I legitimately can't tell if this is serious or not
The biggest successes are in tech are from highly regarded, but less socially polished, techies (classic nerds), not manager types people which you appear to be pushing for (witness Balmer or Whitman).
Microsoft has 8329956402 shares outstanding. Do you honestly believe that MSFT stock price can rise to value in the trillions, making the MSFT market cap ten sextillion dollars?
knocking PG - whilst on PG's site.
First, I wasn't knocking pg, I was asking a question. Second, when did use of his site constitute a requirement to idolize him?
The biggest successes are in tech from...
Ah, the ol' "techies can do everyone elses job better than them" trope. Yes, we are so awesome! Why should you have a dentist give you a root canal, when you could have a classic nerd do it instead!
He said the market cap would be trillions, not the share price.
All the above listed are the biggest names in tech today. There are others, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerburg, but I don't consider them as talented as the ones I listed.
Managing large, sprawling corporations is nothing like starting a company with a few products. I'm not saying it's harder, but it requires a different skill set. Neither Musk nor Graham have a proven history managing large and diversified companies. MS doesn't want them, and I seriously doubt they'd even be interested in the job. It'd be like recruiting Lebron James to play baseball.
A large company is just a large number of small groups.
A startup is a small group.
PG is someone who has proven effective at managing to give a big ROI from managing quite a few small groups. Hence he is eminently suited to running a large corporation.
Buzz, created by Steve Jobs, much of it from his pioneer status from the 80s. They had a built-in market to whom they can sell high-priced items (Apple fanboys) where they recoup costs. Then, after that, they make profits from non-fanboys. (They don't like to talk about this, but that's how they internally plan it).