While it is the ultimate goal of every business to make money, judging the success of individual endeavours is not usually simple. Most companies make money according to the 80/20 -rule, but getting rid of the 20 does not improve the business, it often does just the opposite.
On another note, when talking about strategy it is important to have an understading of what is meant by strategy. A good overview can be found here: http://home.att.net/~nickols/strategy_definition.htm
We have to understand that we can only observe the strategy of a company from the outside, and surmise what the strategy might be from what we see. We can't really trust the PR statements each company makes about their strategies, as those might just as well be smoke screen to mislead the competitors.
So, taking the aforementioned into account, what Sky Render wrote is what we can see from the outside. Do we know for a fact that the strategic intent of MS is to prevent Sony gaining control of the home entertainment? No, we don't, but it does seem very likely. It is also very likely that they have other strategic intents that are not as easily seen by outsiders. The same goes obviously for Sony and Nintendo as well.
So, why does it seem that MS can't make their plan work? Or Sony? Demanding questions that need some time, and right now I don't have it, unfortunately. But if this thread is remembered, or my opinions cared about, I can get back to the issue when I have time, which will be after roughly three weeks. I do think this is an extremely interesting topic, and also very important in understanding why things have gone the way they have, and what is likely to happen next.
