DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: It's Friday, time for the Amazon Friday Sale!
Microsoft Vista Drives Sales, Xbox Tanks
by , 1:35 PM EDT, April 27th, 2007
Fueled by Windows Vista and Office 2007, Microsoft announced a 65 percent increase in third quarter earnings. On sales of $14.4B for the quarter, the earnings were $4.93B. Xbox sales declined sharply.
According to TechNewsWorld, Microsoft is finally starting to see some results now that Vista issues are starting to be worked out.
In comparison, Apple just posted sales of US$5.26B for their most recent quarter and earnings of $770M. Only a few years ago, Apple was hard pressed to generate $1.5B in sales in a quarter, but the gulf still remains wide compared to Microsoft.
Microsoft predicted upbeat results for their 4th quarter and said that total sales for the year could reach US$57.5B. The annual growth of 12 percent is considered "impressive for such a mature company," according to TechNewsWorld.
The Entertainment and Devices Division was cited as having a severe post holiday slump. But Blackfriars' marketing on Friday put a finer point on it, by pointing out that Xbox sales in the holiday quarter were 4.4M units while in the calendar Q1, they dropped to 500,000 units, only a little more than 10 percent of the previous quarter.
"The fact that Microsoft is subsidizing this business may not be an issue for Microsoft directly, since they have plenty of cash. But having too much money to work with may be hurting EDD rather than helping; it allows the division to ignore problems rather than solve them," Carl Howe wrote.
The bottom line is that Microsoft hasn't yet learned how to make money on hardware products. "As long as Microsoft can avoid having to make the hard decisions necessary to make profits from each of its lines of business, it won't succeed against other more hungry and survival-focused competitors, be it in gaming against Nintendo and Sony, in music players against Apple, or in search against Google," Mr. Howe concluded.
Observer Comments
QuoteFlipFriddle wrote:
So Microsoft only made three times as much as Apple, when they have an installed user base that is more than fifteen times larger? I guess you can't call Apple a fringe player anymore.
Yea, Apple's growth is only a third of Microsoft's growth, and their profits are 15% of Microsoft's, so it's pretty clear to me that Apple is definetly taking market share from Microsoft and will be the dominate PC maker in under 3 years time [/sarcasm]
Is Vista really "selling" or being forced ti sell? How much of Vista "sales" are from customer buying a boxed version or upgrade vs. the hundreds of thousands of OEM versions of Vista that "sell" with each new PC sold?
From what I'm seen Microsoft has never given the breakdown on how many retail vs. OEM copies of Vista are "selling."
I agree with the not fringe, but you're comparing Apple revenue to MS earnings. When you compare revenue to revenue, MS does 9-fold better, when you compare earnings to earnings, MS does only 6-fold better. This says Apple runs a more profitable business, but MS is still a considerably larger business.
I don't really see MS and Apple in the same business.
QuoteFlipFriddle wrote:
So Microsoft only made three times as much as Apple, when they have an installed user base that is more than fifteen times larger? I guess you can't call Apple a fringe player anymore.
Incorrect Vanetten,
Flipfraddle is absolutely correct, Apples REVENUE is $5Billion for 2Q and Microsofts REVENUE is $14 Billion.
Ergo, "Microsoft only made three times as much as Apple"
Quotevanetten wrote:
I agree with the not fringe, but you're comparing Apple revenue to MS earnings. When you compare revenue to revenue, MS does 9-fold better, when you compare earnings to earnings, MS does only 6-fold better. This says Apple runs a more profitable business, but MS is still a considerably larger business.
I don't really see MS and Apple in the same business.
QuoteFlipFriddle wrote:
So Microsoft only made three times as much as Apple, when they have an installed user base that is more than fifteen times larger? I guess you can't call Apple a fringe player anymore.
Quotevanetten wrote:
I agree with the not fringe, but you're comparing Apple revenue to MS earnings. When you compare revenue to revenue, MS does 9-fold better, when you compare earnings to earnings, MS does only 6-fold better. This says Apple runs a more profitable business, but MS is still a considerably larger business.
MIcrosoft's expected revenue for this fiscal year is $57 billion; Apple's is $25 billion. MS will have about 2.25 times the revenue. How did you calculate "9-fold?"
For earnings, MS is expected to generate about $15B vs. Apple's $4B for a ratio of about 4. How did you determine "6-fold?"
BTW, I've seen another report that MS's expected revenue for the year will be $51B or just 2 times Apple's expected revenue...
"I don't really see MS and Apple in the same business."
You're right. MS is in the business of
- buying and defeating competitors
- screwing stds
- forcing beta Vista on customers who don't want it
- demanding excessive licensing fees for their desktop, server, and Ofc suite.
- producing money losing crap products like the Zune and xBox.
- being expert 10th degree black belts of competitive FUD.
Apple is in the business of
- figuring out, designing, and marketing products that delight people and fulfill true needs.
- Innovating new classes of products and fair MARKETS.
- Eliminating music DRM and (eventually) video DRM
- Agressively attacking the weak MS underbelly so that Apple (with a clue) will lead and set the direction of the computer and digital media industries.
- And finally, eliminating the MS thuggery (as a side effect) in the industry so that creative innovation will flourish again.
They are deffiniately NOT in the same business.
(Sorry of this appears evil vs good, but this is how I see it from where I sit.)
Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: If Vista was selling well there should have been more
If Vista was selling really well there should have been a hell of a lot more profit than this. Everyone always talks about the small 5% market share that Apple has yet where are the profits for Microsoft? They made less than Apple this quarter so sales couldn't have been that great at all for a company with at least 70% market share.
Well, considering that you are allowed to deny having Windows pre-installed, or if that manufacturer doesn't support that, you can get a refund from Microsoft if you don't want Windows, a sale is a sale is a sale.
QuoteGuest wrote:
Is Vista really "selling" or being forced ti sell? How much of Vista "sales" are from customer buying a boxed version or upgrade vs. the hundreds of thousands of OEM versions of Vista that "sell" with each new PC sold?
From what I'm seen Microsoft has never given the breakdown on how many retail vs. OEM copies of Vista are "selling."
Makes sense, the iPod (and soon the iPhone) are sold at 100% markup. Apple gouges the consumer.
Quotevanetten wrote:
I agree with the not fringe, but you're comparing Apple revenue to MS earnings. When you compare revenue to revenue, MS does 9-fold better, when you compare earnings to earnings, MS does only 6-fold better. This says Apple runs a more profitable business, but MS is still a considerably larger business.
I don't really see MS and Apple in the same business.
QuoteFlipFriddle wrote:
So Microsoft only made three times as much as Apple, when they have an installed user base that is more than fifteen times larger? I guess you can't call Apple a fringe player anymore.
Uh, MS had 3 x the income Apple did - not really sure what you're talking about.
Quotehorvatic wrote:
If Vista was selling really well there should have been a hell of a lot more profit than this. Everyone always talks about the small 5% market share that Apple has yet where are the profits for Microsoft? They made less than Apple this quarter so sales couldn't have been that great at all for a company with at least 70% market share.
Now that's what I call slanted. Thanks for letting us know your unwavering bias.
QuoteGuest wrote:
"I don't really see MS and Apple in the same business."
You're right. MS is in the business of
- buying and defeating competitors
- screwing stds
- forcing beta Vista on customers who don't want it
- demanding excessive licensing fees for their desktop, server, and Ofc suite.
- producing money losing crap products like the Zune and xBox.
- being expert 10th degree black belts of competitive FUD.
Apple is in the business of
- figuring out, designing, and marketing products that delight people and fulfill true needs.
- Innovating new classes of products and fair MARKETS.
- Eliminating music DRM and (eventually) video DRM
- Agressively attacking the weak MS underbelly so that Apple (with a clue) will lead and set the direction of the computer and digital media industries.
- And finally, eliminating the MS thuggery (as a side effect) in the industry so that creative innovation will flourish again.
They are deffiniately NOT in the same business.
(Sorry of this appears evil vs good, but this is how I see it from where I sit.)
Quotehorvatic wrote:
If Vista was selling really well there should have been a hell of a lot more profit than this. Everyone always talks about the small 5% market share that Apple has yet where are the profits for Microsoft? They made less than Apple this quarter so sales couldn't have been that great at all for a company with at least 70% market share.
Well, unfortunately for your logic, you're not taking into account that Microsoft's profits aren't the same thing as Vista sales. Microsoft is a much larger corporation than just Windows. Vista sales shattered all expectations, and this caused Microsoft's earnings to beat expectations even when combined with the poor performance of XBOX & Zune
Then there’s this article: Microsoft’s “numbers game†makes Office 2007, Windows Vista launches look better than reality.
Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: Not to mention…
Survey: 30% Of Businesses Have No Plans To Upgrade To Windows Vista. Vista ain’t doing as well as M$’s smoke and mirrors would have you believe.
Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:53 pm Subject:
I also would like the breakdown figures into the folllowing categories....
These should also reflect the numbers for each One and there are 7 categories released.
1) OEM Bulk pre purchases
2) OEM installed and SOLD systems
3) Retail purchases and sales.
4) Upgrades from other O/S's SOLD
5) These figures need to be from the Release date only.
6) Enterprise sales.
NOW a fuller picture could be seen
I and my clients will NOT use Vista approx 100 assorted computewrs
QuoteNom wrote:QuoteHalf the features, 4 years late?Guest wrote:
Heavy trading shows faith that the giant will continue to deliver as it always has.
Someoe has trouble counting. Vista wasn't even 2 years late. Late 2005 delayted until January 2007 does not equal 4. Unless, did we redefine years for the Mac like we redefined "usability"?
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
Unless, did we redefine years for the Mac like we redefined "usability"?
There was never a need to redefine something that Apple has always been at the leading edge of since 1984 (not that Amiga wasn't cool), the fact is that empirical research has shown that you can get more work done on a mac over a given period of time than you can on a PC, though most of those studies are a few years old now. If you want a very detailed side by side comparison you can try this site: http://www.xvsxp.com/finalscore/index.php , does a pretty good job of illustrating that while XP/Vista have improved immensely over their forebearers, they still need to work on doing the little things (like installing programs without having to authorize the action 10 times) a bit more efficiently. Add that to the fact that Macs consistently have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) because they typically require less service and upgrading over their usable life than PCs (too many links to bother, hit google with macintosh vs PC TCO if you want a ton of examples), and I don't see how we're the ones who have "redefine" things to make ourselves feel good about our computer purchase.
Most mac users I know could care less what everybody else uses until they hear ignorant PC users dissing the platform, and I don't know many that go onto PC-specific boards just so they can rag on Windows, but I guess when you get really bored you have to find something other than Myspace to look at online, right?
Also when people refer to the four year timeline I think they're referring to this:
"The company first announced plans for Longhorn in 2001. It was originally expected to debut in 2004." - http://news.com.com/Longhorns+new+name+Windows+Vista/2100-1016_3-5799734.html
so yeah, you're right, its more like 2.5-3 years late than 4.
I just love having only one pointer button on a laptop. Who says "multi-touch" is a good thing? Too bad Apple can't extend multi-touch to a notebook computer.
QuoteBiff wrote:QuoteYeah I just LOVE that new start menu in Vista. Good times.Guest wrote:
Unless, did we redefine years for the Mac like we redefined "usability"?
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
I just got a MacBook, but I can't seem to figure out how to maximize a window. Is that possible to do, or am I stuck having to manually resize all my windows?
Yes and no. The problem you're having is probably related to the fact that you're used to windows being separate apps, rather than a series of windows being owned by a single task. You only need to "maximize" a window once, and then every new window of that app, including the finder, will open at the same size until you either close the last window or close the app. Then you can use the center button of the three on the top left corner of every window to "minimize" those windows to the dock, much like windows can be minimized to the bottom bar in window, and restore them with a click the same way. Hope that answers your question to some extent, I think there are also some 3rd-party apps that might address this if you really need a more windows-like solution.
QuoteAnonymous2 wrote:
I just love having only one pointer button on a laptop. Who says "multi-touch" is a good thing? Too bad Apple can't extend multi-touch to a notebook computer.
What are you talking about? I'm using multi-finger scrolling on my iBook right now, and if I need to right click somthing my left pinky knows where the CNTRL key is, on PC laptops I consistently end up wasting time clicking the wrong button. If you really need a second button plug in a $10 USB mouse, but I'll take my trackpad with its single button for everything other than games and Photoshop, and as long as the work isn't too precise I can even use it in Photoshop. Please actually use a Mac for more than 5 minutes before posting, too bad there isn't a way to enforce that on this board
QuoteDaiMac wrote:QuoteAnonymous wrote:
I just got a MacBook, but I can't seem to figure out how to maximize a window. Is that possible to do, or am I stuck having to manually resize all my windows?
Yes and no. The problem you're having is probably related to the fact that you're used to windows being separate apps, rather than a series of windows being owned by a single task. You only need to "maximize" a window once, and then every new window of that app, including the finder, will open at the same size until you either close the last window or close the app. Then you can use the center button of the three on the top left corner of every window to "minimize" those windows to the dock, much like windows can be minimized to the bottom bar in window, and restore them with a click the same way. Hope that answers your question to some extent, I think there are also some 3rd-party apps that might address this if you really need a more windows-like solution.
No no, I'm used to multiple windows being owned by a single task, IE, Word, Outlook, etc. But those programs all allow their windows to be maximize separately. Is it not possible do that? You're saying that all windows owned by the same task must be the same size???? This blows.
QuoteFirst off, don't try to comprehend what that guy said. I'm fairly certain even HE doesn't know what he said. You are correct in that the maximize button on OS X does not do what the maximize button does on Windows. I am annoyed by it. Just as I am annoyed by the home and end key behavior. But I'll still take OS X over Windows any day.Guest wrote:QuoteDaiMac wrote:
Yes and no. The problem you're having is probably related to the fact that you're used to windows being separate apps, rather than a series of windows being owned by a single task. You only need to "maximize" a window once, and then every new window of that app, including the finder, will open at the same size until you either close the last window or close the app. Then you can use the center button of the three on the top left corner of every window to "minimize" those windows to the dock, much like windows can be minimized to the bottom bar in window, and restore them with a click the same way. Hope that answers your question to some extent, I think there are also some 3rd-party apps that might address this if you really need a more windows-like solution.
No no, I'm used to multiple windows being owned by a single task, IE, Word, Outlook, etc. But those programs all allow their windows to be maximize separately. Is it not possible do that? You're saying that all windows owned by the same task must be the same size???? This blows.
QuoteYeah um... my multi-touch trackpad on my MBP works just fine thanks. As far as right clicking... all I have to do is hit the ctrl key. What are my options to make the All Programs menu in Vista less annoying to use? Switch to Classic mode? Wow thats exciting!Guest wrote:
Unless, did we redefine years for the Mac like we redefined "usability"?QuoteBiff wrote:
Yeah I just LOVE that new start menu in Vista. Good times.QuoteGuest wrote:
I just love having only one pointer button on a laptop. Who says "multi-touch" is a good thing? Too bad Apple can't extend multi-touch to a notebook computer.
QuoteBiff wrote:QuoteFirst off, don't try to comprehend what that guy said. I'm fairly certain even HE doesn't know what he said. You are correct in that the maximize button on OS X does not do what the maximize button does on Windows. I am annoyed by it. Just as I am annoyed by the home and end key behavior. But I'll still take OS X over Windows any day.Guest wrote:QuoteDaiMac wrote:
Yes and no. The problem you're having is probably related to the fact that you're used to windows being separate apps, rather than a series of windows being owned by a single task. You only need to "maximize" a window once, and then every new window of that app, including the finder, will open at the same size until you either close the last window or close the app. Then you can use the center button of the three on the top left corner of every window to "minimize" those windows to the dock, much like windows can be minimized to the bottom bar in window, and restore them with a click the same way. Hope that answers your question to some extent, I think there are also some 3rd-party apps that might address this if you really need a more windows-like solution.
No no, I'm used to multiple windows being owned by a single task, IE, Word, Outlook, etc. But those programs all allow their windows to be maximize separately. Is it not possible do that? You're saying that all windows owned by the same task must be the same size???? This blows.
Ok, thank you for the clarification, i guess it's one of the annoyances I'll have to learn to live with. The hone and end key behavior is a pina too, I just noticed that after you mentioned it. Home goes to the very top of the page instead of the beginning of the line. Windows was able to do both of these by making CTRL-Home go to the top of the page. Maybe there is another key combo like this in OS X so the Home key can do both?
Thu May 03, 2007 4:33 pm Subject: The Post of the Beast
QuoteBiff wrote:
First off, don't try to comprehend what that guy said. I'm fairly certain even HE doesn't know what he said.
I've been meaning to ask you, are you the idiot 50s punk Biff, the alternate reality Casino Tycoon Biff, or the doddery old Future Biff? I tend to think 50s punk Biff, but I try to let people define themselves first so I figured I'd ask.
I said "essentially" the same thing you did Biff, that it isn't quite the same as Windows. What I was trying to express to the guest is that he could try and simulate his windows experience by using the dock and OSX's default window behavior (windows matching parents in size after you expand them to fill the screen). Sorry that OSX's UI just seems intuitive and easy to me in this area, I guess using Apple hardware for over 20 years will do that for a person
QuoteDaiMac wrote:
Sorry that OSX's UI seems intuitive and easy to me in this area, I guess using Apple hardware for over 20 years will do that for a person
Well, yes, if you use one system for two decades you will certainly expect it to behave the way it does. However, if you’ve spent your past computer years on Windows or Linux, Mac is counter-intuitive and forces you to conform to a nonstandard way of working with the GUI now.
QuoteGuest wrote:
Non-standard being an arbitrary determination.
Windows GUI is no more "standard" than the Mac. In fact, GUI standard seems to be an oxymoron in the Windows world.
Yes, it is more standard because Windows is not the only OS to behave that way. It's Windows & many many many windowing systems for Linux. It is much more standard than the Mac's approach. Think Different means Think Counter-Intuitively (in this case).
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
Well, yes, if you use one system for two decades you will certainly expect it to behave the way it does. However, if you’ve spent your past computer years on Windows or Linux, Mac is counter-intuitive and forces you to conform to a nonstandard way of working with the GUI now.
Well, it wasn't so much that I was saying one system (went from an Apple II to a Mac SE and then onward through many, many revisions of course) as one way of thinking of the desktop/window/file metaphor that is what any GUI boils down to. It is non-standard compared to Windows, but thats only because Windows has such a wide marketshare and influence on programmer's thinking, and because getting things too close to Mac would get them another round of legal difficulties. I'll even man up and say there are a couple of things in OSX (well really in NeXT that made it into OSX, but still) that come from things MS came up with in Windows, there is no shame in a little emulation when the other guy does one or two things better than you, my main complaint with MS is that they just haven't quite gotten it right to my satisfaction yet, progress has been made.
I don't think Mac OS is counter-intuitive, I think you are just as trained by Windows' "standard" approach to doing things as you imply I am to Apple's, thats not a bad thing you just have to recognize, as I have tried my best to do with Vista, that its a different way to look at things at certain fundamental levels. Vista has its uses for me; I finally found a copy of Elite Force II for PC, for example, since it runs like dirt on my iBook.
The way the Mac and Windows file systems work is a perfect example, Windows drives me nuts but I have friends that are equally lost on a Mac trying to work with files. Those issues can be overcome but it is annoying, please register and keep posting any problems you have with the adjustment.
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
...& many many many windowing systems for Linux.
...which are trying to emulate Windows.
One could argue that the Mac, which introduced the GUI (not getting into the discussion about PARC here) to the masses before Windows existed, set the standard. Windows strayed from that standard. Linux, for the most part, followed Windows.
That being said, I've used both the Mac and Windows since they both started (Windows 2.0 absolutely sucked, btw), and I don't find either of them particularly hard to operate, once you get your mind wrapped around their paradigms. Both have advantages over the other in some instances, and both have parts that make you say "wtf".