So I just read Mary Jo Foley’s take of the Sinofsky exit. She seems to be leaning more towards politics rather than product as to why Sinofksy is gone.
Here’s what she’s saying (in a nutshell – please read her post).
- Sinofsky railroaded his vision over others.
- MS is now going to focus on collaboration, it’s clear – because it’s in the proxy.
- Since 2) is the going forward focus and 1) is also true, then ‘hit the road Steve’.
Seriously? What kind of company would MS be if this is how they treated their senior executives? Why would you work there if you were just an average employee? (I’m sure Google, Facebook, or Amazon are hiring)
Look I’m not a fan of Sinofsky but he is a skilled executive and for MS to cast him aside for ruffling some feathers is just ludicrous and simply a waste of value. And lets face it, is this really the first time that Ballmer is hearing about this? Really? I hope not. I mean, his “politics” where acceptable leading up the launch – you know that product MS is betting its future on – but now, whoa, sorry Steve. And who really gave Sinoksky this power – Ballmer. Even Forstall wasn’t forced out due to politics alone – it was the product and what followed.
I simply don’t buy the politics argument. Was it a factor – sure. Was it the the main reason. – no. And if Win 8 is a run away mega-hit then his politics would be forgiven or at least tolerated. So to me, that leaves only the product.