How long is the long run, because 20+ years later, they seem to be doing better than almost every other business in the world, or at least tied in the top 3.
If you look at the last 25 years Microsoft has ended up with more misses than hits. Azure and xBox are the big hits (both from the Balmer era), but they missed in so many other places (mobile notably). They spent most of the Balmer era looking over the shoulder at the DOJ and missed many opportunities as a result.
The Nadella era has seen a lot acquisitions and investments, and they are milking the Windows/Office cash cow until it falls over, but everything else seems to be moribund. Revenue in every segment of Microsoft apart from Azure has either been flat or in decline for the last decade based on the last chart I saw.
What happens when the Azure cash cow stops growing? I don't see anything in the pipeline that Microsoft has that others also don't have access to.
I think if Microsoft had been split up into 3 companies (OS, software, web properties) then it would have moved them beyond the DOJ era quicker and would have put those 3 companies in a much better position to reap more opportunities from the 2000-2020 boom across a wider space.
Given that banana countries were a thing, I think it wouldn't be completely out of character for the US to enforce it's (it's own companies) interests. But I don't think it will be war, but rather soft-power.
War? The EU didn't start a war when the US blew up nordstream 2. In fact they spent a lot of time nervously pointing at everyone except the US (who said they would blow it up).
It's a totally abusive and subservient relationship.
But then again the US doesn't allow the EU to have software companies, so they might not care that the data that would go to Teams is being hovered by a different US company instead.
> War? The EU didn't start a war when the US blew up nordstream 2.
As people, who most likely are outside of the intelligence community, we don't know who blew up NS2. Current lead suspect is Ukraine, although speculation ranges from the US to the Russians doing it themselves. Of course, if there's some substancial evidence aside from "Biden said something one time", I'm sure people would be interested. But before such evidence is presented, this conspiracy theory doesn't really hold water.
But let's entertain the idea some. Assuming that CIA or whatever did do it (again, need more evidence), why would they a) do it again, and b) do it for the sake of Microsoft of all things? At least NS2 can easily be seen as a strategic liability. Meanwhile, it'd be pretty nearsighted to do this kind of an op just because Microsoft is being held liable for bundling Teams and abusing its dominant market position with it.
True. Mr. Vladimirovich doesn't want for any regime change that could just go back to selling natgas. I personally don't think it was UA either, although unlike so many other Kremlin claims, this would at least be a bit believable because there would be a motive.
But given that the pipe was already closed when it blew up, it most likely was FSB trying to frame Western powers and/or UA. Wouldn't be the first time FSB blows up Russian stuff to blame others.
