As you can see, while revenue is indeed growing, earnings are pretty much staying the same. Windows2000 and the new licensing scheme were good for some short term earning boosts, but in general earnings are around 7.5 billion/year and flat.
Oh, and by the way, the latest quarter with 1.3 billion in earnings was the worst Microsoft had since fiscal 1/02 (which was 1.2 billions). And of course the numbers vary on a quarter-to-quarter basis, there were never 12 consecutive record quarters in the last 5 years for Microsoft.
And it's quite possible that fiscal year 2004 (which ended 2 weeks ago) will be Microsoft's worst since fiscal year 1998, we'll see soon.
I disagree. The stock was valued high because it is a stunningly profitable company. And because despite its legal problems it continues to earn a tidy profit.
7-10 billion profit per year is a lot, but the number by itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is how much had to be invested to get that 7-10 billion/year, and 300 billion is way too much.
If you have 300 billion, you will make more profit/year when you put it in the bank instead of buying Microsoft. - And with much less risk, too.
To make things much more understandable, replace "billions" with "thousand". Would you buy a company for 300 000 that only makes 10 000 in profit per year?
So, at 300 billion, Microsoft is clearly overrated - UNLESS there are some huge market opportunities out there.... But those have evaporated. Currently Microsoft is only defending the status-quo and is forced to give discounts, all bad for revenue and profits.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period.
Depends on what you mean by "rule the desktop". If you mean "having 51% or more of the installed base", then almost certainly yes, at least in North America.
Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere.
A price cut costs Microsoft a lot of money. See above. That's not good for the stock price.
And lately, Microsoft has risen prices. Their new licensing scheme is great for short-term earnings, but bad for long-term marketshare. Why is everybody assuming that Microsoft is thinking long-term? If they would, then, yes, they would drop prices. But they don't, instead they rise prices to squeeze out the last penny out of their existing customers. That's a great short-term strategy, which is much better for Gates/Ballmer, because they are selling MSFT now and not in 10 or 20 years.
Please don't think that the interests of Gates/Ballmer are the same as those of Microsoft the company.
It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Yes, that's true. However, there is something in between "ruling the market" and being completely "removed".
How does Microsoft expect to increase their market share 35% in the next 6 years[..]
They don't.
Microsoft stock isn't rising anymore for several years already, Microsoft needs some optimism for the stockholders so Gates, Ballmer, etc. can sell the rest of their stock - oops, sorry: to diversify their portfolio - before it becomes worthless.
The cold hard truth is that MSFT is still vastly overvalued. In the late 90's Microsoft looked like the company that will take over everything: Servers, embedded systems, cellphones - and destroy anything else: mainframes, all non-x86 architectures, etc.
The stock was valued this high because of these huge perceived future earnings.
Now things have changed a lot and Microsoft is struggling everywhere outside their core-market (which is desktop software) and even their core-market is threatened.
Microsoft has 60 billion in the bank, but will they ever be able to earn enough to justify their market cap of 300 billion?
Apache has sustained much more "pressure" and has a very good security track record - just like Mozilla by the way.
Open Source software can be (and often is) of better quality, especially when it comes to security.
The only "security issues", I've heard about Mozilla were about reading files or crashing - and those were instantly fixed. IE is so flushed with real grave security holes (like "take over computer") that crashing or reading files isn't even worth reporting, never mind fixing.
Microsoft usually does nothing unless there is an exploit - then maybe they do something - or (like with IE lately) they still don't do anything unless the exploit is used by a lot of people.
True this particular exploit didn't affect Mozilla/Firefox, but it is certainly possible that something similar might in the future.
So now the Winlots start bashing Mozilla for bugs that don't even exist, but "might" exist in the future?
The security track record of Mozilla is excellent. Excellent on it's own and even better when compared to the crappy security track record of IE.
I don't see any reason why this should change in the future. And I certainly don't see any reason to prefer a product that is buggy right now (IE) to a product that "might" be buggy.
Microsoft ist shooting themselves in the foot here.
Linux most important problem is that people don't know about it and that people don't know that it can solve their problem at all.
Microsoft is now solving both problems for us.
Yes, I know that PHBs are in general pretty dumb, but instead of not even considering OpenSource, hundreds of TCO-studies about Linux and Windows will make sure they will:
Acknowledge that Linux exists
Realize that Linux is able to tackle (some of) their IT-problems (regardless of costs)
Get the feeling that in or the other case, Linux might be cheaper/better. Nobody can be convinced that Windows is better in ALL cases.
I personally thank Microsoft for that free advertizing and see it as an act of desperation.
You mean calling it "a cancer" or "a lepracy" or "destroying jobs"...
Oh, sorry.
Note to self: If an CEO sais it, it's a balanced opinion. If some anonymous poster sais something in an open webforum, it's proof for the big anti-MS conspiracy that webforum is involved in.
I can see technologies like SOAP enabling rich clients to interop across platforms
As somebody who has actually worked with SOAP and has worked for at least 2 weeks to implement something a tiny shellscript calling scp and then ssh could have done faster and better, I don't.
SOAP is only used when you have a clueless management that insists on using the newest and latest from Microsoft.
scp/ssh can replace SOAP right away, and the X protocol can fill anything else.
On the Linux side trivial security problems with games, or whatever would be counted - artificially inflating the security exploits on the Linux side.
That reminds me of a "security patch" from Suse which fixed a "vulernability" of a game which allowed any user to manipulate the highscore. (Sorry, forgot which game it was)
I get the shivers when I think about how such "vulernabilities" count the same as the Blaster-vulnerability for Microsoft.
why is it that every time a feature in Windows is brought up, and the equivalent is missing in a "default" Linux install
What window-management features are you talking about?
Windows can run Win32 apps better than Linux/Wine, there is no doubt about that, but I can't think of a single window-manager feature in Windows that isn't in KDE.
Exactly my experience. Once you are used to multiple desktops and a good window manager (like one that supports moving windows with ALT+LMB) Windows just feels old.
Nonsense, opensource doesn't need any answer at all.
If some IP-holder thinks his IP is stolen by some open source project he can take the publicly available sources and sue.
End of story.
This principle has been working in the open source area for decades and AFAIK there was only one single case in which open source software contained illegal IP: The 5 (or so) files in BSD which had to be changed after the big trial in the early 90's.
Closed source vendors steal from OSS all the time, there is about a story/month on slashdot about it.
It seems to me that, regarding system instability, that when Windows has problems, it's obviously Microsoft's incompetance. When Linux crashes, quite obviously, it's my fault!
No, an OS just must not crash because of "buggy applications".
If it does, it's the OS' fault, no matter which OS it is.
You are comparing apples & oranges here, when support for some Windows-version runs out, you are screwed, no more security updates - you certainly can't apply a service pack for WinXP to WinNT.
With any Linux distribution however, because of the modular structure, you are able to upgrade whatever is needed yourself - almost forever.
Of course the average Winlot will never acknowledge this fact...
Slashdot Mirror
Just plain wrong:
Fiscal years 1999 to today, the numbers of fiscal 2004 are extrapolated from the first 3 quarters (= 3 quarters times 4/3)
As you can see, while revenue is indeed growing, earnings are pretty much staying the same. Windows2000 and the new licensing scheme were good for some short term earning boosts, but in general earnings are around 7.5 billion/year and flat.
Oh, and by the way, the latest quarter with 1.3 billion in earnings was the worst Microsoft had since fiscal 1/02 (which was 1.2 billions). And of course the numbers vary on a quarter-to-quarter basis, there were never 12 consecutive record quarters in the last 5 years for Microsoft.
And it's quite possible that fiscal year 2004 (which ended 2 weeks ago) will be Microsoft's worst since fiscal year 1998, we'll see soon.
"Note that this only affects users of Mozilla and Firefox on Windows XP or Windows 2000."
Actually I think the biggest marketing achievement in the last 10 years was Microsoft convincing the public that Win2000/XP is more secure than Win9x.
7-10 billion profit per year is a lot, but the number by itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is how much had to be invested to get that 7-10 billion/year, and 300 billion is way too much.
If you have 300 billion, you will make more profit/year when you put it in the bank instead of buying Microsoft. - And with much less risk, too.
To make things much more understandable, replace "billions" with "thousand". Would you buy a company for 300 000 that only makes 10 000 in profit per year?
So, at 300 billion, Microsoft is clearly overrated - UNLESS there are some huge market opportunities out there.... But those have evaporated. Currently Microsoft is only defending the status-quo and is forced to give discounts, all bad for revenue and profits.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period.
Depends on what you mean by "rule the desktop". If you mean "having 51% or more of the installed base", then almost certainly yes, at least in North America.
Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere.
A price cut costs Microsoft a lot of money. See above. That's not good for the stock price.
And lately, Microsoft has risen prices. Their new licensing scheme is great for short-term earnings, but bad for long-term marketshare. Why is everybody assuming that Microsoft is thinking long-term? If they would, then, yes, they would drop prices. But they don't, instead they rise prices to squeeze out the last penny out of their existing customers. That's a great short-term strategy, which is much better for Gates/Ballmer, because they are selling MSFT now and not in 10 or 20 years.
Please don't think that the interests of Gates/Ballmer are the same as those of Microsoft the company.
It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Yes, that's true. However, there is something in between "ruling the market" and being completely "removed".
They don't.
Microsoft stock isn't rising anymore for several years already, Microsoft needs some optimism for the stockholders so Gates, Ballmer, etc. can sell the rest of their stock - oops, sorry: to diversify their portfolio - before it becomes worthless.
The cold hard truth is that MSFT is still vastly overvalued. In the late 90's Microsoft looked like the company that will take over everything: Servers, embedded systems, cellphones - and destroy anything else: mainframes, all non-x86 architectures, etc.
The stock was valued this high because of these huge perceived future earnings.
Now things have changed a lot and Microsoft is struggling everywhere outside their core-market (which is desktop software) and even their core-market is threatened.
Microsoft has 60 billion in the bank, but will they ever be able to earn enough to justify their market cap of 300 billion?
I seriously doubt that.
For example, a friend of mine had a problem with an Excel-sheet that included important data, was somehow corrupted and didn't open in Excel.
I just said "try it with OpenOffice" and indeed, he could recover most of the data (some portion was corrupted, but it did open in OpenOffice)
Open Source software can be (and often is) of better quality, especially when it comes to security.
The only "security issues", I've heard about Mozilla were about reading files or crashing - and those were instantly fixed. IE is so flushed with real grave security holes (like "take over computer") that crashing or reading files isn't even worth reporting, never mind fixing.
Microsoft usually does nothing unless there is an exploit - then maybe they do something - or (like with IE lately) they still don't do anything unless the exploit is used by a lot of people.
And which database did the only database-worm so far target?
Mozilla is more secure than IE, period.
IE has been discontinued on MacOS, too.
So now the Winlots start bashing Mozilla for bugs that don't even exist, but "might" exist in the future?
The security track record of Mozilla is excellent. Excellent on it's own and even better when compared to the crappy security track record of IE.
I don't see any reason why this should change in the future. And I certainly don't see any reason to prefer a product that is buggy right now (IE) to a product that "might" be buggy.
I guess pretty soon, it will be in the "official" mozdev Googlebar too.
But Windows will be discontinued as soon as it is no longer profitable (like Windows on Alpha was for example)
Linux most important problem is that people don't know about it and that people don't know that it can solve their problem at all.
Microsoft is now solving both problems for us.
Yes, I know that PHBs are in general pretty dumb, but instead of not even considering OpenSource, hundreds of TCO-studies about Linux and Windows will make sure they will:
I personally thank Microsoft for that free advertizing and see it as an act of desperation.
You mean calling it "a cancer" or "a lepracy" or "destroying jobs"...
Oh, sorry.
Note to self: If an CEO sais it, it's a balanced opinion. If some anonymous poster sais something in an open webforum, it's proof for the big anti-MS conspiracy that webforum is involved in.
As somebody who has actually worked with SOAP and has worked for at least 2 weeks to implement something a tiny shellscript calling scp and then ssh could have done faster and better, I don't.
SOAP is only used when you have a clueless management that insists on using the newest and latest from Microsoft.
scp/ssh can replace SOAP right away, and the X protocol can fill anything else.
That reminds me of a "security patch" from Suse which fixed a "vulernability" of a game which allowed any user to manipulate the highscore. (Sorry, forgot which game it was)
I get the shivers when I think about how such "vulernabilities" count the same as the Blaster-vulnerability for Microsoft.
What window-management features are you talking about?
Windows can run Win32 apps better than Linux/Wine, there is no doubt about that, but I can't think of a single window-manager feature in Windows that isn't in KDE.
Care to bring an example?
Exactly my experience. Once you are used to multiple desktops and a good window manager (like one that supports moving windows with ALT+LMB) Windows just feels old.
If some IP-holder thinks his IP is stolen by some open source project he can take the publicly available sources and sue.
End of story.
This principle has been working in the open source area for decades and AFAIK there was only one single case in which open source software contained illegal IP: The 5 (or so) files in BSD which had to be changed after the big trial in the early 90's.
Closed source vendors steal from OSS all the time, there is about a story/month on slashdot about it.
Actually I was just extending your point, no need to attack me...
Windows crashes every once in a while, less than once a day.
You would be a lot more credible when you would at least not contradict yourself in a single post...
No, an OS just must not crash because of "buggy applications".
If it does, it's the OS' fault, no matter which OS it is.
Comedy gold...
With any Linux distribution however, because of the modular structure, you are able to upgrade whatever is needed yourself - almost forever.
Of course the average Winlot will never acknowledge this fact...
Microsoft's domination (a much better term than "monopoly") is coming to an end.
And the courts had absolutely no part in ending it...