this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
1059 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
78482 readers
2451 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand why shareholders keep this guy's CEO he's absolutely terrible at his job. They need to go back to having an actual engineer as CEO, someone who understands what the hell is going on and doesn't keep getting distracted by the next shiny bauble.
What are you talking about? Under this guy's tenure the MSFT share price skyrocketed. What else would shareholders care about? He's doing an excellent job, as far as they're concerned.
IMO, Satya isn’t the same anymore. His disabled child died, and he gave a speech about pushing forward to investors at the time but no longer cares about accessibility. Now, he’s got ai-induced psychosis so he doesn’t care about azure, office, Xbox, linkedin, GitHub, etc. Unless it has Copilot in it, because he’s invested in openAI.
Mate, have you seen the valuation of companies handling AI or hardware that AI requires?
Shareholders are creaming their pants any time someone says "agentic" or "AI".
Oh dear. That sounds like a super-villain origin story. "I just wanted to develop an AI capable of bringing back my dead child to life!" Another broken soul with too much power...
Are you wishing back for Ballmer? IMO things were even worse, then. When they built a new version of Windows that was so bad they threw it away after a few years and botched together Vista as a quick save.
Or for Gates? Who just missed and overlooked this newfangled internet thing in the 90s until they slammed the brakes and used loads of money to turn things around?
Or the Microsoft that successfully hollowed out monopoly regulations paving the way for the tech bro style off business we now have?
But engineer don't make dividends go up. Engineer know to reinvest, and stock holder sad not get more money.
He's generating profit, that's all that matters to the shareholders.
Is he?
No one is buying the Xbox, quite possibly because no one can tell if it's a new generation or not. I don't think any AI company has yet posted a profit. Market share for Linux has increased in the last 2 years and most of that is from people moving away from Windows.
Are you being serious?
Have a look at the MSFT share price in 2014 when he took over ~$45/share and now ~$470/share - of course investors love him, he's 10x their investments since he was appointed.
Share price and profit are two very different beasts and only really have a loose connection to one another. Plenty of companies lose money left and right but still have high share prices.
The share price is just what the stock market feels a company is worth. It's almost 100% vibe-based.
I'm not sure what your point is, the investors care about the stock price because that's their money in/money out. Lower profit could be fine if they're, say, investing 150Bn/yr into a new venture that stands to be profitable in the future (may even drive the stock price up). It's vibes based to a degree, quite a bit of analysis goes into a company's performance as well.
FWIW their gross profit is also up more than 3x in the same time frame.
My only point is that share price and profit are not necessarily correlated, people mix them up all the time, so I try to correct that when I see it. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point - I would agree that most investors only care about the share price.
Yeah, I should've been more clear in my original post - I was trying to convey why investors would like him and just ignored the profit bit.
Their business is B2B now. Nadella is focused on that, gaming is a nice side business to him, and the home user wasn't profitable enough to care about keeping.
Right now my fortune 500 employer is all in on Microsoft, they pay for around 200,000 Microsoft business licenses and about 2/3's of those PCs also have a 365 business license, plus they have Microsoft servers with their own individual licenses in every state and almost every country. And that's just one company, think about how many companies are all in on Microsoft and you can see why B2B is what he cares about.
That and mass surveillance such as with Palestine and Microslop's Azure used by Israel to obscure individual culpability in deciding who to murder next.
Their business is by a vast majority in the cloud now.
Midjourney is profitable.
Didn’t he start Azure? Like the reason MS have so much money still.
At making shareholder value he seems pretty good at that and that’s all that matters.
Nah, that was Dave Cutler.
Not correct either. Maybe my wording was poor, several people were there at the start of Azure.
Nadella is the reason it’s the second largest cloud provider next to AWS.
But he didn't "start" it, at least not according to Wikipedia
No. But as I said my wording was poor. I should have said Nadella made Azure the player it is today and thus how rich Microsoft are.
That’s not nothing And it shows he makes money for shareholders. Why wouldn’t you want this guy as CEO if that’s your aim.
Yeah, he seems really, really bad at this.