Does Stephen Elop really want to kill Bing and Xbox?

Last Friday, Peter Burrows and Dina Bass at Bloomberg posted a story that purportedly revealed Microsoft CEO candidate Stephen Elop's thinking regarding the future of the world's largest software company.
Quoting "three people with knowledge of his thinking," Burrows and Bass said that "Elop would probably move away from Microsoft's strategy of using [Office] to drive demand for its flagship Windows operating system on personal computers and mobile devices... [because] Microsoft could create more value by maximizing sales of Office rather than by using it to prop up sales of Windows-based devices... [and] Elop would be prepared to sell or shut down major businesses to sharpen the company's focus," specifically mentioning Bing and Xbox.
Brushing quickly past obvious errors in the article (such as Microsoft's "refusal to adapt Office for Apple and devices based on Google's Android operating system hasn't helped its software usage" ignores the fact that Microsoft's been peddling Office apps for Apple products since before there were Office apps for Windows), we're left with the impression that Elop wants to put Office on every device -- and he's willing to cut both Xbox and Bing loose in order to do it.
The article also positions Elop as a Microsoft outsider -- a bizarre twist of the well-known facts that amazes me, in a myopic sort of way. Elop took over Microsoft's Business Division -- the Office part of Microsoft -- in January 2008. He moved to Nokia in September 2010, but he never strayed far from the Microsoft fold. Nokia sold its phone business to Microsoft in mid-2013, and Elop's due to go back on the Microsoft payroll in early 2014. Cade Metz's description in Wired of Elop as a "Trojan horse" certainly rings true.
The Office part of the revelation-attributed-to-Elop shouldn't come as much of a shocker to anybody who's been following Office's denouement. Microsoft is moving Office onto every platform it can corral, if not through Office 365 subscriptions or Office Web Apps, then directly on the devices, as in Office 2013 RT. The idea that Office should be held back as one of the Windows family jewels disappeared years ago, as best I can tell. Now it's mostly a question of how quickly, and to what extent, Office morphs to the mobile side.
But the part about cutting loose Xbox and Bing raised many eyebrows, including at least the two on my face. Microsoft's irascible head of corporate communications Frank X Shaw tweeted it succinctly: "We appreciate Bloomberg's foray into fiction and look forward to future episodes."
There are two excellent analyses that you should read if the possibility of a spin-off (or kill-off) strikes a resonant chord. Peter Bright at Ars Technica opines that Microsoft shouldn't hire any CEO who wants to kill Bing and Xbox -- and he gives a host of good reasons why such a move would amount to cutting off a 'Softie nose to spite its face. In the specific instance of the Xbox, Jason Evangelho at Forbes projects a fascinating future without Xbox, where Microsoft moves its games to Valve and Linux-based SteamOS.
With all the talk floating around, though, I think there are two important points that have been widely overlooked.
First, I find it impossible to believe that Microsoft would formally spin off any of its units. Why? Because in the normal course of events, Microsoft would be placed in the very uncomfortable position of revealing historic data -- particularly financial and usage data -- about its most embarrassing products. Microsoft has raised obfuscation to an art form; if there were a Nobel Prize in Creative Accounting, I'm convinced the first 10 recipients would all come from Microsoft. The change in accounting methods from FY 2012 to FY 2013 -- let's call it Microsoft Accounting 3.0 -- has basically guaranteed no accountability for any executive decision made at the company, ever.
If it sounds like I harbor a tinge of admiration, I do. Imagine a company that can hide a $2 billion income stream in plain sight. Would a company that adroit at smoke and mirrors intentionally disclose how many Xbox One consoles it's sold? Or how much it makes from Bing core advertising? Not a chance. Far better to keep the numbers inside the kimono, even if the company's bleeding.
To put it another way: Spinning off any of the Microsoft business units would require such a dose of fresh air and financial transparency, it's very hard to image who would be able to pull it off.
Second, Elop may have a hell of a problem. If three of Elop's top lieutenants really ratted him out to Bloomberg (and this isn't instead some elaborate ploy concocted either by the Microsoft board or Rick Sherlund or Elop himself) and spilled their guts about the boss's private musings to the same publication, Elop has a security leak of unprecedented proportions.
Leaky advisers certainly don't bode well for any serious Microsoft CEO candidate. The transgression should weigh heavily in the vetting process -- unless, of course, this is all "Game of Thrones"-esque intrigue.
As for the $64 billion question: I still think former Skype CEO Tony Bates will end up as CEO -- or perhaps co-CEO, as I explained back in August.
And it's looking more and more likely that Alan Mulally will take on some formal role. My notoriously inaccurate crystal ball places Mulally as a resident guru, advisor, or co-CEO -- or even possibly CEO, with Bates as COO -- and a succession plan that would put Bates in charge after just a few years.
The one big question mark in all of this: Paul Maritz. Although Maritz didn't make Reuters' Gang of Five shortlist of candidates, I'm hearing more grassroots rumblings that the rank and file would love to see him back after 13 years away.
Not sure if the grass roots count for much in this high stakes sport, but Maritz could be a game changer -- not just for the shareholders, but for the working shnooks who are shaping Microsoft's future.