Do company names actually matter?
yosefk.com
yosefk.com
Looking at form of the other entries, it appears that the author claims that the word "Amazon" means "plenty".
In my dictionary, it means "no boobs", which might imply that the company would do everything except porn.
"late Middle English: via Latin from Greek Amazōn, explained by the Greeks as ‘without a breast’ (as if from a- ‘without’ + mazos ‘breast’), referring to the fable that the Amazons cut off the right breast so as not to interfere with the use of a bow, but probably a folk etymology of an unknown foreign word."
For an acronym IBM is sounding surprisingly well.
Do you not count the xbox 360?
* Its success would not save Microsoft if Windows and Office usage sharply declines
* Nor would its failure ever break Microsoft
* ...both of which resulting from the market being not very large by Microsoft's standards
* I'm not so sure about this last one, but a competitor could come out with new exciting hardware at any moment (a recent example is VR headsets) and then gamers would flock to the new platforms and so would game developers. Since people care less about old titles, the barrier to entry is not nearly as high as in the Windows or Office cases.
That said, my case is shaky enough, and I wager that you could find counter-examples that would make the Xbox omission tiny in comparison :) I just had this thought and was surprised by how many companies sorta fit the pattern.
However they sold a wide range of peripherals (mice, keyboard, etc) which was profitable just not a significant impact on their bottom line.
This is complexity. You have to understand the whole story, not just the cover of the book.