Here is the essence of a horseshit analogy. Microsoft is compared to an oligarchy - the Politburo [1]. And then by magic transformed into the entire Soviet Union. This allows the advancement of an argument for breakup based on shortcomings in the delivery of consumer goods.

"That’s why Steve Ballmer’s replacement should not be one executive but should be a number of people who have experience in different domains and who can run independent operating companies."

Mr. Wadhwa, how did that work for ATT? The article is utterly bereft of intellectual coherence. Microsoft is far more tightly focused than Samsung or Siemens and more profitable to boot.

[1]and what corporation couldn't be?

What a terrible article.

I realize he is proposing an entire break-up, but I would have liked it if he had approached the problem providing the context of the difference between his proposed plan and the business unit separation. Afterall, Microsoft is famous for teams fighting each other for power and resources and meanwhile still requiring cooperation.

oblig wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_V._Gerstner,_Jr.

The idea of giving away RT in order to compete with Android is only viable financially with the multiple network effects between the products of different divisions. If he proposes breaking up Microsoft, he should, at least, propose a business model that would work with the broken up company.

Imagine how much would be different now, had there been baby-microsofts competing during the last ten years.

The phone and Surface might end up failing (which is a shame, both of those products are WORLDS better than they ever should have been), but the classic Windows PC will stick around for quite awhile, and Xbox isn't going anywhere either.

But if Microsoft were split into divisions (Windows/Mobile/Tablets, Enterprise/Office, Xbox/entertainment, Bing/Hotmail somewhere?) that could freely compete, it's actually pretty easy to imagine suitable CEO's for each one.

I'm truly hard-pressed to think of any value Microsoft as a conglomerate of these divisions, actually provides, strategy- or synergy-wise -- at least that's visible to those of us outside the company.

But is there any kind of precedent for this? It's common for companies to spin off a division, but I can't think of any company voluntarily truly breaking itself up like this. It's hard to imagine a board saying, "we admit we're not providing strategic value here, let's break ourselves up".

Review: Windows 7 desktops remain important for people running high end applications from AutoCad, Adobe, Mathematica, Office, etc. Also developers for code to run on Windows Server or in house Windows 7 desktop applications.

There are many client devices with many more to come.

The client devices need the Internet and servers, and as concerns about security increase clients should just cache data, easy to erase quickly in case the device falls into other hands, and not store the data; servers need to be very secure; and many organizations and individuals will want their data on their servers in their physical space protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Shrink wrapped software? Okay, have a nice application and want to write it for sales, installation, support, and usage on all the different client devices, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, smart phones, tablets? Heck no. And, for Windows 7, etc. a user is very reluctant just to install a shrink wrapped application due to issues of system security and stability. So, the shrink wrapped business is in deep trouble except for the big applications from AutoCad, Adobe, Mathematica, etc.

So, what to do about the work of shrink wrapped applications? Sure: Make them Web apps; that is, use a Web browser for the user interface; let the browser run on whatever client; and put the rest of the code on a server. If the client can't run a good Web browser, then do the same thing by writing a client app that uses a Web server for the data, algorithms, and computation.

So, we've got it: For Microsoft, push Windows Server for the servers. Push client devices. Have really good Web browsers. And in cases where own both ends of the wire, take advantage of that for more in functionality.

Fundamental point: People using devices, including mobile, want some utility, functionality, etc. Since a single mobile device is quite limited in what it can do, the device is mostly for user interface (UI) for services, applications, algorithms, data, etc. on servers. So, the servers remain just crucial.

Microsoft has shown that it knows how to run huge server farms, well managed, with minimal staff. That's a huge business advantage. Computing is charging on; e.g., there is a new solid state mass memory that can put a terabyte on the area of a postage stamp. It's been a while since Intel knew how to put 1000 cores on a single processor. New operating system concepts will be coming forward. All this progress will need lots of software development, e.g., for servers. Microsoft's got the people, funds, market, etc. to do that work and lead in it.

Mistake: Dunkin Donuts sells more donuts than Windows sells copies of Windows 8. Similarly for hamburgers at McDonald's. Similarly for smart phones from Apple. And, for all three cases, so what for Microsoft? There may be a lot of new client devices, but that does not mean that Microsoft has to dominate in all of them.

All the smart phones in the world won't mean that a high end, 64 bit Windows 7 desktop system will be of no interest; a smartphone and a high end Windows 7 desktop just are not the same thing and are not really in direct competition; even more the case for Windows Server.

Breakup? Windows Server can't exist alone and, instead, must serve the many client devices. So, Microsoft should stay in the business of soft/hardware for some client devices. So, don't breakup.

I disagree with this claim, and offer as proof the lack of Office on any of MS's mobile devices. Compare with Apple, who had versions of all of their iWork apps available on the iPad when that device launched. Further, Office has its own UX norms which frequently contradict the Windows norms.

I do not claim the article was high-quality, but I to take issue with the idea that there is intradivision synergy at MS. The opposite seems to be true, at least for now.

XBox (independent) vs. Sony, Android and Apple is a losing proposition, they may as well sell the division. In a high-stakes game like that, you need a parent company with deep, deep pockets.

Windows independent of Office is worthless. There's virtually no reason to use Windows apart from the Office infrastructure built around it, or the entrenched base Visual Studio developers. It's somewhat popular as a gaming platform, but as Linux starts to be reshaped into a first-class gaming operating system, that will quickly become a non-factor.

The online division is the most troubled, basically a black-hole for money. Surely it could be made profitable, or simply sold for a massive chunk of cash to someone like Yahoo! who could afford to pick it up.

It's not that the divisions would do better independently, but they're part of a highly dysfunctional family that cannot survive independently.

You must not be an enterprise IT buyer. Here's how it works:

All large corporations use some Microsoft product, be it Windows, Exchange, Office, or something else. And they get volume discounts and significant other discounts off the list price.

"Oh, you want to replace Office with OpenOffice? Hmmm, seems we made a mistake calculating your Exchange licenses - the price just went up 300%."

Is it becoming more clear?

I actually don't know how Xbox is doing financially on its own these days, but I doubt it's extremely profitable and has a lot of cash on its own. The consoles usually make the money back over certain period of time from games. Could Xbox survive on its own in that scenario?

As for Bing - it's still losing billions of dollars a year last I checked. So are the Surface tablets, and Skype - well Microsoft paid over $8 billion for Skype, and they're not going to get that money back anytime soon. Hotmail, despite many registered accounts, was pretty dead, and I think only some transitioned to Outlook.com.