Re: Microsoft is in deep trouble and now it is going to die


"KDT" <scarface_74@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177598395.927998.160520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 26, 3:01 am, "John Slade" <hhitma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 26, 3:01 am, "John Slade" <hhitma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"KDT" <scarface...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
What does the Zune have to do with this convesation?

So when MS does that they aren't "kooks"?

If people buy MS stuff out of zealotry, they're kooks.


You claimed that Mac users love to make up numbers...Microsoft has
done that repeatedly.

Excuse me but didn't execs at Apple backdate stocks? That's making up
numbers.


And I guess you were right about the XBox being a money making
venture? I see you have changed your story now....

Nope. And it is a moneymaking industry. Playstaion 2 made money on
the
same model. They sold them at a loss and then made money on the games.

The PC industry is a "moneymaking* industry too. That isn't doing

I know! That's why Apple turned a Mac into an x86 PC clone. I've been
saying this for years.

Gateway or most of the other PC manufacturers too much good though.
Again *you* brought up the 24 Million XBox's sold....I merely compared
them to 104 Million Playstation 2's sold.

But I didn't compare them to the current generation.

Nor did I, I compared the PS2 to the Xbox's and PS2+PS3 to XBox+Xbox
360.

Sure you did.



Yahoo isn't exactly doing too great these days....
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=YHOO

Yahoo is making money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo

Why quote *Wikipedia* instead of official SEC filings?

Because that's the yearly profits from the SEC filing dummy.

In the meantime Apple has been making real money on iPods and wisely
staying out of the console market. I bet you Apple will also make
more money on the iPhone than the measely amount that Microsoft's
mobile division did last year

There you go bringing up new things when it's clear that you're
losing
the argument. This is irrelevant.

Do you suffer from a short attention span? The original thread started
based on someone saying that Apple should have gotten in the
*moneymaking* console market like Microsoft did. They were comparing
the MP3 market to the console market. I am making a much more direct
comparison between the Mobile market, which is largely smart phones to
the iPhone.

I was not losing an argument or making up numbers when I brought this
up. You on the other hand said MS lost $21 billion in the Home and
Entertainmen division. You never showed me where you got that figure. I only
see that they lost $5+ billion.




So now you're lying about your own numbers. Five billion is not
that
hard to make up with massive game sell.

Where are these massive game sells on 10 million units? They would
have to make $50,000 per Xbox unit sold.

Dummy, they happen over time. Halo 2 sold seven million copies and
produced a profit for a quarter.


At $50 profit a copy, Microsoft would have to sell 100.000,000 million
copies to make up for its losses..

You're crazy. It's not just one game, it's scores of games for PCs and
Consoles. It's also multimedia software and hardware. How did they turn a
profit in one quarter? They sold a lot of games, this is what long term
means.









The playstation
*2* is still profitable for Sony.

That's because of game sales.

You might not know this, but component prices go down over time.
The
PS2's component prices have decreased enough for the PS2 itself to
sell at a net profit. The original XBOX never made any money for
MS.

The Playstation 2 was sold at a loss when it started out and the
massive
game sales have made money

Again you seem to have a problem with your tenses. The XBox did not
make a cumulative profit during its *entire* lifecycle. The
Playstation 2 was profitable and still is.

The production might be over but they are still selling games for
it.
They are still making games for it and will be for a few years to come.
Even
if that particular product doesn't make money, that doesn't mean the
whole
division will never turn a profit.

So , the whole XBox generation was a complete business failure.....

A complete business failure means that it made no profit at all. I
showed where it did make a profit.



I thought you said it was $21 billion in losses? LOL.

Yes they can sell enough games to make up that ammount. They don't
just sell games for consoles, they sell PC titles too. Halo 2 for the PC
is
about to come out.

Again, they are going to sell 100,000,000 games?


Yes they can over time. It's not just one game for one console. You
seem to think that it's all tied to one system and one game. Microsoft makes
games on more than one platform.


How long did they take again?

About three years....article posted below...

Oh so then it is possible.



How long did it take?

Sony was making a profit at least by 2003 partly because of
Playstation 2 sales
http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=567'

It was release in Japan in March of 2000

That link appears to be dead. Not surprising since most of your
facts
are DOA.

Google cache of the article
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:MiNBdC7FjlQJ:www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm%3FID%3D567+emsnow+playstation+2003+profit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I don't need to see it. I know what's going on. Sony made money over
the long term.


I notice you're trying to compare the profits of one quarter to
years
of losses. That isn't a fair comparisson. In fact, over that time they
spent
$21 billion, they must have sold at least $15 billion worth of product.
You
said the losses were $5 billion. Now how many years was that? Three or
four.
So that means they made an average of $5 billion or $3.75 billion each
year.
So you can see it is possible to make back five billion in a few years.

They've only shown that they can make $15 billion while spending $21
Billion. Not exactly a great business model.... So for every $1.00
they make they spend about $1.25

LOL. You lost this point and you should give it up. You were talking
about the possibility of making the money back. You said it would take a
loooooong time. I showed how it can be made back in a few years. You seem to
want to change the subject to what they lost rather than admitting I was
right about how long it will take to make back.


So explain to me why Apple, a publically traded company, should be
concerned with marketshare when it is the second most profitable
computer manufacturer in the world? Why would Apple be concerned
about Dell's 27% marketshare compared to its 5% when it just reported
making over $100 million more than Dell today?

I already explained this. Let the numbers speak for themselves.
(notice he stopped comparing Microsoft and Apple and went to Dell and
Apple)

*You* brought up Mac sells. Last time I checked Microsoft doesn't
sell computers.

That was already in the thread. Also I wasn't losing any arguments and
making up numbers.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer

While Dell's profit marin is lower than Apple's, Dell still made
about
three times what Apple made. This is because Dell sells lots more
computers.
Even at razor thin profits for each computer they make more money.

Dell made about three times the *revenue* not net profit.

Bahahahah. Oh *** you're just lying now. They show net profit,
links. Ok this has to be Snit or Tim Murray or Timberwolf. Make sure you
read the rest of this post because after I finish I'm plonking you. You just
can't stand to be ignored can you? Well good luck in finding a new name.

It's not
about how much you make but how much you keep. Apple has made a
larger profit than Dell the last two quarters. But why do you keep
quoting *Wikipedia* instead of the official SEC reported numbers?

Because they show the yearly profits. You see where it says "Net
Income"? Well "Income" means profits. "Net" means how much they made in
realation to how much they spent. Your links show the quarterly earnings.
Mine show the whole year.




Here's an example. If you sell lemonade and you sell five cups for
five cents each, you made twenty-five cents. If your buddy Bill sells 100
cups for one cents each, he made a dollar. Both people make the lemonade
at
the same price. Now would you rather be making twenty-five cents or a
dollar? This is the case with Microsoft and Apple. Microsofts profits
dwarf
Apples. Dell's profits are three times as much as Apples. That's with
Apple
selling music too.

Dell's *net income* (i.e. profit) is less than Apple's.

You're babbling like an idiot. You just said...

"Dell made about three times the *revenue* not net profit."

Do you often argue with yourself in the very next paragraph?

You are
confusing profit margin (net profit divided by revenue) with net
income (revenue - costs),

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=DELL
Dell Net Income last reported quarter - $673 Million
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13416/
Apple's Net Income last reported quarter - $770 Million

Dell Net Income (prior quarter) - $677 Million
Apple Net Income (prior quarter) - $1,0004 Million

LOL. You're trying to explain yearly net income to me. The numbers I
presented are accurate. Dell makes more than Apple. Apple made more than
Dell for a short period. According to you one quarter doesn't mean much
right?



Oh yea I'd like to see your Dell and Apple figures for last year.


Not a problem
Apple's *Net Income* for the last four quarters.
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=AAPL
Quarter ending 2006-07-01 $472 Million
Quarter ending 2006-09-30 $542 Million
Quarter ending 2006-12-30 $1,004 Millon
Quarter ending 2007-03-31 - $770 Million

Total $2788 Million

Dell *Net Income* for the last four quarters
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=AAPL
Quarter Ending 2007-02-02 $673 Million
Quarter Ending 2006-11-03 $677 Million
Quarter Ending 2006-08-04 $502 Million
Quarter Ending 2006-05-05 $762 Million

Total $2614 Million


LOL. You're including numbers that were not in the last fiscal year.
You're comparing the last four quarters. You have to wait until the end of
the year to show that Apple actually made a bigger yearly profit. Smoke and
mirrors doesn't work here. Apple made more money in two quarters, not over
the whole year. You're trying to have it both ways again.








/>
You do realize they have are the 2nd most profitable

computer manufacturer in the world, as of last quarter, right?

But failed to gain any significant market share.

Why should they care? Again what matters to any company market share
or profit?

Ask Apple. If OS X gains one point market share, you probably would
post
under your real name and brag. I notice you've been here a month with a
google account and a yahoo email. Must be one of those oft ignored
people.

Once again tell me why a publically traded company should care more
about market share than net income?


Because bigger market share means more profits with less profit on
each unit. It's called volume. That's why Microsoft dwarfs Apple's profits.






Even
if you take away iPod sales they are still 3rd in the world.

In making profits for the small ammount of computers they make.
However
they aren't even in the top ten when it comes to computer sales. If I
found
the parts to one computer laying on the ground and put them to gether
and
sold the compouter for $1000, I'd be the most profitable company on
Earth.

Why hasn't Dell, Gateway, Lenova, or ASUS been able to do that then?

I don't know about the others nor do I care however Dell makes
more
money than Apple year in and year out.

You must know something that Dell doesn't. According to both
companies last four reported quarters, Apple made $174 million more
than Dell.

Apple did not make more money than Dell in each of those four quarters.
Apple made more money in the last two qarters. You can't claim to compare
quarter to quarter profits and apply them to a whole year. That's how you
skew the numbers.


and they switched to Unix and put a GUI over it.

So which version of Unix had the MacOS API's, Quicktime, etc.?

Darwin.

Interesting...go to Apple's website and download the latest version of
Darwin (it is available) and see how much code it contains related to
Quicktime, Carbon, Core Services, etc.....

I'm still waiting....you can go right here....
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html
download the Darwin sourcecode and see how much Quicktime. Carbon, or
Core Services code you find in it.


Darwin is the basis for OS X. Apple GUI is on top of it.



Glad you agree. I just can't wait for you to show the info
proving
that
Microsoft's Home and Entertainment division had $21 billion in losses.

And you proved that the XBox *is* a moneymaking endeavor?

I already proved you wrong on this issue. You are so crazy to make
Microsoft look bad, you will take numbers and through some wierdo
imagination, inflate them. The fact is you saw $21 billion in that
article
and freaked.

Bottom line is. Microsoft makes over ten times what Apple makes.

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=MSFT
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL

Actually Microsoft's net income is six times Apple's. But I thought
we were comparing the *moneymaking* XBox ("Home and Entertainment
Division") to the iPod?

I still can't find where Microsoft lost $21 billion in that division.





Tell me
this, how many copies of OS X Tiger did Apple sell and how many copies of
Windows XP did Microsoft sell? I won't compare Vista with the latest
version
of OS X because it isn't out yet.

Very few, but Apple is a hardware company that sells computers and
makes software to sell computers.

Yes they sell very few copies of OS X. In fact they will sell even
less now that they make x86 PCs. Apple sells music players and x86 PCs. If
you can't beat them, join them.

If you want to compare Microsoft's
electronic division to Apple's (which this whole thread was in
response too) you're more than welcome. If you want to compare
Apple's profits in computers to every other manufacturer (even
subtracting iPod sales) you might be surprised.

I compared the total profit of each company. Some areas, Apple makes
more money than Microsoft. Microsoft makes more money than Apple in some
areas. However the areas where they both compete, Microsoft is making a lot
more than Apple. No matter how you look at it, Microsoft is vastly more
successful than Apple. Microstoft's business model has proven better than
Apple's. Microsoft put out a product that can be placed on any qualifying
x86 computer. Apple wanted closed systems and their software only on their
systems. Microsoft is still selling it's core product, the OS and making
great profits from it. Apple is not selling what they started off selling.
They started making Macs, now they make x86 clones. They started off with
Mac OS and dumped it twice and now they have a Unix version. Then they moved
into iTunes and iPod. They had to adapt to survive.

Since you like to compare net profit margins. Let's have a look at
this.

Apple's net profit margin for 2006 was 9.97%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc

Microsoft's net profit margin for 2006 was 31.6%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft

Now what is the better business model?

John
P.S. I know you hate Wikipedia but if you can show another source that shows
Apple's 2006 profit margin is greater than Microsoft's please do so.


.