Without a doubt, it was a failure, when you look at the economics of it.
That console cost sony a fortune.

It's hilarious how much of a thing this actually is; Sony, MS, Nintendo, Sega, every one stumbled badly with their third console.

And how worthy advancement by the 'evil' competition corrected it.

Well considering the OG Xbox is the worst profitable console (losing $5b to $7b) in history followed by the 360 sitting in 3rd place (losing $3b) should be enough evidence that the X1 did alright, which would make it the most successful Xbox.

Tell me, Why do they continue to hide sales numbers when the Series X has basically sold out? Its an odd thing to do when they can be bragging about sales this gen since they are the best they have ever been. Also the changing business model was planned years before we actually seen the change, changes like that don't just happen over night. Id expect you would know that about businesses and how they work.

Its also really odd that MS announced X1 launch sales figures when it was the fastest selling Xbox in history than all of a sudden don't show the Series X/S when it is surpassing the X1 as the fastest selling Xbox in history. Yup, has nothing to do with the fact Xbox is more a service.. It must be because of the console wars and not because of the change of business focus.

I mean, its in the article. How much more proof do you need?

Phil Spencer Won't Disclose Xbox Series X|S Sales, Even if it Outsells PS5 (vgchartz.com)

XBSX sales might be kept under wraps because to put those numbers out without XBSS numbers it'll immediately raise a red flag.

Wouldn't be surprising to find out that sales are like PS4 to Pro were (at least at one point) at 5:1 or something like that, which MS likely wouldn't want people seeing because that really takes away from the most powerful console marketing. If the best of the best console is selling poorly compared to the weak console that wouldn't look strong to consumers and could also lead to investors wondering why waste time and money with a high end console (other than for servers).

The high end model has its merits though so do you really want to open that can of worms and have to explain all the reasons why, without possibly negatively impacting your present marketing situation in any way? Probably not.

You honestly believe what you are saying? You think MS are afraid of showing figures because another one of their products might be doing too well, overshadowing their flagship console? Really think about this for a second. If that was the case, than MS would not have made the Series S. Low priced models are estimated to sell more than higher priced models, that goes with almost any business, however i don't believe the S has sold more than the X. 

The Series X is sold out, regardless if the Series S is outselling the X or the other way around. Both consoles are sold to do the same thing. Look at the mobile phone market, you think Apple cares that you brought the low priced model? As long as you buy their phones, they simply don't care. There are no red flags when you have a business model where one product has sold out. Also Series S consoles are not sold out, you can buy one almost anywhere, however you cannot find a Series X. Yes Sculpers are part of the blame just like the PS5. So if the X has sold out and the S hasn't, than it means two things, the X is more popular, throwing away your argument of the S might be doing better, or MS made more S units than the X, showcasing the confidence that they want the S to sell really well too.

It's not that hard for MS to announce the X/S sales figures as one and not separately. But clearly they have moved past this.

I do believe this. Why didn't MS show off the XBSS first? Why did they market XBSX hardcore for like 6 months before more quietly announcing XBSS closer to launch? Was MS trying to keep it out of the spotlight? Were they unsure about whether or not they even wanted to sell Lockhart as some articles suggested at that time?

When you take into account how much XBSX hardware has to go towards servers, obviously that takes away from it's consumer stock.

When you take manufacturing into account, especially the APU's, you can't make anywhere near the same amount of large chip dies for the XBSX.

The APU manufacturer has been booked solid and odds are that any openings get split between MS and PS if they even get any extra at all vs others.

MS couldn't sell as many XBSX's as they can XBSS's if they wanted to, assuming there was reasonable demand for the XBSS, which there does seem to be.

I also stated extremely early on that I thought replacing the XB1X with next gen hardware would be a smart move based on the MS roadmap at that time. Most people thought it was a crazy idea and would crash and burn or that it was flat out stupid and useless. Looks to be working pretty good right now doesn't it? Another gen like PS4 vs XB1 would not have been anywhere near as interesting don't you think?

It sold more than the SNES, so I'll go with yes.

Yes, the SNES is kinda my standard and I completely ignore any changes of the market in the last 30 years or so. =P

It wasn't a failure, but successful might be a stretch. It didn't do what Microsoft wanted.

Umm, MS are the ones who make the XSS, so of course they want to sell it. Why would any company make a product that they don't want to sell. They want to sell both the XSX and XSS.  

Of course i am not counting the Live subs, because MS does not disclose Live sub profits. Article below was created in 2013, at the end of the 360's life span. The 360 console itself lost $3b. The subs is what kept Xbox alive and is why the XB1 was suppose to be an always online console etc. The business model was changing until the uproar from the XB1 reveal, which led to MS to revert the system back into a basic gaming console. The Xbox model was changing way before Sony took the lead in sales in the 8th gen.. 

Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion, ex-Sony employee paints grim future | VG247

Why should i stop talking about the Series X/S? Because it doesn't suit your console war logic? I linked you an article claiming MS don't care about sales, regardless if it was outselling the PS5 or not. If they don't care if they outsell the PS5, why would they care if they outsold the PS4? Ill link it again in case you forgot to open it.. I would like to know your source to back up your claims.

hil Spencer Won't Disclose Xbox Series X|S Sales, Even if it Outsells PS5 (vgchartz.com)

Phil's Quote,

"I think the people who want to pit us against Sony based on who sold the most consoles lose the context of what gaming is about today," he added. "There are three billion people who play games on the planet today, but maybe [only] 200 million households that have a video game console. In a way, the console space is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall gaming pie."

MS stopped disclosing XB1 sale figures when Phil took over, and maybe, just maybe Phil doesn't give a damn about sales figures unlike his predecessor Don. Also sale figures stopped at a similar time we started seeing Xbox re-branded. When they started moving games to PC, that wasn't long into the generation when they started doing it.