Slashdot Mirror
How IBM Out-foxed Intel With The Xbox 360
xcaverx writes "Learning from failure is a hallmark of the technology business. Nick Baker, a 37-year-old system architect at Microsoft, knows that well. A British transplant at the software giant's Silicon Valley campus, he went from failed project to failed project in his career. He worked on such dogs as Apple Computer's defunct video card business, 3DO's failed game consoles, a chip startup that screwed up a deal with Nintendo, the never successful WebTV and Microsoft's canceled Ultimate TV satellite TV recorder.
But Baker finally has a hot seller with the Xbox 360, Microsoft's video game console launched worldwide last holiday season."
successful X360 launch may be stretching it a bit neh?
I always chuckle when my company brings on someone that's been directly responsible (at the executive level) for busines decisions in other companies that have failed misserably. Often, they recite all their past experiences, and the only thing I can think of is "Why did we hire them, and how much are we spending?"
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
...the never successful WebTV... But Baker finally has a hot seller with the Xbox 360, Microsoft's video game console launched worldwide last holiday season."
Shouldn't we wait until the 360 has outsold WebTV before we make that declaration?
Wow! With a record like that he was destined to work for Microsoft.
This guy's the limit!
Only people who count market share instead of dollars when judging success would call the Xbox anything but a failure.
only Linux monkeys would call the original XBox a failure.
I agree, if by "Linux monkeys" you mean "accountants and businessmen."
Turning failures into successes since Windows 95. *laugh people*
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I am inspired- inspired!- by this man's ability to keep his chin up through it all, shoulder all the adversity, and successfully move from a series of abysmal failures to merely a catastrophic failure!
My hat, sir, is off to you!
Your nick and post are well-coordinated.
:-)
/. with this handle)
Thanks
(I am single handedly trying to save
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Larry Yang-all dictated what Microsoft needed this time around.
They couldn't be late. They had to make hardware that could become much cheaper over time and had to pack as much performance into a game console as they could without overheating the box.
"Unfortunately, Larry Yang did not explicitly forbid overheating the power supply"
Check post history.
Known paid for Microsoft astroturfer using multiple accounts to self mod up posts.
Learning from failure is easy. The tough part is learning from success. When a project succeeds, there's no pressure to make searching analyses of the reasons for success. The upper-level managers involved begin to think they're innately cool and have all the answers... the success of their product line proves it.
Think Netscape... think Digital Equipment Corporation (I date their decline from the day when a salesperson apologized for being slow to return a call but added "After all, we're a billion dollar corporation." Think Ashton-Tate. Think Quark...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"Microsoft couldn't care less about losing a few million/tens of million/even hundred million on the first run of XBOX."
The XBox has lost upwards of $4 billion. I think the XBox either qualifies as a failure or a disaster. If the 360 doesn't turn a profit in a couple years I think they are going to throw the towel in.
Apple's entire value of "Goodwill" as of Sept '05 (last number I could easily find and yes they actually have to value these things though it certainly isn't easy to come to a precise number): 69,000,000
Your description of Goodwill is incorrect.
Goodwill is a very specific number used to define an intangable asset that was aquired.
So, lets say I buy a company for 5 million dollars. On the books, the company has materials and property worth 1.5 million dollars.
For accounting, I say that I spent 5 million dollars on 1.5 million of assets, and 3.5 million of "Goodwill" Every year (at least) I evaluate the 3.5 million dollars worth of Goodwill and make sure it is worth as much as I think it is.
The accountants don't get together and say: "People really, really like us. Lets call it 69 million dollars worth of "like"!"
... they would shut down the factories and stop manufacturing them. Fact is they have a game plan, fact is they are still flying off the shelves, fact is they are gaining market share... that's all that matters. People with consoles buy games. The more colsoles you have out there the more games you potentially sell. You have to spend money to make money.
this article states Microsoft expects to make money in 2007. Also note that all figures on how much microsoft is "actually losing" is speculation by industry analysts. No one actually knows precisely how much Microsoft is paying for what component.
If you want to crack a market you have to pull out the checkbook and take a hit. You can't go in timid. Microsoft has shown that and look at the market share they have gained. They have a good percentage of gamers hooked, now on the third generation consoles they don't have to take as big a hit on the console price.
Anyone can crack the market if they're willing to take a $4,000,000,000 hit! (that's 4 Billion in case the zero's were blinding you)
The real questions are: a) can the 360 turn a profit? b) how long will the shareholders allow them to bleed money into this "project"?
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ incorrect. Microsoft went with IBM because Intel was not willing to design a chip and then have Microsoft own the IP on the chip. You do know that Microsoft owns ALL of the silicon IP for the Xbox 360, they didn't own squat on the original Xbox and thus were held to the wall on the prices of chips because they didn't own them. Also, maybe you should ask this "senior engineer" at Nvidia why they aren't doing the 360, it's for the SAME REASON, Nvidia wasn't willing to do all the design work and then not own anything. Has nothing to do with x86 vs not x86, thanks for playing. (incidently why in the world would a company with so much expertise not want to go with an x86-style chip, see above).