Still think Ballmer was bad?
Bit of a mean jab I guess. Especially since, while I had nothing against Ballmer, was nonetheless pleased with the choice of Nadella.
$26 BILLION FOR LINKEDIN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Leaked hardware specs for a console a year and a half away?!?!?!
The LinkedIn story takes the cake. I can't wrap my head around it. This isn't like Nokia where there were things they could have done and even if it was a gamble, bookies could have at least come up with some sensible odds. How does Microsoft make a purchase of LinkedIn worth $26 billion to itself? Especially while promising to let the company do whatever it wants?
Odds that Microsoft can make a return on investment of TWENTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS in our life time is like... well, maybe 26 billion to 1. But that may be generous.
Even companies valued at billions of dollars rarely make that amount of net profit. Microsoft doesn't even make that much a year. They only made $12 billion last year in net income. Put another way, Microsoft spent 2 and a bit years worth of their income to buy a company that is at an operating loss.
The Nokia purchase on the other hand which people call a failure was under $8 billion. In other words, they could have paid it off in less than a year and if Microsoft hasn't mismanaged the Lumia lineup after that acquisition, might have had a chance to turn that around.
Oddly, investors are calling this LinkedIn move smarter than the Nokia one saying that it will give Microsoft a way of tapping into how their business users are using tech. That is basically saying Microsoft was smart to spend $26 billion on market research. Oh, and LinkedIn isn't making money, so it is actually worse than that. No. Just NO! There are far less idiotic ways to find out this sort of information. Like, log into LinkedIn. Pay a market research company an insanely small fraction of that price. Or just walk outside and talk to some people.
Oh and Microsoft went and bungled their next console release as well. Last time, Microsoft announced their DRM plans ahead of Sony. But that allowed Sony to spin the market into a frenzy against the idea. Granted it may have turned out the same even without Sony. Microsoft failed to pitch it correctly. Steam, arguably the most popular gaming service out there, uses much the same model Microsoft was pitching. With, not only many of the same potential benefits, but also more.
What Microsoft did today was basically laid their cards on the table. They didn't give concrete hardware details, but they did indicate # of cores, memory bandwidth, processing power of the GPU and problems they expected the tech to address. I would doubt a Sony engineer couldn't make a very good guess at the rough hardware it will ship with. And that is a problem. The PS4 was always more expensive for the same options as the Xbox One. It's victory in this generation has allowed them to command a premium price so long as they rock the spec sheet. And that means that even if Sony decides to release a console in the same timeframe, they can simply one up them at a higher price.
Or worse, Sony could just release their PS 4.5 and wait until hardware prices hit a point where they can push out something more powerful at the same or cheaper launch price. Gamers aren't necessarily smart enough to think "well sure Sony can release a better console 6-12 months later at the same time, due to market dynamics and falling hardware prices". They'll simply see "not only is Sony STILL better, but they can also be better at the same launch price". In fact, if the hardware is as good as Microsoft is boasting it to be and remains so by holiday 2017, this would indeed be the smart thing for Sony to do.
I throw my hat in with the group that wanted a truly unified platform. Xbox Anywhere basically makes the argument that a PC can be a console. I don't mind there being a baseline "console" which is refreshed every few years, but I think consumers with sufficient specs should be able to convert a PC into an Xbox.
Don't get me wrong, it is nice that the titles I buy on Xbox will be playable on my PC. But, let's be serious, if I had a decent gaming PC I probably wouldn't bother with a console. And while there are people out there who game on both (excluding talk of exclusives), I think it is a minority. To clarify the bit in parentheses. Today, hardcore gamers often need multiple platforms simply because some games aren't available on others, in that respect there are a LOT of people who game both on consoles and PCs. Also, if there is a superior platform, it is almost always PC (community mods, content, unlocked graphics settings). I don't think most serious gamers with gaming PC's would buy the console version of a game. And if they had it on both, would likely never play it on the console.
$26 BILLION FOR LINKEDIN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Leaked hardware specs for a console a year and a half away?!?!?!
The LinkedIn story takes the cake. I can't wrap my head around it. This isn't like Nokia where there were things they could have done and even if it was a gamble, bookies could have at least come up with some sensible odds. How does Microsoft make a purchase of LinkedIn worth $26 billion to itself? Especially while promising to let the company do whatever it wants?
Odds that Microsoft can make a return on investment of TWENTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS in our life time is like... well, maybe 26 billion to 1. But that may be generous.
Even companies valued at billions of dollars rarely make that amount of net profit. Microsoft doesn't even make that much a year. They only made $12 billion last year in net income. Put another way, Microsoft spent 2 and a bit years worth of their income to buy a company that is at an operating loss.
The Nokia purchase on the other hand which people call a failure was under $8 billion. In other words, they could have paid it off in less than a year and if Microsoft hasn't mismanaged the Lumia lineup after that acquisition, might have had a chance to turn that around.
Oddly, investors are calling this LinkedIn move smarter than the Nokia one saying that it will give Microsoft a way of tapping into how their business users are using tech. That is basically saying Microsoft was smart to spend $26 billion on market research. Oh, and LinkedIn isn't making money, so it is actually worse than that. No. Just NO! There are far less idiotic ways to find out this sort of information. Like, log into LinkedIn. Pay a market research company an insanely small fraction of that price. Or just walk outside and talk to some people.
Oh and Microsoft went and bungled their next console release as well. Last time, Microsoft announced their DRM plans ahead of Sony. But that allowed Sony to spin the market into a frenzy against the idea. Granted it may have turned out the same even without Sony. Microsoft failed to pitch it correctly. Steam, arguably the most popular gaming service out there, uses much the same model Microsoft was pitching. With, not only many of the same potential benefits, but also more.
What Microsoft did today was basically laid their cards on the table. They didn't give concrete hardware details, but they did indicate # of cores, memory bandwidth, processing power of the GPU and problems they expected the tech to address. I would doubt a Sony engineer couldn't make a very good guess at the rough hardware it will ship with. And that is a problem. The PS4 was always more expensive for the same options as the Xbox One. It's victory in this generation has allowed them to command a premium price so long as they rock the spec sheet. And that means that even if Sony decides to release a console in the same timeframe, they can simply one up them at a higher price.
Or worse, Sony could just release their PS 4.5 and wait until hardware prices hit a point where they can push out something more powerful at the same or cheaper launch price. Gamers aren't necessarily smart enough to think "well sure Sony can release a better console 6-12 months later at the same time, due to market dynamics and falling hardware prices". They'll simply see "not only is Sony STILL better, but they can also be better at the same launch price". In fact, if the hardware is as good as Microsoft is boasting it to be and remains so by holiday 2017, this would indeed be the smart thing for Sony to do.
I throw my hat in with the group that wanted a truly unified platform. Xbox Anywhere basically makes the argument that a PC can be a console. I don't mind there being a baseline "console" which is refreshed every few years, but I think consumers with sufficient specs should be able to convert a PC into an Xbox.
Don't get me wrong, it is nice that the titles I buy on Xbox will be playable on my PC. But, let's be serious, if I had a decent gaming PC I probably wouldn't bother with a console. And while there are people out there who game on both (excluding talk of exclusives), I think it is a minority. To clarify the bit in parentheses. Today, hardcore gamers often need multiple platforms simply because some games aren't available on others, in that respect there are a LOT of people who game both on consoles and PCs. Also, if there is a superior platform, it is almost always PC (community mods, content, unlocked graphics settings). I don't think most serious gamers with gaming PC's would buy the console version of a game. And if they had it on both, would likely never play it on the console.
Comments
Post a Comment