Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft Posts $50 Billion in Annual Revenue

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 19, 2007, 5:06 PM

Microsoft said Thursday that it had surpassed $50 billion in annual revenue, while saying quarterly profits were up seven percent on brisk Vista sales.

For the quarter ending June 30, 2007, the company posted a net income of $3.06 billion, up from $2.83 billion a year ago. Profits would have been much higher, but its $1.06 billion charge-off for Xbox warranties cut into the company's profits.

Revenues for the quarter were $13.37 billion, bringing Microsoft's fiscal year 2007 revenue to $51.12 billion, a 15 percent increase over last year's numbers. Windows and Office comprised $8.44 billion in sales, up 16 percent, while its losses in the video game unit doubled to $1.2 billion, with sales down 10 percent from last year.

"Our results this quarter cap off an extremely strong fiscal year for the company," said Chris Liddell, chief financial officer at Microsoft. "We have healthy core businesses and are strategically investing in growth opportunities, which will build on our success and contribute to continued double-digit revenue and earnings growth in fiscal year 2008."

Microsoft's strong results this fiscal year can be attributed to the release of new versions of Windows and Office this period, as well as to the solid slaes of its SQL Server, Windows Server, Visual Studio products, and the 360.

"In fiscal year 2008, we will continue to drive growth through new product offerings, such as Windows Server(R) 2008, Visual Studio(R) 2008, SQL Servertm 2008, Office PerformancePointtm Server 2007, and Microsoft Dynamicstm Live CRM," COO Kevin Turner added.

Add a Comment (140 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Dsfargeg

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:12 PM

"...losses in the video game unit doubled to $1.2 billion..."

That's nothing compared to Sony's video game unit, which has posted losses of well over $2 billion, due to PS3 and Psp failing so badly.
So while the X360 isn't doing all that well, the PS3 is still doing far worse. Also, the X360 has impending hits like Halo 3 which will help sales quite a bit, while the PS3 has to wait until sometime 2008 for better games - *if* they still do come by that time and developers haven't switched over to Wii or 30 by then, like many already have.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 9:47 AM

I see that the PS3 lost again in June to the Wii, DS, 360, and the PS2.

Nintendo's console and handheld DS once again dominated the charts. Nintendo DS sold through a whopping 561,000 units for the month and Wii pulled in another 381,000 believers, making the two systems the number-one and number-two best-sellers respectively in June. Xbox 360 sales, at 198,000, were nearly doubled by Wii.

Sony's PSP also performed surprisingly well, with sales undoubtedly spurred by a recent price drop. The handheld managed 290,000 in sales, which was good enough to nab the third best-selling spot for the month.

Game Boy Advance attracted another 113,000 people and, finally, PlayStation 3 continued to trail behind all competitors with 98,000 in sales -- a number that is up over previous months, but still well behind Wii or Xbox 360

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:23 PM

double to 1.2 meaning was 0.6= 1.8 over last two years, so difference of 0.2 while ps3 sales are increasing and xbox360 sales were already on a steady decrease because of the launch of two competing system, and that was before everyone realised the 'unacceptable' number of failing units.
as if you are comparing mircosofts gaming unit to sonys and including the psp, how bout including the xbox and ps2 or even ps1? hows the $ amount work out then?

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

edited Jul 22, 2007 - 12:40 PM

PSP failing so badly?

It's sold over 30 million units!! Whilst it's not sold as many as DS, it's far from a failure..

Some people are so dumb. There is room for more than 1 player in the portable market. I'm Sony want to do better, but it's already quite good!!

As for PS3 selling badly.. not anymore, many stores have sold out.

CompUSA -SOLD OUT
http://www.compusa.com/p...Console_60GB_Hard_Drive

Target:Sold out on non bundle PS3
http://www.target.com/gp...TF8&asin=B0009VXAM0

Future Shop:Not Sold out, but selling well.
http://www.futureshop.ca...mp;logon=&langid=FR

Amazon:Not Sold out, but PS3 on top
http://www.amazon.com/s/...=9&Go.y=3&Go=Go

Walmart-Been sold out many times, but is instock right now (for the tinme being)
http://www.walmart.com/s...ntinue=Find&ic=24_0

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Jul 22, 2007 - 5:01 PM

actually wii is on top and there are NO ps3 games in that list either for amazon and future shop is selling it more then everyone else. You linked it to a page to buy there is nothing there that signifies its selling well.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 10:43 AM

Wow do you suck at posting links - every single one of those links are invalid pages.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 12:42 PM

Yep, messed up. Sorted links now.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 8:38 AM

Hmm, This looks prety bad to me.

http://www.informationwe...amp;cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 9:05 AM

You are so right 360 sales drop 60% and are still beating teh PS3 in sales. Sucks to be the competition.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 9:21 AM

Sorry, it seems not..

http://blogs.pcworld.com...on/archives/004945.html

PS3 is now outselling the 360, even in the US. (PS3 regularly outsells the 360 is most other regions).

Here in Atlanta, PS3 are now moving VERY quickly. When I went into BestBuy for some printer paper yesterday, they were totally out of stock of PS3.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:32 PM

If the PS 3 is outselling the Xbox 360 or any other game system, you'd never know it in Portland, Oregon. Nearly every major electronics and video game store has a full stock of PS 3's for $499.99. The only game system that seems to be out of stock is the Nintendo Wii.

Personally, I don't see any reason to waste money on a PS 3 game system until game developers get off their lazy asses and start developing more games. Or until movie studios re release all of their movies with a Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed 24-bit 96KHz PCM soundtrack. Since this won't happen there is no reason to have a Blu-Ray movie player.

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 11:51 AM

499.99 dollar clearance sale, lets see what happens when the (cheap) PS3 is all gone

Score: 0

By MinuteMaid

edited Jul 22, 2007 - 6:41 PM

From what I can see, Sony have only said they won't be making any more 60GB units when stocks run out.

The media have then taken that and ASSUMED that this means when the 60GB units are gone, it will only be $599 80GB units left.

Talk about taking 2 and 2 and making 18.

I think it's almost certain that Sony will then offer a 80GB "bare" unit, no games for £499.

From what I can see, the $499 price drop has make a hellofa difference. the circuit city has total sold out where I am (Buffalo, NY)

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:11 PM

Well, that's the killer question. When the $499 60GB's are gone, will there be another wave of $499 80GB's to replace them? If they are selling like hot cakes, I think it's a safe bet there will be.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:44 PM

Wonder what will happen when MS cuts the price!

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:49 PM

They have said, there is no price cut on 360 anytime soon.

If they do however it will be interesting.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 6:47 PM

Why does everyone think they'd say anything 1 second earlier than the actual drop.

How do you think a price drop coming in 1 month would affect sales today? Sales over the next month would slowdown until the drop. If you are dropping the price, you do NOT announce it until the day it drops.

Score: 0

By Benjamin Linus

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 5:19 PM

"Why does everyone think they'd say anything 1 second earlier than the actual drop."

In summary, when Sony do it, you all call them liars. When Microsoft do it, it's good buisness sense..

Most people here are either retards or hipocrytes.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 3:50 PM

yet when that was the exact arguement that was used to defend sonys situation on the price drop it was seen as a fanboy spin on the situation and sony lying to consumers. typical

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:32 AM

Maybe because of a panic fire sale giving away 5 movies and a game with the PS3. That will not last as the game line up is by far superior for the 360.

Best Buy with there two systems in stock when they are in stock, Ok.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:14 PM

Well there was about 40 when I went in a couple of weeks back. So they havn't sold just 2, as you imply.

I think the official numbers, once they are in the system, will be VERY interesting.

In the same month, where everything that can go wrong, has, for the Xbox, the PS3 has turned it around..

Like you said, 1 good month won't matter either way, but if Sony can keep the momentum up, and hit with further "waves" of good PR, Like Playstation Home, perhaps a Killzone2 beta, when Halo 3 hits and the like, then Microsoft has a problem on it's hands.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:50 PM

I think the bottom line with the price drop and the pressure on MS to do the same is a benefit for the cutomer. Some people prefer the 360 while others the PS3 either way both parites in the end win.

At this point I prefer what Ms has to offer with the 360. Time will tell on the PS3. I really wish that more stuff would come out for the system that interests me. I don't remmeber how long the really good games took to come out for the 360 but it seems to me that its takiing longer on the PS3. Maybe I'm justing older and more impatient.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 2:39 PM

That is the problem, perception is, that the shortage of PS3 games is something different. However it was no different with the 360, PS2, PS1, or original Xbox. Each console launch has initial drought for 6 months +

The difference this time however, is the console launches are over a year different, so one console is "up to speed", the other not.

That said, I think the PS3 line-up early on, is MUCH better than the initial 360 line-up, which did not get anything decent until Gears.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 6:50 PM

That's fairly accurate, except the 360 had some decent titles.

The bigger problem is the lack on PS3 and abundance on 360. I have a 360 and recently picked up a PS3 primarily for blu-ray movies, but had hoped to get a least one game. There was nothing that interested me or I already owned it on my 360.

Give the choice between systems, price and difference, the PS3 is a tough call if you really want to game and aren't concerned with the few exclusives they have.

Back to being on topic though - The losses MS faces in their gaming unit hardly matters - they have a bigger plan and knew they'd be taking losses for some time to come.

Score: 0

By Benjamin Linus

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 6:34 PM

Back in 2000, did they really think that there would still be without a single cent of profit in 2008? I think not. I'm sure shareholders would have baulked at the thought of a 8 year money dry spell for the Xbox division, and a $8Billon hole...

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 22, 2007 - 10:37 PM

So basically Sony lost almost half of what the Xbox division has lost in 8 years time in less than a year. Yah that makes shareholders feel good about their investment. They lost enough money to suck up all of MS's profit. You can only imagine how bad it is for Sony which was already hurting and doesn't make anywhere near the money MS does.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:01 AM

LOL. When the dust settles from this "clearance sale" it will go back to last place like usual.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 10:07 AM

Maybe, maybe not. The 360's reputation has been permanently damaged (beyond repair, I think).

The only real competition for PS3, is the Wii, but that's a fad (longer than I would have originally thought, but still a fad).

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:16 PM

The Wii is a fad just like the internet is....and we all know no one uses the internet anymore.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:36 AM

Think all you want, once the truth comes out with the fact they are not stiking the customers like Sony has in the past with the failure to read disk problems sales will come back. Who wants to spend $500 for a system that only has $8 download games and emulations that are worth playing.

Thats a fad oh wait it is destroying the PS3 but I'm sure that you will say that system doens't count. The Wii will win this generation and I am fine with that since it is a fun system. After all that is what it is all about anyway, fun. I find nothing fun about the PS3 so far.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 11:16 AM

Well my PS3 has plenty of games, there are some cool games on the PSN store, but there are also plenty of titles in the shops as well.

To imply there is nothing but $8 games, is ludicrous, plus since when has the price of games had any bearing on the quality of the game?

I don't think Wii will win at all, most people I know with Wii, are pretty much bored with it, it was a fad, it's now in the cupboard, and occasionally gets brought out at parties, a bit like monopoly.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:22 PM

By all means name some "good" games for us that we can't already play on our 360.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:54 PM

The only game that kind of interests me on the PS3 is Ninja Gaiden but from what I have heard it is basically a remade Ninja Gaiden Black from the original Xbox. I did download Calling all cars and its kind of fun. For teh most part the launch games on the PS3 sucked excluding Resistance.

Score: 0

By siryak

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 9:36 PM

The only game that I see that I would like to play is Motorstorm. Past that nothing they have really interest me like a lot of the 360 games do. I would like to play the PS2 Ace Combat games on it. But I can wait for Ace Combat 6 on the 360, which will blow those out of the water. Also I have Ace Combat X on the PSP to tide me over until then.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:47 PM

I didn't claim they were exclusives...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 11:36 AM

If it sells, it sells. By the way--you do know that the monopoly board game has sold more than any other board game in history?

Like I said, you think Nintendo cares how often people play games, or about how much they gain in profits? If it sells, it sells. Sure, if consoles were for rent, perhaps the Wii would be rented more often and the PS3 would sell more but rent less, but that's irrelevant.

The Wii is the clear winner, there is no way around the numbers.

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 12:18 PM

I think it's WAY too early to decide winners. PS2 sold 120 million in it's lifetime, Wii is on what? 7Million? I'm still convinced the Wii is a short term fad, with no stamina to last the course of this console generation. I also think the 360 is dying a death, I don't see where the next wave to push the 360 will be (aside from Halo3, which will spike it for a short term).

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:36 PM

"(aside from Halo3, which will spike it for a short term)."

Mass Efect
Bioshock
Ace Combat 6
Halo Wars
Too Human
Alan Wake
Huxley

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:47 PM

Never heard of any of them aside form Bioshock (I think that's coming to PS3 anyway).

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 1:24 AM

Of course you didn't. Accept for Ace Combat 6, their 360 exclusives. Your a Sony fanboy that only reads PS3 news.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 1:57 PM

Ok to not heard of those you must have been living under a roc since they have been covered on most gaming mags for the last year. And Bio Shock is not coming to the PS3, PC and 360 only. Alan Wake is going to incredible along with the others. It's dying is beyond ridiculous. You most only troll Sony mags and web sites to not know the games he mentioned.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 9:39 PM

SGD pretty much covered everything I was about to say...

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 8:20 PM

Look at all that money. If you're a Microsoft stockholder you are one very happy camper. Money doesn't just talk, it screams.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:54 PM

I'll save you the trouble of having to read this whole thread. It's mostly just back and forth flame fest between a few Sony shills like Benjamin Linus and the rest of us. According to the Sony idiots around here, when Sony removes something from the PS3 for example, it's a good thing. But when Microsoft posts a healthy profit DESPITE losing a lot of money in the console division, it's a bad thing. Trust a Sony cheerleader to spin a Sony negative into something good and a Microsoft positive into something bad.

At the end of the day, Microsoft still made enough money to keep their shareholders happy, which is more than can be said about Sony. You can harp on all you want about Xbox360 this and Xbox360 that. The reality is that Microsoft could lose a billion every quarter for the next 10 years and it still wouldn't hurt the company. Can we say the same thing about Sony? How much did Sony lose on the PS3 so far? Wasn't it upwards of $3 billion? I can't wait to see their financial report.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 7:10 PM

Sony doesn't lose money. To even speak of such is blasphemy. :-D

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 11:57 AM

sony loses money, i just can't believe it heh :D

Score: 0

By siryak

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 10:04 AM

I know it's crazy talk!

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:42 PM

hmm...

The word "Microsoft" appears in the article headline.

Cue Sony fanboys ranting about irrelevant information regarding Microsoft finances and the console wars, featuring irrelevant links and flamebaiting text.

Popcorn, anyone?

Score: 0

By Benjamin Linus

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:33 AM

http://www.gamesindustry...tent_page.php?aid=26905

"Following the decision to set aside USD 1 billion for Xbox 360 repairs, the year-end loss for Microsoft's entertainment and devices division has reached 1.89 billion - up 47 per cent from last year."

"During the last quarter of the year Microsoft shipped 700,000 Xbox 360 units - down from 1.8 million during the same period last year. "

"Revenues for Xbox and PC games fell by 28 per cent to hit USD 265 million. "

"Fourth quarter EDD revenues stood at USD 1.16 billion, a year-on-year fall of 10 per cent which Microsoft said was due to "decreased Xbox 360 console sales"."

"The division made a loss of USD 1.2 billion, attributed to the cost of the Xbox 360 repair program."

Are these the signs of a heathly division?

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:41 PM

Let's wait and see Sony's financial report, then we can talk about "healthy divisions", savvy?

Keep up the good trolling Linus.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 5:48 PM

Of course things could be better but anyone with a sane look at the numbers can see it's a p*ss in the ocean.

Go on then Sony shill/drone, tell us what Microsoft's (net) annual profit was for 2006.

Then try claiming $1.2 billion is the big deal you so obvious (and so laughably & desperately) want it to be.

The central point here is that Microsoft are making multi-billion net profits per year.

Score: 0

By Latz !

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 2:41 PM

So what? They made fifty billion dollars in profit genius, they can easily afford to lose money on the xbox division for a long time to come. You're missing the big picture I'm afraid. One billion dollars is pocket change to Microsoft.

Score: 0

By Benjamin Linus

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 5:56 AM

Another idiot who does not know the difference between profit and turnover.

Have you been skipping school?

Turnover(Revenue) is how much they sell
Profit is how much they make on those sales after costs.

Microsoft have not made 50Billion, they have turned over 50Billion. They made 3.9Billion on that. They lost 1.15Billion of that on the 360 fixups.

Whey do all the brain-deads come here?

Score: 0

By SlapShot

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 12:03 PM

ben called someone an idiot and braindead, LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:38 AM

Hey rocket scientist it still boils down to MS can buy Sony many times and still have money to lose. Oh wait they would lose money buying $ony.

You never cease to amaze me with your blindness to reality.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:56 PM

its funny how all you microsoft fans say yea its ok that they lose money on the console year after year (some even deny that they do, thinking they've been making money fron the 360 somehow) because microsoft makes money elsewhere but you think sony losing money on the ps3 is the be all end all... its not like sony has any other products that they make money on right?

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 2:01 PM

Hello reality calling, I am not saying that Sony is not making money in other areas. What I am saying is that the PS3 is killing the areas that are making money. The issue is Sony is losing more of the bottom line than MS is. I know you will never believe this.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:06 AM

I dono Ben. You would think after we made you look like an idiot so many times you would finally get embarrassed enough to leave.

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:04 PM

he would leave, but then he wouldn't get paychecks anymore hmmmmmmmmmm

Score: 0

By plague201

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 2:58 PM

Before Beny crucifies you for this. Big difference between revenue and profit. However, yes while significantly less profit was made Microsoft can still afford to lose money.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 1:09 PM

Does it matter? With 50+ billion in revenue? You're really trying too hard... Give it up with the PS3 vs 360 fiasco. And start considering at the very least Wii vs 360... hehe

http://www.vgchartz.com/?w=9m

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 11:33 AM

You really get your boxers in a bunch when you hear that MS made money. Get over it already.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:53 AM

Why do you guys have to turn every MS thread into an XboX vs. PS3 war?

Seriously.

Can't we just agree to keep it to the XboX / PS3 articles? Much easier to avoid that way.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:43 PM

"Why do you guys have to turn every MS thread into an XboX vs. PS3 war?"

*We* don't, it's Steve, Benjamin and the other Sony shills who do it. All they do is troll every single Sony/Microsoft thread to post their garbage. We just retaliate.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 23, 2007 - 10:57 AM

We just retaliate.

Please don't?

It's no big deal in the XboX/PS3 articles, and trust me, I know it's hard to resist pointing out certain people's lack of logic, intelligence, etc., but in these unrelated topics, it makes it a bit hard to avoid.

Still *so* wish we had an ignore feature.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 7:13 PM

I swear these guys must be either the same guy, or juiced in by Sony. I find it highly doubtful that someone would have such strong feelings towards a company unless they are on the pay roll. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony makes this a practice in as many forums as it can.

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 12:11 PM

wouldn't be shocked if they were all in 1 room with a rehashed list of junk to toss at forms like these

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 8:08 AM

"while its losses in the video game unit doubled to $1.2 billion, with sales down 10 percent from last year"

Sounds like the video game division is a failure still to this day! Lucky for them they have an illegal Windoze monopoly to fund their other ventures.

Some companies actually have to compete in the market to make money.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:06 AM

You are either misinformed, or just plain trolling.

They *were* an illegal monopoly. They dealt with that a long time ago. They *are* still under probation (feds keeping a close eye on them, and certain things they must shy away from), but even *that* is going to be up by this fall.

If you seriously think Microsoft has no competition, open your eyes. There's a whole world of options out there for folks who don't want to use MS products.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:44 PM

"You are either misinformed, or just plain trolling."

It's the second one, duh.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 11:34 AM

He is kind of right the PS3 is no competition at this point in the game.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:03 AM

They were, and are an illegal Monopoly. They settled many of their claims privately through states, and many of the tenets of their enforement were "ignored" by the Bush admnistration.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 10:48 AM

No such thing as an illegal monopoly.

But there are monopolies that use their advantage to force customers to buy their other products, undersell the competition, and make competing products incompatible and that is illegal.

And yes Microsoft still abuses it's monopoly in PC operating systems to push crappy browsers, media players, mail clients, workgroup servers, search utilities, and on and on.

Why don't they just let people buy the OS without the crap? They must have the same opinion of their software quality as I do.

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 5:00 PM

Why doesn't Apple let us install OSX (legally) on a pc? Why does Ipod work with everything out there but my creative doesn't integrate with my stereo? Why can't I play xbox games on my ps3?
why why why? Are they all monopolies too?

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 11:35 AM

If you don't like what they sell use something else its really that simple.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 11:30 AM

I don't know what planet you come. MS products are very high in quality. If you think you can do better, I am sure you can raise hundred of millions and take out MS.

MS a monopoly? Not quite, if they are continue to improve their products and supporting them, I don't see they are consider a monopoly? Did they limit who can run their software? Did they limit on what hardware can run in it?

If are complaint about a monopoly, Apple fit more into the description.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:52 AM

And yes Microsoft still abuses it's monopoly in PC operating systems to push crappy browsers, media players, mail clients, workgroup servers, search utilities, and on and on.

According to you and apparently the EU. Not according to the US atm.

Why don't they just let people buy the OS without the crap?

Because no-one would. Look how well XP-N did, if you're serious.

They must have the same opinion of their software quality as I do.

Yes, I'm sure they're all under the impression their software is all crap bloatware and no-one wants to use it....

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 11:07 AM

"Because no-one would."

Everyone would still need an OS and what the PC system builders would install for their customers (if they had the choice) would be the best software package they could assemble. That might include Microsoft products, but it shouldn't have to.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 12:21 PM

PC vendors are allowed to customize their OS installs. Look at the crapware. Look at Dell putting Firefox on the systems they sell (in the EU?)

They can, some do, most don't. I wonder why that could be....

They could install OOo, They could install Abi-Word, WinAMP, Foobar...you name it.

They don't have to stick with the apps included with the OS, but for the most part they do anyway. Ever stop to think that it may be because that's what most consumers want?

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 1:08 PM

or because M$ forces them to? "If you don't put Office on your computers, your Vista prices might be a bit higher..." And to someone like Dell or HP who do huge volumes, that is a **it-ton of money.

So maybe, consumers don't want it, but have no choice.

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 2:08 PM

Office isn't free on the pc, its only a trial. Is google, firefox, symantec various audio & video apps forcing people as well?

Why would Vista be higher if office wasn't included? Funny, how no matter what your target lies on MS.

My laptop didn't come with Office on it does that mean I paid more for my Vista then everyone else?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 1:54 PM

"If you don't put Office on your computers, your Vista prices might be a bit higher..."

Prove it.

And to someone like Dell or HP who do huge volumes, that is a **it-ton of money.

Do you even know what's shipping with Vitsa? It amounts to office trial-ware. It's 60 day trial. As for Dell, they aren't even shipping the trial-ware anymore on the lines they are selling without the crapware.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 2:18 PM

"Prove it." US courts already did. As you keep bringing up US courts and their rulings, i would expect you would already know this.

substitute XP, 2000, Me, 98....that is how M$ did/does business as proven by the US Courts.

that is illegal but you can be sure M$ is still playing games with vendors and volume licensing as the US justice dept/states did nothing about these items in the original rulings.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 4:55 PM

*laughs*

1.) MS was proven in violation of anti-trust laws for Windows 95. They are under probation until this fall. November, I believe.

2.) They have not been convicted by a federal court in the US of violating anti-trust laws in federal court since that time.

You proved nothing other than your lack of understanding. I'm shocked...

you can be sure M$ is still playing games with vendors and volume licensing

Prove it.

the US justice dept/states did nothing about these items in the original rulings.

Perhaps because there was not sufficient evidence to allow a ruling against them on those issues. While I am sure you will take that to mean Microsoft hid the evidence, someone not quite so blinded by irrationality might, in fact, believe that such accusations simply were not justified.

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 5:10 PM

Uh, no you haven't proved anything. MS WAS a monopoly years and years ago. They aren't anymore as there is competition.

Hell, Apple you can run Windows and Apple programs but on Windows you cannot because Apple won't allow it. Who's a monopoly now? Apple also does not allow their OS on PC's is this MS fault too?

Linux doesn't advertise at all and can't decide what it wants to be, is that MS fault as well?

Google is all over everything you buy now, with their desktop search, toolbars and google ads everywhere. Is Google a monopoly?

Ask a majority of people (not technical) the average consumer what an mp3 player is 9/10 they will say Ipod. Is it Apple's fault that Creative, Zune, RCA are barely known?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:09 AM

...and every administration prior to that that dealt with it.

I wonder why...

Actually, I don't. It's because it was a joke to begin with.

They were, and are an illegal Monopoly.

Show me any judgment since their prior conviction years ago that shows they are illegal. Sure, they're still a monopoly. But they haven't been convicted of using that position in the US illegally for quote some time.

Once an illegal alien gains citizenship, they are no longer illegal. Once a company convicted of abuse of their monopoly position has been sentenced they are no longer illegal unless they either do not comply, or are convicted again. Neither of these are the case with MS according to the US.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:40 AM

Such as?

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:57 AM

Exactly.

Whos's next in line? Apple? Dont make me laugh. They have a whole 4% of the market compared to 90% windows. Microsux basically can do whatever they want because they know "the world runs on windows"

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:03 AM

Look at Server market share and tell me what the world runs on.

Look in publishing / graphics design markets and tell me what the world runs on.

OEMs are selling systems with other OSes on them. Back when MS was convicted, this wasn't the case. The choices are out there and available. The fact that people aren't choosing them as much as they are choosing Microsoft products is not the issue.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:11 AM

The reason other OS are having trouble getting in is because the average consumer is familiar with Windows. A lot of people are not willing to change. They have finally figured out how to work Windows and they are not interested in learning something else. Then you have another problem, which is compatibility with hardware/software.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 11:33 AM

You can argue the same as iPod. Because when it come to mp3 player, people think of iPod. Is it's Apple's fault for have a better market position, like Microsoft with Windows? I guess other vendors can just sue the hell out of Apple for their failure in marketing their products.

iPod is in no way a superior player, they just have great marketing. In the matter of fact, the device sucks.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 2:12 PM

Exactly. Whenever you say MP3 player everyones first thought is iPod. You say OS and everyones first thought is Windows.

"iPod is in no way a superior player, they just have great marketing. In the matter of fact, the device sucks."

Couldn't agree more.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 1:10 PM

Apple did not use anti-competitive means of getting the mp3 player market. M$ _DID_ use illegal means of establishing the Windoze market.

Apples to Oranges comparison.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 2:10 PM

Proof? Nobody is forcing you to use Windows. You can always use something else.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 2:21 PM

again, you have a total lack of understanding of the matter currently, and the history behind it.

please stop your continuous trolling

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 5:14 PM

You can't even show proof and then call him a troll?

It's obvious you hate MS, yet you say the same things over and over with no proof.

Then, when someone challenges you, they are a troll or a "nub"

For someone who hates MS you sure can't stop trolling the forums.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 3:05 PM

Until you show some proof you are doing nothing but blowing smoke out your a**. Answer this question for me. Was anybody twisting your arm FORCING you to use Windows?

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Jul 23, 2007 - 8:01 PM

NO one "forces" you to do anything. A perfect example of windows vs the rest of the world is this;

Can you drive a car that does not run on gasoline? YOu can walk, you ride a bike but in the end there is no choice. Therefore gasoline has a monopoly. IF one oil company had 90 percenet market share I think we would have a problem. Can you use electric? Can you use some other fuel? Maybe, but there is a list of problems doing.

Perfect point.

Score: 0

By siryak

edited Jul 21, 2007 - 7:56 PM

Gasoline and Diesel are just the only currently viable options. Is it the gas companies fault that everyone is using Gasoline and Diesel? Not a bit. People use them because it is what does the job the best and easiest.

Same goes for Windows. It is not their fault that everyone is use to Windows and is not interested in using something else. Everybody knows how to use it and all of their software works with it. This is not the case with alternatives. Software 99.9% of the time is designed for Windows first. Then SOME of them might "get around" to porting it to another OS. This is in no way MS's fault. It is just the way things are.

Edit: btw cranbers my post wasn't necessarily directed at you. I was just expanding on your analogy a little.

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Jul 23, 2007 - 8:17 PM

It is one big vicious cycle.

A. Consumer uses what they are used to, therefore it is requested.
B. The requested os is used by OEM'S which sells the majority of all home desktop computers.
C. Consumer gets more used to it because it is the only viable choice, commercial software is available for it at the store, Best buy, circuit city, walmart etc.

A = B = C = A = B = C

THE CYCLE HAS TO BE BROKEN. This also goes for gasoline among others.

It is nobody's "choice" to use Microsoft's os. It is a demand fueled by everything else. Do you honestly think if there was another OS that was compatible with Microsoft's os that was free or cost less we would still be using it at over 90 something percent market share? Absolutely not.
Therefore, this is why microsoft can 1. Charge anywhere from 100 dollars to 400 dollars PER LICENSE, that can only be used for a single computer. Can take 5 years to market with their new os, and not lose a point in market share. They can let things like the browser not be updated in 5 years.

I am not saying I hate microsoft, i am saying they are a company who has no innovative drive in regards to the os. they say we need a new os not because its getting old, but because we want more money.

Examples to prove why competition in any market is crucuial: ATI VS NVIDIA, AMD VS INTEL, computer screen manufacturer's hd dvd vs blue ray. Ram manufacturer's the list goes on and on.

Point is, if it wasn't for microsoft having a complete chock hold on the os market, we would be on IE 11, Who knows what kind of features in the os, I mean if it wasn't for Amd think we would be using dual core processor right now?

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Jul 23, 2007 - 9:28 PM

I agree that a little competition wouldn't hurt. BUT you also don't want too much either. I would say no more than 2. The more OSs there are out there, the more OSs you haft to learn. Also the more OSs the software and hardware developers haft to develop for.

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Jul 21, 2007 - 11:55 AM

a ghost did lol

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 2:04 PM

Windows owns the OS environment. Even without using "illegal" tactic, they still going to own it. There are simply no substitute, not before, not now.

And iPod did abuse their position with a priporary format that no other players can use.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:24 AM

Monopoly or not, Having the vast majority of businesses using the same OS and basic programs is far from a bad thing. It makes businesses more compatible, makes switching jobs easier - Imagine switching jobs a few times over 2-3 years and having new OS and software to learn every time?

Like it or not, Windows and office being the number 1 products used by businesses is far from bad. I liken it to every car running off the same fuel and making use of the same gas stations.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

edited Jul 20, 2007 - 8:08 AM

===duped me post===

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Jul 20, 2007 - 6:51 AM

It's funny to me how a company that has had ridiculous earnings and growth for decades now can continue to have a stock price that just sits there.

I thought growth, earnings and revenue is what made a company desirable stock wise and made the stock go up? I mean look at google. Microsoft's stock has never gone that high, not even remotely close. Also every time microsoft has a new product, vista for example doesn't even touch it.

So, does that mean most people are extremely nervous about microsoft's future? I mean I personally would not buy stock from microsoft because for 6 years it has done nothing. so