• @SuperSynthia
    link
    English
    1567 months ago

    So Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies in the entire world. They have a stranglehold on corporate America, power a huge the cloud infrastructure, hold one of the largest sources of telemetry/user data, and are the defacto standard of PC environments worldwide.

    Why in the fuck do they need to pivot to ads? I’m genuinely curious. Even if they lost 50% of their entire business they would still be one of the most profitable companies in the world.

    • @jasep
      link
      1427 months ago

      Because when you have shareholders, there’s no such thing as “we’re profitable enough”. Shareholders always demand more. Ads means more profit, at least in the short term. Next quarter profits are all that matter to public companies.

      It’s obscene, but it’s the way it is.

      • Amju Wolf
        link
        fedilink
        297 months ago

        It’s not just that they demand more, they demand more/faster growth all the time. It doesn’t matter that the economy has slowed down to borderline recession, it doesn’t matter that they pretty much captured all the market they can, they still need to make more and more money every quarter otherwise they’re considered a failure even if they are one of the biggest companies in the world.

      • @grue
        link
        English
        97 months ago

        but it’s the way it is.

        It doesn’t have to be, of course. Taking a look at the long, sordid history of how the privilege of incorporation has been perverted in this way, it becomes clear what needs to be done to fix it.

        • @jasep
          link
          37 months ago

          I read the article you referenced, but it’s not clear to me. What needs to be done to fix it?

          • @grue
            link
            English
            87 months ago

            Basically, abolish corporate personhood by overturning the sequence of court decisions cited in the article that got us to this point. Or, as the last sentence in the article hyperlinks to, pass these Constitutional Amendments.

            • @jasep
              link
              17 months ago

              Unless I’m missing something, what “needs to be done to fix it” and what is in the realm of possibility seem to be two very different things.

              • @grue
                link
                English
                57 months ago

                ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I didn’t say it was easy, just clear.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      467 months ago

      Because they were “leaving money on the table” instead of getting it for their shareholders.

      • lurch (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        the shareholders don’t get that. the top managers, CEOs etc. get it. some of them may be shareholders as well, but that’s not how they fill their pockets.

    • Gristle
      link
      English
      237 months ago

      I think it’s the same reason games offer a cash shop for things you can get in-game. Sure they’re making billions but why not billions plus ad revenue? I don’t agree with the practice but the answer always comes back to money.

    • FoolishOwl
      link
      fedilink
      127 months ago

      @SuperSynthia @dvdnet62 Because for capitalism, profit is not the end, only a means to the end. The end is to accumulate sufficient capital to absorb all competitors and achieve total control of markets.

      • @accideath
        link
        27 months ago

        Yea but like, their competitors, when it comes to operating systems are Apple, which isn’t anywhere near small enough to be obtainable by anyone and Linux and Linux-Derivatives, which are also unobtainable due to their open source nature.

        • FoolishOwl
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          @accideath The point isn’t whether Microsoft will reach that end. The point is that like all capitalist enterprises it will forever strive to do so.

          • @accideath
            link
            -17 months ago

            Not all of them. Only the big and successful ones

              • @accideath
                link
                -17 months ago

                Not every larger company is automatically evil, just because they exist within a capitalist market. A lot of them are, sure. At least to some extent. But there still are privately owned enterprises that do have a conscience.

                Also, calling them “capitalist” enterprises seems redundant.

                • FoolishOwl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  47 months ago

                  @accideath I’m calling them capitalist enterprises to emphasize that they are capitalist enterprises. They accumulate capital. That is what they are and defines what they do.

                  A capitalist enterprise does not decide it has enough and can retire and take up gardening. It is not a person. It does not have a conscience.

                  • @accideath
                    link
                    -17 months ago

                    A privately owned enterprise can. Publicly traded ones can’t. A privately owned enterprise also doesn’t need to make more money, if the owner doesn’t want that. A publicly traded company that has to answer to its shareholders has to make more money and to keep growing to appease said shareholders. If you don’t have shareholders you don’t have to do anything like that. That doesn’t mean, of course, that any privately owned company is automatically good – many aren’t – but it does mean that they have the capability to not be evil.

    • @jaybone
      link
      47 months ago

      Would be nice if pivoting to ads caused them to lose 50% of their business.

      Sadly it won’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      I’d believe Google has a larger data collection as it’s includes both google hardware and software products.
      Google can also connnect the dots between an extreme amount of user data and services.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -77 months ago

      Isn’t it obvious? Start Menu is being used by every windows user but is not generating any revenue Serving ads will enable them to better support the platform and provide more advanced features. Ad supported version is better than making it a subscription like some third party apps have done. Start8 I think, basic copy of Microsoft’s Start Menu but paid.