Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Could Be First Tech Company To Reach Trillion-Dollar Market Value: Analyst (geekwire.com)
Microsoft's $26.2 billion acquisition of LinkedIn could help the Redmond company become the first technology giant to reach a market value of $1 trillion, or so thinks a notable analyst. Analyst Michael Markowski believes that Microsoft will be able to leverage LinkedIn to become a leader in social media space and the emerging crowdfunding platform. So much so that it will beat Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook in becoming the first company to hit $1 trillion market value. From a report on GeekWire: Here are the market caps of these big tech companies as of Monday morning: Apple: $622.6B, Alphabet: $549.7B, Microsoft: $489.3B, Amazon: $358.7B, and Facebook: $337.6B. "The public has an insatiable appetite for making small bets and purchasing lottery tickets, etc., that provide the chance to make a big profit," Markowski wrote. "The millennials will be a good example. Many will want to routinely invest $100 or even less into high-risk ventures that could produce returns of 10X to 100X." Microsoft, through LinkedIn, will be able to take advantage of this trend because it has a monopoly on the business social media sphere. Markowski predicts that all the big tech companies will eventually build services to facilitate crowdfunding investments.
Should any company have this much capitalisation when there are people living homeless on the streets? Capitalism is good, but it needs restraints and balance, because at the moment whoever holds the money makes the rules.
MicroShaft is no more valuable today than it was ten years ago. I would argue that it is worth A LOT LESS.
Wrong. Microsoft has made vastly more profit in the last 10 years than before. And if you look at their revenue, they experienced an almost linear growth since 1995, going from 6 to 95 billions. They also have posted a profit every year since 1985, unlike Apple for instance who started making more money than Microsoft only in 2010.
By any standard, Microsoft is more valuable now than 10 years ago (which happens to be more or less the last period when calling them "MicroShaft" was somewhat clever).
lucm, indeed.
I think most people would say over the past 10 years Microsoft has lost their position as the market leader. In the consumer space in particular is difficult to see what role they have in the future.
no, only people that have a very narrow view of what the market is would say that. Microsoft have increased market share in enterprise many fold, they still hold a 90% desktop market share and make exponentially more money than they did 10 years ago and are one of the leaders in one of the largest growth areas of cloud and cloud services.
I think most people would say over the past 10 years Microsoft has lost their position as the market leader.
Valuation is based on expected future profits, not market dominance. Anyway, Microsoft is clearly the market leader in desktop and laptop OSes, and office productivity tools. They don't do well in phones and tablets, but that is a different market.
Also Windows 10 is just starting its money-making phase in the enterprise. Over the next year or two this will be a highly profitable segment for Microsoft. At the same time, SQL Server now runs on Linux (it can even run in Docker containers!) and this is going to make a serious dent in Oracle's market share, as many organizations have been waiting to escape the Oracle life-sucking contracts for a long time.
lucm, indeed.
Hint: It is NOT superior software. At least not any way that I can define it, but perhaps I'm just too twisted in thinking that different people think differently and therefore a single superior solution does not exist?
Answer: It's the financial models.
Flogging the dead horse, but I still believe Linux remains essentially irrelevant because the financial models are bad, but I'm too tired of the fight to even often alternatives at this point... Unless someone encourages me, eh?
My interpretation of Microsoft's success is that there is almost no there (= innovation) there. Even the innovations in their financial models were copied, but at least in the financial models they substantially improved them:
(1) Legal evasion of liability via the EULA. If Microsoft were liable for the harms caused by their software then the company would have gone bankrupt long ago.
(2) Selling upstream to the makers, not downstream to the actual end users.
Just picking on what I regard as the two biggies, though if Microsoft does reach the trillion-dollar market cap, it will largely depend on stealing Apple's business models (more effectively than the google can steal them).
Still bogus in terms of solving any real problem. There is no number that is large enough to "solve" that kind of greed. That's why big companies have to become so EVIL these years, but I predict that Trump will figure out how to make the bad situation worse.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
"they still hold a 90% desktop market share" I find that hard to believe. I work for a Fortune 50 company and the vast majority of people I come in contact with around the company use Macs. When I'm in large group meetings and look around I see a sea of Mac Books. And this isn't a technology company. We are a manufacturing company. Of course this is just one anecdote from one company, but I see the same thing at coffee shops, conferences, people's homes, etc. They either use mac book laptops, tablets (not the surface), or phones (not Microsoft phones). Other than Outlook and Powerpoint I see few MS products being used. I've actually been surprised that they've been able to stay in business and not they are talking about MS reaching 1 trillion? I'm honestly flabbergasted.
SQL Server now runs on Linux (it can even run in Docker containers!) and this is going to make a serious dent in Oracle's market share, as many organizations have been waiting to escape the Oracle life-sucking contracts for a long time.
Wow, going from Oracle to MS SQL?
Thus demonstrating that people who make bad decisions make bad decisions, I guess.......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."