Marketshare is really irrelevant. The only important measure of a company's performance is profit. If a company is making more profit now than last year, that

Marketshare is really irrelevant. The only important measure of a company's performance is profit. If a company is making more profit now than last year, that's a success, regardless of everything else. The marketshare thing is really silly: if the market expands in size 10-fold, but your sales increase 2-fold (assuming pricing stays the same), meaning you're doubly profitable, and somehow that's a "loss" because marketshare is lower? That's just plain idiotic. Yes, MS is a loser in mobile devices; it doesn't matter because they were never very profitable there anyway. Desktop and server marketshare losses can be mitigated with higher pricing and other revenue opportunities (such as advertising). I don't have the actual numbers handy, so I can't say whether MS is actually more or less profitable than before, but I suspect it's more. The point is, what are their actual profits? If they're making more money, then this focus on marketshare is pointless. Money is money. >MS is literally giving away its OS. Nadella doesn't know what he's doing. Giving away Win10 is the correct choice IF it makes them more money (through advertising, selling collected data, etc.). Furthermore, the competition is giving away their OSes. Perhaps MS sees that it can make more money by getting consumers to switch to Win10 with data collection and advertising than by trying to charge them for it and getting less uptake. >In any sane company he would have been fired by now. Why? Do you have any proof that his actions have actually decreased profits? If not, then your assertions are meaningless.