Microsoft's sole goal for being in the industry is to stop Sony from disrupting computers with the Playstation line. They are not focused on their loses, but how soon they can get Sony to call it quits. Microsoft's future depends on Sony. They will leave either if they threat evaporates or Sony leaves the game industry (which is the same as the former).

Wow, you've typed so much foolishness. There's no way a video game console's gonna replace a PC. MS wanted to infitrate the console market because they wanted to make more profit/market share/to appease stock holders. That's the same reason MS released the Zune. Anyway, about the statements you said earlier, how is Sony innovative? All Sony does is copy too (achievements, wii clone controller). They copied both MS and Sony several times. MS is the first console to REALLY shift into a media center. I don't want to brig up a crazy list, but they were the first to offer movies,etc. In addition, I don't see Apple as a very innovative company. The iPod design was STOLEN from someone else, and Apple is complete hypocrites. Apple criticized Windows 7 for being a repack of  Vista, but Snow Leopard is the same thing. All Apple can do is criticize MS because they don't have much to offer. And I hope you do know Apple does  A LOT more copying. Very few people strive for innovation. And I think it's very ignorant of you to say X company has no innovation because that isn't true.

Really? Market it right and put in the right features and it sure as hell can. You get something with enough versatilty in the living room that can do alot of the things that a pc can and you get people that don't need to shell out for one. You are not looking at the big picture and how console gaming has evolved. Is it really just a console now? And what about if the future continued in this trend and there was no wii (MS and Sony did not plan for it). The consoles were/are becoming more like a pc.

As for Sony being innovative, I never really said that. I said that right now they are not innovative and are just doing the same thing MS is doing: trying to make that living room hub. They are upgrading graphics. This is not really that innovative. Its just the same old same old. Now, making them into more hubs is innovative (as I said both MS and Sony are doing this) but it is something we could have been expecting if we watched how the market was evolving and the quotes of the companies themselves. As for the ps3, it has very similar features as the 360. Some are better and some are worse. As an overall hub though, I think MS does better.

Apple is innovative in the sense of how they made and marketed this product. They made it friendly to the mass market. It is somewhat disruptive (not a true disruptive product though.) But if we are gonna talk about stolen ideas, MS stole more than apple, windows itself is stolen from apple. More importantly though, the apple management/execs are made up of people that can read and market these mass market items better with less money. The whole philosophy of the company is differerent.

As for no innovation, you are right. Every new product has some. Not everything is direct copying.

@bitmap frogs: This is more than just getting a cut from a game. You are right in a sense: if MS thought that it could get that hub and monopolize it in a manner that is more cost efficient than promoting the windows and PC products it would. But at that time it is not really a console anymore. Windows and PC products is where MS makes its money. The cut they get for games is far less meaningful than what could be threatened by Sony if it was victorious in the hub battle.

Not really. Both the PS1 and PS2 were ahead of Nintendo's offerings yet Nintendo's profits were higher than Sony's.

Who's the success story there?

@ Bitmap Frogs

I don't understand why you keep bringing up sales, i'm not even talking about that, my argument is about microsoft's intention which was so solidify the pc gaming market which they saw as deteriorating with increased console gaming, they may not get any profit directly, but they do indirectly with pc sales and market share

This is true, but in this particular case the issue is not the now usual "console war", but MS considering blasphemous and deserving to be stoned to death whoever tries to "steal" the "living room hub" that MS considers belonging to its products by some sort of divine right. A simple competition amongst consoles could become harsh, but the fight wouldn't reach the goriness we see when MS feels its cash cows are threatened. And I fear this time MS will have to fight dirtier than ever, as Office is declining and Windows, despite not being threatened by PS3 right now, could be attacked even stronger by Nintendo. The only thing saving MS is that Nintendo gives priority to its core business and won't release a Wii2 with enough RAM and mass storage ahead of schedule just to shatter Windows' Media Hub ambitions. But when Wii2 is released, there won't be mercy for MS, if Nintendo will be able to provide what's needed to make Wii2 become a media hub keeping it profitable and reasonably priced, it will do it.

So maybe MS should better concentrate on just making XB360 and every other diversification project profitable, as there's nothing it can do to protect Windows from erosion, the magic bullets that stopped Sony are ineffective on Ninty.

By Jove!

Let's start with the basics: Microsoft does not get any special profit from gaming being popular on PC's. Every single PC used for gaming would have been bought for something else (you know, internet browing, email, messaging, etc). Their windows license fees are safe. On the other hand, they make a shitton of revenue off the console user (just like any other manufacturer) - profit on the unit, royalties on every game, accessories... Owning a console platform is a massively profitable venture (as Nintendo has shown everybody) and on top of it is a gateway to even more services like movie rentals, etc all of which also leave a share for the platform owner. Microsoft doesn't need a hidden goal of killing console gaming as an excuse to enter the market, the own dynamics of the console market and the revenue streams are enticing enough. Heck, given enough users, Microsoft would make more money off consoles than PC's, which is reason enough to enter the market.

Then, there's the other one: if Microsoft had the secret goal of turning the PC into the single, exclusive gaming platform... TA-DA! It'd been way way cheaper to do it without entering the console market. Selling hardware to consumers it's costly and requires an entire overhead and structure MS had to build from scratch! The billions and billions they've dumped into this venture could have been used to produce hundreds of AAA exclusives for the PC. Not to mention they could have used their massive marketing budget on pushing the PC. Ever since the Xbox got started, Microsoft has squished their PC development teams, killing AAA sales and mindshare franchises like "Age of" in order to concentrate on the Xbox division. Games for Windows, a push to give some support and unity to PC gaming devs and consumers has been pretty much a ghost project with skeleton crew and arguable results. 

Here's what's happening: you want to believe Microsoft is evil or want to promote that idea, that's your conclusion. Then you've been cherrypicking and twisting facts in order to produce an argument to sustain your pre-decided conclusion. What you are suggesting is not only insane but against all kinds of common and business sense and stinks of conspiranoia. 

The worse is that such a strategy would not work and Microsoft execs are smart enough to realize. Unlike you.

As I have already stated, owning a console platform is a huge business opportunity. If Microsoft somehow could monopolize the console market and then phase out their console operations, you know what would happen? C'mon, that's basic economic theory - someone else would rise to fill the niche. Because this is larger than you think, consoles aren't just a brick under your TV, they are something that people want. And as such, there will always be someone providing it. Even if Microsoft could somehow wipe out all other console makers, they would not be able to wipe the market's interest on such items.

Now go FUD somewhere else, thank you.

^^
But if you don't need to play games or run some programs like Office, Autocad, etc, you don't need Windows on your PC... You don't even need a x86 CPU!

That's fine and dandy but it doesn't address what needs to be addressed: how could it be possible to enhance or push PC gaming by investing on console gaming. As I've already said, Microsoft may be able to wipe out Nintendo and Sony but can't change the customers mind to stop liking consoles.

In fact, while I believe MS wishes to prevent competitor console makers from becoming strong enough to seize the living room computing, I don't believe by any means it plans to destroy the console market, it's an impossible task, like you wrote, and the best MS can do is live with it, and if possible, try to profit from it and have some synergies with some of its other products. This said, the danger that still Sony, or, currently more likely, Nintendo tries to do what MS fears is still strong, and the only way MS could prevent it is to make XB720 become the first console next gen and make it the best choice of media hub for people not wanting to get stressed by a PC. The danger this gen is still low, PS3 has too little RAM for the task and it's the weakest contender, Wii is the strongest but it has even less RAM, no disk storage and no DVD playback.
To cut it short, this gen Windows was pardoned by PS3 weakness and more generally by HW trade-offs, but next gen each console will be able to become a media centre PC even without their respective manufacturers actively promoting this function, so the stronger XB720 will be, the less sales "stolen" from Windows will go to MS competitors and the more will obviously go anyway to MS.