4 ms·

But facebook is an independent entity - it's not quite the same comparison. Regardless, Microsoft's online strategy from day one hasn't been on par with the res

But facebook is an independent entity - it's not quite the same comparison. Regardless, Microsoft's online strategy from day one hasn't been on par with the rest of the 600 pound gorillas. If anything, I wish they had the same force behind online services as they have with the Xbox division. They really got Xbox Live right!

qeorge 16y ago
It also took them 10 years of hemorrhaging money to get Xbox/XBL right. Many people also thought they were stupid for doing so, but now it seems prescient.
- raganwald 16y ago
  I haven't been looking at the numbers recently. What is the overall ROI after ten years of sinking stupendous amounts of money into Xbox/XBL? Or are we hand waving and saying that Microsoft has technically lost more money than grains of sand on the beach, but has executed a brilliant strategic plan to keep Sony from taking the lead in the market for set top boxes?
  - qeorge 16y ago
    I don't follow the XBOX numbers closely either, but as I understand it, it is profitable and growing. [1] Regardless, what's more interesting to me is that ten years ago I would have said "what the hell does MS want to make a game console for?" Now that things have shaken out, XBOX has given them a strong foothold not only in gaming, but in home media in general. That's the more compelling ROI to me. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-07/microsoft-xbox-live-sales-probably-topped-1-billion.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-07/microsoft-xbox-l...
    - raganwald 16y ago
      I'm not arguing with you personally, but I have a question the general form of the explanation you cite. If the choice were between losing billions to have a foothold in home media or having no foothold in home media, their strategy would be expensive but interesting. However, if you look over in Cupertino, you see a company with a foothold in home media that made money while grabbing their foothold. Therefore, I wonder if what we have is mediocre execution of a bad plan to grab a good market?
      - qeorge 16y ago
        I wonder if what we have is mediocre execution of a bad plan to grab a good market? That sounds spot on to me. But that's the game MS plays - they throw money at problems for years until they get it right. I'm not saying its the best strategy, and certainly not the most efficient, but in this case I think they're achieving what they set out to do. Further, I'd question whether "option C" (the Apple strategy of making money while establishing the foothold) is available to Microsoft. They're not known for that kind of innovation and precision, they're more like a wrecking ball that sometimes gets aimed in the right direction.
jbellis 16y ago
> facebook is an independent entity - it's not quite the same comparison qualitatively, I don't see much difference between investing VC cash vs investing parent company cash.

qeorge 16y ago

It also took them 10 years of hemorrhaging money to get Xbox/XBL right. Many people also thought they were stupid for doing so, but now it seems prescient.

raganwald 16y ago
I haven't been looking at the numbers recently. What is the overall ROI after ten years of sinking stupendous amounts of money into Xbox/XBL? Or are we hand waving and saying that Microsoft has technically lost more money than grains of sand on the beach, but has executed a brilliant strategic plan to keep Sony from taking the lead in the market for set top boxes?
- qeorge 16y ago
  I don't follow the XBOX numbers closely either, but as I understand it, it is profitable and growing. [1] Regardless, what's more interesting to me is that ten years ago I would have said "what the hell does MS want to make a game console for?" Now that things have shaken out, XBOX has given them a strong foothold not only in gaming, but in home media in general. That's the more compelling ROI to me. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-07/microsoft-xbox-live-sales-probably-topped-1-billion.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-07/microsoft-xbox-l...
  - raganwald 16y ago
    I'm not arguing with you personally, but I have a question the general form of the explanation you cite. If the choice were between losing billions to have a foothold in home media or having no foothold in home media, their strategy would be expensive but interesting. However, if you look over in Cupertino, you see a company with a foothold in home media that made money while grabbing their foothold. Therefore, I wonder if what we have is mediocre execution of a bad plan to grab a good market?
    - qeorge 16y ago
      I wonder if what we have is mediocre execution of a bad plan to grab a good market? That sounds spot on to me. But that's the game MS plays - they throw money at problems for years until they get it right. I'm not saying its the best strategy, and certainly not the most efficient, but in this case I think they're achieving what they set out to do. Further, I'd question whether "option C" (the Apple strategy of making money while establishing the foothold) is available to Microsoft. They're not known for that kind of innovation and precision, they're more like a wrecking ball that sometimes gets aimed in the right direction.

jbellis 16y ago

> facebook is an independent entity - it's not quite the same comparison qualitatively, I don't see much difference between investing VC cash vs investing parent company cash.