Elop could kill Bing and sell Xbox if he's made CEO

[Reflexx]

A good article

Microsoft shouldn't hire any CEO who wants to kill Bing and Xbox | Ars Technica

Great article!

 

[squire777]

A good article

Microsoft shouldn't hire any CEO who wants to kill Bing and Xbox | Ars Technica

Ars is one of the few tech sites out there these days that has decent articles. That was a good reality check and explains why selling off divisions would only cater to investors.

 

[anony_mouse]

Ars is one of the few tech sites out there these days that has decent articles. That was a good reality check and explains why selling off divisions would only cater to investors.

The article is not very convincing.

For Bing, it misses the point that Microsoft could buy search from Google, an independent Bing, or whoever. They could choose whoever offers the best terms and the best service. There's no reason why they have to do everything internally - very few companies have the resources or the expertise to do this. The question is whether independence on search is worth $1bn per year (as quoted in the article) to Microsoft, and whether it is the best use of the talent that Microsoft has available. I see many complaints here about features missing from WP - perhaps the Bing talented engineers would be better employed fixing that.

I was surprised at how badly xbox performs, but I still doubt Microsoft will sell or dispose of it. It is at least nominally profitable over the life of a games console. This quote from the article is very odd:
"The Xbox also continues to be valuable as a hedge against the possible (if unlikely) rise of smart TVs and streaming set-top boxes."
Why does Microsoft need to hedge against the rise of Smart TVs and streaming set-top boxes? How would they damage Microsoft's interests? It's hard to believe that a games console costing 500 euros will compete with products like Google Chomecast, which cost less the a tenth of that. Why doesn't Microsoft address the TV market properly?

Regarding the comment above "That was a good reality check and explains why selling off divisions would only cater to investors." Once again - please explain how the interests of Microsoft differ from the interests of investors.

 

[WinFan1]

I don't think selling their most integral part of the three screen dream is a viable idea.

 

[anony_mouse]

I don't think selling their most integral part of the three screen dream is a viable idea.

Does the three screen dream mean PCs, tablets/smartphones and TVs? If so, Microsoft seriously need to start working on TV. xbox may be a good games console, but it's far too expensive to be just a TV add on. Why doesn't Microsoft make a cheap box like Apple TV, taking just the xbox media services?

BTW, whose dream is this? Microsoft the company, or Microsoft's fanboys?

 

[N_LaRUE]

Does the three screen dream mean PCs, tablets/smartphones and TVs? If so, Microsoft seriously need to start working on TV. xbox may be a good games console, but it's far too expensive to be just a TV add on. Why doesn't Microsoft make a cheap box like Apple TV, taking just the xbox media services?

The Xbox One is an entertainment console. Games, movies, TV and probably more. To make 'just' a TV box wouldn't make sense. Even though I don't plan to buy one I would rather buy that than an Apple TV.

BTW, whose dream is this? Microsoft the company, or Microsoft's fanboys?

No, not just MS fans. We're going back to the discussion on integration which you didn't understand the last time we tried discussing it. We're at really early stages of it so it's hard to know how it all fits together. We have some ideas but not the full picture.

I tend to agree with most people. To sell off anything wouldn't make sense. Once they get the bugs sorted and get things working right I can see it being a very powerful ecosystem that will attract people. Why would MS want to screw up the vision by destroying it? Why put someone in charge who doesn't share that vision? I truly think this is the only way for MS to make the impact they want. It's taking time but I think it will make more sense in the future.

 

[anony_mouse]

The Xbox One is an entertainment console. Games, movies, TV and probably more. To make 'just' a TV box wouldn't make sense. Even though I don't plan to buy one I would rather buy that than an Apple TV.

An xbox is far more powerful and expensive than is required for a "TV box". It's great for people who want to play games. As I said, I understand it's a good product. But why restrict the TV (and other media) offering just to people with 500 euros to spend, plus subscription? That will largely be gamers only. Microsoft seem to have ambitions to make money from media services. Therefore they need to get the services used by as many people as possible, and the more that use them, the more money they will make.
And if integration is important, they need to have some means of accessing the TV.
So again I don't understand - what doesn't make sense about a "TV box" for, say, 100 euros?
Please understand that I'm not attacking the xbox. I just think there's much more MS could achieve.

No, not just MS fans. We're going back to the discussion on integration which you didn't understand the last time we tried discussing it. We're at really early stages of it so it's hard to know how it all fits together. We have some ideas but not the full picture.

Mr/Ms N_LaRue - claiming that someone who doesn't agree with you "doesn't understand" your argument is not very chivalrous. It's also unfairly insulting to your powers of explanation and persuasion. If I recall correctly, the discussion you refer to was about replacing Tribune with Webkit or similar, and the only conclusion I was able to draw was that I am unable to explain the difference between a web browser and an HTML renderer in terms that contributors to this forum can understand.
I agree that we're at the early stages of integration. A question is whether Microsoft have to do everything themselves, and indeed whether their investors will let them. It's also about whether Microsoft have all the best ideas (perhaps companies outside Microsoft can also contribute something!), and even whether successful integration needs to happen at the platform level, or whether third party apps might be a better driver of innovation.

I tend to agree with most people. To sell off anything wouldn't make sense. Once they get the bugs sorted and get things working right I can see it being a very powerful ecosystem that will attract people. Why would MS want to screw up the vision by destroying it? Why put someone in charge who doesn't share that vision? I truly think this is the only way for MS to make the impact they want. It's taking time but I think it will make more sense in the future.

Well, if they can't convince investors to back the vision, then I'm afraid it won't happen. So it goes.
To put my point above in different words... Microsoft's strategy can seem like entering horses in several races, and betting everything on *all* of those horses winning. If all win, that's great. But if even one doesn't, you lose everything.

 

[Jas00555]

Alternatively, why get an xbox if your Smart TV does the same thing?

Sorry, just now noticed your comment since you reply to like 5 at once ;p

Anyways, to get a decent smart tv from anywhere that an average person would look (I say this because most people would go to Best Buy or somewhere when there are better places to shop), it'll cost about $600-$700, which is more expensive than the Xbox. Also, the Xbox is waaay more versatile in that it can move the "smart" factor from TV to TV without having to move the entire TV.

Also, to your Xbox tv thing. I've often wondered the same thing: how can Microsoft sell a $500 gaming console when the Apple TV costs $100 (I don't consider the chromecast YET because it has hardly any apps)? One thing I've always thought about would be to make just a small, $75-$100 box that just runs the apps, and maybe some light gaming to give it an edge over other similarly priced smart tv boxes. The small box could only have like 30gb hard drive or it could even just stream games, no hdd. They could sell this alongside the Xbox one. Since most people buy the Xbox One for gaming with light entertainment, an Xbox tv wouldn't really cut into hardly any profits. If anything, it could help sales because people could buy both. Just me thinking out loud, though.

 

[N_LaRUE]

An xbox is far more powerful and expensive than is required for a "TV box". It's great for people who want to play games. As I said, I understand it's a good product. But why restrict the TV (and other media) offering just to people with 500 euros to spend, plus subscription? That will largely be gamers only. Microsoft seem to have ambitions to make money from media services. Therefore they need to get the services used by as many people as possible, and the more that use them, the more money they will make.
And if integration is important, they need to have some means of accessing the TV.
So again I don't understand - what doesn't make sense about a "TV box" for, say, 100 euros?
Please understand that I'm not attacking the xbox. I just think there's much more MS could achieve.

They're making a 'package' for the whole family first and foremost. However the demographic is a lot larger than that and that's who they are trying to attract with this. This isn't for people like you or me who don't want an entertainment package. It will sell and sell millions though.

Mr/Ms N_LaRue - claiming that someone who doesn't agree with you "doesn't understand" your argument is not very chivalrous. It's also unfairly insulting to your powers of explanation and persuasion. If I recall correctly, the discussion you refer to was about replacing Tribune with Webkit or similar, and the only conclusion I was able to draw was that I am unable to explain the difference between a web browser and an HTML renderer in terms that contributors to this forum can understand.

It was another discussion a while back but doesn't matter.

I agree that we're at the early stages of integration. A question is whether Microsoft have to do everything themselves, and indeed whether their investors will let them. It's also about whether Microsoft have all the best ideas (perhaps companies outside Microsoft can also contribute something!), and even whether successful integration needs to happen at the platform level, or whether third party apps might be a better driver of innovation.

Microsoft has to make it work. Relying on others doesn't work. They have to sort it out and get it right. I'm sure the investors are up to date to what they are doing. MS makes money, regardless. Always going by what investors want doesn't make for a good company. I truly hate the new company strategies that exist today. Wholly based on accounting, completely soulless. If MS is to succeed they need to show their passion for doing things. People want to buy into a company that has something to it. This is where MS has failed in the past, aside from their crap marketing efforts. They need to change their image completely.

Well, if they can't convince investors to back the vision, then I'm afraid it won't happen. So it goes.
To put my point above in different words... Microsoft's strategy can seem like entering horses in several races, and betting everything on *all* of those horses winning. If all win, that's great. But if even one doesn't, you lose everything.

Apple doesn't succeed at everything either. People tend to forget their flops. MS will succeed if they want to but they need to get customers on their side. If they do that then the investors are happy.

 

[seelani]

I think the argument that purchasing a service that is already well established to take over services that Microsoft is building from the ground up is worth looking at. Like Skype and Nokia. The only issue here is rebranding the services, Microsoft recently has been putting out alot of stuff, then rebranding it a year later making it confusing the consumer the only thing the consumer understands at the end of the day is a failed stab at the market by Microsoft.
I do feel it is a pointless for Microsoft to create a 50-100 set top box. The xbox reaches out to a larger consumer group so allow it to do and offer more. anyone who wants a 100 dollar settop box can throw together a HTPC with an amd chipset, xbmc on linux and other other assorted parts. Not worth fighting in something their paid operating system wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[T Moore]

Could be his way of saying he doesn't want the job. Gates is still Chariman of the Board.

 

[anony_mouse]

They're making a 'package' for the whole family first and foremost. However the demographic is a lot larger than that and that's who they are trying to attract with this. This isn't for people like you or me who don't want an entertainment package. It will sell and sell millions though.

What if I want TV, music, integration with my PC and tablet, etc, but not games? Currently Microsoft has nothing for me unless I'm prepared to spend 500 euros. Why not address this market as well? Why not make some more money and some more people happy?
Let me be totally clear. I'm not suggesting Microsoft drop xbox. That would be a bad idea (selling it is another discussion). I'm suggesting that they do something extra.

Microsoft has to make it work. Relying on others doesn't work. They have to sort it out and get it right. I'm sure the investors are up to date to what they are doing. MS makes money, regardless. Always going by what investors want doesn't make for a good company. I truly hate the new company strategies that exist today. Wholly based on accounting, completely soulless. If MS is to succeed they need to show their passion for doing things. People want to buy into a company that has something to it. This is where MS has failed in the past, aside from their crap marketing efforts. They need to change their image completely.

Extending your argument to its logical conclusion, Microsoft should make the trucks that deliver their servers and grow the coffee that keeps their employees awake. And the cows that make the milk for that coffee. All companies rely on other companies. No single company holds all the answers. Businesses sometimes do better when separated from their founders. You can still use Bing and xbox even if Microsoft sell them.
And Microsoft can still make integration work without owning every part of the system. In fact, they can make it work better because they can choose the best solution for each part of the system, and not rely on being the best at everything themselves.
And as for investors - well, this is capitalism. I'm don't say I like it but that's the way it is. I'm not sure who you mean when you say "People want to buy into a company that has something to it". If you mean shareholders, I think they want to make money (remember that investors include the people who will pay our pensions). If you mean users, I think they will buy the product they prefer.

Apple doesn't succeed at everything either. People tend to forget their flops. MS will succeed if they want to but they need to get customers on their side. If they do that then the investors are happy.

This is exactly my point. I'm sure Microsoft want to succeed. The question is whether their "do everything themselves" strategy is the best or most realistic way to achieve this. As you say, even the much feted Apple have their flops.

 

[anony_mouse]

I think the argument that purchasing a service that is already well established to take over services that Microsoft is building from the ground up is worth looking at. Like Skype and Nokia. The only issue here is rebranding the services, Microsoft recently has been putting out alot of stuff, then rebranding it a year later making it confusing the consumer the only thing the consumer understands at the end of the day is a failed stab at the market by Microsoft.

Another option is not to buy the company at all, but to buy the service from the company.

I do feel it is a pointless for Microsoft to create a 50-100 set top box. The xbox reaches out to a larger consumer group so allow it to do and offer more. anyone who wants a 100 dollar settop box can throw together a HTPC with an amd chipset, xbmc on linux and other other assorted parts. Not worth fighting in something their paid operating system wouldn't stand a chance.

xbox can do more but it is much more expensive. Why not *also* make a cheaper, more limited alternative? And I don't think "anyone who wants a 100 dollar settop box can throw together a HTPC...". I'm pretty sure most people couldn't do that.

 

[squire777]

Regarding the comment above "That was a good reality check and explains why selling off divisions would only cater to investors." Once again - please explain how the interests of Microsoft differ from the interests of investors.

Cashing out by selling off certain divisions would only mean a quick, short term boost in stock prices. Since investors are always trying to make their investments grow they will probably be the same people that will tell MS to expand their product line in the future to keep up with the likes of Google and Apple. MS isn't going bankrupt so it doesn't hurt them to stick with Bing and Xbox for the time being.

If you bothered to read the Ars article with your anti-MS glasses off you would have read the part about how integrated data services is the current trend and it is good for MS to establish themselves in that area for the time being. Even though Bing might be bleeding cash it is trending upwards.

 

[squire777]

Extending your argument to its logical conclusion, Microsoft should make the trucks that deliver their servers and grow the coffee that keeps their employees awake. And the cows that make the milk for that coffee.

You have missed the point. The realms that MS is expanding into aren't something completely out of their environment. Communication systems and entertainment systems are where most big tech companies need to be right now so it is logical for MS to have things like XBox, Skype, Bing etc.

Also, you're going off on a tangent about your cheaper TV alternative. The XBox is supposed to be an all-in-one solution for those that are looking for something of that manner. If you want something cheaper there are other alternatives. You yourself have been stating that MS doesn't need to do everything so why should they offer a cheaper TV alternative?

 

[anony_mouse]

Cashing out by selling off certain divisions would only mean a quick, short term boost in stock prices. Since investors are always trying to make their investments grow they will probably be the same people that will tell MS to expand their product line in the future to keep up with the likes of Google and Apple. MS isn't going bankrupt so it doesn't hurt them to stick with Bing and Xbox for the time being.

Well I've explained my points as well as I can, so I won't do so again. I am not saying that Microsoft shouldn't expand their product lines. In fact, I suggested a way that they could do so. The new CEO needs to look at each business and decide which ones actually offer long term value - especially the ones that lose a lot of money, like Bing. There are often alternatives which would cost less. She should also consider whether some businesses might be more successful outside Microsoft.

If you bothered to read the Ars article with your anti-MS glasses off you would have read the part about how integrated data services is the current trend and it is good for MS to establish themselves in that area for the time being. Even though Bing might be bleeding cash it is trending upwards.

I did read the article, but I thought it would be too tedious to comment on every line. I don't agree that there is a trend for 'integrated data services'. I think the opposite is true - that's what cloud computing is all about.
Why do you think I'm anti-Microsoft? Why would I be 'for' or 'against' a corporation? My view is that Microsoft would be more successful, in the long term, with a different strategy. You don't have to agree but let's keep this friendly.

 

[anony_mouse]

You have missed the point. The realms that MS is expanding into aren't something completely out of their environment. Communication systems and entertainment systems are where most big tech companies need to be right now so it is logical for MS to have things like XBox, Skype, Bing etc.

See my last post. Communication and entertainment systems are fine and if you carefully read my posts, you will notice that I didn't advocate selling either Skype or xbox. In fact, I advocated doing more with entertainment systems. And my cheap TV box could integrate Skype as well!

Having said that, there are a lot of technology companies that do not "need to be there [communication and entertainment] right now". Oracle seem to be doing just fine. There's no inherent reason why Microsoft should "be there", in those industries or any other. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, but they have to decide where they can generate the most value for their (investors') money.

Also, you're going off on a tangent about your cheaper TV alternative. The XBox is supposed to be an all-in-one solution for those that are looking for something of that manner. If you want something cheaper there are other alternatives. You yourself have been stating that MS doesn't need to do everything so why should they offer a cheaper TV alternative?

Gosh, where do I start with this one? Microsoft not doing everything is not the same as Microsoft doing nothing. Maybe they should offer a cheaper TV alternative so they can expand the reach of their services and make some money? Why would this be a bad thing? Do you think it wouldn't be successful, or it would damage sales of the xbox? I genuinely cannot understand why this idea seems to be hated so much. Please explain!

 

[seelani]

xbox can do more but it is much more expensive. Why not *also* make a cheaper, more limited alternative? And I don't think "anyone who wants a 100 dollar settop box can throw together a HTPC...". I'm pretty sure most people couldn't do that.

Well I do agree that most people can't do it, but people who want specific details of their product tweaked aren't going to be able to get it off a widely available consumer product. That's the idea I was driving at, usually the ones who just require a specific one or two features are knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution on their own. But hey give me an Xbox that doesn't require me to pay to use Skype internet explorer and other apps that are readily available on my PC, that I wouldn't mind. I don't mind paying a one off fee not a monthly/yearly subscription fee, for these apps.
Anyone have any idea how sony generates revenue for their products? Do they charge for PSN or do they use profit from other parts of the company to cover losses?

 

[ag1986]

You have missed the point. The realms that MS is expanding into aren't something completely out of their environment. Communication systems and entertainment systems are where most big tech companies need to be right now so it is logical for MS to have things like XBox, Skype, Bing etc.

Also, you're going off on a tangent about your cheaper TV alternative. The XBox is supposed to be an all-in-one solution for those that are looking for something of that manner. If you want something cheaper there are other alternatives. You yourself have been stating that MS doesn't need to do everything so why should they offer a cheaper TV alternative?

There are plenty of technology companies that are doing quite well for themselves without getting into the comms/entertainment business. Most companies don't even want to be there because it's highly competitive and so has low margins.

About the cheaper thing, such devices already exist. I got a $184 WD TV Live Hub the other day, quite an amazing device. It has 1 TB onboard storage for all my media, plus it can connect to USB drives, stream from my Windows 8 laptop, my network share and my Macbook Pro. Supports Youtube, Netflix and a lot of other streaming services. All I need since I am of the Glorious PC Master Race when it comes to gaming, thus I don't wish to pay $300 extra.

 

[squire777]

Gosh, where do I start with this one? Microsoft not doing everything is not the same as Microsoft doing nothing. Maybe they should offer a cheaper TV alternative so they can expand the reach of their services and make some money? Why would this be a bad thing? Do you think it wouldn't be successful, or it would damage sales of the xbox? I genuinely cannot understand why this idea seems to be hated so much. Please explain!

You are missing the point about the XBox. It is first and foremost a gaming console and all the other features are extras who want more from their console. It is designed for gamers in mind, not for those looking for a TV solution. It's not like you would buy a PS3 just because you wanted to use it for Blu Rays when there are cheaper, standalone blu ray players out there. MS has no intention of going into that TV player market at the moment so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Also why would you say that a cheaper TV box would make them money? As succesful as Apple and Google are their own Apple TV and Google TV, Nexus Q etc didn't sell too well. Chromecast looks like a good idea but it has some key issues and hasn't really caught on as well. For someone that is saying that MS has their fingers in too many pies you want them to make another device as well?