7 ms·

Microsoft choked their lead in the console market to Sony despite being much larger with bigger pockets. PlayStation 4 and now 5 both outsell Xbox 3:1 or so des

by pb7 4y ago

Microsoft choked their lead in the console market to Sony despite being much larger with bigger pockets. PlayStation 4 and now 5 both outsell Xbox 3:1 or so despite Xbox 360 having outsold PlayStation 3 and had loyal customers. They also choked with Mixer, losing to Google (YouTube), Amazon (Twitch), and Facebook (Gaming). Windows Mobile was a complete failure. It is not a "Google problem". Google (and Apple and Facebook) hate is just trendy on HN.

scarface74 4y ago
Microsoft is playing an entirely different game than selling loss leader hardware. They are all about subscriptions and streaming games. Then again, look at the revenue mix of the other companies to see how well they were able to move into new markets - Apple - phones, tablets, watches, computers, accessories, services, and even the AppleTV+ series have been getting rave reviews. Apple Arcade even isn’t in any danger of being cancelled. - Microsoft - Windows, Server software, Azure is a strong second, at least they didn’t cancel XBox and I bet their streaming game service will be around for awhile. - Amazon (same disclaimer I work at AWS): Amazon retail, AWS, Twitch, advertising, Prime Video, the Alexa devices - Facebook - FB proper, WhatsApp, Instagram -yes two of those are acquisitions. But how many acquisitions has Google screwed up completely? And then you have Google. - YouTube is believed to be barely break even from a profit standpoint - it was revealed in the Oracle trial how relatively little Android makes in profit . Yes I realize the numbers are old. But what has changed since then? By the time of the trial, Android already had the dominant market share. Google pays Apple a reported $18 billion a year to be the default search engine. That has to be more than Google is making from Android per year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-... After all these years, everything that Google has don outside of advertising has been a failure as far as profitability.
- pb7 4y ago
  >Microsoft is playing an entirely different game than selling loss leader hardware. Same can be said for Google, right? Google is playing an entirely different game than having paid-for-products but instead funneling products into the money-printing Ads machine. >But how many acquisitions has Google screwed up completely? I actually don't know and am very curious, how many? More or less than other similar companies? From my memory it's not many but I could be very wrong. Firebase for example, is alive and strong and rarely gets mentioned. I don't think every company needs to have the same type of business model. Google became popular because it made really great products that were all free* which increased adoption. Maybe some of them (like say, Search) would have never gotten popular if they had charged for it right away. I'm not convinced there's a single right path. >it was revealed in the Oracle trial how relatively little Android makes in profit It makes sense though, right? I don't even know how Android would make money directly (ok, I do know of ways, not sure if that's how it is) but it's a precursor for making money from the Play Store.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > Same can be said for Google, right? Google is playing an entirely different game than having paid-for-products but instead funneling products into the money-printing Ads machine. Look at the diversity of profitable lines that Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have gone into over the last two decades and compare to the number of failed attempts that Google had at trying to diversify. I’m sure Oracle was counting Ad revenue coming from Android when calculating profits.
koyote 4y ago
To be fair, Microsoft had that problem long before Google had it, with different parts of the org going their own way, there's even that famous image comparing org structures (https://i.insider.com/4e0b340dcadcbbdd35120000?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/4e0b340dcadcbbdd35120000?width=750&for...). I remember back in the days you could have three or so different image viewers created by Microsoft installed on your machine (Office had its own for example). Then there was MSN Messenger, Windows Messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Lync. That being said, I think Google far surpassed Microsoft in creating things that get shut down and have been for the last decade at least while Microsoft has improved on that front.
- pb7 4y ago
  What things has Microsoft tried that have been outside of their four or so verticals that have been around for ages (Windows, Office, Cloud, Gaming)? Google alone has nearly 1:1 mappings: Android/Chrome OS, Workspace (Docs, Gmail, Calendar, etc), Cloud, YouTube Gaming and Stadia just died), on top of all the other products with >1B users like Drive, Photos, Play Store, etc. Microsoft even failed with Windows Mobile whereas Google has the Pixel line.
  - yyyk 4y ago
    Microsoft's Gaming and Cloud 'verticals' have not 'been around for ages' (or maybe I'm just older). They're a relatively new* creation of Microsoft which actually do well. Now, we could say Gaming is as old as Google, so that's a wash. But Google should never have been so far behind in Cloud. It should be their native arena! It's a huge loss, I suspect thanks to internal politics. * Gorillas.BAS and Microsoft Flight Simulator aside. ** There's the Dynamics line, which I don't think really counts under 'office' given its complexity.
    - pb7 4y ago
      Xbox launched in 2001. I would call that "ages" personally. Cloud is newer I agree. >But Google should have never been so far behind in Cloud. I emphatically agree. Google had kick ass infrastructure way before most players and squandered it on internal use only. I think it's one of the biggest blunders in its history and shows the lack of vision in places.
lmm 4y ago
Microsoft has plenty of failures, but they don't hype-and-then-dump them to quite the same extent that Google does. Look at how long they supported the Zune for, for example.
- pb7 4y ago
  I don't know, that seems subjective. Marketing is part of every successful product so "hyping" is a key part of a product's lifecycle. Sometimes products don't catch on and they have to be killed. It's not any different than the plethora of startups that promise to revolutionize industries and fail to make a single buck. Supporting a zombie product isn't noble in my opinion. Those resources could go to trying something else when it's clear that there won't be any market penetration.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Google announced three messaging products in one year. They literally left a city streets in ruins after abandoning one of their products. https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198 https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-... Google is not some fly by night startup. But people have learned to treat it like one and not depend on their products.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  Cough Kin Cough

by pb7 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

Microsoft is playing an entirely different game than selling loss leader hardware. They are all about subscriptions and streaming games. Then again, look at the revenue mix of the other companies to see how well they were able to move into new markets - Apple - phones, tablets, watches, computers, accessories, services, and even the AppleTV+ series have been getting rave reviews. Apple Arcade even isn’t in any danger of being cancelled. - Microsoft - Windows, Server software, Azure is a strong second, at least they didn’t cancel XBox and I bet their streaming game service will be around for awhile. - Amazon (same disclaimer I work at AWS): Amazon retail, AWS, Twitch, advertising, Prime Video, the Alexa devices - Facebook - FB proper, WhatsApp, Instagram -yes two of those are acquisitions. But how many acquisitions has Google screwed up completely? And then you have Google. - YouTube is believed to be barely break even from a profit standpoint - it was revealed in the Oracle trial how relatively little Android makes in profit . Yes I realize the numbers are old. But what has changed since then? By the time of the trial, Android already had the dominant market share. Google pays Apple a reported $18 billion a year to be the default search engine. That has to be more than Google is making from Android per year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-... After all these years, everything that Google has don outside of advertising has been a failure as far as profitability.

pb7 4y ago
>Microsoft is playing an entirely different game than selling loss leader hardware. Same can be said for Google, right? Google is playing an entirely different game than having paid-for-products but instead funneling products into the money-printing Ads machine. >But how many acquisitions has Google screwed up completely? I actually don't know and am very curious, how many? More or less than other similar companies? From my memory it's not many but I could be very wrong. Firebase for example, is alive and strong and rarely gets mentioned. I don't think every company needs to have the same type of business model. Google became popular because it made really great products that were all free* which increased adoption. Maybe some of them (like say, Search) would have never gotten popular if they had charged for it right away. I'm not convinced there's a single right path. >it was revealed in the Oracle trial how relatively little Android makes in profit It makes sense though, right? I don't even know how Android would make money directly (ok, I do know of ways, not sure if that's how it is) but it's a precursor for making money from the Play Store.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Same can be said for Google, right? Google is playing an entirely different game than having paid-for-products but instead funneling products into the money-printing Ads machine. Look at the diversity of profitable lines that Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have gone into over the last two decades and compare to the number of failed attempts that Google had at trying to diversify. I’m sure Oracle was counting Ad revenue coming from Android when calculating profits.

koyote 4y ago

To be fair, Microsoft had that problem long before Google had it, with different parts of the org going their own way, there's even that famous image comparing org structures (https://i.insider.com/4e0b340dcadcbbdd35120000?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/4e0b340dcadcbbdd35120000?width=750&for...). I remember back in the days you could have three or so different image viewers created by Microsoft installed on your machine (Office had its own for example). Then there was MSN Messenger, Windows Messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Lync. That being said, I think Google far surpassed Microsoft in creating things that get shut down and have been for the last decade at least while Microsoft has improved on that front.

pb7 4y ago
What things has Microsoft tried that have been outside of their four or so verticals that have been around for ages (Windows, Office, Cloud, Gaming)? Google alone has nearly 1:1 mappings: Android/Chrome OS, Workspace (Docs, Gmail, Calendar, etc), Cloud, YouTube Gaming and Stadia just died), on top of all the other products with >1B users like Drive, Photos, Play Store, etc. Microsoft even failed with Windows Mobile whereas Google has the Pixel line.
- yyyk 4y ago
  Microsoft's Gaming and Cloud 'verticals' have not 'been around for ages' (or maybe I'm just older). They're a relatively new* creation of Microsoft which actually do well. Now, we could say Gaming is as old as Google, so that's a wash. But Google should never have been so far behind in Cloud. It should be their native arena! It's a huge loss, I suspect thanks to internal politics. * Gorillas.BAS and Microsoft Flight Simulator aside. ** There's the Dynamics line, which I don't think really counts under 'office' given its complexity.
  - pb7 4y ago
    Xbox launched in 2001. I would call that "ages" personally. Cloud is newer I agree. >But Google should have never been so far behind in Cloud. I emphatically agree. Google had kick ass infrastructure way before most players and squandered it on internal use only. I think it's one of the biggest blunders in its history and shows the lack of vision in places.

lmm 4y ago

Microsoft has plenty of failures, but they don't hype-and-then-dump them to quite the same extent that Google does. Look at how long they supported the Zune for, for example.

pb7 4y ago
I don't know, that seems subjective. Marketing is part of every successful product so "hyping" is a key part of a product's lifecycle. Sometimes products don't catch on and they have to be killed. It's not any different than the plethora of startups that promise to revolutionize industries and fail to make a single buck. Supporting a zombie product isn't noble in my opinion. Those resources could go to trying something else when it's clear that there won't be any market penetration.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Google announced three messaging products in one year. They literally left a city streets in ruins after abandoning one of their products. https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198 https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-... Google is not some fly by night startup. But people have learned to treat it like one and not depend on their products.
goosedragons 4y ago
Cough Kin Cough