That’s revenue not profit....

When we're talking about diversification, I think revenue is a reasonable metric.

Why? Revenue without profit is meaningless. If their profitable segments stop making money then what is there to fund operations or the none profitable segments?

Anyone can sell $1.00 for $0.95 as long as they have a means of getting money from other sources.

If linkedin revenue means they have a third of all marketshare in that vertical, and they use linkedin to add value to their core services, and attract people shopping for bundles, linkedins worth to microsoft is more than just revenue. It could easily be a loss leader just like roast chicken, to get you in the grocery store, and away from shopping at Salesforce.

I wasn’t questioning LinkedIn as much as gaming and Bing. But diversification based on revenue doesn’t decrease risk. If in the unlikely event that Windows and Office profits crater, revenue without profit won’t help.

Unlikely, Kind of like Coca Cola becoming worthless because soda profits could come to an end.

I completely agree and I actually said in the “unlikely event”, but that doesn’t negate the fact that having a lime of business that isn’t profitable doesn’t help the company from a decreased risk stand point.

> lime of business

i see what you did there