>They had no plan, neither overall or per product.
I seem to remember some leadership there being adamant that they're weren't a tech or internet company, but a 'media' company. I can't remember which one (or ones?) but this embrace of hollywood/media vs technology seems to have been a key factor in their perpetual slide.
That was the big premise during the Terry Semel years. He was a high level executive with Warner Brothers for 25 years.
They had no idea what they were doing or what being a media company in the Internet age meant. They flailed about for a decade with confusing ideas of what their strategy and end goal was.
How did they go about pretending to be a media company for so many years, while watching others dominate streaming music and video? Incompetent leadership. How did they miss the numerous opportunities to acquire a real Internet media business like Netflix, for relatively cheap? They could have picked it up for most of 2007-2013 for $2b to $4b (early 2007 being when they launched their streaming service).
I think nobody knew what being a media company in the internet age meant. For another example, see AOL/Time-Warner. Being a media company was perceived (and compensated) as more valuable than a tech company. Just the opposite of the perception now.
I understand but hey if it's pre 2010 and you're holding one of the big three king of emails I don't care what you think: you're a tech company, deal with it.
I seem to remember some leadership there being adamant that they're weren't a tech or internet company, but a 'media' company. I can't remember which one (or ones?) but this embrace of hollywood/media vs technology seems to have been a key factor in their perpetual slide.