If amazon bought Xbox brand I would squeal with delight.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Investor Wants To Fire Ballmer And Sell Xbox Division
- Thread starter Syphon Filter
- Start date
If amazon bought Xbox brand I would squeal with delight.
SpecDotSign
Unconfirmed Member
All dem money hats yo.
scytheavatar
Member
Ultimately, video games are a tiny business for both Microsoft and Sony ATM. They are in it for their dream of consoles being the next PCs and being more than just about video games, a dream which is looking more and more distant by the day. Once they give up on that dream, they will leave the video game industry. Period. So XboxOne's non-gaming drive could very well be the beginning of the end, if it doesn't pay off it'll be hard for Microsoft to justify sticking to the video games business for their shareholders.
Paint me a picture where EDD is as profitable as even just the Servers division. They are entering another console generation without the competitive advantages they had last generation, and you think there are indications that they will be more profitable because of that?
You think they should focus on phones and tablets? They should've done that 5 years ago. They missed the boat on phones and tablets because they were focused on this endeavor.
Not much to offset the losses of both the original Xbox & Xbox 360.
But on the subject of Ballmer, I'd say good riddance if he goes.
HigherLevel
Member
Can anyone who actually understands business and how things work answer this? Is there a legit chance we no longer have a console from Microsoft in a few years?
A few years is the middle of next gen at best - xb1 will be around and supported regardless
DataStream
Member
Given that most of the moves MSFT has been making for the last 3 years has been to setup the synergy that they will have btw mobile/desktop/gaming platforms codebases it would seem pretty silly to throw that away without letting it play out.
I think that most of the large investors would agree that Ballmer needed to go, but I'd guess the reason for that is that they believe in order for the strategy to work they need someone with more vision. I do not think that the majority of investors in MSFT are looking to simply cut cost (in a very profitable company) in order to have an immediate return.
I expect the things that will happen are Ballmer leaving, a launch of Office for iPad coinciding with the release of the next iPad refresh, and a canceling of RT.
I think that most of the large investors would agree that Ballmer needed to go, but I'd guess the reason for that is that they believe in order for the strategy to work they need someone with more vision. I do not think that the majority of investors in MSFT are looking to simply cut cost (in a very profitable company) in order to have an immediate return.
I expect the things that will happen are Ballmer leaving, a launch of Office for iPad coinciding with the release of the next iPad refresh, and a canceling of RT.
Not to mention that they've also spent $500 million on advertising Kinect for Xbox 360, & $400 million on that wonderful NFL deal for Xbox One as well!
MaulerX
Member
Of course they wouldn't be. Nintendo is gaming - it's all the company does. MS, by contrast, has its footprint in lots of areas, and arguably is putting a lot of effort and money into a part of the gaming industry that doesn't have a great outlook for growth.
I like how people act as if they know more about what's happening with MS than an investor with $2 billion in the company.
Nightengale
Member
This has been happening for years, and years now.
Basically there's always a vocal group of investors who are very critical over wasting time and money in 'games', because it's either unprofitable, or delivers extremely low profits. ( compared to the overall Microsoft business )
Their view is that any money spent on 'investing' in Xbox should be better spent investing in more important parts of the business, like maybe Office, or Exchange, or Server.
I can give you a fair analogy with lubricants business in O&G. Most lubricants division in O&G are very very healthy and profitable, yet every few years someone will bring up talking about selling off the lubricants divisions because their margins are so low, and the investments has not been worth it.
The $400 million doesn't count, it was a company-wide deal that benefits the entire MS family, not just Xbox.
It's no different from Sony's sponsorship of Champions League/FIFA 2014, or their TV-deal with Viacom.
Why do they have to match the Servers division, and who says there are considerable opportunity costs in that division because of the resources allocated to the EDD? If they want significant growth they have no choice but to diversify.
Entering it with a few disadvantages doesn't necessarily indicate where they'll end up, or reference PS3 recovering just fine. And they don't need to sell a shit ton of consoles or even beat Sony for that matter. They need to sell more Live subscriptions and get people buying more games, more DLC, and buying other media (TV, movies, etc.).
If they don't focus on phones and tablets then their OS marketshare will be in trouble because of Apple and Google being very real threats to both the business and consumer OS markets. They don't have a choice; investors know that, and anyone mildly intelligent could see as much.
They need to focus on making Windows more user friendly, and getting killer apps and services to lure more consumers to it and the devices it runs on. Just trimming down to enterprise only may have very short term gains, but it would be leaving the door open for Apple and Google to just take over the OS market, and even put Office at stake as alternative productivity suites are further developed. If you're not running Office apps in the MS cloud (Azure) or using MS server tools (Sharepoint, SQL, Active Directory, IIS, Hyper-V), then you may be using Google or turning towards open source alternatives that are growing in popularly. That puts the Servers & Tools business at stake.
So yes, they need to focus on Windows, tablets, and phone if they want a chance at being a services company, fending off Apple and Google from eating their lunch. Their whole ecosystem depends on it.
MaulerX
Member
Are we seriously comparing Microsoft and Xbox to Sega and Dreamcast? Seriously, every company in existence has a small 1% investors who want to make drastic changes. Lets not pretend like this is exclusive to Microsoft.
Yeah the situations that Sega was in that led to the demise of the DC couldn't be more different, not to mention they didn't even have half the funds of MS and their last console before the DC was a commercial failure unlike the 360.
cebri.one
Member
Actually 1% is a lot, most of the biggerst corporations are run by guys who have 0.5%-1% of the shares .
Tallshortman
Member
I don't know why this has to be repeated so many times, it includes a lot more investors than the guy who has a 1% stake.
I think people fail to realize how small the Xbox/Gaming division of MS is relative to their entire business.
kidhero1000
Banned
Todays announcement has caused Microsofts share price to shoot up a whopping 8%, simply because investors finally know that Ballmer is leaving. So how did it get to this? Why are investors so glad to see Ballmer leave? Lets take a trip back in time.
After joining Microsoft in 1980, as their 30th employee and first business manager, Ballmer became an increasingly important character in the company. By 1992 he was the Executive Vice President, Sales and Support, and by 1998 he was President of Microsoft. Then, in January 2000, he became Microsofts CEO.
Ballmer took over from Bill Gates, co-creator of the company, and of the golden goose Windows. With Gates having brought Microsoft from nothing to the largest tech company in the world, Ballmer had big shoes to fill, and the pressure was on but thankfully Gates was helping as Chief Software Architect, and would retain that role until 2008.
One of the first major milestones to happen during Ballmers rule was the release of Windows Mobile in 2000, which, while managing to get over 20% of the market share of phones, would become completely decimated by iOS and Android later on.
Next up was the release of the first Xbox in 2001, although development began before Ballmer took over and Bill Gates announced it. Former VP of Windows Sales at Microsoft, Joachim Kempin, told IGN that The main reason was to stop Sony.
You see, Sony and Microsoft they never had a very friendly relationship, okay? And this wasnt because Microsoft didnt want that.
In many ways, Xbox has been a huge success both the original and the 360 have sold tens of millions, the brand is massive, titles like Halo break all sorts of records, Xbox Live is a goldmine and they managed to stop PlayStation replacing Windows as they feared (not that that would have happened anyway). But, on the other hand, the Xbox division was a massive money drain, with profits still yet to offset the total cost. And, as with all platform holders, there is always a risk of losing everything when a new console generation begins.
2006 saw the release of the Zune. While it technically managed to last five years before being discontinued, it was never a hit, and utterly failed in its attempt to stop the iPod and halt the growth of Apple.
In 2007, things really took a turn for the worse. Investors and industry pundits were willing to overlook mistakes on new ventures, as long as Windows was ok, but Windows Vista highlighted the problems with their core business. While it was a financial success, and sold tremendously, the terrible reviews led to serious concerns.
Also in 2007, Microsoft spent $6.3 billion on buying online display advertising company aQuantive, and in 2012 wrote off the company in a shocking $6.2 billion writedown.
Later in 2007, Ballmer laughed at the idea of the iPhone:
I said that is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesnt appeal to business customers because it doesnt have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine.
In 2010, Microsoft tried to compete with the hilarious iPhone with the Kin phone which was discontinued two months later. But, before I get ahead of myself, back to 2008, where Microsoft tried, and failed to buy Yahoo! for $44.6 billion, to try to fend off the online dominance of Google. Then, MS launched Bing in 2009, which has lost them billions every year.
Desperate to be competitive in a tech world increasingly dominated by Apple and Google, Microsoft tried to unify all its major branches under one touch-focused UI Metro. The result was Windows Phone 8, an expensive failure, Windows Surface, an expensive failure, and Windows 8, which has performed below internal projections, and seen mixed-to-bad reviews.
This July 19th, Ballmer announced a $900 million hardware write-off for Surface RT, causing stock values to drop by $32 billion, the biggest slide in Microsofts stock since 2000 the year Ballmer took over.
Looking at the history of the Microsoft corporation it should be clear that the company that was once the worlds leading tech developer has slipped since they went from Gates to Ballmer. The world has changed drastically over the last decade as the availability for developers to sell products has become as easy as simply designing a website or aligning with an existing one.
The Windows platform failed to notice the massive shift and influence of the digital market, meaning that they failed to capitalize on the digital music space and to understand what consumers really wanted out of a smartphone, leaving Apple to dominate both. This opening not only hurt their entry into those spaces, they left an opening for Apple to create an ecosystem that has slowly been eating away at the Windows dominated market.
As much as Microsoft tries to invest in expanding markets, their lack of foresight always seems to put them behind the technological curve. This means that the amount of money that needs to go into R&D to expand an existing market is costing them billions of dollars, and more often than not they arent making anywhere near that in return. Whether it is the Windows Surface tablets, the Zune or even the Windows OS, they cannot seem to understand where consumer needs are turning and always have to change direction to better align with the market. One of the latest examples of this was the infamous Start button that was removed from Win8, only to be put back due to consumer blowback.
Now, putting all of this blame squarely on Steve Ballmer is a bit unfair, but things really seem to have slid downhill for the company on multiple levels since he has taken over. The website Mini-Microsoft, which is an anonymous location for MS employees to speak without fear of reprisal from their employer, listed a number of reactions after Ballmer gave one of their company speeches in 2011. Heres one statement from an anonymous MS employee that really seemed to sum it up:
Windows was once an impenetrable fortress, but in the past year, [Apple] has penetrated it with a single product launch.
Not only that, it removed any remaining ability for the board and Ballmers apologists to continue credibly arguing that hes competent. Even after a decade of mistakes and then losing the smartphone market that MS helped pioneer, they were still getting away with that. But the tablet loss was the final straw and now everyone can see that a decade of criticism by mini and others has been right on target. There is no plan. There is no bold strategy. Theres no magical products resulting from a decade of massive R&D spending that are suddenly about to spring onto the market and change the competitive balance of power. Theres just an arrogant, incompetent, CEO and senior leadership team that collectively failed to anticipate and adapt, got their ass kicked by Apple and Google (not to mention others), and ended up permanently diminishing the companys competitive positioning and future prospects.
Now, if we bring this back to gaming a bit more, the other thing that is usually noted from Microsoft is their reliance on exclusive deals or purchasing developers. These are very much standard practice within the games industry, so dont think that Sony and Nintendo dont do the same thing. But, the difference that appears to be happening is that MS is repeating their failings from over the last decade one more time, just with their gaming division. Looking at the Xbox One and the changes that have happened since the global reaction to the DRM issues, things are simply repeating themselves, and repeating themselves.
As a way to circumvent the lack of first party titles, Microsoft is rumored to have paid Respawn Entertainment around $50 million for the Xbox console exclusive Titanfall which is also rumored to actually be a one year timed exclusive. This method of doing business is great for their fans, as they are sure to get some big third-party titles, but is risky and potentially a financial sinkhole for the company, as they rely on studios and IPs not fully under their control. The smartest thing that MS Game Studios has ever done was pick up Bungie, but after the studio built up their name with the Halo franchise on Xbox, they split from MS and are now partnered with Activision developing Destiny a title that is being backed a great deal by the PS4. Mass Effect, one of the greatest games/series of the generation has had its contract expire and has done quite well on the PS3, meaning MS initial investment didnt really hurt the competition in the long run.
Ultimately, this means that as much as Microsoft is investing in technology or game studios to stay relevant and competitive in various industries, they are always trying to secure an immediate future and failing to secure any real longevity. The Windows OS and the Xbox systems have been their only real profitable sources in the market, and that explains why we have seen an overlap between the two Xbox on Windows and Windows on Xbox.
Despite everything, including Ballmers failings, Microsoft as a company has now laid a foundation for a more connected and collaborative future, one that leverages the power of all its branches and works with others to improve their own products. Plus, with the company spending significantly more on R&D than Apple and Google combined, it is sure to have a lot up its sleeves. Under the right leadership, with someone who isnt hated by the companys staff, Microsoft could prove they still have it in them to finally get ahead of the curve and lead the technology and gaming industry to new heights.
After joining Microsoft in 1980, as their 30th employee and first business manager, Ballmer became an increasingly important character in the company. By 1992 he was the Executive Vice President, Sales and Support, and by 1998 he was President of Microsoft. Then, in January 2000, he became Microsofts CEO.
Ballmer took over from Bill Gates, co-creator of the company, and of the golden goose Windows. With Gates having brought Microsoft from nothing to the largest tech company in the world, Ballmer had big shoes to fill, and the pressure was on but thankfully Gates was helping as Chief Software Architect, and would retain that role until 2008.
One of the first major milestones to happen during Ballmers rule was the release of Windows Mobile in 2000, which, while managing to get over 20% of the market share of phones, would become completely decimated by iOS and Android later on.
Next up was the release of the first Xbox in 2001, although development began before Ballmer took over and Bill Gates announced it. Former VP of Windows Sales at Microsoft, Joachim Kempin, told IGN that The main reason was to stop Sony.
You see, Sony and Microsoft they never had a very friendly relationship, okay? And this wasnt because Microsoft didnt want that.
In many ways, Xbox has been a huge success both the original and the 360 have sold tens of millions, the brand is massive, titles like Halo break all sorts of records, Xbox Live is a goldmine and they managed to stop PlayStation replacing Windows as they feared (not that that would have happened anyway). But, on the other hand, the Xbox division was a massive money drain, with profits still yet to offset the total cost. And, as with all platform holders, there is always a risk of losing everything when a new console generation begins.
2006 saw the release of the Zune. While it technically managed to last five years before being discontinued, it was never a hit, and utterly failed in its attempt to stop the iPod and halt the growth of Apple.
In 2007, things really took a turn for the worse. Investors and industry pundits were willing to overlook mistakes on new ventures, as long as Windows was ok, but Windows Vista highlighted the problems with their core business. While it was a financial success, and sold tremendously, the terrible reviews led to serious concerns.
Also in 2007, Microsoft spent $6.3 billion on buying online display advertising company aQuantive, and in 2012 wrote off the company in a shocking $6.2 billion writedown.
Later in 2007, Ballmer laughed at the idea of the iPhone:
I said that is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesnt appeal to business customers because it doesnt have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine.
In 2010, Microsoft tried to compete with the hilarious iPhone with the Kin phone which was discontinued two months later. But, before I get ahead of myself, back to 2008, where Microsoft tried, and failed to buy Yahoo! for $44.6 billion, to try to fend off the online dominance of Google. Then, MS launched Bing in 2009, which has lost them billions every year.
Desperate to be competitive in a tech world increasingly dominated by Apple and Google, Microsoft tried to unify all its major branches under one touch-focused UI Metro. The result was Windows Phone 8, an expensive failure, Windows Surface, an expensive failure, and Windows 8, which has performed below internal projections, and seen mixed-to-bad reviews.
This July 19th, Ballmer announced a $900 million hardware write-off for Surface RT, causing stock values to drop by $32 billion, the biggest slide in Microsofts stock since 2000 the year Ballmer took over.
Looking at the history of the Microsoft corporation it should be clear that the company that was once the worlds leading tech developer has slipped since they went from Gates to Ballmer. The world has changed drastically over the last decade as the availability for developers to sell products has become as easy as simply designing a website or aligning with an existing one.
The Windows platform failed to notice the massive shift and influence of the digital market, meaning that they failed to capitalize on the digital music space and to understand what consumers really wanted out of a smartphone, leaving Apple to dominate both. This opening not only hurt their entry into those spaces, they left an opening for Apple to create an ecosystem that has slowly been eating away at the Windows dominated market.
As much as Microsoft tries to invest in expanding markets, their lack of foresight always seems to put them behind the technological curve. This means that the amount of money that needs to go into R&D to expand an existing market is costing them billions of dollars, and more often than not they arent making anywhere near that in return. Whether it is the Windows Surface tablets, the Zune or even the Windows OS, they cannot seem to understand where consumer needs are turning and always have to change direction to better align with the market. One of the latest examples of this was the infamous Start button that was removed from Win8, only to be put back due to consumer blowback.
Now, putting all of this blame squarely on Steve Ballmer is a bit unfair, but things really seem to have slid downhill for the company on multiple levels since he has taken over. The website Mini-Microsoft, which is an anonymous location for MS employees to speak without fear of reprisal from their employer, listed a number of reactions after Ballmer gave one of their company speeches in 2011. Heres one statement from an anonymous MS employee that really seemed to sum it up:
Windows was once an impenetrable fortress, but in the past year, [Apple] has penetrated it with a single product launch.
Not only that, it removed any remaining ability for the board and Ballmers apologists to continue credibly arguing that hes competent. Even after a decade of mistakes and then losing the smartphone market that MS helped pioneer, they were still getting away with that. But the tablet loss was the final straw and now everyone can see that a decade of criticism by mini and others has been right on target. There is no plan. There is no bold strategy. Theres no magical products resulting from a decade of massive R&D spending that are suddenly about to spring onto the market and change the competitive balance of power. Theres just an arrogant, incompetent, CEO and senior leadership team that collectively failed to anticipate and adapt, got their ass kicked by Apple and Google (not to mention others), and ended up permanently diminishing the companys competitive positioning and future prospects.
Now, if we bring this back to gaming a bit more, the other thing that is usually noted from Microsoft is their reliance on exclusive deals or purchasing developers. These are very much standard practice within the games industry, so dont think that Sony and Nintendo dont do the same thing. But, the difference that appears to be happening is that MS is repeating their failings from over the last decade one more time, just with their gaming division. Looking at the Xbox One and the changes that have happened since the global reaction to the DRM issues, things are simply repeating themselves, and repeating themselves.
As a way to circumvent the lack of first party titles, Microsoft is rumored to have paid Respawn Entertainment around $50 million for the Xbox console exclusive Titanfall which is also rumored to actually be a one year timed exclusive. This method of doing business is great for their fans, as they are sure to get some big third-party titles, but is risky and potentially a financial sinkhole for the company, as they rely on studios and IPs not fully under their control. The smartest thing that MS Game Studios has ever done was pick up Bungie, but after the studio built up their name with the Halo franchise on Xbox, they split from MS and are now partnered with Activision developing Destiny a title that is being backed a great deal by the PS4. Mass Effect, one of the greatest games/series of the generation has had its contract expire and has done quite well on the PS3, meaning MS initial investment didnt really hurt the competition in the long run.
Ultimately, this means that as much as Microsoft is investing in technology or game studios to stay relevant and competitive in various industries, they are always trying to secure an immediate future and failing to secure any real longevity. The Windows OS and the Xbox systems have been their only real profitable sources in the market, and that explains why we have seen an overlap between the two Xbox on Windows and Windows on Xbox.
Despite everything, including Ballmers failings, Microsoft as a company has now laid a foundation for a more connected and collaborative future, one that leverages the power of all its branches and works with others to improve their own products. Plus, with the company spending significantly more on R&D than Apple and Google combined, it is sure to have a lot up its sleeves. Under the right leadership, with someone who isnt hated by the companys staff, Microsoft could prove they still have it in them to finally get ahead of the curve and lead the technology and gaming industry to new heights.
Hate to sound blasphemous but if the Xbox brand goes under I really wouldn't miss it much. From my own opinion games-wise they didn't really bring a lot to the table for me that were just must-haves...they cater a lot to the dudebro and mainstream.....i've always been a JRPG and everything else kinda guy. I never cared for the user interface on any of the versions, Xbox Live is even more useless to me now that PS' online functionality has caught up and sweetened their pot. Their first party exclusives were few in number and diversity, mostly consisting of shooters which happens to be one of my least favorite genres, while most of their library is actually multiplatform. although if one catches my eye I'd usually give it a try. Controller is okay but not the best to me.
Main things they had going for them that made me go out and buy a 360 was price and their online. Now PS4 is cheaper and their internet is either the equivalence or better, there's no real reason for me to stick around.
If this happens I hope it lights a fire under Nintendo especially to motivate them to perhaps get back to their old roots of SNES' diverse gaming library and a more practical approach to their hardware since a good chunk of the competition would be gone and they can breath a bigger sigh of relief.
Main things they had going for them that made me go out and buy a 360 was price and their online. Now PS4 is cheaper and their internet is either the equivalence or better, there's no real reason for me to stick around.
If this happens I hope it lights a fire under Nintendo especially to motivate them to perhaps get back to their old roots of SNES' diverse gaming library and a more practical approach to their hardware since a good chunk of the competition would be gone and they can breath a bigger sigh of relief.
This isn't the sunk cost fallacy at all. Could've been the case if this was about R&D costs only, but it isn't.
Wether Microsoft has ever made money from that division is indeed debatable, since there are costs involved that may or may not be recovered, but that's not the point.
Xbox 360 is the best-selling console in the US for 30 months and Kinect sold very well, yet profits have been small or non-existent.
The real question is: will Xbox One's profits justify the costs involved?
From an investor point of view: Windows 8 and Windows Phone adoption rates are low (and in decline) and Surface bombed. You check your email and another investor has sent you articles like the $100 million controller story and all bad press about the Xbox, including Forbes.
Even though we know things are not so simple, most of these guys don't know and don't care about the videogame industry, and this investor's position is perfectly understandable. He'd rather have MS sell its division for a couple of billion and focus on what is successful (like Office 365) and what should've been (like Windows 8), specially when "experts"(games journalists) are saying the future doesn't look so bright for the Xbox.
I'm not saying he's right and I don't think Microsoft will pull out anytime soon, but Ballmer is leaving and Xbone could underperform in a year or two, so who the hell knows.
Unknown One
Member
Briefcases full of money.
Considering how inept Nintendo used to be and how slow Sony has been I would say MS deserves credit for online gaming on consoles even if the fee is atrocious.
Anticitizen One
Banned
I don't think its smart for anyone to buy an xbox one this holiday season if the whole fucking division could be under new management and a different direction by next year at this time. Games that have already been announced could get cancelled, decisions could be made to focus on kinect, there could be huge price drops and discounts, so many possibilities. It seems pointless to pay $500 for Balmer's folly.
It's a good thing that that won't be happening then.
Hoo boy....
You're right, which is what made me pick up a 360 in the first place....their online and the fact that everyone had one and was connected kinda made me "go with the flow". The stability of Live is wonderful, but......thats it. PS+ is about to stomp them now that people are waking up and seeing that a lot of times they are paying for internet "twice" for certain things like Netflix and Hulu, not to mention Live doesn't have any "real" values other than the current "Games with Gold" stuff they got going, which isn't going to last from what I hear.
Salt? Like I said it was just my own opinion
Yeah i get real "salty" when i encounter "gamers" like yourself.
Those moneyhats are not cheap.
Hatchetforce
Banned
Many people are considering the way some board members are viewing the Xbox division right now. They should be thinking about how the Xbox division will be weighted in January/February 2014. A few months after the initial launch if Sony is seen to be pulling further ahead then some neutral or formerly supportive entities on the board my decide to abandon ship.
I got the impression that the poster of that graph was looking at the total losses and saying they needed to abandon it, not saying that the risk of future losses is too great.
Tread lightly sir. My opinion on one particular console doesn't sum up my overall view and approach as a gamer. Any man is entitled to an opinion, its not like I was shooting stuff around and labeling it all as fact, thus speaking for everyone else. Try not to prejudge what little you know about me based on my thoughts on a console, please and thank you.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
the fact that it lost so much money in the past is completely relevant. it affects where MS would be right now had there not been losses.
it doesn't matter if your room mate is no longer running up a massive electric anymore and is paying his rent on time. he still owes you shit tons of money for all the months his share wasn't covering that. you can't say "well we haven't been evicted because i've been covering for him so everything is A-okay!". no. you would kick his dumb ass out of the apartment.
it doesn't matter if your room mate is no longer running up a massive electric anymore and is paying his rent on time. he still owes you shit tons of money for all the months his share wasn't covering that. you can't say "well we haven't been evicted because i've been covering for him so everything is A-okay!". no. you would kick his dumb ass out of the apartment.
Nightengale
Member
I will also add that pressure on the gaming division for not being sufficiently profitable is something that can potentially impact the customers significantly, if they're not able to identify sufficient alternative growth measures.
Usage of proprietary hardware, or increasing sub-cost are the most common methods in increasing business margins with little effort.
Honestly, the old DRM methods also felt to me part and parcel of many measures designed to increase the overall profit margin per customer, be it the stronger focus on Gold-integrated services, etc.
Usage of proprietary hardware, or increasing sub-cost are the most common methods in increasing business margins with little effort.
Honestly, the old DRM methods also felt to me part and parcel of many measures designed to increase the overall profit margin per customer, be it the stronger focus on Gold-integrated services, etc.
Ohh boy. Bill Gates is chairman of the board with the most shares. Everyone one the board has signed off on Xbox and the whole devices and services strategy. The board hires and fires CEOs. He'll have to answer to the board to make any drastic changes.
Like Mary Jo Foley from zdnet said. "Bill Gates is still running the company."
Okay, say things go badly with the Xbox One. How soon or do you guys even think that Microsoft will actively try to pull the plug on the division or perhaps do some sort of restructure where the console is mostly an entertainment piece? I can't remember but I think I read somewhere that that's what the Xbox 360 or OG Xbox was intended to be but once the gaming side of things picked up, they focused on that and put the entertainment aspects to the wayside for a bit. Wasn't it Bill Gates or someone that mentioned that? Can anyone find the source if what im recalling was in fact true?
I don't have time to read the entire thread, but I actually agree that Microsoft should probably sell / spin off its Xbox division.
I'm sure most of you have looked at Microsoft's financials, and it's clear where the real money is coming from. The business division provides more than half of the corporation's annual profits and has an astronomically high EBITDA margin of 65%. I personally feel that they should reorganize with a focus on the cloud, MSVS, and Enterprise products -- all centralized around bleeding edge OS development for businesses and consumers alike. Don't make phones or tabs; make an OS and the accompanying apps that blow the competition out of the water.
They can bring in whatever assets that are salvageable from the Entertainment and Devices Division but should completely abandon their hardware stuff. No more Surfaces -- a product that was proof (to me, at least) that they can't copy Apple's hardware-software model and be successful at it. Spin off their Xbox / gaming assets into a new pure-gaming company that has a special partnership with Microsoft for cloud and OS resources.
I think Microsoft needs a really clear focus because it's just involved in too much stuff. I'm not saying this because I feel that they should merely be eking out a higher profit margin, but rather they should restructure the company so that it focuses on what it does best. And they can take their higher profit margins and invest that money into create amazing products.
I think this is the sentiment of other investors as well. That said, Microsoft is making plenty of money and they'll do fine if they continue down their current path.
I'm sure most of you have looked at Microsoft's financials, and it's clear where the real money is coming from. The business division provides more than half of the corporation's annual profits and has an astronomically high EBITDA margin of 65%. I personally feel that they should reorganize with a focus on the cloud, MSVS, and Enterprise products -- all centralized around bleeding edge OS development for businesses and consumers alike. Don't make phones or tabs; make an OS and the accompanying apps that blow the competition out of the water.
They can bring in whatever assets that are salvageable from the Entertainment and Devices Division but should completely abandon their hardware stuff. No more Surfaces -- a product that was proof (to me, at least) that they can't copy Apple's hardware-software model and be successful at it. Spin off their Xbox / gaming assets into a new pure-gaming company that has a special partnership with Microsoft for cloud and OS resources.
I think Microsoft needs a really clear focus because it's just involved in too much stuff. I'm not saying this because I feel that they should merely be eking out a higher profit margin, but rather they should restructure the company so that it focuses on what it does best. And they can take their higher profit margins and invest that money into create amazing products.
I think this is the sentiment of other investors as well. That said, Microsoft is making plenty of money and they'll do fine if they continue down their current path.
They lose a lot on hardware, and it's not like they make it back selling software...
But surely you would (or you should). You say that now that Sony's online has caught up to Microsoft's you've no reason to stick around. Don't you see that it was because of Microsoft that Sony got their online up to scratch? Do you really think we'd have PS+ today if it wasn't for the competition Microsoft provided?
Now you're saying you'd be happy if that competition wasn't there? Why? So Sony could go and charge you $600 for the PS5 and barely evolve their online experience? No thank you.
we don't know that. That is why they call it uncertainty.
Idiot investors like this try and big note themselves like this all time. I believe Sony had a major investor trying to bury it long term for some short term financial gain.
These people take a large sum of money, dump it into a company and try and strong arm some situations into play so that they can cash out 6 months later with 1bil profit... all so the company can go belly up 5 years later after the bad decisions have run their course.
Welcome to what is wrong with capitalism everyone. It's not wrong for stock holders to want to see a return on investment... but it is wrong to run a company into the ground for short term profits. These people don't think of families, of children who will one day be looking for jobs or anything like that. They only care of themselves....
And you know what? this person is not the only one... a lot of mum and pop shareholders are like this... 'Give me a quick dollar... I don't care if you outsource everything or invest in a bubble... give me money now'
These people take a large sum of money, dump it into a company and try and strong arm some situations into play so that they can cash out 6 months later with 1bil profit... all so the company can go belly up 5 years later after the bad decisions have run their course.
Welcome to what is wrong with capitalism everyone. It's not wrong for stock holders to want to see a return on investment... but it is wrong to run a company into the ground for short term profits. These people don't think of families, of children who will one day be looking for jobs or anything like that. They only care of themselves....
And you know what? this person is not the only one... a lot of mum and pop shareholders are like this... 'Give me a quick dollar... I don't care if you outsource everything or invest in a bubble... give me money now'
Chobel
Member
Ohh boy. Bill Gates is chairman of the board with the most shares. Everyone one the board has signed off on Xbox and the whole devices and services strategy. The board hires and fires CEOs. He'll have to answer to the board to make any drastic changes.
Like Mary Jo Foley from zdnet said. "Bill Gates is still running the company."
I think you're giving Bill Gates too much credit. And even if he's running the company what makes think that he cares about Xbox now?
This time next year I'm pretty sure the division won't be under new leadership and/or be moving in a new direction. I'm also pretty sure no games will be cancelled.
I've already said my piece on the matter so I'll just leave it at that.
That's possible, but I kinda doubt Sony would go that route again, regardless if there's a gap in competition. The ONLY way I'd see Sony pulling some greedy shit with pricing and such is if Nintendo keeps up their Family and Casual persona and continues to shy away major third parties. Even though Nintendo hasn't been an active force as far as competitive placement on the "leaderboards"...they've been around for a long time and have a great deal of innovative talent, not to mention as "tired" as some people would put it, their first party titles still do well, rebooted/rehashed/whatever or not. Coupled with the fact that despite the blowback over the years of their adopted persona, they STILL manage to bring in decent sales that keep them in the runnings even if they are behind. The threat of that and Nintendo's willingness to sacrifice power for what matters more to them, (gameplay, innovative gaming experiences and overall fun) I think will keep Sony on its toes, although in a different manner than their direct rivalry with Microsoft for things like multiplatform ports, exclusive deals and such. As beasty as Sony and Microsoft are, they even bit into Nintendo's success a little with motion gaming of their own, just to point out an example. So even though Nintendo is considered wack sauce at the moment for some folks, if they were to shape up then they'd be pretty damaging to both companies. OG Wii was weak compared to current gen but sold baffling numbers for a bit until the motion control novelty wore off