Microsoft or any company for that matter wouldn't look to acquire companies that were failing terribly and had no value. This is why I used the term "great". They potentially had something to offer either by view of tech or ridding competition.
I don't care to nitpick or comment on this any further. If you can't see a trend then you wouldn't understand an further comments from myself anyway. Plus, my new ASUS Eee pad Transformer just arrived and I've got better things to do than argues over the interwebz.
To each his own...
I'm not arguing, I'm just wondering what you are basing your statements on. In fact I do see a trend, many of the companies in that article offer services which bigger companies also offer. The nature of business in the late 20th early 21st century was driving them into the ground... MS bought them for their patents and engineers more than anything. Almost all of those examples are akin to Dish Network buying Blockbuster... Dish didn't buy them expecting Blockbuster to return to profitability, they bought them for their existing contracts which they can use to bolster their core business.
Exactly. Swallowing the competition in one way or another and if you get some patents/ideas/engineers along the way then that's great too. The problem is MS is such a behemoth that when a company is acquired it loses the once focused view that made it so good/great to begin with.
The reason acquisitions often fail in general is pretty simple. The founders stick around and wait for their stock to vest, then go start their next venture. They perform only well enough to make the acquisition go smoothly, beyond that they don't really care how well the company does. No one is really to blame for this, it is just an inherently flawed system.
Below is a recent Newsweek article that sums up MS pretty well.
Microsoft copied Apple to make Windows. They copied Lotus and WordPerfect to make Excel and Word, then bundled those apps into a low-cost suite called Office. They copied Netscape Navigator to make Internet Explorer, and then gave it away free, tied to Windows, and killed Netscape. But then the copycat model stopped working. Why? For one thing, Microsoft got slower, while everyone else got faster. The new Web-based companies, like Yahoo and Google, needed little money to get started and could scale up quickly. Google figured out keyword-search advertising and got so big so fast that Microsoft could not drag it back. Apple rolled out the iPod and then the iTunes store, and by the time Microsoft realized that selling music online was a big market, it was too late—Apple had it sewn up. The same is true of Amazon with the online retail market, and the Kindle, and its cloud-computing services.
Basically, MS is slow but can tag along because they're so large and have enormous capital. This might mean destroying a good company that offered a great service.