Steinimoe...great, valuable post...now go sit in the corner

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 3:55:36 PM

Sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that you're arguing a company is declining after they have one of their best years in recent history.

4/5/2011 4:03:35 PM

see cisco...

Quote :

"It should stop funneling those dollars into highly competitive -- and lower margin -- businesses. Selling or spinning off the consumer division, which represents less than 5 percent of sales, should be considered, too. Likewise, Cisco may want to shut down new operations, such as servers. The overall goal should be to refocus management on its hugely profitable markets in switches and routers. "

this is a great example of where msft may be headed...
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-56138720110405?type=economicNews&ca=rdt

[quote]

4/5/2011 4:53:55 PM

Don't know what world you live in dude, but posting a half billion dollar profit doesn't in anyway fit the definition of loser.

Spinning off businesses that have no growth or long term profitability makes sense. Spinning off businesses because they don't post 4 billion dollar a year profits is stupid in every sense of the word.

The number of businesses in the us that post 1/2 billion a year profits is tiny, much less finding companies who have a half dozen or more divisions doing that.

And you also apparently don't understand development scaling, because taking 30,000 engineers and diverting then back to windows and office will have retarded diminishing returns on speed to market.

4/5/2011 5:27:05 PM

^^ And wait. You're comparing a company that has blown its stock value, made 34 billion in fruitless acquisitions, is posting the worst revenues and profits in their recent history, and a shareholder overthrow in its midst to a company that posted its highest earnings ever with solid growth, a stable stock price and multiple recent homegrown platforms?

Okay dude

4/5/2011 5:33:37 PM

sure...if you notice, cisco and msft trade on the same p/e multiple, so investors value msft operations the same value they do current cisco ops... trouble you any?


keep thinking of rainbows and developing more me too products

4/5/2011 5:37:29 PM

your argument is that as long as shitty divisions far from the central mission are in the black, they should keep them?

so basically youre arguing that when edd was deep in the red, they should have shut it down and osd today too I guess

and put thirty k programmers in office/windows? you are an idiot, spin the consumer shit off or order 30000 cardboard boxes and send them packing

4/5/2011 5:53:11 PM

I could give two fucks about p/e multiples. I don't play the stock market. And I don't trust the stock market to be ANY indicator of the current or future viability of a company. So no, it doesn't trouble me a bit.

The central mission of Microsoft is "Three screens and a cloud", so the divisions you are talking about are neither far from the central mission, and they all have long term plans toward profitability and major growth opportunities.

And no, I am continuing to suggest that quarterly revenue/profit results are NOT A FUCKING INDICATOR of market viability or long term strategic value.

Fuck dude, Youtube, Facebook, and a gaggle of other techno wunderkids have been billions in the red for most of their lives, yet no one in their right minds (investors or otherwise) would say they should "cease operations and focus on their central mission".

You are trying to correlate wall street financials to business opportunity, and there is no correlation between the two.

4/5/2011 6:47:23 PM

wow, flatline is a straight up fucking dumbass.

4/5/2011 7:55:45 PM

Quote :

"You're comparing a company that has blown its stock value"

Quote :

" And I don't trust the stock market to be ANY indicator of the current or future viability of a company. "

which one of these statements is true? Your company trades at the exact same multiple that CSCO who has "blown its stock value"...

And also please reconcile your argument that CSCO is stupid for heading into highly competitive, low margin businesses, while Microsoft is smart for heading into highly competitive, low margin businesses...

Quote :

"made 34 billion in fruitless acquisitions"

Your company has pissed away billions in fruitless EDD and OSD losses...

Quote :

"and they all have long term plans toward profitability and major growth opportunities."

where and when???? WHERE AND WHEN? They have been making game consoles for almost a decade, its not a "new platform". They made smartphone OS that failed pathetically for more than a decade...why are they now going to be successful in either market?

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 8:47:22 PM

^^ don't make me laugh

Quote :

"There are products that MS will remain untouched in for years that could and most likely will sustain the company without any issue, and those products that they do have competition in (consumer and enterprise OSes for example) will only thrive, because that's how business works to begin with."

I'm sorry, but I don't think that anyone can understand this statement as part of a coherent argument. Perhaps you would like to try again?

The consumer market for Windows OS is slowing, as smartphones and tablets take away from that market....Don't believe me? This guy just studies the market, as his job...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383096,00.asp

No pro MS guy here has done anything but beat their chest and say MS is strong...MS makes embedded windows devices...MS makes server devices...Trouble is, these things make Microsoft very little money.

and please explain how MSFT has a grand "platform" strategy when it capitulated its marketshare in smartphones, has yet to produce a viable tablet design, and has so far burned money making consoles...

Put the fuck up, or shut the fuck up

Quote :

"Fuck dude, Youtube, Facebook, and a gaggle of other techno wunderkids have been billions in the red for most of their lives, yet no one in their right minds (investors or otherwise) would say they should "cease operations and focus on their central mission". "

What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you have any real point here? Microsoft is a mature company that has no major growth ahead of it...a bit different than Facebook

Quote :

"And no, I am continuing to suggest that quarterly revenue/profit results are NOT A FUCKING INDICATOR of market viability or long term strategic value."

You are right...babbling marketing speak about how microsoft is going to save the world is a better indicator of market viability


[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 9:00:16 PM

You know what's pretty impressive?

How Microsoft's Operating Income in the Entertainment and Devices Division was up 529% last year, showing the greatest percentage growth of any division in the company.

If only they were more successful, Microsoft might have a long term future

4/5/2011 9:10:55 PM

You are so flat dead wrong, this is becoming entertaining

Quote :

"which one of these statements is true? Your company trades at the exact same multiple that CSCO who has "blown its stock value"..."

CSCO lost half it's stock value and is a company on the verge of shareholder overthrow. Microsoft has a stable stock, and has had stable growth for 25 years. You just proved my point. Stock performance doesn't mean dick. Two companies trading at the same price, one imploding, the other doing just fine.

Quote :

"Your company has pissed away billions in fruitless EDD and OSD losses..."

A lot of people would beg to differ. Specifically about 20 million xbox 360 owners. Game consoles have always been a long tail investment. It has taken almost 4 years for Sony to turn a profit on the PS3, and if you want to compare all up numbers like you are doing for the Xbox platform, they are still 1.5-2 years from ACTUALLY breaking even. This is from a company who has been a market leader for almost 15 years.

You must be on medication if you think Windows Mobile "failed pathetically for more than a decade". Prior to the iPhone, WinMo had 25%+ marketshare and was on track to overtake Symbian as the market leader. It was a massive financial and commercial success for it's 7 year run.

It didn't fail, it got overtaken by a new wave of devices. And now Microsoft is changing directions to meet the new demands of the marketplace.

4/5/2011 9:11:41 PM

imploding? CSCO has as much cash lying around as MSFT...I don't think they are imploding any time soon. MSFT has decreased in value slightly over the last decade

Quote :

"It didn't fail, it got overtaken by a new wave of devices. "

Which must be part of Microsoft's grand plans...becoming irrelevant in growing markets?
And how is being "overtaken" not failing?

Where did I argue that Sony had a brilliant plan for the PS3? I didn't. I simply stated MSFT entered a competitive market, and has failed pathetically, while losing tons of money.

Quote :

"Game consoles have always been a long tail investment"

yeah, so breaking even over two decades...win there eh?

Quote :

" Prior to the iPhone, WinMo had 25%+ marketshare and was on track to overtake Symbian as the market leader. It was a massive financial and commercial success for it's 7 year run."

what the fuck is this besides brainwashed talk? It was on track to take over the market...before it got wiped off the map? Who cares if they were on track for anything?

Quote :

"A lot of people would beg to differ. Specifically about 20 million xbox 360 owners."

I'm sure Sega owners loved their consoles too...Funny though, if the company doesn't make any money...

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 9:24 PM. Reason : .,]

4/5/2011 9:16:54 PM

Quote :

"I simply stated MSFT entered a competitive market, and has failed pathetically, while losing tons of money."

+529% of failure last year.

4/5/2011 9:32:03 PM

Quote :

"CSCO lost half it's stock value and is a company on the verge of shareholder overthrow."

can you come up with any factual information whatsoever?
http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1302053528625&chddm=1569319&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NASDAQ:MSFT&cmptdms=0&q=NASDAQ:CSCO&&fct=big

Funny, how the stock that is ahead from 1995-today is CSCO

^I think we have established you are stupider than dogshit. EDD lost 5.1 BILLION dollars between 2004-2008. They have made less than a billion in the last few years. Just 4 Billion dollars to go...

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 9:50 PM. Reason : edit]

4/5/2011 9:33:01 PM

yo, paging BobbyDigital



somebody needs to bucket this chucklefuck

4/5/2011 9:50:24 PM

^ haha. So when you literally cannot come up with a argument, you resort to ad hominem attacks and slang...impressive

Quote :

"can you come up with any factual information whatsoever?"

Quote :

"can you come up with any factual information whatsoever?"

4/5/2011 9:52:18 PM

It's called long term investment. This is how EVERY console works. Sony and Nintendo both operate under the same long term platform strategy.

By your definition, "if we were all as smart as flatline" there would never have been home video game consoles. Because if you can't show 1000% growth per quarter, it's obviously a total failure as a business venture.

Consoles have a 7-12 year lifespan. I don't doubt that the 360 will be an overall net profit (though not by much) for Microsoft. I KNOW that whatever follows the 360 will be a much faster turn to profit because Microsoft has invested in the infrastructure necessary to do so already.


You are talking about revenue IN SPECIFIC MARKETS while IGNORING THE SPECIFICS of those markets. In the home console market it takes a full generation to turn net profit. That doesn't mean the whole market is stupid. It's a high capital market (incidentally the same for almost ALL consumer electronics). You don't understand the markets you are talking about, you don't understand why profit in a specific market influences other markets.

You might want to learn about < ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration">vertical integration because it's a basic business concept that explains why Microsoft is competing in loss-leading market segments. Although it's pretty apparent to me that you are a pure numbers dipshit, and probably cant comprehend something this complex/basic.

I just pray to god you aren't a financial analyst, although it would be fitting.

4/5/2011 9:57:22 PM

Quote :

"You don't understand the markets you are talking about,"

yeah, Last I checked, Nintendo has been making money off the Wii, for years...sorry, they don't lose money - please come up with factual information

And historically, the consoles were profitable very quickly, not over the decade timeframe...it was actually only the current/recent generations that were up front losses because of the technology.

Oddly enough, I thought it was CS kids who liked data and statistical analysis...while you and your cohort have failed to show any data or statistics which further your points.

4/5/2011 10:08:26 PM

You know what is a good way to get back in black?

When you show 529% gain in net income over the course of a year when you release virtually nothing.

Look man, it's not our fault you brought up the financial statement that makes you look like a moron.

Quote :

"Although it's pretty apparent to me that you are a pure numbers dipshit, and probably cant comprehend something this complex/basic."

If he's a numbers guy, he's bad at that too.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 10:19:20 PM

I think I am up and out of this thead. Neon just makes shit up, and then ignores any question about the basis in fact.

Quote :

"By your definition, "if we were all as smart as flatline" there would never have been home video game consoles. Because if you can't show 1000% growth per quarter, it's obviously a total failure as a business venture. "

What I actually said, which I am sure is hard for you to comprehend, is that Microsoft had a choice to enter or not enter the video console market...They chose to enter a competitive environment where they have done little but lose money. I didn't make any overarching statements about whether the console market makes sense or should exist, simply that Microsoft has failed to be profitable in this market, and it was very unclear as to why they were in the market.

What I have said, and the OP has, that Microsoft makes great money on Windows and Office, and sucks at anything else. You have failed to make any argument rooted in fact that contradicts this...

And my parting shot...please explain how Sony, who has made generations of consoles still has losses from its current console, yet you are "CERTAIN" that "once Microsoft builds its platform, it will be profitable on the next one" Then how does Sony, who hopefully "according to you", has a mature platform still lose money?

Quote :

"Look man, it's not our fault you brought up the financial statement that makes you look like a moron. "

yeah, the financial statements which show that microsoft has lost billions in EDD - it makes me look like a moron...


[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 10:26:18 PM

Shit, they lost money in the past?

Good thing that the division in question didn't just make a massive gain over the year previous.

That'd be the sign of a company on the rise, which totally fucks up whatever point you're trying to make.

OH WAIT!

4/5/2011 11:06:06 PM

Quote :

"They chose to enter a competitive environment where they have done little but lose money. I didn't make any overarching statements about whether the console market makes sense or should exist, simply that Microsoft has failed to be profitable in this market, and it was very unclear as to why they were in the market."

Already explained to why they entered the market, even posted a link for you to learn about it.

Done little but lose money? How about being the first platform to prove online subscriptions work? How about being the first to centralize analytics, communications, and subscriber data into a single federated service? How about being the first console with a media marketplace? How about being the first console with live television, movies on demand, and games on demand?

You can say Microsoft haven't gone in the black yet, but to say Microsoft has "done little but lose money" is ignorant.

Quote :

"And my parting shot...please explain how Sony, who has made generations of consoles still has losses from its current console, yet you are "CERTAIN" that "once Microsoft builds its platform, it will be profitable on the next one" Then how does Sony, who hopefully "according to you", has a mature platform still lose money?"

Because Sony is about halfway through it's platform lifecycle. It will be profitable. It will be profitable before the 360 is. It just takes TIME. And if a product lifecycle is say 7 years, and it takes 5 to get back to even, but the overall ROI is still several billion dollars, that's a pretty good investment. And the EXACT same strategy applies to every VC funded startup in the world.

Quote :

"yeah, the financial statements which show that microsoft has lost billions in EDD - it makes me look like a moron..."

You can eat a piece of fruit before it's ripe and it will taste like shit. Most of us will wait for the fruit to ripen and enjoy it. Apparently you will swear off fruit forever. So yes, it makes you look like a complete moron.

4/5/2011 11:39:20 PM

Quote :

"So when you literally cannot come up with a argument, you resort to ad hominem attacks and slang...impressive"

i really don't need to inject anything into this conversation - a casual glance tells me that you're already getting your shit handed to you by two people, and that you're too fucking dumb to realize it.


I'm sorry you think it was an ad hominem attack when in actuality, it was just me paying you more attention than you even deserved. I didn't even realize you went back to look at what I'd said to try and call me out. I don't give a fuck. You don't have any clue what you're talking about at all, and every single post you make in argument proves that even more. I'm not going to be drawn into an internet pissing match with you because you're wrong, I know for a fact that you're wrong, you have done nothing but spout mounds of information that you've patently mis-characterized and misapplied, and you're constantly moving the goalposts so you think you can win some fucking argument on the goddamned internet.


Not only are you a dumbass, you're a sad fucking excuse for a "gotta be right at all costs" troll and I won't bother wasting anymore time even replying to you.

4/6/2011 12:54:13 AM

You say that I dont understand the industry, then you say both sony and nintendo lose money on their hardware, which is simply not true in nintendo's case...why can't you get basic industry facts right?

Ms entered the console game, in what, 2002...are you trying to claim their vertical strategy existed then? clearly, this was a me too product by ms when they saw sonys ps2 success. what about the zune, the strategy existed when they came it with that? clearly this was a me too of apples ipod...

what about retail stores, ms just opened some...not
copy catting apple eh

and your claim that vc startups are exactly like console strategy...what? startups are designed to make a little
money (ms might make a forty percent decade long return...) ten years into the development cycle and go back in the red with their next product? Get a fucking clue.

4/6/2011 11:57:57 AM

Quote :

"clearly, this was a me too product by ms when they saw sonys ps2 success"

So what you're saying is that Microsoft was so impressed with the success of the PS2 before it came out that they announced the XBox?

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 12:10:54 PM

>.<

4/6/2011 12:24:15 PM

Quote :

"You say that I dont understand the industry, then you say both sony and nintendo lose money on their hardware, which is simply not true in nintendo's case...why can't you get basic industry facts right?"

Tell me where I said they (or anyone) loses money on their hardware. And the Wii is the first, and ONLY console Nintendo has ever release that is not sold at a loss at retail. I know my basic industry facts, so you can stop trying to pull hairs and change your argument.

Quote :

"Ms entered the console game, in what, 2002...are you trying to claim their vertical strategy existed then? clearly, this was a me too product by ms when they saw sonys ps2 success. what about the zune, the strategy existed when they came it with that? clearly this was a me too of apples ipod..."

Hahaha, I love that you can so simply believe that some guy can say "hey lets do that" and all of a sudden a Fortune 100 company pours a few hundred million dollars into a project. Right, believe that. Yes, the Xbox has always been a very clear vertical integration strategy.

The Zune was a commercial proof of concept. Microsoft was always clear about this. It is the testbed that Microsoft launched and proved a number of the core concepts of the Windows Phone 7 with real world scale. It proved Microsoft could engineer a market effective mobile device, handle production problems, create a working OTA distribution system et al. It was never intended to usurp the iPod or be a major market competitor.

4/6/2011 12:55:14 PM

so maybe you can tell me, is losing market share a quarter after aos release a good thing?
http://www.businessinsider.com/android-iphone-market-share-2011-4

keep up the good work

4/6/2011 1:15:58 PM

Quote :

"The Zune was a commercial proof of concept. Microsoft was always clear about this. "

The Zune was a proof-of-concept as much as Mark Gottfried was the only person offered the NCSU Basketball Coaching position.
Could we please keep the BS marketing tactics out of a thread in Tech-Talk? A lot of us deal too much with this posturing in our everyday work life.

4/6/2011 1:36:07 PM

the original x box hardware was a x86 desktop computer...I'm sure it took ages to design though

4/6/2011 1:53:11 PM

Get ready for the latest entry in "flatline is an idiot"!

On page 2:

Quote :

"flatline: (ComScore, etc are all full of shit regardless)"

On page 3 flatline posts a link poo-pooing Windows Phone market share. Which might be inconvenient if the first line of the article didn't say:

Quote :

"Google's Android OS has gained an astonishing 7 points of market share in the US smartphone market in the past three months, Comscore says."

So last page they were "full of shit", but now they're a great source?

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 2:02:53 PM

^^ It was a us market device backed by a us market platform that has had limited production and limited retail outlet distribution. That is typical of a PoC device. Try it in a single market and gauge response. If the Zune was intended to rival the iPod then Microsoft would have localized it , and market launched it worldwide at launch like they do with normal product offerings.

^And more ignorance. Yes it had an x86 processor in it, that doesn't make it a desktop computer in a box. Nintendo has an ATI radeon chip powering the Wii, so does that make it a desktop computer too? How about the standard hard drive in the ps3? Or the USB ports?

And actually time to market on the original Xbox was pretty damn fast because MS leveraged the x86 architecture which, at the time, was what the windows kernel ran on.

4/6/2011 2:05:02 PM

for post in forum.posts:
    if user.name == 'flatline':
        # ignore
        continue
    else:
        read(post)

4/6/2011 2:06:20 PM

this hardware looks so so vastly different than any 90s pc... embedded stuff omg!

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Xbox-Teardown/1324/1

as for comscore, the first comment was about search share, this is a different market...I have no idea the veracity of this market count

4/6/2011 2:51:13 PM

http://tinyurl.com/3vmpczj

4/6/2011 3:03:39 PM

Sorry, I couldn't pay attention to your backpedaling, flatline, I was too busy reading this gem:

Quote :

"Among the factors driving Microsoft’s record revenues and earnings per share was the 55% growth in revenue for the Entertainment & Devices Division, as the success of the Kinect sensor boosted sales of Xbox 360 consoles, Xbox Live subscriptions and Xbox games."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mthree/archive/2011/01/27/msft-012711.aspx

It is from January though, so surely the bottom is going to fall out any minute now.

4/6/2011 3:12:33 PM

^ Are you an electrical engineer? I'm sure as hell not, but I know from working with plenty of them that just because you use an existing architecture to build a custom board, that doesn't make it trivial or easy or cheap to engineer. It just makes it cheaper than rolling the whole thing from scratch. It also has zero bearing on the quality or effect of the final product. The original Xbox sold well and people enjoyed (millions still do today thanks to xbmc).

4/6/2011 3:14:02 PM

flatline -

Quote :

"sad fucking excuse for a "gotta be right at all costs" troll"

flatline -

Quote :

"sad fucking excuse for a "gotta be right at all costs" troll"

flatline -

Quote :

"sad fucking excuse for a "gotta be right at all costs" troll"

flatline -

Quote :

"sad fucking excuse for a "gotta be right at all costs" troll"

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 5:05:33 PM

Apple is now making more revenue than them. Wow

4/28/2011 9:12:00 PM

And net profit.

But MS still recorded record growth and earnings. 5.Something billion isn't anything to sneeze at

4/29/2011 4:28:21 AM

Quote :

"5.Something billion isn't anything to sneeze at"

neither is 8.5 billion, which is reportedly what Microsoft just paid to buy Skype

i can't even fathom this decision

5/10/2011 10:10:36 AM

It wouldn't surprise me if this was going to turn a Microsoft push at both Cisco (and Telepresence/umi) and Apple (Facetime).

A while back I bitched that Apple was dumb for trying to push Facetime when there was already a significantly better system for video chatting that a ton of people already used, that was already cross platform.

Now MS owns that competitor and now MS gets to tout how whether you're on your iDevice, eventually your Android phone/tablet and WP7, PC, Mac, Linux machine, or even your couch with a Kinect, you can video chat with someone.

Do I think it's a particularly smart move? Not really. I can definitely see the benefit in it though. It lets MS put popular video conferencing in a living room for $300.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 10:34:14 AM

i dont get the skype purchase. 8.5 billion for tech microsoft already has.

5/10/2011 3:50:10 PM

Fuck, the Skype name alone is probably worth that much, let alone the tech. Skype has become the Xerox of Internet Video Chat.

5/10/2011 4:00:36 PM

take lync, spend some real $$ on UX for it, cut a deal with facebook to be their exclusive video/voice chat provider.

5/10/2011 4:09:05 PM

Quote :

"i dont get the skype purchase. 8.5 billion for tech microsoft already has."

2005: Skype was bought by ebay for 2.5B approx
2009: Ebay sold 70% of its skype stake to private investors for a valuation of 2-2.5B approx.
2011: MSFT buys skype for 8.5B

Did the value of skype really multiply by a factor of 3.5 between 2009 and 2011??
As of 2010, Skype makes a 7M loss on revenue of about 860M.

This is a business with a fairly low barrier to entry. Not sure what MSFT gets in return in this transaction. This is like Hotmail all over again.

5/10/2011 4:35:41 PM

5/10/2011 4:57:29 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-15-biggest-acquisitions-so-far-2011-5?op=1

5/10/2011 5:01:22 PM