No, a lot of that value (and revenue, something you are missing!) was created before AI.
Azure, office 365, cloud, these were all massive to Microsoft and had created loads of value and revenue.
That isn’t a bubble.
Also AI might be hype, but it might not. Microsoft managed to get in at the right time with the right company, and is doing better than google, apple, amazon and many others.
To give no credit to Nadella is ridiculous there are so many other companies waiting to take Microsoft’s place. I find this resentful envy here on HN extremely sad and also very dishonest.
I really disagree on this. I’m not saying nadella hat no merit but:
* msft was already a giant before he took over. Expanding this is not easy but it’s not like becoming a giant, very large companies have huge advantages, many of which completely unfair, which many govt are starting to try to push back on.
* as stated before, it’s a one way street: if he increases Msft value, he makes millions. If he crashes msft, he makes millions, just less of them. His risk is not comparable to the risk of “normal” employees who can be laid off tomorrow.
Hence I really think the pay gap is ethically questionable.
He gets laid off to if he fails. And both he and employees get to keep what they've earned up to that point. I don't see the difference except in the size of the paypacket. Both are employees, and are owed AT MOST 30 days of work.
CEOs often leave with millions in golden parachutes even after abject failures. Employees don't have such luxuries, especially if they fail at their jobs.
I'm giving him plenty of credit, he's the first competent CEO of Microsoft in a decade. Does that mean he deserves $40million/year while his company is laying off people to save on employee salaries? No, simple as that.
CEOs aren't some great superhumans that everything happens because of. They have a very important positions, and many CEOs have ruined or bankrupted companies through sheer incompetence, while many others have created amazing value (both societal and economic). They are not deities, they deserve prison and for their money to be seized when they commit crimes, and they don't deserve to be paid thousands of times more than the median employees that actually do the work and execute on the CEO's vision.
> I find this resentful envy here on HN extremely sad and also very dishonest.
It's disdain for sociopathy more than anything else. I personally can tell you that if I were a CEO, I would not be able to sleep at night if my company's revenue, profits and valuation are booming and I fire tens of thousands of people for no other reason than because I can and it will keep costs (that the company can easily afford) down.
The guy who bungled smartphones while having the unimaginable advantage of the business ecosystem? And the guy who was years late on cloud computing and SaaS more widely?
IMO if Ballmer had stayed on until present day, Microsoft would have become something like Oracle. Technically growing revenue, but very little substance or relevance, no new customers or new business from them, only jacking up prices.
Also, he left in 2014, a decade ago, so it was ambiguous if I'm covering him or not.
I’m kinda glad that the actual definition of “deserved” is determined by the market and not individuals, and this is a good example of why. Your argument is essentially capitalism vs. anti-capitalism. While I’m all for supporting various alternative models, usually anti-capitalist folks don’t suggest anything specific, except maybe government interventions to cap CEO salaries or something like that – which is clearly just a bandaid and still leaves a bunch of loopholes.
> I personally can tell you that if I were a CEO, I would not be able to sleep at night if my company's revenue, profits and valuation are booming and I fire tens of thousands of people for no other reason than because I can and it will keep costs (that the company can easily afford) down.
No shareholders in their right mind would hire such a CEO, so your chances are pretty slim.
Azure, office 365, cloud, these were all massive to Microsoft and had created loads of value and revenue.
That isn’t a bubble.
Also AI might be hype, but it might not. Microsoft managed to get in at the right time with the right company, and is doing better than google, apple, amazon and many others.
To give no credit to Nadella is ridiculous there are so many other companies waiting to take Microsoft’s place. I find this resentful envy here on HN extremely sad and also very dishonest.