Everything is about perception. What Satya did was change Microsoft's image and culture for the better, insuring Microsoft's cash cows have a future and stay relevant in a world that is changing rapidly with other strong competitors.

Ballmer's style of leadership would not fly today. Saying stuff like Linux is cancer, the iPhone a toy/joke, acting like a clown during conference.

"Before becoming CEO, he was Executive Vice President of Microsoft's cloud and enterprise group, responsible for building and running the company's computing platforms, developer tools and cloud computing services"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella

Certainly starting new stuff is important, but I think it's worth pointing out that focusing your efforts is one of the hardest things to do. One could argue that it was more important for Microsoft to become competitive in things like Azure, than it was to start new things. It's kind of like how successfully retreating is, militarily, more difficult than successfully attacking, because you're already in a bad situation.

But, pretty soon, it will be time for Microsoft to prove they can start new stuff again, you're correct on that.

Is a CEOs job really to start new stuff? As someone points out below, Balmer also started stuff that cost the company, windows phone, Skype etc. So I disagree that a CEO should be measured by only things he started that were successful. I think a CEOs job is that of a sustainer of growth, which can be done in many ways and doesn't necessarily need new products.