Re: "The time for that move was 2013. Alas, it didn't happen, so it's on our list."
@TerryB: "I hardly think IBM and Xerox is a valid comparison. Last time I looked, IBM is doing pretty well. Not everyone has to make tablets and smartphones to be successful."
I was really talking about leading the technology markets. Microsoft has shown signs of playing catch up in some very significant market adjacencies (mobile and tablets being a good example). They also appear to have lost the plot with Windows 8, though there are signs that they're at least aware and trying to address some of the problems there. In my opinion Microsoft isn't leading the markets for emerging technologies, if I may be so rude as to generalize like that. They are playing catcn up or copy cat, and trying to stay in the game; they run the risk, as I said, of becoming an "also-ran" rather than an innovator. That's not to totally ignore the breadth of what they do, and they aren't like that across the board, but if they can't figure out their mobile platforms, they're in trouble because that's where the enormous growth is.
As to IBM and Xerox being "also-rans", that's exactly what they are. That doesn't mean they can't do "pretty well" - I'm sure that IBM at least has managed to reinvent itself to some extent and is making money. However, do we look to IBM as the market leader and innovator in ANY market these days? No - IBM had great technological inspirations in the past, then the market overtook them. Xerox, like Microsoft, had fantastic ideas and no idea how to take them further (PARC was a truly amazing example of their understanding of the need to innovate, then they notoriously failed to capitalize on a whole string of opportunities). Microsoft is doing pretty well too, all things considered. However, given the tech refresh cycles, I wonder how that picture will change in the new few years.