Please read, primarily the 2nd paragraph under the 2nd quote I guess
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...70#post1341470

Dear Dan,

I apologize for the wording; I would not dream of telling you what you can and cannot talk about. You're a smart person as far as I can judge, and I do not wish to limit your point of view to form it into mine. On the contrary, I wish to expand it to also see my point of view. I am sorry if I failed.

That said; a start up business can't afford a world class CEO. Some start up business help form a CEO into a world class CEO, but most start up businesses actually fail completely.

I am working in a no-longer-so-new start up business myself, and we have much of the same process here. A gründer with limited funding who needs to scramble together a few bucks to pay short term expenses, and CEO of Nokia need some of the polar opposite properties. As a gründer, formal education is more of a limit than an asset, as a multibillion corporation leader, such a person would usually find he doesn't know any of the theories of business strategy. You must be a gambler to gain success, but a gambler can ruin the most successful company just as quickly. Smart and well thought through manouvering can keep a big company on top despite all the small upstarters that aim for your throat.

Some people manage to go from little league to pro series without any education. I think you will find that these usually are the owners themselves and that's the only reason they haven't been replaced.

Let me bring another thing into the equation.

When comparing companies who do what volt says, vs companies who have an employee/founder/family member in the position of CEO from the beginning of time, it seems like it's a big win for the companies who don't head-hunt CEO's.

I understand how a business-oriented CEO can negotiate better in the short term and speak the language of other companies and divisions, I really doubt he ultimately works for the prosperity of his company and not for himself. What I am saying is that professional hitmen CEO's are after a big bonus at the end of the year and some good publicity. They wll jump ship the moment they get a better offer. People who have grown up in their companies however, believe in them and they do whatever is possible to drive them to success, thinking equally short-term and long term.

I bet if Elop wasn't such a hitman he wouldn't have sold half the companies he worked for, and wouldn't have sold the Nokia HQ just to show a profit at the end of the year by adding a hefty rent on the annual budget.

While I'm no fan of Microsoft, I really believe Ballmer when he says he loves his company and I would never expect such passion from a hired CEO. Microsoft, with it's clearly incompetent CEO, isn't really failing. They are making good profits, stock is relatively steady, and they are strong in their traditional markets. Ballmer does not have the insights of Bill Gates, and the last new product launch that made a dent in the respective industry was x-box back in the days of BG, but Microsoft as a company is generally doing well, despite some spectacular product failures (WP, kin, zune etc).

Apple is another example. Steve Jobs made apple and when the idiotic board headhunted a new CEO and ousted SJ all they got was a company near-bankrupt, until he came back.

Comparing 5y stock graphs of HP and Intel is also revealing about the stability of the companies.

I'm sure anybody can find at least enough cases to counter my examples but this is what I have concluded after years of watching how the big tech companies go about. The ones that are there throughout the years without fireworks and without massive failures, either have a founder or family member running the company (Samsung, Dell), or an employee that is with the company since forever (Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Nokia before Elop).

In the end, I would, yes, prefer an engineer on the head of my company rather than a businessman.

I don't see a point in comparing anecdotes. Your point is valid but winning stories are exceptions. Most upstarters fail with their first CEO. Most who do not fail, remain small. Only a very few grow big, and in cases like Microsoft, they were exceptionally lucky with their timing, because IBM needed someone in an explosive growing market. You cannot hire luck, but the gambler instinct of someone who positions himself like that will usually turn into a liability. Upstarters are peddlers, not organizers.

Not all Microsoft-made CEOs turn to gold, eh, Elop?

I lol'd

+1 Thanks

I don't see why Jolla had to name the OS "Sailfish".

It's a stupid name.

Sure, go ahead and had a Swordfish as a mascot... but choose a different name for the OS.

Maybe something like "Breeze" or maybe "Tide". C'mon.

I don't see why I couldn't disagree. Well, I disagree. This OS name is just as good as any other one.

It's grown on me, ties in well with the entire naming schema.
LOLs at "Breeze" or "Tide"...

I don't mind the name so much. At least it's a pronounceable name and one which generally means something recognizable to most people unlike 'Maemo'... but then I don't buy OS's for that, but it does help if it doesn't sound stupid or is awkward to pronounce.