I love that we live in an age of instantaneous information. I hate it too.

As an industry commentator and former editor-in-chief, I have always believed that there is a huge difference between something that might be “news” versus something that is actually “newsworthy.”  

The kerfuffle on the Internet today, aka the “buzz” of the day, is commentary from InfoWorld. It involves rumors based on rumors and speculation from anonymous sources that long-time Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer will step aside after the introduction of Windows 8. Obviously, this is big news if true. It has led to speculation bordering on the intensity of the “who is going to take over Al Qaeda” speculation of the past weeks. Author Woody Leonhard did a nice job placing in context thoughts of grumpy investors, employees and others. However, one wonders if this really newsworthy? Is it worth alerting TMCnet.com readers who may have missed it?

The answer to the first question is that gossip without facts in the old days was not news. But that was before the Internet, i.e., RSS feeds, columns, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Now being out there, even with unconfirmed speculation (not really rumor) about if and when Ballmer might decide to step down is as important as to whether his immediate departure is plausible.

That said, just as we see in politics when ill-advised behavior immediately disclosed tends to hurt people less than their attempts to cover it up, so too here. It has become newsworthy because it has buzz. So here are my two cents.

Steve Ballmer joined Microsoft in 1980 as its 30th employee. He was the first business manager hired by Bill Gates (News - Alert), became CEO in 2000, and Bill and Steve together own more than 11% of Microsoft’s stock. Put simply, he is not going anywhere any sooner than he desires, and he seems to like his job.

In some particular order, here is my Top 10 List of context for thinking about the Ballmer years.

10.          I own Microsoft stock. Why? Because it pays a reasonable dividend. In my mind that makes it like holding stock in a regulated utility. Right now lack of volatility is a good thing.

9.            The “smart money” wanted them to buy Yahoo. Remember!  Wall Street is great at spending other people’s money. Turns out Steve was correct, but does not get credit.

 8.           Also, remember the fears that Microsoft was going to dominate the “intelligent Home” market by having its software be the platform for home controllers? How’s that working out?

7.            Yes, we all know they have blown or are in the position to miss the following:

• Anything regarding mobility
• Watching the Gmail cloud rain on the Hotmail parade
• Can we all yell a big BING! as a way to congratulate Google
• Anything to do with phones, wireless, Kin, and VoIP PBXs (which had analysts predicting a Cisco (News - Alert) v. Microsoft war for top market honors right about now).
• Everyone’s favorite whipping boy de jour of the company, cloud computing

6.            How about a little credit? The last figures I saw gave Microsoft credit for:

• 93% of the OS market, e.g., hardly a failure of marketing
• Almost 90% of the browser market, a big ditto
• Xbox
• And, despite constant predictions of its demise, OFFICE is still a force to be reckoned with

The bottom line is, Microsoft under Ballmer has been very tough competition in the markets where they need to hold serve to make real money and pay my dividend.

5.            How about the flip side of the last point, their world-class ability to be sued on intellectual property issues, anti-trust and some other interesting business practices?  

4.            Problematic and expensive customer service. I once had trouble upgrading Windows. I called Microsoft. 4 hours and many dollars later they said I had a “hardware” problem. There were correct; at their direction my hard drive had been destroyed. “Is there anything else we can do for you today?” are words I despise. I sought compensation. I was denied. Enough said.

3.            Outlook distress. We all know from .pst files and trying to transfer them to other more utilitarian devices. Don’t try this at home.

2.            User experience/ease-of-use.  Microsoft software may be easily used by Mr. Bill, who has had his share of live demos run amuck. But we are now getting deep into the information age, and things arguablely have not gotten easier in the 10+ Ballmer years. When I get in a rental car, I turn the key and drive away. I know where everything is and how it works. Microsoft products have always required the equivalent of needing to read a manual on how combustion engines work before you can even start the ignition.

In addition, I love their business model. I am upset at my inability to duplicate it —introduce a product that is not fully tested, make your customers guinea pigs for getting the bugs out and then charge them and arm and a leg for the fix. Genius!

Everyone hates large companies, Dell (News - Alert), your local cable company or electric and gas utility, come to mind but there are lots of them. There are also a myriad of reasons -- including merely being big and seemingly uncaring --that we hate them. And, when it comes not just to customers, but developers and business partners, Microsoft’s historic diffidence has not mellowed under Ballmer. Given the right metrics, you can probably link this cultural trait virulence to market share erosion in key markets. “I am not them,” is a nice tool when you are competing against Microsoft. 

1.            The coup de grace.  AT&T learned in ancient history that “any phone as long as it is black and can be ‘safely’ attached to our network” was not a sustainable strategy. IBM (News - Alert) learned this same lesson about the same time — plug and play so long as it is our plug and you pay to play only works for so long. Microsoft with Steve at the helm and Bill charting the course has not adapted to the inevitable. Giving people real choice--and not your idea of what that choice should be-- is a problem.

Eventually, it catches up with you. This includes getting a reputation for being an industry follower when it comes to innovation (think about Number 7), and a bully in relationship management across a broad spectrum of fronts. Less expensive and possibly superior and more adaptable alternatives constantly appear. They always have and will and at an accelerating pace. And, in an age where, ironically, technology has leveled the innovation process, intellectual property monopolization is only possible in court.  The history of technology adoption is that, in the vast majority of cases, and certainly over the long term, “open” and “choice” trump proprietary and monolithic solutions. Microsoft looks, acts and sounds old school.

Coming full circle, what about whether Ballmer should go? The fact is, as pointed out, “should” and “will” are two separate questions. “Should” is on balance problematic. “Will” is a question only he knows, and will be totally up to him.

However, as to all of the speculation about a possible Ballmer successor, whether from inside or outside the company, Leonheard cites Fortune magazine's suggestion that Microsoft buy Netflix and install Reed Hastings (a member of Microsoft's board) as co-CEO with Ballmer. I posit the following food for thought. My top 2 reasons on the context to be considered in evaluating the Ballmer years at Microsoft speak to corporate culture. An insider is not likely to do the necessary boat rocking, and Mr. Bill (and let’s give him more than a bit of credit for missing opportunities) is unlikely to allow an outsider much leeway.

I’d love to be proven wrong with the last statement. It would be great if the share price would go up with the dividend. Despite my skepticism, I must confess that I am on long-term hold on the stock. As part of a diverse portfolio, however, I will look for growth elsewhere.  Not exactly news or newsworthy, but hey, blame the buzz saw.