undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnotauser18y ago0 comments

Your first point is essentially meaningless. It makes no difference if it is a division, a child company, or part of the core business. Someone has to think about it, manage it and execute it. All this costs money which you could use elsewhere _and_ it creates potential conflicts of interests with your own business. This means that you need a really good reason to go ahead.

For an example of conflicts of interest look at the Windows/Office vertical integration and the constraints placed on Office in order to keep Windows profits high.

Your second point boils down to the fact that social networks give an awful return on investment. Could be true, but if so that's more of an argument to get out of social networks altogether and find a more profitable business.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

zkinion18y ago

Microsoft is still doing well off of office, and acquisitions/ventures such as hotmail and msn/windows live search. When most "average" people use their computers for the first time, and then on, they'll use internet explorer which goes to the msn home page and searches on Microsoft's search solution. The "average" user out there still uses IE, not firefox or opera. As a result they get a ton of traffic they wouldn't otherwise get.

http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=cou...

As you can see, Windows Live is number 6 on there. It is terrible compared to google, but that is still alot of traffic they get from synergy between their companies. Would Microsoft make more money if they instead sold their search traffic/IE users to google? Not at all.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse