>>10) Ballmer can’t get Microsoft to compete (and win) with consumers.
>
>OK, obviously, I'm a bit biased, but from the period of 2006 to 2014, Microsoft made major advancements with SQL Server.
>
>Around 2005, SQL Server had the reputation as a product for medium sized companies - but wasn't viewed as an enterprise database.
>
>The combination of enhancements to the DB engine (Change Data Capture, Hekaton, Columnstore Indexes), along with the emerging BI tools (SSIS, SSAS, SSRS), and even the integration with SharePoint, make MS a big player in the data warehousing world.
>
>Even features like the Read Committed Snapshot isolation level put SQL Server (more or less) on balance with Oracle when it comes to contention and row versioning issues without resorting to locks.
>
>An even niche products like Parallel Data Warehouse have made it a player in the really large scale data warehousing spaces.
>
>How much does Ballmer get credit for that? I have no clue. But it happened during this time.

Agreed.
Actually, it goes back to when they took it over from Sybase.
They did a great job with making it more stable and accessible.

One problem is that there are other solutions that, while not as elegant. e.g. mysql, do a pretty good job at much lower cost and and on more platforms.

That said, I personally think that the SQL Server/SSRS combination is perfect for my customers and that's the only platform I use.