[brudgers]

"To me, Microsoft seems like the former Soviet Union—Politburo, five-year plans, and all."

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?

[ChuckMcM]

I agree with your essential claim that it is poor reasoning to support a pre-disposed view, but sometimes folks reason backwards to see if they can justify their opinion.

Microsoft is clearly a complex place, and huge in ways that are hard to comprehend. But it is also conflicted. The 'essence' of the breakup argument are that the company's business units need to be able to execute on their objectives independently of the other company business units. And that is true for companies of this size. When it doesn't work well, which we saw in AT&T and Sun Micro, it causes internal friction and damage, when it does as IBM and GE have shown it can, it really does allow for getting more stuff done over all.

There are lots of ways that Microsoft could go, personally I think they would do well to create three 'views', Microsoft Consumer which presents the 'Surface' operating system to end users, Microsoft Developer which presents a developer focussed system to end users, and Microsoft Enterprise which presents a managed infrastructure to Enterprise customers. Each view has goals, but they grow from the same roots.

[brudgers]

I agree that we often reason backward from our conclusions - I'll even admit that sometimes an analogy is a useful way of explaining our reasoning. However, even were the analogy to the Soviet Union presented coherently, the interpretation of the benefits of its breakup require glossing over two decades of economic turmoil, repressive governments, loose nukes, the collusion of government officials in the pillaging of national assets and ghastly breakdowns in the rule of law in both Russia and the other former republics [and satellite states]. Lots of really bad shit happened after the wall came down [yes, and before it came down].

But, for the sake of avoiding speculations over counterfactuals and arguments over what counts as better, let's suppose that the analogy has some merit and that there is a case for breaking up Microsoft. Let me further suppose that that case is not based on traditional antipathies, and is instead founded upon a business case analysis.

Under these suppositions, why is there a case for breaking up a very profitable Microsoft, but not one for breaking up the far less profitable and vastly less focused Siemens? [software, light bulbs, trains, power plants, MRI's, financial solutions]

The other thing that needs to be provided are cases where a large profitable company with minimal physical assets was successfully broken up.

Absent a well reasoned internal business case for breaking Microsoft up, I am of the opinion that the business case is external: the possibility of breakup (or even the mere suggestion thereof) creates uncertainty -> creates volatility in the share price -> creates opportunities for arbitrage. Until there's a business case based on profits put forth, that's the only money trail I can follow.

[freehunter]

And what corporation doesn't have a five year plan?