| RVDondaPC said: XBOX is now a profitable, world wide known brand. Microsoft can now also use it to leverage it with their othe products/Window devices. It helps to diversify Microsoft's protfolio. It has a large and engaging userbase. And it also helped deleverage Sony and other companies from completely taking over the living room space and hurting it's Windows division, which was it's only real goal at birth. How can you label it, not a success? Because a company had to invest capital at it's inception to get it off the ground? That makes no sense. We might as well label Google buying Motorola, not a success either. Since it spent $12 Billion buying it and it lost half a billion dollars last quarter. Progress and time means nothing about success to you, lets just label things failures squarely on the initial cost of something. |
So, judging by the phrasing, you disagree with labelling Google's purchase a failure? I would argue that it is a complete and utter failure, business wise. At the time of the deal the consensus was that the purchase was for the patents, and those patents have proven to be rather worthless in court, certainly not justifying the exorbitant cost. Others speculated it was for the set-top business, but that's been discontinued. Motorola's smartphone business is moribund (Samsung is the only one making any profit selling Android phones), so Google's claim that the purchase would "supercharge" the Android market is vastly overblown. As far as I can tell we haven't seen any business justification that the $12.5 billion will ever pay itself off. It is tempting to speculate that the high asking price was forced by Motorola's ex-CEO, but did Google really have to spend that much money to eliminate one rogue agent?
