap that China did it. One alternative method, for example, is to try to answer "why" the spear phishing attack was done. Once you have a clear grasp as to why, you can move on to creating a list of those who would benefit and then look for reasons that might exclude each member of that list. The discipline of alternative analysis has been a difficult one to adopt even among those who do it for a living within the intelligence community because our individual perceptions are highly biased in favor of something called mirror-imaging; i.e., we imagine that everyone sees things as we do. Another obstacle to alternative analysis is fear: the feat of being wrong; of looking silly; of taking an unpopular stand and suffering the consequences; and so on. Now that the Pentagon has determined that a cyber attack may be sufficient to justify a kinetic response, it is even more imperative that corporate leaders like Google, government leaders like the U.S. Secretary of State, and influential media like the Wall Street Journal exercise more due diligence before leaping to conclusions that may have harmful, possibly irreversible international repercussions.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)



