Live data from Hacker News

What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

scottberkun.com

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#21
This is a challenging problem that doesn't fit nicely into comments or short blog posts, but I'll try.

Search is a tremendously expensive game to try and win. It's economics are such that the more search share you have, the more money you earn per search. This is a critical point, so I'll spell it out a little further.

All search companies have more advertiser dollars than they have searches to spend them on, Google, Yahoo and Bing included. It's a supply constrained marketplace. The search ROI is so good for advertisers that they all want to spend more money at their current CPCs, but there aren't enough searches. This supply constraint leads to a problem for the smaller players. Search revenue is driven by having lots of advertisers compete in every auction. The larger the share, the more clicks each advertiser will get, and thus the more advertisers you attract. The smaller scale players don't drive enough clicks for some advertisers for it to be worth their time to set up and manage campaigns on them, while the larger scale players it is worth their while (the return they get exceeds the fixed cost of advertising in the marketplace). So with fewer advertisers, there are fewer bidders in the 2nd price auction, and the revenue per search is lower for the smaller scale players.

So how does this apply to Microsoft's online division? Well, if they want to catch Google, they're going to have to do it at a scale disadvantage, meaning that Google is going to make more off of the same searches than Microsoft will simply because they have a bigger marketplace. To beat that, Microsoft has to commit to spending lots of money to try and close that scale gap by buying share through distribution deals and spending a ton on technology to differentiate the search product while accepting that they don't monetize the searches they do have as well. If they can eventually build a product that will pull enough marketshare from Google to be roughly equal, then they should start to see better monetization.

The valid questions are: 1. Is it possible to catch Google? Or are the market dynamics such that without a transformative difference in how the product works that Google will never be caught.

2. If it is possible to catch Google, how much money will you have to spend, and what will your eventual ROI be when you get there.

Since Microsoft is a company that does 60B in revenue, it has to look at big businesses to drive a 10% growth in that revenue. Your hot little startup that does $100MM doesn't make a dent. Even Facebook only does 1-2B, depending on which report you believe. Search is a 10B going to 20B market, and if Microsoft can spend 5B over 5 years to get half of that market and earn 10B every year it's worth it.

Of course, the division has been horribly mismanaged for years. Qi Lu now runs it, and he's a different breed from most Microsoft execs. So time will tell if it's a good bet or not for Microsoft.

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#22

The chart doesn't account for the operational value of Bing for Microsoft. If you want to search MSDN, Google doesn't get to sell advertising or skew the search results to fit their business model or for that matter track what you're searching. Likewise, searches from MicroSoft IP addresses using Bing aren't tracked by Google either.

If Microsoft is really concerned about Google gaining a competitive advantage by looking at search query traffic from Microsoft IP addresses, it would be much less expensive for Microsoft to hide the traffic through proxies than it is to build their own search engine.

For a long time, Google's search results for MSDN were superior to Microsoft's. Perhaps that's changed with Bing. In any case, it seems to Google's advantage to provide the best search for MSDN.

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#23
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow the XBOX numbers closely either, but as I understand it, it is profitable and growing. [1] Regardless, what's more interesting to me is that ten years ago I would have said "what the hell does MS want to make a game console for?" Now that things have shaken out, XBOX has given them a strong foothold not only in gaming, but in home media in general. That's the more compelling ROI to me. [1] http://www.b…

I'm not arguing with you personally, but I have a question the general form of the explanation you cite. If the choice were between losing billions to have a foothold in home media or having no foothold in home media, their strategy would be expensive but interesting. However, if you look over in Cupertino, you see a company with a foothold in home media that made money while grabbing their foothold. Therefore, I won…

I wonder if what we have is mediocre execution of a bad plan to grab a good market?

That sounds spot on to me. But that's the game MS plays - they throw money at problems for years until they get it right. I'm not saying its the best strategy, and certainly not the most efficient, but in this case I think they're achieving what they set out to do.

Further, I'd question whether "option C" (the Apple strategy of making money while establishing the foothold) is available to Microsoft. They're not known for that kind of innovation and precision, they're more like a wrecking ball that sometimes gets aimed in the right direction.

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#24
To make the claim that this is a bad thing, one must argue that Microsoft's stock would be worth more today if Microsoft had not been aggressive about search.

How a company shows gains and losses is also very subjective. The numbers could turn around and show strong profits around the time that bing reaches 45% market share (which will be soon).

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#25
post #6

Disclaimer: I do not speak for Microsoft, I am simply an employee - these opinions are mine and mine alone. As someone working in the online services division I have to say that this analysis is extremely simplistic. Would they be saying the same thing about Facebook? It was in the red for many years before it became profitable. That was the plan.

The comparison to Facebook is not fair. Facebook is now profitable and Microsoft online services are not. Facebook was never in the red to the tune of 2B a year. Microsoft online services had a multiple year head start on Facebook.

[deleted]

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#26
post #16

Disclaimer: I do not speak for Microsoft, I am simply an employee - these opinions are mine and mine alone. As someone working in the online services division I have to say that this analysis is extremely simplistic. Would they be saying the same thing about Facebook? It was in the red for many years before it became profitable. That was the plan.

According to http://www.crunchbase.com/company/facebook Facebook has only even had $836M invested in TOTAL. And they have a lot more to show for it.

Friendster and MySpace were hot once too. Microsoft is trying to do something different be the place where you search the world wide web for information.

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#27

To make the claim that this is a bad thing, one must argue that Microsoft's stock would be worth more today if Microsoft had not been aggressive about search. How a company shows gains and losses is also very subjective. The numbers could turn around and show strong profits around the time that bing reaches 45% market share (which will be soon).

And how much of that spending goes into supporting online efforts of other divisions. I imagine the "online" division handles everything most everything that goes online even if it is supporting offline products.

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#29
And if they canned online - all the pundits will be saying:

"Google is beating Microsoft because Microsoft DOESNT EVEN HAVE A MAPPING PRODUCT OR SEARCH ENGINE.. they do not see the FUTURE IS ONLINE.. blah blah blah.. "

This is Microsoft playing defense - and cheap relative to the profit machine they are defending

Re: What Microsoft gets for $2 billion

#30
post #3

Isn't it simple? Microsoft is sinking a huge pile of money into improve Bing, getting market share and making acquisitions (altough I guess these wouldn't be expensed directly against income). Whether or not that's a wise strategy is another matter but there really is no mystery here.

They are not making acquisitions -- They acquired powerset over 2.5 years ago. More than 10 quarters ago. I'm not aware of any other acquisition since then, or anything in the online space besides that in the last, what, 4+ years?

Not that I disagree with that choice, acquisitions just because you have cash is just as stupid as no acquisitions. Better for them to determine a strategy first.

Post reply on HN