Eventually a company/conglomerate is big enough that sharing a financial structure means little. GE, for example, has locomotive making divisions sharing a finance structure with MRI software divisions. Claiming they really have anything in common is pointless, like saying Caterpillar and BP are the same because they share the NYSE as a common financial structure.

Given that, its an open debate if Microsoft is big enough, conglomerated enough, internally disconnected enough, such that success or failure in monopoly Office app licensing has anything to do with console gaming hardware. If they share little more than common ownership and financial structure, then we're back to "Caterpillar and BP are the same because they both have owners/shareholders on the NYSE" argument.

If MS went poof and spun off all its divisions, would there really be much effect on the divisions, other than the losing ones would run out of cash and the winning ones would have way too much cash?

I guess another bad analogy is GE is just a big mutual fund that 100% owns dozens of completely unrelated large companies. And its a fair claim that MS is the same although obviously much smaller.