What if Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer ran Apple? Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would make Apple more money than Tim Cook over the next five years, technology blogger claims. IF MICROSOFT'S outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer ran Apple it would make a lot more money, according to tech commentator Ben Thompson. And then it would "slowly but surely become irrelevant ... just like Microsoft." Thomson ruminated on his blog about the leadership qualities of Microsoft's CEO who announced recently that he would be retiring from the company within the year. "Under Ballmer, everyone at Apple would be working so hard, and be making so much money, both for themselves and for Apple's shareholders, that they would ensure that Apple never again reinvents consumer computing," Thompson wrote. Though he recognised that his premise was "ridiculous," he predicted that Ballmer would make Apple more money over the next five years than it will under current CEO, Tim Cook. Rather than cutting big tech companies out of its business like it tried to do to Google Maps, Thompson says "Ballmer would do more than catch enterprise accounts that fall in his lap; he would aggressively court CIOs and make changes to the iPhone to accommodate them." Ballmer would also create a series of different sized iPads and sell them at different price points, Thompson wrote, and would "push for every school district in the world to standardise on them, far more aggressively than Apple is today." The technologist said that Ballmer's greatest strengths were also his greatest weaknesses. Ballmer was a master of making Microsoft money and demonstrated this not just as CEO but in his previous role as head of sales and marketing. "Microsoft's truly remarkable run of ever-rising revenue and profits is the direct responsibility of Ballmer," Thompson wrote. But, this run of ever-rising revenue and profits, and the means by which it was generated, were also the same reason opportunities have been missed. The problem, Thompson posits, is that under his leadership Microsoft focused too much on dollars and cents. The result is inevitable: Microsoft is a company filled with people motivated by measurables like salary, bonus, and job level. Anyone who isn't would necessarily leave. Unsurprisingly, said people make choices based on measurables, whether those be consumer preferences, focus group answers, or telemetrics. The human mind is flexible, but only to a point. Apple by contrast has always said its first focus was not to make money, but to surprise people. Still, Thompson admits a strategy of surprise isn't always better. He even admitted that from a purely financial perspective, one would have been far better off investing in Microsoft over the last decade than Amazon, for example, who shares similar goals to Apple. "Ballmer did exactly what our capitalist system dictate he do: he maximised profits to the benefit of Microsoft's shareholders," Thompson wrote. The implications of suggesting he was a failure are far more profound than most of his many critics likely realise. Ballmer's departure from Microsoft leaves behind almost a philosophical question of extracting the best from technology companies. Is it better to deliver consistently measurable achievements and keep the money flowing in but seldom surprise consumers with your products. Or do you set out to achieve shock and awe every time? Considering the number of people that have questioned Apple's ability to continue to innovate and deliver markedly different iPad and iPhone models each and every year it's certainly something to think about. Read Thompson's full blog post here.