/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>144018
>Sony isn't McDonalds

Thanks for the invaluable insight.

On another note, lets say that what you say about Sony's core competency is true, that electronics is no longer their deal. How does Sony go about embracing their new existence as a content provider/producer? They have tens of thousands of employees that have absolutely nothing to do with making movies or music streaming or selling life insurance. They've worked in their industry for decades and include some of the most talented Japan and the world over (like any company, that's not really up for discussion with your or anyone else's preconceived notions of the state of Sony's workforce). If its all dead weight, truly inconsequential to Sony's true business, do they cut it all? Lay off all 105,000 some employees that work on electronics (that number coming from 2013 data on Sony employee data, made for 71% of Sony's total workforce at the time). And what of the tech patents, which have been a steady source of income for the company for decades? Do you sell them off completely, knowing that your business model can't depend on patents that won't be worth anything in ten years time and won't be replaced by new tech created by an R&D?

By putting everything into entertainment, Sony must directly compete with Amazon, Netflix, Comcast/Universal, Warner Bros etc. Is their decade of experience and newly constructed business model prepared for that? Public opinion can't be too high for a company that abandoned everything they stood for in order to sell overpriced streams of licensed music and shove The Amazing Spiderman down our throats.

I could ramble like that for days anon, but tl;dr changing the essence of a company is about far more than feelings and existential crisis. There are a million things to consider, none of which reactionaries such as yourself would be bothered to think of.

Oh, and while you couldn't think of an exception to the rule I stated, I did think of one. Heinz.