ookaze said:
Don't worry, I know pretty well how MS failed in conquering market segments in the past decades. I know pretty well why the only markets they succeeded in conquering are those where they didn't have to compete, and that they failed in every single one of the ones where they had to compete.
I can see a lot of markets they have conquered, often admittedly with the help of their OS monopoly. If you consider "software" as an indivisible entity, then of course there is not much else where they succeeded. MS PC joysticks were known for their high quality, however. Sony and Apple are tough competitors, so one cannot expect that MS can dispose of their established brands (Playstation, Ipod) in no time. Not instantly dominating the competition doesn't mean epic failure, though.
If you still believe that MS is not stupid enough to still try to go after Nintendo, waiting to find an unfair strategy to stall them in the meantime, then you are the one with zero knowledge about them.
Of course they are going after Nintendo. I just don't think they expect their new controller to change anything in the current generation.
Blue Dragon was there to give the console momentum, a foot in the door. It failed miserably.
It depends on what you expect. The past has demonstrated that it is not easy to get a foot in the door in Japan for a foreign company, unless you have a product that in some way appeals to the Japanese people. Obviously both the original Xbox and the 360 didn't and still don't appeal to the Japanese, so what could have realistically been expected from Blue Dragon? Unless you live behind the moon, the momentum it generated has to be considered decent - not overwhelmingly huge, but decent.
You're right, I fail to see that, as I never saw MS do whatyou describe. I've yet to see them improve any of their competitor products. Perhaps you thought "adapt to the MS way". Unfortunately, most of the time, it isn't improving. In the OS space, where they have their monopoly, it used to work, giving theman unfair advantage and no need to compete. Unfortunately, that's also why they failed in all the other markets.
Could you point out some examples of those "other markets" where they failed? And please don't say HD DVD now, because they only supported it, but it wasn't really their product.
I admit that "adapt to the MS way" might have been a better transcription, but whatever you call it, it often led to a successful product.
Except that none of their product with such losses are profitable in the present or the future.
But I guess being in denial makes you think a profitable FY is enough to make the XBox brand a profitable venture.
With billions of dollars in the hole? When the goal was to gain momentum and you end up with none?
When you wanted a good brand, and end up with a diluted one?
Yes, that's an epic failure, in my view.
Again: past losses are meaningless, regardless how high they were. They have already been balanced in past fiscal years. I don't understand what you mean by "diluted". Xbox is an established brand now, not as strong as Playstation, but it is recognized and MS have the majority of the third-party developers on board, even Japanese ones. That is worth far more than cash.
Again: not instantly dominating the competition doesn't mean epic failure. If you see it as one, it probably gives you a good feeling because you hate MS. But that doesn't make it more real.
