Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Profit and Loss by Business Area
An anonymous submitter writes "The Register is reporting in this article striking new evidence of what in my opinion can only be described as abuse of their monopoly position. A recent SEC filing shows that they lose money in every business area except Windows (86% profit) and Office (79% profit)." Another notes that the Financial Times has a story on the same subject - Dr. No writes "According to the Financial Times, Microsoft's Windows division has a profit margin of 85%. This is the first time this figure has been made public." The full version of Windows XP costs about $300.00. Microsoft could sell it for $45 and still make a profit. The difference between the $45 price and the $300 price is what economists call "monopoly rents".
They can't. It's quite the conundrum for them. They'd have to argue that MS should act like a capitalist instead of a welfare entity, which goes contrary to all OSS dogma and propaganda. Talk about being caught by the ball hairs by MS on this one.
I have a problem with this for 2 reasons:
1) Profitability in something like software is tough to gauge from looking at a balance sheet. Productivity is notoriously hard to quantify and the cumulative R&D costs that represent Windows are probably not represented in the same sense as sales and profit for a given year. It's no surprise they lose money on other products, but the fact that Windows in profitable allows them to do so. I suspect the same economics govern other R&D heavy companies: like Intel, Motorola, IBM etc.
2) Even in non-R&D heavy companies, many products have massive profits. How much do you think a cup of coffee costs for Starbucks to brew? There are plenty of products that produce well in excess of 100% profit margin. Why should Microsoft be criticized for margins over 70% on two products?
In general I find it pretty repulsive when people bash Microsoft for making money. If you don't like it, buy a Mac or use Linux. It's really not hard to Microsoft free. It's your choice.
Yes we all know this because Michael has an MBA and a degree in economics, and is a world-renowned economist and well-respected politician. And all this time, we thought he was just some red-Commie failed computer adminstrator nitwit fuck that continually posts off-base anti-Microsoft propaganda on Slashdot without any credible evidence. Boy, were we wrong!
The only reason the article was posted was to make Linux feel better that they're competing against a monopoly. So what? Who the hell cares if MS is a monopoly. Taking them to court is for crybabies. Rather, try: How did MS get to this point and why the hell is a free product having trouble competing with such an "expensive" one. It's features. Microsoft gives people what they want and linux gives em CLIs. Gandma and Grandpa don't want to know how to set up perl. Joe Business User doesn't want to have to look under the hood. Linux will NEVER become the dominant OS until it's as easy as XP (or whatever MSs latest OS is). Stop the whining and get back to work.
ummm, no. the fact that you DONT buy ms software proves that it is not a monopoly. imaging if linux desktop tools didn't bite so much ass... then microsoft would be f*#&ed. but instead, i say f*#&linux. mac osX is the only possible answer to the ms machine. Stop wasting your energy on linux, and move out of the stone age.
Problem is: Linux blows. download it all you want... its still barely usable. I think we're better off spending our money on MaxOSX since it is more than a bandwagon, it is actually a threat to M$.
I'm not /. you fucking retard.