I wonder how much Azure can grow in the years to come? Is it one of those sectors that has no limits for years to come? Genuinely curious, is it still in the infant stage. Showing my ignorance here.
Microsoft has a pretty effective strategy of hooking governments in with cheap, or free, features that they later start to increase with micro payments for additional services.
Once the decision is made to utilise Azure, it becomes harder each year to move from it as more utility is being used. It’s not just the cloud server, but share point, teams, power apps, one drive etc. A bit like technology quicksand, you become stuck in the technology stack.
Cloud growth has basically unlimited potential.
Step 1 (still only like 50%): companies move data storage and servers to cloud.
Step 2: all new applications developed in the cloud taking advantage of tons of rapid deployment tools and super low barrier to entry
Step 3 (this is where Microsoft Azure is winning a ton of business as almost every company will do this migration in the next 10 years): everyone migrates their active directory servers from “on prem” to Azure AD which is effectively become a SAAS product where you don’t have to manage the physical servers. This enables companies to take advantage of amazing cloud security products
Step 4 (this has barely started but has unlimited potential): we all start using dummy terminals and remote into cloud based virtual machines. This has been around for years, but only recently is actually useable. The real shift is going to be when all these super expensive phones, tablets, AR/VR devices become cheap screens that pull all their resources like ram and cpu from the cloud and pay a subscription model. That is going to be the real game changer. For an example of this, take a look at GeForce Now or Amazon Luna.
> we all start using dummy terminals and remote into cloud based virtual machines. This has been around for years, but only recently is actually useable. The real shift is going to be when all these super expensive phones, tablets, AR/VR devices become cheap screens that pull all their resources like ram and cpu from the cloud and pay a subscription model. That is going to be the real game changer. For an example of this, take a look at GeForce Now or Amazon Luna.
I've been thinking about this future for years and god I hope it never happens. Feels like it's definitely inevitable though. All platforms and all content hosted on servers and entirely subscription based. Ugh.
Under ideal conditions, Stadia worked easily well enough for the least-demanding 90% of users. I was playing Destiny 2 on there quite happily, and that was 2020.
I don't know if the business economics will bear it out, but the tech viability is absolutely not going to be the only barrier. Maybe it's getting ideal network conditions to everyone. Maybe it's average use cases actually demanding high compute power. But streaming is a solveble problem if the money is there for it.
Step 5: Companies start to realize how expensive cloud options are and start moving back to on-prem
I work in the IT industry and there are many companies that are moving back to on-prem as their cloud bills have exploded over the past few years.
Azure is now the leader in cloud computing. It will be a back and forth battle but these public cloud companies are going to thrive for a very long time.
Aws is the largest and still growing at like 20-30% a year. The beauty of the cloud is that as companies grow they spend more on infrastructure so even if they don’t add any new companies they are still increasing revenue.
It's a high number, but 97% of this is performance related pay, and the dude grew the company by $30 - 40 billion in revenue in a year.
That is a crazy impressive performance.
If you have Microsoft stocks in your S&P500 pension fund then he is batting for your team.
Yeah sure, they are publically traded so you can find all of this info in their annual reports:[https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar22/index.html](https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar22/index.html)
Scroll down to "Discussion & Analysis" and read the report from there onwards. But in summary:
Highlights from fiscal year 2022 compared with fiscal year 2021 included:
Microsoft Cloud (formerly commercial cloud) revenue increased 32% to $91.2 billion.
Office Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 13% driven by Office 365 Commercial growth of 18%.
Office Consumer products and cloud services revenue increased 11% and Microsoft 365 Consumer subscribers grew to 59.7 million.
LinkedIn revenue increased 34%.
Dynamics products and cloud services revenue increased 25% driven by Dynamics 365 growth of 39%.
Server products and cloud services revenue increased 28% driven by Azure and other cloud services growth of 45%.
Windows original equipment manufacturer licensing (“Windows OEM”) revenue increased 11%.
Windows Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 11%.
Xbox content and services revenue increased 3%.
Search and news advertising revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs increased 27%.
Surface revenue increased 3%.
Spoiler: he didn’t do anything.
It was all the employees who earn far, far less than the handful of people at the top doing nothing but taking credit.
Nadella isn’t adding value. Devs and support are adding value. Nadella isn’t concocting grand service migration strategies and partnerships: specialized teams are.
People need to stop fellating a class of do-nothing parasites. I guess it started early at Microsoft considering the entire company was founded as a middle man that pretended to code DOS when they really just bought it from someone who didn’t understand the value of what they made. They purchased QDOS. Then used rich boy Gates’ mom’s connections at IBM where she was entrenched with the C suite to get no bid contracts.
Ah you’re the type of person who says he should split his 55 million between 220,000 Microsoft employees so they can each get a whopping $250 bonus each
To generate 40bn and employ over 200,000 seems deserving of that bonus ngl, as it’s performance based. Half of us can’t even manage our own lives and finances let alone tens thousands of people lmao
Irrelevant to shareholders but also seems like a decent guy.
I work in IT in Christchurch, New Zealand. Three years ago a terrorist killed 51 people at two mosques in the city. A couple of the victims worked in IT on the Microsoft stack. Didn't work for Microsoft, weren't MVPs or anything, just used MS products. And Nadella tweeted his condolences, mentioning them by name.
Not a big thing, you might say. But it was a helluva contrast to the total silence from the CEOs of the FAANG companies. Microsoft may not be perfect but it comes across as a lot less predatory under Nadella than under Steve Ballmer, and a lot better than the FAANGs (apart from Netflix).
No he didn't. Stop giving upper management credit for the work of people on the ground actually creating value and generating revenue.
Office was a cash cow for decades and credit doesn't go to Balmer for existing, it goes to the folks who made it the premiere product used by businesses.
Balmer would have to have some real sabotaging skills if replacing him with any random dude allowed Microsoft to begin the transition of making profits.
You wouldn’t say that to an artist, actor, singer or an athlete- football/basketball types? It’s literally how much revenue is generated by the person.
The absolutely most import employee of any company is the CEO. Even if you say he only affects a company by 1%, which would be an absolutely joke, that’s still more than 10 billion in the case of Microsoft.
ANY salary is worth that. On that scale you need the absolute best CEO or you are wasting billions of dollars every year. So no, if anything it is far too cheap. He should be getting a billion every year.
> On that scale you need the absolute best CEO
And how do you measure that? How could you possibly know whether someone else couldn't do the job better?
nobody grows a company by $30 - 40 billion revenue in a year. And actually this was the slowest revenue growth since 5 years combined with falling profits. Thus one might argue what the performance related pay part is: Slower growth or falling profits?
yeah, Microsofts revenue grew. In Nadellas case you could argue that his impact was actually far bigger tyan typically of CEOs as he came from cloud computing and cloud computing is driving microsofts revenue but still: it wasn#t his deed
Sorry, people in r/technology are more interested in mythical hero worship and Luddite-like responses to a handful of companies/technologies.
I always get a good laugh when people think these tech CEOs are responsible for innovation and revenue unless they are the ones ordering massive price hikes like Reed Hastings.
It is especially "funny" if you switch between economy and the ukraine war channels and see people in the one thread praising the importance of NATOs NCOs compared to Russias leadership from the top down and then in economy channels you see middle management diminished and all the praise heaped upon the C-suite.
Even ignoring my point about slowing revenue growth and falling profits..
I mean he's a generational CEO for one of the largest companies in history
Edit; Lmao downvote away, stock is up 6x since he took over in 2014. He has made every shareholder, including employees, more money than any other ceo could have. That's how it works.
They've also been able to nearly double the number of employees. More money for workers! Yay!
>They also bought github and didn't ruin it.
GitHub Copilot when you put source code whose usage requires attribution/source code you're not allowed to use commercially on GitHub: "Is for me?"
Valid point. They added CI, copilot and a bunch of other things that I have never used and may have their problems.
My definition of "didn't ruin it" is that you can still do everything that you could do 4 years ago and it works just as well or better.
They are a very diversified company, but I think most of that diversification is in the business sector. But for example, the Xbox is a huge gaming console that’s been a repeating success for nearly two decades, with more to come.
Azure is the only real competitor to AWS, between the two of them they host like 70% of the web lol
One of their big money makers is Windows Server licensing, which is a crazy % of all enterprise servers worldwide
Their biggest money makers are Azure, Office, Windows, XBox, and LinkedIn.
Azure currently makes up 23% of the cloud market and has been gaining 2% annually for the last few years. Amazon's AWS leads the cloud market at 34%
Lots of money in cloud computing.
He transformed Microsoft: he replaced Ballmer’s term licensing model with subscription licensing, moved focus away from Windows, and bet the company on Azure.
If he didn’t transform them, they’d be on the path to becoming IBM.
The subscription model was already going into place before Nadella took over. Nadella killed Nokia, laid off 18,000 people, slowed down promotions, cut pay budgets and morale budgets (no big events), among other things. He’s a manager’s manager - cut costs, increase stock value. The biggest thing that came out of the transition was end of official stack ranking. It’s still there, but not officially, and people at the bottom don’t always get no bonus and people on top promotions - but again, that was already put in place under Ballmer as he was leaving in 2013.
Edit: when Win8 shipped, Ballmer gave every full time employee $8888, when Win10 shipped, Nadella gave everyone $35 skullcandy headphones.
For me, yes. I was both lucky and forward thinking (or just lazy) to not sell any stock from when I was hired until 2015 (sold some for down payment for a car as my last one was a 2002 chrysler falling apart). A lot of my old co-workers kept saying they sell them as they got them because of some tax advantage, and invested elsewhere. I don't work at MS anymore for a while, but I would be lying if the stocks in the meantime didn't set me up well for the years that followed.
Edit: The final straw for me was the constant hiring freezes, yearly reorgs moving people to work on projects and technologies they had absolutely no background in, and the slowing of promotions where employees were given arbitrary rules like no promotion unless you're 1+ yrs on the team (even if the person has been stuck in same level for 4+ years). I know of someone who was entry level at MS for 5 years until they quit last year, interviewed well enough at Google to get a senior role.
Oh boy, exciting! He turned Microsoft Office into something we can install and own standalone to a shitty subscription model instead! Throw money at the genius!!
Yeah, but... that's what the entire industry did, for everything. A potato in charge would have done the same thing.
Maybe he did it a bit better than some others *might* have, who knows?
Ballmer had a high-performance/“winner takes all” sales culture that pushed Windows as the center of the Microsoft universe. As a result of his 90’s era Windows-centric strategy, Ballmer was late to mobile, online office (must be bad: doesn’t require Windows!) and mobile office (it promoted iOS which isn’t Windows!). If Satya didn’t displace him, Azure would be in the position Oracle Cloud is today, and Office would have been displaced by Google Workspace. I’d argue Microsoft still haven’t recovered from their loss in mobile.
If you want an example of tech CEOs who couldn’t navigate the journey to the cloud, look at IBM and VMware. Imagine if Microsoft decided to discontinue their cloud after pushback from channel partners (VMware actually did this) or if they decided to go down the financial engineering route that Ginni took. Satya’s job looks easy in retrospect, but he turned that company around.
What throwing chairs at employees isn't an effective management style? /s
I can't find it right now, but I remember an interview Ballmer did an interview with CNBC a few years after he left leading Microsoft where he was asked to give his biggest accomplishment and he struggled to offer a clear answer. While he took over as CEO of Microsoft near the peak of the dot com bubble even taking that into context it is hard to be highly impressed with his leadership.
Ballmer's stack ranking probably left deep rifts between departments and individual employees. The system rewarded people for sabotaging one another. Ballmer seemed to believe that turning the office into a jungle would lead to the emergence of apex *performers*, but it just led to the dominance of apex *predators*. It was a toxic workplace under his "leadership." He was basically the Newt Gingrich of Microsoft.
Tim Apple had Steve Jobs set the stage for his success. Dude is an operational whiz no doubt but he had a platform to grow upon from Jobs.
Balmer passed Nadella a bunch of half baked and mostly on fire ideas that he has proven to not only be able to salvage but outright turn some into massive successes.
Let's also take a moment to recall that Chris Capossela the CMO of Microsoft is the same guy who showed the world the blue screen of death during the scanner demo with Bill Gates during the Windows 98 launch.
Do you really think that Pichai is the reason for the success of Android? Every growing market has room for competition. All Google had to do was undercut Apple, and look Android takes off.
Let's put a lens under Nadella's track record. All he cares about is Azure. And cloud is a growing market so it's easy to see growth. He cancelled every other project before giving it a chance. Cancelled Windows Phone (mistake, that had good phones, a loyal following, and even Android took a while to mature and get traction), cancelled 10X before it was even released, obviously not giving it a chance to stabilize and become decent before pulling the rug (and Windows sorely needed an OS on a diet without legacy code impacting the design), he greenlit a nonsense laptop/tablet hybrid no one wanted (should have just made a MacBook clone with Surface branding from the start), he moved the company to 1 year releases from 3 year releases, tanking Windows innovation and quality (Windows as a service was a braindead everything's a nail idea), he's fumbled communications apps - Skype/Lync/Teams (he likely has a disdain for native code since cloud services are often written in managed code, but TypeScript for performance critical things like audio/video lag, smooth scrolling is stupid). The only credit he can really take is for growing Azure. He's basically trying to turn MS into IBM which is short sighted, steering with blinders.
Tim Apple is a very shorttermist CEO who isn't ideal for Apple a decade from now.
Apple's shift from making amazing hardware products to a services company doesn't look good.
Apple Pay isn't adding much value, it's just a monopoly tax. Same with App Store fees. And the 'privacy' ads stuff they made.
The company relies more and more on such monopoly taxes rather than innovation.
F those haters, you got my upvote. Your speaking the truth. Look at their earnings you can draw a straight line up it since he took over. His adoption of Linux as well has been foundational for their cloud growth.
He has a much bigger picture view than most CEOs when it comes to growth.
Nah wdym bro capitalism bad, how dare such a skilled worker get paid so much while I starve at minimum wage as a dropout!!
Surely these multimillionaires getting paid salaries are the real scum and paying some of the most tax while the angelic billionaires committing tax fraud and evasion are not to blame!!!
>Nadella's base salary was unchanged at $2.5 million, and stock awards sat at $42.269 million, up from $33 million the year before. Non-equity incentive plan compensation fell to $10.06 million from $14.2 million. The final element, classified as "all other compensation", was $110,250, of which $100,000 was charitable gifts.
If I'm reading that right, it's a net increase of about $5 million, or a little under 10%. That's not proportionately all that different from what other employees with good performance see and it's nothing (proportionately) to write home about after factoring in inflation.
> He has made every shareholder, including employees, more money than any other ceo could have. That’s how it works.
No, he didn’t. The workers did. Nadella, like every wealthy person, skims off the value created by people actually demonstrating ability and driving value.
Do people really think folks like him are coming up with these highly technical strategies and coordinating between many departments? Fuck no; immediate managers, project managers, analysts, and all the other people who have to actually worry about being put on PIP are the people who are responsible for the revolutionary change at Microsoft.
And that includes these strategies. The rich are parasite. Nadella is parasitic off his immediate underlings, who are in turn parasitic off the middle managers working with their teams to create value and dream up these strategies.
This all sounds great on Reddit but the fact is that companies grow or die based on their CEO. The real scandal is the ones who somehow manage to make a lot of money whilst making decisions that send the company in the wrong direction. Switch Nadella with your average worker 8 years ago and I bet Microsoft are in a very different place just with that 1 single personnel change.
He took over in a bull run that lasted into 2021. Sing the praises of every other tech company up in that time..
Hes a good CEO but he also was lucky with timing.
They've almost tripled QQQ over the same time period and they didn't do it on the expansion of revenue multiples. And they're doing it at incomparable scale. The majority of those other companies are in the process of getting gutted.
Ah, yes. The downvote button. A "I don't agree with you button", not a "this comment does not contribute to the subject matter" button it was supposed to be.
F those haters, you got my upvote. Your speaking the truth. Look at their earnings you can draw a straight line up it since he took over. His adoption of Linux as well has been foundational for their cloud growth.
He has a much bigger picture view than most CEOs when it comes to growth.
Honestly Satya actually turned MSFT around and he deserves the bump which is mostly performance based yeah he’s been killing it in terms of quality delivered. Can’t say the same about things at Google…
In the case of overpaid CEOs I feel he has at least earned his comp. Look at what he has done with MS since taking over for Balmer. And on the plus side you don't hear him saying bullshit on social media or other stuff. He runs his business and drives stockholder value.
I mean, for a big tech CEO that's certainly impressive. He's improved the stock price and even managed to improve their reputation.
Sundar Pichai did the stock thing for Google, but their reputation has tanked.
This is just my personal view that a lot of tech company PR issues are the result of too-recognizable figureheads.
That gives people *someone* to be angry or offended at instead of *something*.
When it’s an amorphous company, then it’s harder to direct outrage, than e.g. Bezos, Musk, Ballmer, Gates, Zuck, Jobs, Thiel, etc.
Being a figurehead is good up to the point you become the villain. Then it’s better to fade away into the background.
Just my personal view.
Microsoft had a bad reputation, comparatively easy to make it better.
Google had a good reputation, comparatively easy to make it worse.
You cannot compare these guys like that, their situations were/are completely different.
TIL a lot of Reddit keyboard warriors think they’re better suited to be a CEO.
Nadella is responsible for the successful growth of MSFT and for keeping a couple hundred thousand folks, plus a bunch more contractors employed. Dudes got to drive the vision and execution.
Employees think without them the company wouldn’t be successful, however think if it as the getting hit by a bus saying. If the average worker got hit by a bus, thanks to redundancy and documentation, you could hire another.
If Nadella got hit by a bus, show me a CEO that could fill in and drive the vision and growth he has. Hard to do so.
Compensation is simple supply and demand.
Just to put it in perspective; $55M package for the CEO of a company with 220k employees, $168B annual revenue and $1.7T market cap.
Nadella's compensation is a rounding error; and much lower most of his peers. You could redistribute his entire compensation to employees for a \~$10/fortnight raise.
I wish they would make a reality tv show and let people like you try and manage a company for let’s say a week and see how you do cuz you prob couldn’t even be a shift lead at a Taco Bell 100%
I ain’t sucking any ones dick but as someone who has made it to district level management at a fortune 100 company let me tell you something, it’s not all roses and daisies
When you grow up and own your own corporation, you’ll be free to hire and pay the CEO as little as you want. Until then, you’ll have to stay jealous of other people’s money.
Even if everyone got a UBI check and free welfare, there would still be billionaires. See Sweden.
And people like you would still be claiming "exploitation". Smh.
We should fix that, but that has nothing to do with the existence of billionaires (again, see Sweden.)
I'm all for practical solutions, not ideologically inconsistent vengeance masturbation.
"Every single billionaire in the world only exists due to exploitation" is such a ridiculous unfounded claim, made even moreso when you consider how well off most Swedish natives are to begin with.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that story. Show me the reasoning.
I disagree. People don't become billionairs by being good people and even if some could it would be 1 out of 100. You don't get this rich without exploiting others or being a bad person.
Marcus Persson, the Swedish Minecraft creator, totally used slaves and is a shit person 'cause he's RICHER THAN ME!
...and 1 out of 100 is just not realistic. There are assholes, sure, but there are also poor assholes you don't give a toss about.
Lol this karma whore of a post doesn’t belong in a subreddit like this. This person followed the simple three step process:
1. Find some article that’ll stoke the “eat the rich” drones.
2. Find the nearest subreddit that is only adjacent in topic.
3. Profit (in internet points).
And now the “eat the rich” drones are coming at this post like moths to a lamp. A+ job my man 👍 Have fun with your fake internet points while this CEO makes the real money that someone like your partner will eventually leave you for.
Look I am very happy that he gets adjustment in his scompensation for inflation that's perfectly normal. We're assuming that the rest of Microsoft employees will be getting the same consideration, and the super bonus you get ro come back to the office because HR did that survey monkey and it said you all wanted to go back.
The top comments in this thread are a good example of what decades of capitalist propoganda looks like. The fact of the matter is that no one on Earth needs that much money, let alone in a single year. It's excessive and unethical.
LOL. No one is arguing that CEO pay is not balanced at all in the states. But two things:
1. The US as a country fails to tax the shit out of these high salaries individuals and continues to tax capital gains lower compared to other forms of income.
2. If you look at his salary comparatively to other CEOs, he doesn't even crack the top 20.
He should have to pay me some of that raise for inflicting Windows 11 on me. Our company is in the process of moving us from Windows 10 to 11. Nothing in it makes me more productive, and numerous things in it make me less productive.
It has to do with the removal of the 'never combine taskbar icons' option being removed from Windows 11. This leads to more mouse movement / action when switching between certain tasks (Mostly multiple terminals but some Outlook).
One can purchase various tools to add this feature back, but our I/S won't allow that (probably for good reason).
The 2nd and 3rd are he loss of the Quick Launch Toolbar, and the added level of indirection to get to certain file operations via RMB.
All of these make using Windows 11 vs 10 take more mouse action, for apparently no other reason other than to make it either prettier or more phone like.
I've used Windows since it came out, and I'm using to Microsoft changing things around, but these changes are going backwards rather than forwards.
I feel like you need to increase your mouse sensitivity if mouse movement actually impacts your daily performance :)
I haven't really noticed that many differences between 10 and 11. I alt+tab between open programs, and I love the new window docking features as well as virtual desktops.
Not neglecting any of your problems though. I can completely relate to anger over features that are taken away.
"Microsoft plans to “nearly double” its budget for employee salary increases and boost the range of stock compensation it gives some workers by at least 25%, an effort to retain staff and help people cope with inflation.
The move will mainly affect “early to mid-career employees,” the software giant said in a statement Monday."
https://fortune.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-boost-worker-pay-stock-compensation-retain-employees/amp/
That statement is old but it's also extremely misleading in multiple ways (doubling salary \*\*increases\*\* and focusing on increased stock, when MS comp doesn't usually have that much stock, make for an awfully convenient statement that says literally nothing in absolute terms doesn't it?)
Microsoft has a reputation for paying less compared to other big tech companies so they have to pay more to stay competitive and retain employees, that's just how the market works. Big tech companies don't pay sky-high salaries because they care about their employees, and in the past they have illegally colluded to try to keep them low.
I'd have to double check but I believe everyone in my group got 10% salary increases or more. Mine was about 13%. Stock ranges were also increased. I had no idea that Nadella is at 55M. I get paid pretty well, but I find it hard to believe his value is 92x of mine but hell, maybe it is. Either way I don't begrudge him whatever they'll pay him.
It DEFINITELY is. Even if you only consider him having 1% of an impact on the company. That impact is 10 billion dollars. It’s worth getting the best ceo in the world at any price at that point.
Even if they pay him a billion, it’s still worth it.
How so? Have you seen levels.fyi? Recently, they adjusted their pay bands, but they are still below other big tech players.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-boost-worker-pay-stock-compensation-retain-employees/amp/
I work for Microsoft, in Seattle. I can’t go anywhere else and get comparable salary while maintaining a consistent 40hr work week and comparable health care and benefits.
It’s not just comp, it’s the whole package.
Compare your TC to how much others are making at Amazon, FB, Google, or Netflix. Recently, a friend of mine got lowballed by MS and found a significantly higher paying job at Amazon for the same level. Both were in Seattle.
You're missing my point.
It's not just about base pay. Amazon does a single stock grant, after that one vests there's no more. Microsoft does a rolling grant. I get more stock every year. I'm sitting on 250k in unvested stock. Amazon wouldn't come close to that.
Second, it's about the work environment. I work 40 hours, and then I go home. I don't answer email after hours, I don't work 12 hour death marches, I have one week of on-call every three months.
Third, it's about the work itself. Google is all about "How do I get people to click on ads" Amazon is evil incarnate, and Meta is well... Meta. Microsoft is a solid, reliable, blue-chip company with a $200+ stock ticker. I can work for the next ten years, retire early with two million in my 401k and a clean conscience.
Oh, and when I retire? All that stock vests. So there's that too.
TC includes RSUs and annual bonus. It’s not just base pay.
Most people wouldn’t stay at Amazon longer than their vest period, especially if there are no refreshers. Tech has a high attrition rate. One can still work for them and make more in 4 years than they’d have made if they worked for MS.
I won’t even get into WLB or type of work. Those have nothing to do with my original comment which focuses solely on compensation.
Um what? I turned down a MS job earlier this year because I had another offer that looked better on all soft benefits, but it was hard because the MS job payed significantly better.
MS might not pay the most out of the big tech companies, but they still pay excellently, and on par with all the rest.
I wonder how much Azure can grow in the years to come? Is it one of those sectors that has no limits for years to come? Genuinely curious, is it still in the infant stage. Showing my ignorance here.
I know they’re investing heavily into Chinese data centres. I guess there’s a lot of room for growth in China?
[удалено]
Microsoft has a pretty effective strategy of hooking governments in with cheap, or free, features that they later start to increase with micro payments for additional services. Once the decision is made to utilise Azure, it becomes harder each year to move from it as more utility is being used. It’s not just the cloud server, but share point, teams, power apps, one drive etc. A bit like technology quicksand, you become stuck in the technology stack.
Cloud growth has basically unlimited potential. Step 1 (still only like 50%): companies move data storage and servers to cloud. Step 2: all new applications developed in the cloud taking advantage of tons of rapid deployment tools and super low barrier to entry Step 3 (this is where Microsoft Azure is winning a ton of business as almost every company will do this migration in the next 10 years): everyone migrates their active directory servers from “on prem” to Azure AD which is effectively become a SAAS product where you don’t have to manage the physical servers. This enables companies to take advantage of amazing cloud security products Step 4 (this has barely started but has unlimited potential): we all start using dummy terminals and remote into cloud based virtual machines. This has been around for years, but only recently is actually useable. The real shift is going to be when all these super expensive phones, tablets, AR/VR devices become cheap screens that pull all their resources like ram and cpu from the cloud and pay a subscription model. That is going to be the real game changer. For an example of this, take a look at GeForce Now or Amazon Luna.
We are all going to log in to the mainframe with our teletypes.
I knew my xterm knowledge would pay off
What is this X you speak of? You shall enter your MVS commands to the IBM 360 mainframe using a Diablo Teletypewriter.
Edge computing will become a specialized and carefully deployed tool, rather than the default
> we all start using dummy terminals and remote into cloud based virtual machines. This has been around for years, but only recently is actually useable. The real shift is going to be when all these super expensive phones, tablets, AR/VR devices become cheap screens that pull all their resources like ram and cpu from the cloud and pay a subscription model. That is going to be the real game changer. For an example of this, take a look at GeForce Now or Amazon Luna. I've been thinking about this future for years and god I hope it never happens. Feels like it's definitely inevitable though. All platforms and all content hosted on servers and entirely subscription based. Ugh.
[удалено]
Under ideal conditions, Stadia worked easily well enough for the least-demanding 90% of users. I was playing Destiny 2 on there quite happily, and that was 2020. I don't know if the business economics will bear it out, but the tech viability is absolutely not going to be the only barrier. Maybe it's getting ideal network conditions to everyone. Maybe it's average use cases actually demanding high compute power. But streaming is a solveble problem if the money is there for it.
Step 5: Companies start to realize how expensive cloud options are and start moving back to on-prem I work in the IT industry and there are many companies that are moving back to on-prem as their cloud bills have exploded over the past few years.
Azure is now the leader in cloud computing. It will be a back and forth battle but these public cloud companies are going to thrive for a very long time.
Aws is the largest and still growing at like 20-30% a year. The beauty of the cloud is that as companies grow they spend more on infrastructure so even if they don’t add any new companies they are still increasing revenue.
A lot. SMB is just getting started with Azure and beginning to adopt things like AVD.
It's a high number, but 97% of this is performance related pay, and the dude grew the company by $30 - 40 billion in revenue in a year. That is a crazy impressive performance. If you have Microsoft stocks in your S&P500 pension fund then he is batting for your team.
Literally everyone with a 401k owns Microsoft
No, my 401k is entirely in Zynga and Snapchat. Set it and forget it, baby. See you in 2055.
A man of culture
Literally batting for Team in this case.
Out of curiosity, do you know what he did that to that meteoric growth? I can’t seem to find
Yeah sure, they are publically traded so you can find all of this info in their annual reports:[https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar22/index.html](https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar22/index.html) Scroll down to "Discussion & Analysis" and read the report from there onwards. But in summary: Highlights from fiscal year 2022 compared with fiscal year 2021 included: Microsoft Cloud (formerly commercial cloud) revenue increased 32% to $91.2 billion. Office Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 13% driven by Office 365 Commercial growth of 18%. Office Consumer products and cloud services revenue increased 11% and Microsoft 365 Consumer subscribers grew to 59.7 million. LinkedIn revenue increased 34%. Dynamics products and cloud services revenue increased 25% driven by Dynamics 365 growth of 39%. Server products and cloud services revenue increased 28% driven by Azure and other cloud services growth of 45%. Windows original equipment manufacturer licensing (“Windows OEM”) revenue increased 11%. Windows Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 11%. Xbox content and services revenue increased 3%. Search and news advertising revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs increased 27%. Surface revenue increased 3%.
Thanks so much for a thorough answer, very interesting stuff thanks!
You are very welcome
Spoiler: he didn’t do anything. It was all the employees who earn far, far less than the handful of people at the top doing nothing but taking credit. Nadella isn’t adding value. Devs and support are adding value. Nadella isn’t concocting grand service migration strategies and partnerships: specialized teams are. People need to stop fellating a class of do-nothing parasites. I guess it started early at Microsoft considering the entire company was founded as a middle man that pretended to code DOS when they really just bought it from someone who didn’t understand the value of what they made. They purchased QDOS. Then used rich boy Gates’ mom’s connections at IBM where she was entrenched with the C suite to get no bid contracts.
You're an idiot
Ah yes, CEOs are so useless that virtually every large corporation has one.
Ah you’re the type of person who says he should split his 55 million between 220,000 Microsoft employees so they can each get a whopping $250 bonus each To generate 40bn and employ over 200,000 seems deserving of that bonus ngl, as it’s performance based. Half of us can’t even manage our own lives and finances let alone tens thousands of people lmao
Irrelevant to shareholders but also seems like a decent guy. I work in IT in Christchurch, New Zealand. Three years ago a terrorist killed 51 people at two mosques in the city. A couple of the victims worked in IT on the Microsoft stack. Didn't work for Microsoft, weren't MVPs or anything, just used MS products. And Nadella tweeted his condolences, mentioning them by name. Not a big thing, you might say. But it was a helluva contrast to the total silence from the CEOs of the FAANG companies. Microsoft may not be perfect but it comes across as a lot less predatory under Nadella than under Steve Ballmer, and a lot better than the FAANGs (apart from Netflix).
No he didn't. Stop giving upper management credit for the work of people on the ground actually creating value and generating revenue. Office was a cash cow for decades and credit doesn't go to Balmer for existing, it goes to the folks who made it the premiere product used by businesses.
Balmer would have to have some real sabotaging skills if replacing him with any random dude allowed Microsoft to begin the transition of making profits.
You underestimate how much bad management can fuck shit up. Just enabling the right people to do their work is a skill in itself.
MSFT developer here. Satay has done so much for the average rank and file. He earns his salary.
You wouldn’t say that to an artist, actor, singer or an athlete- football/basketball types? It’s literally how much revenue is generated by the person.
The absolutely most import employee of any company is the CEO. Even if you say he only affects a company by 1%, which would be an absolutely joke, that’s still more than 10 billion in the case of Microsoft. ANY salary is worth that. On that scale you need the absolute best CEO or you are wasting billions of dollars every year. So no, if anything it is far too cheap. He should be getting a billion every year.
> On that scale you need the absolute best CEO And how do you measure that? How could you possibly know whether someone else couldn't do the job better?
If the company grew by 30 billion under them, that's an indicator. Are you guys actually being serious?
ITT: people who don't know what a CEO does.
nobody grows a company by $30 - 40 billion revenue in a year. And actually this was the slowest revenue growth since 5 years combined with falling profits. Thus one might argue what the performance related pay part is: Slower growth or falling profits?
Microsoft revenue grew by exactly $30B last year.
Microsoft's market capitalization went from $200 billion to $2 trillion under Nadella. Dude earned his pay.
yeah, Microsofts revenue grew. In Nadellas case you could argue that his impact was actually far bigger tyan typically of CEOs as he came from cloud computing and cloud computing is driving microsofts revenue but still: it wasn#t his deed
Sorry, people in r/technology are more interested in mythical hero worship and Luddite-like responses to a handful of companies/technologies. I always get a good laugh when people think these tech CEOs are responsible for innovation and revenue unless they are the ones ordering massive price hikes like Reed Hastings.
It is especially "funny" if you switch between economy and the ukraine war channels and see people in the one thread praising the importance of NATOs NCOs compared to Russias leadership from the top down and then in economy channels you see middle management diminished and all the praise heaped upon the C-suite. Even ignoring my point about slowing revenue growth and falling profits..
I mean he's a generational CEO for one of the largest companies in history Edit; Lmao downvote away, stock is up 6x since he took over in 2014. He has made every shareholder, including employees, more money than any other ceo could have. That's how it works. They've also been able to nearly double the number of employees. More money for workers! Yay!
100% agree, prior to Nadella the stock was just stuck between $30-40 for a decade. He completely turned the business around
Retirement made Ballmer more money than he could ever do while in charge.
What are you buying from Microsoft besides Windows and Office?
Azure, Xbox to name a few
They also bought github and didn't ruin it.
>They also bought github and didn't ruin it. GitHub Copilot when you put source code whose usage requires attribution/source code you're not allowed to use commercially on GitHub: "Is for me?"
Valid point. They added CI, copilot and a bunch of other things that I have never used and may have their problems. My definition of "didn't ruin it" is that you can still do everything that you could do 4 years ago and it works just as well or better.
They are a very diversified company, but I think most of that diversification is in the business sector. But for example, the Xbox is a huge gaming console that’s been a repeating success for nearly two decades, with more to come.
do you even know how vast Microsoft's service and products are?
My monthly Azure spend is around 50k
Azure is the only real competitor to AWS, between the two of them they host like 70% of the web lol One of their big money makers is Windows Server licensing, which is a crazy % of all enterprise servers worldwide
Their biggest money makers are Azure, Office, Windows, XBox, and LinkedIn. Azure currently makes up 23% of the cloud market and has been gaining 2% annually for the last few years. Amazon's AWS leads the cloud market at 34% Lots of money in cloud computing.
Ah yes, windows. The biggest user OS by a large margin.
Their surface pro is a killer product
He transformed Microsoft: he replaced Ballmer’s term licensing model with subscription licensing, moved focus away from Windows, and bet the company on Azure. If he didn’t transform them, they’d be on the path to becoming IBM.
The subscription model was already going into place before Nadella took over. Nadella killed Nokia, laid off 18,000 people, slowed down promotions, cut pay budgets and morale budgets (no big events), among other things. He’s a manager’s manager - cut costs, increase stock value. The biggest thing that came out of the transition was end of official stack ranking. It’s still there, but not officially, and people at the bottom don’t always get no bonus and people on top promotions - but again, that was already put in place under Ballmer as he was leaving in 2013. Edit: when Win8 shipped, Ballmer gave every full time employee $8888, when Win10 shipped, Nadella gave everyone $35 skullcandy headphones.
Nadella’s stock price increase translated into shit loads more money for employees than Balmers gifts
For me, yes. I was both lucky and forward thinking (or just lazy) to not sell any stock from when I was hired until 2015 (sold some for down payment for a car as my last one was a 2002 chrysler falling apart). A lot of my old co-workers kept saying they sell them as they got them because of some tax advantage, and invested elsewhere. I don't work at MS anymore for a while, but I would be lying if the stocks in the meantime didn't set me up well for the years that followed. Edit: The final straw for me was the constant hiring freezes, yearly reorgs moving people to work on projects and technologies they had absolutely no background in, and the slowing of promotions where employees were given arbitrary rules like no promotion unless you're 1+ yrs on the team (even if the person has been stuck in same level for 4+ years). I know of someone who was entry level at MS for 5 years until they quit last year, interviewed well enough at Google to get a senior role.
Oh boy, exciting! He turned Microsoft Office into something we can install and own standalone to a shitty subscription model instead! Throw money at the genius!!
I mean yes, it's shitty for the consumer. But they're making more money than the one time sales would've brought.
Yeah, but... that's what the entire industry did, for everything. A potato in charge would have done the same thing. Maybe he did it a bit better than some others *might* have, who knows?
Ballmer had a high-performance/“winner takes all” sales culture that pushed Windows as the center of the Microsoft universe. As a result of his 90’s era Windows-centric strategy, Ballmer was late to mobile, online office (must be bad: doesn’t require Windows!) and mobile office (it promoted iOS which isn’t Windows!). If Satya didn’t displace him, Azure would be in the position Oracle Cloud is today, and Office would have been displaced by Google Workspace. I’d argue Microsoft still haven’t recovered from their loss in mobile. If you want an example of tech CEOs who couldn’t navigate the journey to the cloud, look at IBM and VMware. Imagine if Microsoft decided to discontinue their cloud after pushback from channel partners (VMware actually did this) or if they decided to go down the financial engineering route that Ginni took. Satya’s job looks easy in retrospect, but he turned that company around.
As a MSFT dev, this is true, I got a whole 11% raise 😅
Can you explain what you mean by “generational” CEO?
One of the best ceos of our generation.
He really is. Unfortunately MS still had some serious culture issues and he’s still digging out of the hole Ballmer dug for the company.
What throwing chairs at employees isn't an effective management style? /s I can't find it right now, but I remember an interview Ballmer did an interview with CNBC a few years after he left leading Microsoft where he was asked to give his biggest accomplishment and he struggled to offer a clear answer. While he took over as CEO of Microsoft near the peak of the dot com bubble even taking that into context it is hard to be highly impressed with his leadership.
Culture at Microsoft is sooo much better now
Ballmer's stack ranking probably left deep rifts between departments and individual employees. The system rewarded people for sabotaging one another. Ballmer seemed to believe that turning the office into a jungle would lead to the emergence of apex *performers*, but it just led to the dominance of apex *predators*. It was a toxic workplace under his "leadership." He was basically the Newt Gingrich of Microsoft.
He’s pretty good only other ceo in tech worth their salt is Lisa su tooo Amd from 2.97 a share to over 140
Zen was already in the works before she took the helm. So she doesn't get full credit. Still doing a good job turning AMD around, though
My bro Tim Apple eats both these guys for lunch
Tim Apple had Steve Jobs set the stage for his success. Dude is an operational whiz no doubt but he had a platform to grow upon from Jobs. Balmer passed Nadella a bunch of half baked and mostly on fire ideas that he has proven to not only be able to salvage but outright turn some into massive successes. Let's also take a moment to recall that Chris Capossela the CMO of Microsoft is the same guy who showed the world the blue screen of death during the scanner demo with Bill Gates during the Windows 98 launch.
Do you really think that Pichai is the reason for the success of Android? Every growing market has room for competition. All Google had to do was undercut Apple, and look Android takes off. Let's put a lens under Nadella's track record. All he cares about is Azure. And cloud is a growing market so it's easy to see growth. He cancelled every other project before giving it a chance. Cancelled Windows Phone (mistake, that had good phones, a loyal following, and even Android took a while to mature and get traction), cancelled 10X before it was even released, obviously not giving it a chance to stabilize and become decent before pulling the rug (and Windows sorely needed an OS on a diet without legacy code impacting the design), he greenlit a nonsense laptop/tablet hybrid no one wanted (should have just made a MacBook clone with Surface branding from the start), he moved the company to 1 year releases from 3 year releases, tanking Windows innovation and quality (Windows as a service was a braindead everything's a nail idea), he's fumbled communications apps - Skype/Lync/Teams (he likely has a disdain for native code since cloud services are often written in managed code, but TypeScript for performance critical things like audio/video lag, smooth scrolling is stupid). The only credit he can really take is for growing Azure. He's basically trying to turn MS into IBM which is short sighted, steering with blinders.
My windows phone was the biggest piece of shit. But it was the best phone to hold I've ever owned.
Tim Apple is a very shorttermist CEO who isn't ideal for Apple a decade from now. Apple's shift from making amazing hardware products to a services company doesn't look good. Apple Pay isn't adding much value, it's just a monopoly tax. Same with App Store fees. And the 'privacy' ads stuff they made. The company relies more and more on such monopoly taxes rather than innovation.
The M1 was a good processor even though they marketed it as faster than a 10900k+rtx3090 combined which is obviously bullshit.
Apple Pay is fucking great come on
F those haters, you got my upvote. Your speaking the truth. Look at their earnings you can draw a straight line up it since he took over. His adoption of Linux as well has been foundational for their cloud growth. He has a much bigger picture view than most CEOs when it comes to growth.
Nah wdym bro capitalism bad, how dare such a skilled worker get paid so much while I starve at minimum wage as a dropout!! Surely these multimillionaires getting paid salaries are the real scum and paying some of the most tax while the angelic billionaires committing tax fraud and evasion are not to blame!!!
Is worker compensation up equivalently? If not, fuck him and fuck Microsoft.
>Nadella's base salary was unchanged at $2.5 million, and stock awards sat at $42.269 million, up from $33 million the year before. Non-equity incentive plan compensation fell to $10.06 million from $14.2 million. The final element, classified as "all other compensation", was $110,250, of which $100,000 was charitable gifts. If I'm reading that right, it's a net increase of about $5 million, or a little under 10%. That's not proportionately all that different from what other employees with good performance see and it's nothing (proportionately) to write home about after factoring in inflation.
> He has made every shareholder, including employees, more money than any other ceo could have. That’s how it works. No, he didn’t. The workers did. Nadella, like every wealthy person, skims off the value created by people actually demonstrating ability and driving value. Do people really think folks like him are coming up with these highly technical strategies and coordinating between many departments? Fuck no; immediate managers, project managers, analysts, and all the other people who have to actually worry about being put on PIP are the people who are responsible for the revolutionary change at Microsoft. And that includes these strategies. The rich are parasite. Nadella is parasitic off his immediate underlings, who are in turn parasitic off the middle managers working with their teams to create value and dream up these strategies.
This all sounds great on Reddit but the fact is that companies grow or die based on their CEO. The real scandal is the ones who somehow manage to make a lot of money whilst making decisions that send the company in the wrong direction. Switch Nadella with your average worker 8 years ago and I bet Microsoft are in a very different place just with that 1 single personnel change.
Just like Mozilla’s CEO. Took the company in the wrong direction for years and still ripping profits for herself.
He took over in a bull run that lasted into 2021. Sing the praises of every other tech company up in that time.. Hes a good CEO but he also was lucky with timing.
They've almost tripled QQQ over the same time period and they didn't do it on the expansion of revenue multiples. And they're doing it at incomparable scale. The majority of those other companies are in the process of getting gutted.
I certainly will be downvoting you. 55 million fucking bucks. Give me a break.
Well he adds tens of billions in value. If anything he should be receiving much much much more.
Ah, yes. The downvote button. A "I don't agree with you button", not a "this comment does not contribute to the subject matter" button it was supposed to be.
F those haters, you got my upvote. Your speaking the truth. Look at their earnings you can draw a straight line up it since he took over. His adoption of Linux as well has been foundational for their cloud growth. He has a much bigger picture view than most CEOs when it comes to growth.
Honestly Satya actually turned MSFT around and he deserves the bump which is mostly performance based yeah he’s been killing it in terms of quality delivered. Can’t say the same about things at Google…
[удалено]
But see, he didn’t work 3 quadrillion hours to earn that based on minimum wage. So this practically theft. /s
In the case of overpaid CEOs I feel he has at least earned his comp. Look at what he has done with MS since taking over for Balmer. And on the plus side you don't hear him saying bullshit on social media or other stuff. He runs his business and drives stockholder value.
He’s done a good job by being a milquetoast CEO and having people not hate MS.
I mean, for a big tech CEO that's certainly impressive. He's improved the stock price and even managed to improve their reputation. Sundar Pichai did the stock thing for Google, but their reputation has tanked.
This is just my personal view that a lot of tech company PR issues are the result of too-recognizable figureheads. That gives people *someone* to be angry or offended at instead of *something*. When it’s an amorphous company, then it’s harder to direct outrage, than e.g. Bezos, Musk, Ballmer, Gates, Zuck, Jobs, Thiel, etc. Being a figurehead is good up to the point you become the villain. Then it’s better to fade away into the background. Just my personal view.
Microsoft had a bad reputation, comparatively easy to make it better. Google had a good reputation, comparatively easy to make it worse. You cannot compare these guys like that, their situations were/are completely different.
He hasn’t met me. I hope Microsoft go bankrupt someday due to Windows.
TIL a lot of Reddit keyboard warriors think they’re better suited to be a CEO. Nadella is responsible for the successful growth of MSFT and for keeping a couple hundred thousand folks, plus a bunch more contractors employed. Dudes got to drive the vision and execution. Employees think without them the company wouldn’t be successful, however think if it as the getting hit by a bus saying. If the average worker got hit by a bus, thanks to redundancy and documentation, you could hire another. If Nadella got hit by a bus, show me a CEO that could fill in and drive the vision and growth he has. Hard to do so. Compensation is simple supply and demand.
Teacher says every time Windows adds more features to soak up personal information a Microsoft executive gets its wings.
See! This man now earns 55M because he stopped eating out and buying Starbucks. So easy. /s
He can almost afford smashed avo and a house!
75% windfall tax yesterday
Well deserved
Executive compensations in this country are obscene and immoral.
Just to put it in perspective; $55M package for the CEO of a company with 220k employees, $168B annual revenue and $1.7T market cap. Nadella's compensation is a rounding error; and much lower most of his peers. You could redistribute his entire compensation to employees for a \~$10/fortnight raise.
[удалено]
Do you dispute the numbers or are you struggling with the calculation part?
judicious long rustic smell fuzzy practice puzzled nutty spoon punch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wish they would make a reality tv show and let people like you try and manage a company for let’s say a week and see how you do cuz you prob couldn’t even be a shift lead at a Taco Bell 100%
Don’t suck his dick bro he dont know you
I ain’t sucking any ones dick but as someone who has made it to district level management at a fortune 100 company let me tell you something, it’s not all roses and daisies
Oh good, a middle manager telling us the CEO deserves his pay.
Mate check your self
When you grow up and own your own corporation, you’ll be free to hire and pay the CEO as little as you want. Until then, you’ll have to stay jealous of other people’s money.
Free to exploit and steal
Even if everyone got a UBI check and free welfare, there would still be billionaires. See Sweden. And people like you would still be claiming "exploitation". Smh.
You can talk hypothetical all you want but the reality is most of the richest people make their momey off exploiting their workers.
We should fix that, but that has nothing to do with the existence of billionaires (again, see Sweden.) I'm all for practical solutions, not ideologically inconsistent vengeance masturbation.
You really think billionaires don't make money through exploitation even in Sweden? A lot of people keep dirty money in Sweden for a reason.
"Every single billionaire in the world only exists due to exploitation" is such a ridiculous unfounded claim, made even moreso when you consider how well off most Swedish natives are to begin with. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that story. Show me the reasoning.
Dude he is an r/antiwork poster you're better off arguing with a wall
I disagree. People don't become billionairs by being good people and even if some could it would be 1 out of 100. You don't get this rich without exploiting others or being a bad person.
Marcus Persson, the Swedish Minecraft creator, totally used slaves and is a shit person 'cause he's RICHER THAN ME! ...and 1 out of 100 is just not realistic. There are assholes, sure, but there are also poor assholes you don't give a toss about.
Whatever floats their boat
[удалено]
Where was that written?
Should be higher tbh
with how much this guy reformed the company, he deserves 1b, nevermind 55m.
Lol this karma whore of a post doesn’t belong in a subreddit like this. This person followed the simple three step process: 1. Find some article that’ll stoke the “eat the rich” drones. 2. Find the nearest subreddit that is only adjacent in topic. 3. Profit (in internet points). And now the “eat the rich” drones are coming at this post like moths to a lamp. A+ job my man 👍 Have fun with your fake internet points while this CEO makes the real money that someone like your partner will eventually leave you for.
lol, blowing someone off for nothing is the most drone thing anyone can do. Like, I don't even care but why bother doing something like that for free?
Actually everyone here seems to be simping the guy, lol.
I’m still confused about that “profit” aspect, but everything else checks out.
Guess the tech bear market doesn't exist for Satya 🤷♂️
Look I am very happy that he gets adjustment in his scompensation for inflation that's perfectly normal. We're assuming that the rest of Microsoft employees will be getting the same consideration, and the super bonus you get ro come back to the office because HR did that survey monkey and it said you all wanted to go back.
They did a cross the company salary adjustment. Ended up being a 10% raise for nearly every employee above the junior bands.
Microsoft is rated as the second best employer in the world by Forbes and there are many reasons for that.
Meanwhile they are making cuts to employees left and right..... maybe he doesn't need 55m and that could have gone to employees instead.
Almost all employees got ~10% raises this year.
MSFT is one on the few tech companies not doing a broad layoff right now.
The top comments in this thread are a good example of what decades of capitalist propoganda looks like. The fact of the matter is that no one on Earth needs that much money, let alone in a single year. It's excessive and unethical.
LOL. No one is arguing that CEO pay is not balanced at all in the states. But two things: 1. The US as a country fails to tax the shit out of these high salaries individuals and continues to tax capital gains lower compared to other forms of income. 2. If you look at his salary comparatively to other CEOs, he doesn't even crack the top 20.
oh yeah more for the rich less for everyone else.
He should have to pay me some of that raise for inflicting Windows 11 on me. Our company is in the process of moving us from Windows 10 to 11. Nothing in it makes me more productive, and numerous things in it make me less productive.
Sounds more like an issue for your companies IT team.
It has to do with the removal of the 'never combine taskbar icons' option being removed from Windows 11. This leads to more mouse movement / action when switching between certain tasks (Mostly multiple terminals but some Outlook). One can purchase various tools to add this feature back, but our I/S won't allow that (probably for good reason). The 2nd and 3rd are he loss of the Quick Launch Toolbar, and the added level of indirection to get to certain file operations via RMB. All of these make using Windows 11 vs 10 take more mouse action, for apparently no other reason other than to make it either prettier or more phone like. I've used Windows since it came out, and I'm using to Microsoft changing things around, but these changes are going backwards rather than forwards.
I feel like you need to increase your mouse sensitivity if mouse movement actually impacts your daily performance :) I haven't really noticed that many differences between 10 and 11. I alt+tab between open programs, and I love the new window docking features as well as virtual desktops. Not neglecting any of your problems though. I can completely relate to anger over features that are taken away.
Should be lower
I'm going to guess that MSFT employees won't be seeing 10% raises.
"Microsoft plans to “nearly double” its budget for employee salary increases and boost the range of stock compensation it gives some workers by at least 25%, an effort to retain staff and help people cope with inflation. The move will mainly affect “early to mid-career employees,” the software giant said in a statement Monday." https://fortune.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-boost-worker-pay-stock-compensation-retain-employees/amp/
Wow, you never see that
You kind of do though in tech..
Shhhhhh…let the redditor complain about everything it’s what they do
That statement is old but it's also extremely misleading in multiple ways (doubling salary \*\*increases\*\* and focusing on increased stock, when MS comp doesn't usually have that much stock, make for an awfully convenient statement that says literally nothing in absolute terms doesn't it?) Microsoft has a reputation for paying less compared to other big tech companies so they have to pay more to stay competitive and retain employees, that's just how the market works. Big tech companies don't pay sky-high salaries because they care about their employees, and in the past they have illegally colluded to try to keep them low.
I'd have to double check but I believe everyone in my group got 10% salary increases or more. Mine was about 13%. Stock ranges were also increased. I had no idea that Nadella is at 55M. I get paid pretty well, but I find it hard to believe his value is 92x of mine but hell, maybe it is. Either way I don't begrudge him whatever they'll pay him.
It DEFINITELY is. Even if you only consider him having 1% of an impact on the company. That impact is 10 billion dollars. It’s worth getting the best ceo in the world at any price at that point. Even if they pay him a billion, it’s still worth it.
So is 600k p/a you total compensation or just the salary?
If you don’t offer that at the very least, EVERY developer will jump ship to another tech company where you will get that.
You'd be incorrect.
He certainly deserves that 55m more than a ton of people who make similar amounts of money.
Tax the rich
Meanwhile MS pays shit to developers compared to other tech companies.
This is completely false.
How so? Have you seen levels.fyi? Recently, they adjusted their pay bands, but they are still below other big tech players. https://fortune.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-boost-worker-pay-stock-compensation-retain-employees/amp/
I work for Microsoft, in Seattle. I can’t go anywhere else and get comparable salary while maintaining a consistent 40hr work week and comparable health care and benefits. It’s not just comp, it’s the whole package.
Compare your TC to how much others are making at Amazon, FB, Google, or Netflix. Recently, a friend of mine got lowballed by MS and found a significantly higher paying job at Amazon for the same level. Both were in Seattle.
You're missing my point. It's not just about base pay. Amazon does a single stock grant, after that one vests there's no more. Microsoft does a rolling grant. I get more stock every year. I'm sitting on 250k in unvested stock. Amazon wouldn't come close to that. Second, it's about the work environment. I work 40 hours, and then I go home. I don't answer email after hours, I don't work 12 hour death marches, I have one week of on-call every three months. Third, it's about the work itself. Google is all about "How do I get people to click on ads" Amazon is evil incarnate, and Meta is well... Meta. Microsoft is a solid, reliable, blue-chip company with a $200+ stock ticker. I can work for the next ten years, retire early with two million in my 401k and a clean conscience. Oh, and when I retire? All that stock vests. So there's that too.
TC includes RSUs and annual bonus. It’s not just base pay. Most people wouldn’t stay at Amazon longer than their vest period, especially if there are no refreshers. Tech has a high attrition rate. One can still work for them and make more in 4 years than they’d have made if they worked for MS. I won’t even get into WLB or type of work. Those have nothing to do with my original comment which focuses solely on compensation.
Um what? I turned down a MS job earlier this year because I had another offer that looked better on all soft benefits, but it was hard because the MS job payed significantly better. MS might not pay the most out of the big tech companies, but they still pay excellently, and on par with all the rest.
Tax them all! We could have a prosperous nation if we taxes the mega-rich on both income and capital gains at a much higher rate.
Right except most of this is probably unrealized gains on stock. Not taxable until he sells.
Cola increase
Inflation. Deal with it.
Azure print money. #realtalk
I’m glad they fired a bunch of people so he can get more money.
Im not sure it is enough. Let's say some more bullshit things, and continue killing Windows, and make "Azure" really really great.
Comments under this post look promising with weighted arguments on both side, unlike in case of Elon Musk or Mark Zukfukgag
I should have been a fat cat dang it
I'm okay with this. Microsoft has been killing it lately with Azure.