BREAKING: Microsoft Proposes Yahoo! Takeover at $31 per Share (44 Billion $ Takeover)

[Ed91]

I'm just curious.. anyone think the take over would sabotage Apple TV / Flickr integration?

[pmoeser]

I really don't know why people are crying over this. I personally hate google and never use it, google maps sucks compared to yahoo maps. And when you search in google and do the same search in yahoo, you come with the same matches. I've been using Yahoo before Google, and I will continue to do so. MS purchasing Yahoo is just business and I doubt it will do anything. It might actually bring Yahoo more money if MS adds to their services and doesn't take away. I dunno why but every time I am on these forms MS is the huge guys that ruin everything, are we forgetting back in 1997 when a company that seemed in the gutter was saved by MS? If you don't know what I am talking about, you are most likely on one of that companies computers if you are on this form. I am not saying I like Vista or anything, but I know a lot of people still have to use MS software to do things, I dunno why we always have to bash them.

I knew he'd be in here somewhere...

There is in fact other countries other than the United States of America.

Try getting from Brisbane to Sydney with Yahoo maps on your next holiday down under.

Google can get me there...

[powermac_daddy]

Again? Are you implying this happened before? Please don't tell me you're one of those people who believe that when Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997 that they in anyway 'owned' or 'saved' the company?!

my friend, take it easy and have a bottle of beer. chill. all these business mean nothing if we cannot take care our planet - global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). let's not get into the politics - killing the middle eastern. Million $ here, Billion $ there... so what? the fxcuking sea level rise, screw the ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem); tell me what can Microsoft and Google, or Apple do? "yeah, take off to the moon".

many of us are only looking at the present. Let's just leave it here.

[hulugu]

I love the hipocracy expressed by so many users here.

"I hate Microsoft because they are a big giant monopoly that has too much power in the OS market, and based on this I will refuse to use their web based services and instead use the web services of Google, which is not an evil company..."

Google in many ways has become worse than Microsoft. Many of their products have "evolved" out of the purchase of many other smaller companies. Prime example: Google Earth, which prior to being purchased by Google (for the map data) was actually a product by Keystone. If Microsoft had made this same purchase they would have been slammed by nearly everyone here. Same case with YouTube. Google couldn't deal with competing against YouTube so they just bought them. Google's dominance in the web search market is in many ways comparable to Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. It's not the best search on the market with the best features, it's just the one that everyone uses and probably will continue to use, which is arguably the same case with Windows.

In Google's defense, they generally make the products they buy better or at the very least leave them untouched.

Microsoft has a history of dismantling past purchases or totally running them into the ground.

Bingo. While Google has been releasing good products, buying up companies and either improving or keeping them the same, Microsoft has been known to extend embrace and extinguish. If Google bought Yahoo, Flickr would either be cooler or the same, but Microsoft will be far more interested in using Flickr (and other Yahoo! services) in order to further Windows. That's bad for Mac users and bad in general for everything they've touched. Furthermore, Microsoft has a mediocre track-record with their web-offerings, so I can't imagine that Yahoo! is going to become a better company with this merger.

[hulugu]

Honest question, how is a company that has a market cap ~2x as big as Apple and makes more money than Apple dead?

Well, name one company that has managed to retain its dominance in any industry over a long period of time. I can't.

At some point, Microsoft is going to see it's extinction-level event, so to speak. IBM is a ghost of what it once was, I can't see that Microsoft is agile enough to avoid the same fate at some point.

[Mushrooshi]

"Hello 'macuser512', in order to use Microsoft Windows Live Photo, you must first install the Microsoft Windows Live Photo client."

*clicks on link*

"Please confirm you are a Windows Genuine User by downloading the Windows Genuine User verifier".

DAMMIT!

Oh, and I don't like Yahoo. I never use it.

Yahoo answers = trash

Yahoo services = Slow

[whatever]

I'm just curious.. anyone think the take over would sabotage Apple TV / Flickr integration?

Would anyone even care?

Let's see I have Apple TV in my house and I have my Macs in my house. The two see each other. My Apple TV can view my iPhoto Library (either locally or via a stream) and see the pictures in their RAW format.

Having Flickr in Apple TV is cool I guess, but it's not a show stopper. There's been barely any mention that Steve Jobs couldn't even get it to work during his keynote.

Just another example of you get what you pay for. I wouldn't be surprised if either MS or Yahoo, just pulls the plug on that one.

[diamond.g]

Well, name one company that has managed to retain its dominance in any industry over a long period of time. I can't.


My best guess would be Cisco.

[mac-er]

Oh god I hope this doesn't happen.

1. Most likely it will. Ballmer has already told Yahoo! they will do everything they can to get Yahoo!. Which means, with or without the Yahoo! board's approval, MSFT will take this to the shareholders. Good timing, too, after Yang basically confirmed that their turnaround plans were not working.

2. Gosh, I would love to sell something to Microsoft. Your first offer out of the box, and it is a premium of 62%?? Someone at MSFT needs to learn basic negotiation skills.

3. I rue the day that MSFT engineers get their hands on Yahoo!'s code. Everything at Yahoo will be buggy and look like Vista. One thing is for sure, you can probably count open technologies goodbye. Yahoo! Maps will not work with Safari anymore.

[gifford]

why do people hate MSFT so much.

Because they are tasteless soulless *******s that have stagnated the technology industry for years, and I hate them with a disproportionate passion.

The sooner they are gone, the sooner mankind can start innovating again.

[robanga]

I love Apple. I like Microsoft. IMHO a lot of credit should be given to MS. Sure they acted with a big stick and smashed competition at times, but let's face it, any company with a dominant position in the market can and should do those things.

They also have done a ton of good for the industry. The IT industry without MS would have had some other "evil empire" to hate. (perhaps even Apple itself) Nature hates a vacuum

[Moonlight]

my friend, take it easy and have a bottle of beer. chill. all these business mean nothing if we cannot take care our planet - global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). let's not get into the politics - killing the middle eastern. Million $ here, Billion $ there... so what? the fxcuking sea level rise, screw the ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem); tell me what can Microsoft and Google, or Apple do? "yeah, take off to the moon".

many of us are only looking at the present. Let's just leave it here.



I am sorry, did you just have a mild stroke ? What does global warming have to do with microsoft buying apple ?

[devincco]

Just another example how MS is no longer innovative and the only way to improve something they have is to buy someone that has something better and incorporate it. Come on MS, back in the day you were ground breaking, innovative, and no one could touch you. Now you're being passed up on a daily basis and the only way you can compete now is to buy your competitors. Sad sad sad...

[w8ing4intelmacs]

O Lord, please don't let M$ turn Yahoo mail into Hotmail!
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

[whatever]

Well, name one company that has managed to retain its dominance in any industry over a long period of time. I can't.

At some point, Microsoft is going to see it's extinction-level event, so to speak. IBM is a ghost of what it once was, I can't see that Microsoft is agile enough to avoid the same fate at some point.

That may or may not happen. IBM is actually doing quite well for itself. Have they had to change for the times? Yes, but they've been able to adapt and do quite well for themselves (take a look a their stock). IBM is one of the few information technology companies with a continuos history dating back to the 19th Century. They are currently the largest technology employer in the world and the most profitable. Just because you don't see their name plastered everywhere, don't be fooled, they're there.

Let's take a quick look at the modern game consoles:
Xbox 360 contains IBM's Xenon tri-core processor
Sony's PlayStation 3 contains IBM's Cell BE microprocessor
Nintendo Wii contains IBM's chip called Broadway

Open up a computer made in the last 27 years and you will find a dozen or more IBM patterns. In fact for the last couple of years IBM has won awards for the most patterns which will be used in future technology.

SoI wouldn't call them a ghost.

The same is true with Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fan boy (hey I'm reading a Mac forum), but they create stuff, which will be used for years to come.

Now a company like Google, who's stock took a huge hit today, dropped below $516 makes most of it's money from Advertising. A business which could move to another company very quickly. You have to remember that Google doesn't make a lot of money (if any) from Gmail, YouTube, beyond what it makes from Ads. And some companies, such as DIGG decided to go with Microsoft because they offered a better service at a better price than Google (at least that's what Kevin Rose said last year).

So I wouldn't be so quick to count Microsoft out.

As far as people saying that MS is not innovative, why should they reinvent the wheel, when they can just buy one?

[Ugg]

With global share prices down so far and Apple also sitting around with a bunch of cash in its back pocket, this announcement makes me think it won't be too long before Apple announces a major acquisition.

This is definitely the time to do it.

[Breckenridge]

I think microsoft will benefit from buying yahoo and has the ability to bring it up to par. As a matter of fact, google's dominance is not healthy to the internet in general and it's getting harder to find real information on google. Their goal is to combat SEOs and spammers and as a result it's almost impossible to find any technical data easily searching google. Maybe this move will put google back on track and stop their evil that they don't do :)

[rockosmodurnlif]

my friend, take it easy and have a bottle of beer. chill. all these business mean nothing if we cannot take care our planet - global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). let's not get into the politics - killing the middle eastern. Million $ here, Billion $ there... so what? the fxcuking sea level rise, screw the ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem); tell me what can Microsoft and Google, or Apple do? "yeah, take off to the moon".

many of us are only looking at the present. Let's just leave it here.
I am sorry, did you just have a mild stroke ? What does global warming have to do with microsoft buying apple ?
I think he's trying to say there are bigger things but I think he did have a mild stroke as evidenced by the links and different font sizes and colors. Or s/he's high or something. Read the original post in a Spicolli voice and it's just so funny.

[Stefan-23]

My one concern if Microsoft took over Yahoo is Yahoo's support of Flickr.

If anything Apple should team up with Yahoo - and as Apple TV supports Flickr too, it would be a good combination!

[Loudwater]

This is RIDICULOUS!!! I simply don't know what else to say... WTH MS:mad:

[HiRez]

Some one tell me what 'Saccharomyces cerevisiae' means and tell me how you found the information. One word will do. ;)You get the same with Yahoo! search as with Google, what is your point? The Yahoo! search engine is actually pretty good now, it just doesn't have the brand recognition (and momentum) that Google does.

[kabunaru]

Bah. I use Gmail. I don't care about this. :)

[itcheroni]

You get the same with Yahoo! search as with Google, what is your point? The Yahoo! search engine is actually pretty good now, it just doesn't have the brand recognition (and momentum) that Google does.

Doesn't Yahoo use Google's search?

[Loudwater]

Microsoft has nothing but money. Tech world was supposed to be controlled by bright ideas and innovation... It'll be sad if they succeed in this bid. Hopefully more people will join anti-MS by this!

[HiRez]

Doesn't Yahoo use Google's search?Not exactly. They use Google sitemaps technology for indexing but the rest is proprietary. At one point Yahoo! considered licensing Google's search engine but decided against it (having their own allows them to keep all the search ad revenue but you'd have to say that didn't work out too well so far...100% of 0 is still 0 and it's heading in that direction). The thing is, Yahoo! has tons of things that Google does not like a hugely popular Sports site that competes very well with ESPN and all kinds of original content. But, they have not been very good at leveraging that into ad dollars.

[robanga]

One of the things I love about capitalism is that it motivates companies and individuals to do their best. I'm not sure who said " the Tech world was supposed to be controlled by bright ideas and innovation" , but in my viewpoint, it all comes down to economics.

MS will either spend their shareholder's funds wisely and realize a return, or not.

I also agree with the poster above that said Google needs an opposing force. Search engine and contextual marketing is what works these days. Having all of that in the hands of Google is not good for business. They need healthy competition.

[itcheroni]

Not exactly. They use Google sitemaps technology for indexing but the rest is proprietary. At one point Yahoo! considered licensing Google's search engine but decided against it (having their own allows them to keep all the search ad revenue but you'd have to say that didn't work out too well so far...100% of 0 is still 0 and it's heading in that direction). The thing is, Yahoo! has tons of things that Google does not like a hugely popular Sports site that competes very well with ESPN and all kinds of original content. But, they have not been very good at leveraging that into ad dollars.

Yeah, I just looked it up. I knew at one time they did but that ended four years ago! Things change so fast it's hard to keep up.

[snipersix]

More: Microsoft Makes $44.6 Billion Bid for Yahoo after Yahoo Rejects Partnerships, Merger

Interesting. I would imagine that Google will be a bit worried about this.

Apple - Google merger anyone?[/QUOTE]


I was just thinking of the samething when I saw the news, Apple and Google should merge, it would be awsome :P

[MacFly123]

I just hope that they don't mess with flickr. I could careless that they are aquiring Yahoo; just leave flickr as it is.

Ok, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I am sooo sick of people saying that expression wrong. It is NOT "I COULD CARE LESS", it is "I COULDN'T CARE LESS"! Think about it. If you COULD care less, then it means you do care. Anyway, sorry. I'm just over annoyed by people saying things like that all the time. Kind of like FERMILIAR instead of FAMILIAR lol...

[MacFly123]

Anyone think this would mean one Chat client instead of MSN and Yahoo?

[robanga]

Anyone think this would mean one Chat client instead of MSN and Yahoo?

I'm guessing they would keep both going for a long time, both have a brand following. I know so many people that use MSN just because its the "one that comes with windows". I'm betting they would quickly make them interoperable in almost every way though.

[eric55lv]

Apple>Google>Yahoo>Dell>Microshaft
Thas how it is bascically

[Scottgfx]

Ok, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I am sooo sick of people saying that expression wrong. It is NOT "I COULD CARE LESS", it is "I COULDN'T CARE LESS"! Think about it. If you COULD care less, then it means you do care. Anyway, sorry. I'm just over annoyed by people saying things like that all the time. Kind of like FERMILIAR instead of FAMILIAR lol...

Thankfully, I'm not the person your ire is being directed at. In all seriousness, I actually appreciate these notes from time-to-time. I actually think the internet has made me a better writer and a better speller because people point out common mistakes. Never stop learning!

[hulugu]

That may or may not happen. IBM is actually doing quite well for itself. Have they had to change for the times? Yes, but they've been able to adapt and do quite well for themselves (take a look a their stock). IBM is one of the few information technology companies with a continuos history dating back to the 19th Century. They are currently the largest technology employer in the world and the most profitable. Just because you don't see their name plastered everywhere, don't be fooled, they're there.

Let's take a quick look at the modern game consoles:
Xbox 360 contains IBM's Xenon tri-core processor
Sony's PlayStation 3 contains IBM's Cell BE microprocessor
Nintendo Wii contains IBM's chip called Broadway

Open up a computer made in the last 27 years and you will find a dozen or more IBM patterns. In fact for the last couple of years IBM has won awards for the most patterns which will be used in future technology.

SoI wouldn't call them a ghost.

The same is true with Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fan boy (hey I'm reading a Mac forum), but they create stuff, which will be used for years to come.

Now a company like Google, who's stock took a huge hit today, dropped below $516 makes most of it's money from Advertising. A business which could move to another company very quickly. You have to remember that Google doesn't make a lot of money (if any) from Gmail, YouTube, beyond what it makes from Ads. And some companies, such as DIGG decided to go with Microsoft because they offered a better service at a better price than Google (at least that's what Kevin Rose said last year).

So I wouldn't be so quick to count Microsoft out.

As far as people saying that MS is not innovative, why should they reinvent the wheel, when they can just buy one?

I'm not saying that IBM isn't doing well, but rather there was one point where IBM was utterly dominant in the PC industry and few could imagine another company taking its place—especially as fast as Microsoft did in the early-80s. IBM is a large, well-funded company, but they were once at a position to control the software and hardware of every single computer. Their patent portfolio is impressive, but they're not "Big Blue."
Microsoft isn't faced with a single company, but rather a multitude chewing away at the company while internal problems make it easier. Right now, Microsoft is nearly completely dependent on Office and Windows and Vista has proven that the strongest core of Microsoft isn't guaranteed.

[BTW]

One more reason why I'll continue to Google

I'll switch from Yahoo and Hotmail to Google now. I love Yahoo's sight for entertainment and shopping but if M$ buys them I'll be looking more into using Google offerings. I just don't want to deal with the confusion of the merger of the two web mail products. Now is a good time to bail then ever before.

Google is invading Microsoft's turf, just about any computer related tech sector, so Microsoft is all-in. This will make or break Microsoft. I'm hoping they'll succeed only because my career is based on their products. :cool:

[gifford]

I dunno why but every time I am on these forms MS is the huge guys that ruin everything, are we forgetting back in 1997 when a company that seemed in the gutter was saved by MS?


MS didnt "save" Apple, I hate it when people say this.

$150,000000 investment did not touch the sides, to put it in perspective apple lost nearly a $740,000000 million $ in a single quarter. And I think they had 4 billion in cash lying around (this is from memory, I'm sure someone will correct me with more accurate numbers?).
Not only that, its also a question of who exactly was saving who. MS had a small monopoly problem and without a healthy Apple, MS would have been a complete and undeniable monopoly.
Also there was a costly long standing legal issue with MS stealing various technologies from apple, the 1997 deal wiped the slate clean, and allowed MS off the hook, in exchange MS agreed to continue development for Mac for another 5 years.

[stealthman1]

Sad day really. Yahoo really can't pass up the offer, it's stupid money. The last of the original search engines with any following will perish. MS/Yahoo won't last 5 years. This hasn't worked well for anyone yet to my knowledge. Infoseek bought by Disney...to become Go.com.... AOL/Time Warner, uggh. I'll never forget the day YHOO IPO'd. It is sad.
MSFT trying to catch a falling knife. That is funny!:D

[ijimk]

this could be intresting, google & apple goopple?

[Syrus28]

For all those calling for the downfall of Microsoft, think again (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2008-01-24-microsoft_N.htm).



"Microsoft (MSFT) on Thursday reported record quarterly revenue — and a 79% pop in profits"

"For its fiscal second quarter, Microsoft reported revenue of $16.4 billion, a quarterly record, and net income of $4.7 billion, or 50 cents a share. That's up from revenue of $12.5 billion and net income of $2.6 billion, or 26 cents, the same period a year earlier"

"It sold more than 100 million Vista licenses. Revenue in its entertainment unit, which includes Xbox, Windows Mobile and Zune, rose 3%."

Anyone who is bringing in nearly $5 billion dollars in PROFIT every quarter (3 months!!!) is not going anywhere anytime soon.

This also reassures the market share Windows has. Correct me if in wrong, but hasn't Vista captured more marketshare in 1 year than Mac OSX in total has (which came out 7 years ago?). (Don't give me that license crap, its the same with Mac. Most people buy new computers, and have no choice whether they want Leopard/Tiger or Vista/XP.)


And I don't think this Yahoo thing is so bad. I hardly doubt Microsoft is spending $44 billion on a search engine. Its the advertising revenue. Yahoo brought some $7 billion compared to Microsoft's $2.8 billion. And not to mention that both Yahoo and MSN are among the top 5 most visited sites in the WORLD ; so it could work out.

[MacFly123]

Thankfully, I'm not the person your ire is being directed at. In all seriousness, I actually appreciate these notes from time-to-time. I actually think the internet has made me a better writer and a better speller because people point out common mistakes. Never stop learning!

True. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Obviously I make a lot of mistakes too. But it's those common misconceptions that get under my skin sometimes lol. I think you are correct about bettering our grammar skills etc. But, I think the rising generations really have been stunted in communication skills as far as the english language. Which is really quite ironic given the communication technology these days. I LOVE to hear the old eloquent english that said so much in so few words. It was powerful, and I fear all that is dying fast. I'm just speaking in general, not at anyone in here.

[MacFly123]

I'm guessing they would keep both going for a long time, both have a brand following. I know so many people that use MSN just because its the "one that comes with windows". I'm betting they would quickly make them interoperable in almost every way though.

I can agree with that. It would be so nice if iChat would be compatible with both of them too!

[ImperialX]

this could be intresting, google & apple goopple?

It's actually Applegoo.

[sachxn]

Wired News heading is appropriate when it says that "Two Losers do not make a Winner"

Microsoft (Loser) + Yahoo(Loser) =X Google (Winner)

Sachin (http://editorial.co.in)

[LizKat]

I'll switch from Yahoo and Hotmail to Google now. I love Yahoo's sight for entertainment and shopping but if M$ buys them I'll be looking more into using Google offerings. I just don't want to deal with the confusion of the merger of the two web mail products. Now is a good time to bail then ever before.

Google is invading Microsoft's turf, just about any computer related tech sector, so Microsoft is all-in. This will make or break Microsoft. I'm hoping they'll succeed only because my career is based on their products. :cool:


If I worked at M$ or Yahoo right now I'd probably be bailng out of more than hotmail and/or yahoo mail. You get that feeling inside when you suspect that no one in your company is actually driving the bus. Or knows how to design a bus. Or a road. Time to go!

Microsoft should have branched out into middleware from OS / browser and the hotmail thing. Now Oracle has not only created decent middleware but gone and scarfed up just about everything that contributes to or competes with their offerings to enterprise solutions.

I guess M$ bought up Yahoo for the customer base among other things or maybe even primarily for that. I dunno. Microsoft will have to have something to sell them, or some way to make them buy advertisers' offerings. Jerry had that base but look what has happened, it kept sliding until now the shareholders want this buyout.

Leopard and Linux are popular OS contenders now. Google is way out there on search and presentation of results. Apple is so innovative, good at figuring the next thing and pegging something pretty close just a little ahead of the curve. And then there's always Amazon, hammer-down on volume sales of everything under the sun except iTunes-drm'd tracks. It's hard to see how Microsoft fits in there somewhere, as more than an OS provider. Well and a Zune provider. The newer ones look like improvements.

Oracle's Larry Ellison is probably not done playing hardball even if he has bought up the middleware venue. Maybe he will be the tail that wags the M$ dog. I don't know why he'd want to take on Microsoft or with what kind of money from where, but hey, he likes challenges and doing hostile takeovers!

[Evangelion]

I think your missing the point somewhat.

And I think you are missing my point and some basic logic.

Google offers services and Apple offers devices. Seems a perfect match to me

Um, no it doesn't. There are other companies besides Apple who offer devices, there are other companies that offer services. Why would Google want to tie itself to one single device-provider? Why should Apple want to tie itself to one single service-provider?

This is the same issue that crops up whenever someone suggests that Apple should buy one of the music-labels. If they do that, they start competing with their previous partners (the other labels), and that would harm them.

The difference between Google and the other companies that you list is that in terms of company ethos and innovation the two are more a like than just their products may suggest.

And that's STILL not a good reason to merge companies. Where exactly is the benefit for either of them? They are doing well by working together (like lots of companies do). But there's ZERO reason to merge the two companies.

It seems to me that your rationale is something like "Microsoft is Apple's primary competitor. Yahoo competes with Google. Both Google and Apple are cool companies. Therefore Apple and Google should merge".

[silverdreamer]

And this all impacts on The Apple Mac community because..............?

[Badandy]

Wired News heading is appropriate when it says that "Two Losers do not make a Winner"

Microsoft (Loser) + Yahoo(Loser) =X Google (Winner)

Sachin (http://editorial.co.in)

Let's not be bloody idiots here. As much as I love Apple's products and the company in general, the consumers (that would be us) really bug me sometimes. Their rampant fanboyism and Microsoft bashing is not only pathetic, it's misplaced.

Apple's profit last quarter: $1.58 billion
Microsoft's profit last quarter: $4.71 billion

If Microsoft is a loser, Apple must be bankrupt.

[Evangelion]

M$ is a failing company - buying Yahoo will only hasten their demise.



Yep, I also remember when people used to say Apple was irrelevant compared to MS...including its market cap, which will surpass MS's in less that 5 years...they are losing ground everywhere, even they still think they are doing ok...XBox is a drain, Vista sucks big time (a failure hidden only by OEM sales) and all other new ventures by MS can't even touch Google's or Apple's domination of digital media/phone/search businesses.


I guess this is a new definition of "failing company"?

"Microsoft Corp. today announced second quarter records for revenue, operating income and diluted earnings per share of $16.37 billion, $6.48 billion and $0.50, respectively. Compared to the year ago period, these figures represent growth of 30%, 87% and 92% for revenue, operating income and diluted earnings per share, respectively."

In short: Apple increased their revenue by 35%, while MS increased theirs by 30%. Apple increased their profits by 58%, MS increased theirs by 87%.

Oh yes, they are obviously failing. Just few more years and Microsoft will be utterly in ruins... Nevermind the fact that they increased their profits more than Apple did....

Seriously: WTF! Both MS and Apple are growing more or less at same pace. MS increased their profits MORE than Apple did! Hell, MS's quarterly PROFIT is comparable to Apple's quarterly REVENUE! And we still have some fanatics claiming that MS teeters on the verge of annihilation, while Apple is heading for undisputed world-domination! Helllooo!!

BRLawyer and some of the other Apple-jihadists need to remember three letters: I, B and M. Back in the eighties people were saying that IBM is history. 20 years have passed, where is IBM? Is it that massive multi-billion dollar corporation? Why, I think it is! Do they still utterly dominate the industry? No. But they are a HUGE player in the market, and no-one takes them lightly. Not even Microsoft.

And BR: Xbox-division is actually making profit.

[Lord Sam]

What a shame.

I have to look for a new email account now :( Same. If the takeover occurs, I am never going to yahoo.com again.

[Badandy]

Same. If the takeover occurs, I am never going to yahoo.com again.

Why? This blanket reasoning is ridiculous. Read my post above.

[macjay]

It's not a hostile takeover bid unless a) the Yahoo board rejects the $31 per share offer and b) Microsoft ignores the board and goes straight to the shareholders with a proxy contest.

Neither of those things has happened yet. At this point it's just an offer to buy the company.

[surferfromuk]

I love Apple. I like Microsoft. IMHO a lot of credit should be given to MS. Sure they acted with a big stick and smashed competition at times, but let's face it, any company with a dominant position in the market can and should do those things.

They also have done a ton of good for the industry. The IT industry without MS would have had some other "evil empire" to hate. (perhaps even Apple itself) Nature hates a vacuum

You make some good points here but also there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the history that got us to 2007 and the point where Microsoft has 90% market share and worse a ridiculous amount of money.

that being as follows ;

1) Steve Jobs hired a guy called John Sculley. In 1985 John Sculley had Steve Jobs ousted from the company he created and Sculley then signed away the rights to the computer desktop as we know it to Microsoft. In 1985 Apple began to sink very fast and spent the next 12-14 years dying slowly under visionless leadership.

So in short Microsoft won all the market share between 1985 and 2000 becuase they had ZERO competition and they were given the tools to do so by a foolish man. During the 90's Microsoft's unethical business habits began to get some real money power and the wake they left behind them is now written history but it's not over yet..

Fortunately Steve Jobs managed to bring Apple back from the brink and so in 2005/6/7 Microsoft are for the first time in history facing real competition. Problem for Apple and the world is MS now have so much money that they can almost buy everything before they 'lose'.

Microsoft are an incredibly dangerous company with terrible ambition to take it all. They are like a spoilt child who can not share the playground with anyone - a child with BFG's!

Just take heed what your money given to Microsoft perpetuates.

Fortunately, tech is hard to do and not many people can do it - I think the biggest danger here for Apple is if Microsoft learn anything from Yahoo - perhaps Microsoft will attempt to put 'free bsd' unix under windows - since copying (then roadblocking) is their stock in trade...

[Unspeaked]

Let's not be bloody idiots here. As much as I love Apple's products and the company in general, the consumers (that would be us) really bug me sometimes. Their rampant fanboyism and Microsoft bashing is not only pathetic, it's misplaced.

Apple's profit last quarter: $1.58 billion
Microsoft's profit last quarter: $4.71 billion

If Microsoft is a loser, Apple must be bankrupt.

The issue here is that Apple is growing rapidly and becoming a market leader in areas that it never competed in before, some of which didn't even exist a few years ago!

That $1.58 billion figure you quote is leaps and bounds ahead of where Apple was in 2004, 2002 or - god forbid - 1998.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has grown very stagnant since the dot-com bubble burst and has not really been a leader in any category outside of their traditional software market. As someone mentioned earlier, it's the Windows and Office money that's funding things like their recent buying spree, failed products like the Zune and, in this case, a major takeover bid.

Just check out how the company's respective five year charts look and then try calling Microsoft a winner:

CHART 1 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl)

Heck, we can even throw Yahoo and Google in there and see that Microsoft is vastly underperforming since Ballmer took the helm:

CHART 2 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl%2Cyhoo%2C+goog)

[hugodrax]

Actually it might be smart. Make vista and IE7 only work with yahoo and fail to render google. That is the smart way to do it. since Microsoft is 98% of the PC market in one swoop they kill google and make yahoo #1

[woodsea]

Yahoo! is falling crumpling under Google. This will bail out the company and M$ knows it. They need to buy it now, before the name is worthless. I have a gmail and yahoo e-mail account. I search mainly in Google, but use Yahoo! for most everything else. This on a MBP.
Google is a Goliath with a small man's psyche. There was a very interesting article in Wired a couple of months ago. They want to take over the internet, and use all the personal data collected to sell and manipulate the way we do business. Now, alot of you are going to say that M$ is already doing or trying that. The only difference is every government and hacker in the world is aimed right at Bill until June when Stevie B. gets caught in the headlights.
M$ can't do anything without getting outed and quick.
Those that have stated that Apple and Google should merger should sit back and think about that idea. Apple would be the Goliath to Google's David. Google has the infrastructure to head up the VERY lucrative job of online content. They have Info Dumps everywhere around the globe and is 'stupidly' redundant. :apple: Steve will still be shilling hardware, but that is not where the big money is, just take a look at the 2nd richest man in the west. Software is where it is at. Xbox 360 makes more $ money off the games than the other 2 consoles.
We need at least a 2 party system, and without M$ teaming up with Yahoo! we were looking at Google owning the whole shooting match. Just as M$ is the baddy in OS, Google would be shown to be the baddy on the Web.

[lucky3killer]

Actually it might be smart. Make vista and IE7 only work with yahoo and fail to render google. That is the smart way to do it. since Microsoft is 98% of the PC market in one swoop they kill google and make yahoo #1

I doubt, 98% isn't right number, it should be under 90%-95% are PC market, not 98%

Not all windows users are using IE 7, I usually use firefox and safari on vista via bootcamp.

[MikeTheC]

Have we, as a society, learned nothing from the corporate mega-mergers of the past? This kind of nonsense has to stop.

I'm all for the FTC blocking this merger, post-haste. My God, how much more power does Microsoft need? They already own the planet from cradle to grave, and from the dirt to the sky. Sheesh...

[eric55lv]

It's actually Applegoo.

It sounds like Google squeesed the :apple: too hard and the juice inside it came out

[whatever]

If I worked at M$ or Yahoo right now I'd probably be bailng out of more than hotmail and/or yahoo mail. You get that feeling inside when you suspect that no one in your company is actually driving the bus. Or knows how to design a bus. Or a road. Time to go!

You hit the nail on the head.

Yahoo does not appear to have a plan. Their CEO has no business being the CEO of that company, sure he's one of the founders, but there is a point where you need to step aside (kind of what Woz did at Apple). There comes a time when your child grows up and you need to let it go....

Microsoft's problem is that they have a real communication problem internally. Different development teams are developing the same or similar things at the same time, never looking to see what's happening outside of Redmond. I feel an example of this is MS's Media PC, the sole purpose of this device is to get the PC into the living room. Meanwhile, they already have this device in the Xbox. Strip away the gaming aspect of the Xbox and we have a device much like Apple TV at a similar price point, but no one at MS sees this. Meanwhile MS will sink billions into a better media PC.

I know peoples biggest fear is that MS will merge Yahoo into MS. Well, I think the biggest problem at MS is that don't do this and then end up having multiple develop and marketing teams competing against one another.

And having Steve Ballmer as the face of your company doesn't help. He may be a great guy, I've never met him, but he comes across as an A-hole. His "you're either with us or against us" attitude doesn't help.

[antdgar]

Microsoft is a very good company. They are doing better than Apple.

Try to cut down on the nonsense in this topic ^^

[rockosmodurnlif]

I prefer Yahoo!'s search, I find it gets me what I want faster than Google. I also use Yahoo!'s email but that just because I've been using it since before Google. Though the new version does more for me than it used to. I do have a GMail account though. I prefer Google Maps, it's just easier to use and gives me damn better directions.

I will say Google serves up better ads next to its search results. I've actually clicked on Google's ads, can't say i've done the same for Yahoo!'s. So I guess I'm part of the problem with why Yahoo! isn't making money.

I just wonder how much change will happen if the two merge. I haven't used any MSN stuff apart from old hotmail and I hated that. The MSN search is almost unusable. And AOL.com's frontpage is more appealing than MSN's.

Oh well. This is sure to be an exciting ride.

[Badandy]

The issue here is that Apple is growing rapidly and becoming a market leader in areas that it never competed in before, some of which didn't even exist a few years ago!

The point of business is to make money, right? Well Microsoft's profits makes Apple's profits look pathetic. Add that to the fact that Microsoft is growing more rapidly as Apple. Do you people understand that? Microsoft is not the stagnant market laggard like you all were brainwashed to believe once you joined the cult of mac. Their profits rose 79% this quarter. That is more than Apple. Apple's profits rose 50%. Microsoft is much larger, they are growing faster, it is ridiculous how good of a company Microsoft really is.

That $1.58 billion figure you quote is leaps and bounds ahead of where Apple was in 2004, 2002 or - god forbid - 1998.

Yes, it is.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has grown very stagnant since the dot-com bubble burst and has not really been a leader in any category outside of their traditional software market. As someone mentioned earlier, it's the Windows and Office money that's funding things like their recent buying spree, failed products like the Zune and, in this case, a major takeover bid.

Stagnant? They rake in 3 times more profit than Apple and are growing faster.

Just check out how the company's respective five year charts look and then try calling Microsoft a winner:

CHART 1 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl)

Heck, we can even throw Yahoo and Google in there and see that Microsoft is vastly underperforming since Ballmer took the helm:

CHART 2 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl%2Cyhoo%2C+goog)

Are you seriously trying to argue that Microsoft is somehow a loser and Apple and Google are somehow winners because of STOCK charts?!

The Zune a failure? Far from it. They knew they were going to lose money for the first 5 years, but it's providing great competition for Apple which now has a renewed obligation to innovate and create a better product.

[ebouwman]

I just looked at yahoo stock on my iPod

up 47.97% hahahah
Good time to own yhoo
I wish i did :p

[whatever]

I just looked at yahoo stock on my iPod

up 47.97% hahahah
Good time to own yhoo
I wish i did :p

Yes and no.

If you sell it now, yes. If you make a deal with Microsoft (however they will not offer more than they did on Thursday), yes. But if the Microsoft deal does not go through, expect it to crash.

The only reason that stock is going up is because of MS, which is also driving Google stock down.

[Syrus28]

You hit the nail on the head.

Yahoo does not appear to have a plan. Their CEO has no business being the CEO of that company, sure he's one of the founders, but there is a point where you need to step aside (kind of what Woz did at Apple). There comes a time when your child grows up and you need to let it go....
True, True. But that's exactly what Microsoft is cashing on. They know the stockholders won't turn it down.

Microsoft's problem is that they have a real communication problem internally. Different development teams are developing the same or similar things at the same time, never looking to see what's happening outside of Redmond. I feel an example of this is MS's Media PC, the sole purpose of this device is to get the PC into the living room. Meanwhile, they already have this device in the Xbox. Strip away the gaming aspect of the Xbox and we have a device much like Apple TV at a similar price point, but no one at MS sees this. Meanwhile MS will sink billions into a better media PC.
I totally get what your saying here. But you have to understand Microsoft is ALOT bigger than Apple. And also this example isn't too good. Why would Microsoft want to change to compete against Apple TV? If you haven't noticed, it has not done very well to penetrate the living room. However, there are 17+ million Xbox 360's in people's living rooms across the world. And Xbox Live has more on-demand content than any cable provider in the U.S. The new shows such as Lost are are XBL less than 24 hours after they run on cable. The Xbox is a complete package. The average X360 owner buys 7+ games. Dissecting the XBL part from 360 would loose them money.





And having Steve Ballmer as the face of your company doesn't help. He may be a great guy, I've never met him, but he comes across as an A-hole. His "you're either with us or against us" attitude doesn't help.
Maybe its just me, but doesn't Steve Jobs himself come off as a little arrogant? He thinks he reinvented the wheel. But then again, that may just be my HATE of apple fanboys around the internet.

[superfunkomatic]

more lead in the holds of two already sinking ships. MSN search sucks and loses money, Yahoo has been on a downward slide. Two negatives do not make a positive. Seems like an extraordinarily high amount of money to 'try to compete with google.'
i can't see the two corporate cultures mixing, and what is microsoft left with if they cull redundancies in their businesses - still MSN search. i think they'd have been better off with media buys and bombardment of advertising than buying a flagging company.
also people's woes with windows OS has soured many on microsoft products and they've actively sought out alternatives - google, firefox and growth in alternate OSes.
it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Naimfan]

This reminds me, for some reason, of the Sears/K-Mart merger. Two companies, at least one of whom ruled their world for a long time, who now cannot seem to adapt as quickly as their rivals. (Badandy's comments on profits and revenues respectfully noted.) That does not seem to me to be a strategy for success--two losers (relatively speaking, in this particular sphere) joining forces.

[robanga]

The assertion that some of the posters are making, that Microsoft is somehow dying or financially collapsing or anything of the like is getting a bit silly. As other posters have said, their financial results as well as their market share clearly indicate the opposite.

Just because you envision an alternate reality, does not necessarily make it come into being.

Could they collapse some day? Some day sure. Some day we could all be living in giant bubble space stations on Saturn's third moon as well.

Apple is gaining market share and that is great, Gartner said it could double basically. That would be fantastic. Linux is making some inroads into the desktop that is good for business too. This is all good because too much of the industry in one company's control is just plain bad.

To see this news as the beginning of some end for Microsoft though is IMHO "out there". MSFT is after yahoo for online services and ad revenues, and to head off a significant threat from Google. It's as simple as that.

[darkblu]

bad news for flickr and its users. yes, that includes me. oh well, time to check out google's picasa.

[CRAZYBUBBA]

Yesss1!!!! Microsoft for world domination! :D


Edit: Oooops. Posted on the wrong forum. :p

[ImperialX]

It sounds like Google squeesed the :apple: too hard and the juice inside it came out

That's why Eric Schmidt decided not to use it. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

The assertion that some of the posters are making, that Microsoft is somehow dying or financially collapsing or anything of the like is getting a bit silly. As other posters have said, their financial results as well as their market share clearly indicate the opposite.

Just because you envision an alternate reality, does not necessarily make it come into being.

Could they collapse some day? Some day sure. Some day we could all be living in giant bubble space stations on Saturn's third moon as well.
...

Yes, but some things are more likely than others. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

The Zune a failure? Far from it. They knew they were going to lose money for the first 5 years, but it's providing great competition for Apple which now has a renewed obligation to innovate and create a better product.

The Zune still isn't doing well. Microsoft expects the product line to loose money, but I just wonder how long stockholders will allow MS to burn money in order to hold onto a tiny share of this market.

I'm looking for actual sales data, but right now the Zune is hold 11th place on Amazon's Top Sellers list, bracketed by two versions of the SanDisk Sansa and following behind 7 different versions of the iPod. That's ugly, especially considering the massive advertising muscle behind the Zune.

Furthermore, the Zune doesn't push Apple, IMHO, but rather Apple has been working to blunt the mobile phone industry from replacing the iPod with music-capable phones and against more serious competition like SanDisk. The Zune isn't Microsoft Bob, but it's not a flywheel for Microsoft's business in the way that the XBox can be.
And, this is why I think Microsoft is gradually going to flame out. They've been beaten in numerous ventures by faster, smaller companies and as a company there seems to be very little recognition of this core fact.

[MikeTheC]

I'm very, very anti-Microsoft. I'll make no bones about that nor my general anti-Microsoft agenda. Having said that, however...

Does it strike no one as odd when a company such as Microsoft has to run new products as loss-leaders (so to speak) just to get anyone to pay attention to them? It's not that the world isn't looking for mobile audio and mobile A/V players, and it isn't as though Microsoft lacks the money to get something truly Earth-shattering developed.

I agree with a previous poster's point about not understanding why MS's shareholders haven't grown impatient with their dearth of new, not-already-established-a-long-time-ago core products which are actually successful on their own.

Or maybe I'm just missing something here. I dunno...

[eric55lv]

Truthfully I never liked the idea of Google buying :apple: or the other way around Apple is more electionics then web stuff and Google is huge Blogger,YouTube,Piacsa,ect. so I think that Apple may not have enough to but Google and I dont like the name AppleGoo it sounds like apple juice but this is a good name: AppleGoogle Group

[MikeTheC]

I think that if Apple and Google were ever to merge, the judge in the FTC case should require Apple to spell Google with one google of "o"s in it for all web- and printed materials featuring their name.

That should slow them down a little bit!

[eric55lv]

I think that if Apple and Google were ever to merge, the judge in the FTC case should require Apple to spell Google with one google of "o"s in it for all web- and printed materials featuring their name.


it sounds like a cearl Apple O's

[seedster2]

The point of business is to make money, right? Well Microsoft's profits makes Apple's profits look pathetic. Add that to the fact that Microsoft is growing more rapidly as Apple. Do you people understand that? Microsoft is not the stagnant market laggard like you all were brainwashed to believe once you joined the cult of mac. Their profits rose 79% this quarter. That is more than Apple. Apple's profits rose 50%. Microsoft is much larger, they are growing faster, it is ridiculous how good of a company Microsoft really is.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Microsoft is somehow a loser and Apple and Google are somehow winners because of STOCK charts?!



Agreed.

I love Apple products and I am happy using MS products as well (XP works great in my corporate environment and Outlook and Excel are reliable and robust).

I don't see how everyone questions Balmer's leadership when the company's exceeding forecasts despite a disappointing OS introduction. I think they both do specific things better than the other.

[MikeTheC]

I don't see how everyone questions Balmer's leadership when the company's exceeding forecasts despite a disappointing OS introduction. I think they both do specific things better than the other.
Yep, you're spot-on about this.

Apple does the creative, innovative stuff better.

Microsoft does the bloated, crappy software and monopolistic practices better.

:eek:

[Agathon]

Let's not be bloody idiots here. As much as I love Apple's products and the company in general, the consumers (that would be us) really bug me sometimes. Their rampant fanboyism and Microsoft bashing is not only pathetic, it's misplaced.

Apple's profit last quarter: $1.58 billion
Microsoft's profit last quarter: $4.71 billion

If Microsoft is a loser, Apple must be bankrupt.

Microsoft is a loser because, for the most part, they make third rate products.

The reason Microsoft makes money is that it has a virtual monopoly on both desktop operating systems and office productivity apps. Both of these products suck, but users are compelled to stick with them because of network externalities.

That's it. Take those away and the company is basically a series of failures. They cannot compete on a level playing field. Does anyone honestly think that Windows Vista would be worth what MS is asking for it if Windows had 20% market share? They are finding Vista a hard sell now. If the monopoly didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to give it away.

People hate Microsoft because ordinary users pay the cost of their monopoly by having to use their third rate products or by having to take account of their useless "standards".

None of this is Apple or OSS fanboyism. It has to do with Microsoft's monopoly and the refusal of regulators to do something about it.

Make no mistake. Microsoft is nowhere near as strong as it looks. If their monopoly is broken, the decline will be extremely swift.

[snipersix]

^^^ I totally agree on that one!!

[amacisbetter]

I just hope that Microsoft doesn't change the way Yahoo! is right now. I like the style of their services. If Microsoft changes it to a Microsoft style it would suck. Well actually... It would probably have an Apple look and feel! :)

[Badandy]

Microsoft is a loser because, for the most part, they make third rate products.

Not really.

The reason Microsoft makes money is that it has a virtual monopoly on both desktop operating systems and office productivity apps. Both of these products suck, but users are compelled to stick with them because of network externalities.

Last I remembered we are all using Mac OSX. That makes Microsoft NOT a monopoly. And yet, they are doing better than Apple, by a longshot.

That's it. Take those away and the company is basically a series of failures. They cannot compete on a level playing field.

Take away their best products, and they're a failure. Woo hoo, you really are the sleuth!

If the monopoly didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to give it away.

Get over it.



Make no mistake. Microsoft is nowhere near as strong as it looks. If their monopoly is broken, the decline will be extremely swift.

I'm not making a mistake, you are. Microsoft has 3 times the profit, and is growing faster than Apple.




And people, I'm a fervent Apple supporter, I don't use Windows or anything, but that bias is getting ridiculous from the Apple community. Face it, Microsoft is a well-managed, money-making machine.

[gifford]

Let's not be bloody idiots here. As much as I love Apple's products and the company in general, the consumers (that would be us) really bug me sometimes. Their rampant fanboyism and Microsoft bashing is not only pathetic, it's misplaced.

Apple's profit last quarter: $1.58 billion
Microsoft's profit last quarter: $4.71 billion

If Microsoft is a loser, Apple must be bankrupt.


There are very good reasons to have a grudge against microsoft. I have wasted years of my life fixing technologies that msft have deliberately molested. Yes, I really hate them, they have been the bane of my life, I'm not going to even bother explaining in further detail 'why' because the fact that it needs explaining would suggest I will be wasting even more of my precious time.

It's a shame you have to resort to calling people "fanboys" simply because your brain is unable to accept other peoples points of view.
I feel sorry for you, if you cannot understand why people dislike msft, you REALLY need help!

[LizKat]

Yesss1!!!! Microsoft for world domination! :D


Edit: Oooops. Posted on the wrong forum. :p


Post of the year (which is young but hey).

[Naimfan]

People like you bug me. You are obviously a very sad pathetic man who has to resort to calling people "fanboys" simply because your pea sized brain is unable to accept other peoples points of view.
I feel sorry for you, if you cannot understand why people dislike msft, you REALLY need help!


Well, far be it from me to try to speak for Badandy, but I do have to say that he also has a solid point. The two of you are speaking across each other--not to each other. Also, you might want to tone your post down a bit--personal insults violate the forum rules.

Microsoft has 3 times the profit, and is growing faster than Apple.

According to both companies' most recent earnings reports, Apple grew revenue at 35% and Microsoft at 30%.

[gifford]

Well, far be it from me to try to speak for Badandy, but I do have to say that he also has a solid point. The two of you are speaking across each other--not to each other. Also, you might want to tone your post down a bit--personal insults violate the forum rules.

I dont normally use personal insults unless they are thrown first , tit for tat, but sure i will edit it.

[Naimfan]

I dont normally use personal insults unless they are thrown first , tit for tat, but sure i will edit it.

Cool. I didn't see the beginning, so thought I'd just suggest it! :)

[gifford]

Face it, Microsoft is a well-managed, money-making machine.

The Nazi's were a well managed killing machine, I was not fond of them either.

And just like the Nazi's, msft should be tried for crimes against humanity for slowing the pace of mankinds technical evolution.

I wonder how many people have died thanks to msft's shoddy products.

:)

[eric55lv]

Yep, you're spot-on about this.

Apple does the creative, innovative stuff better.

Microsoft does the bloated, crappy software and monopolistic practices better.

:eek:

thats why they got sued by the US and EU

[gifford]

Cool. I didn't see the beginning, so thought I'd just suggest it! :)

Nay worries, It was the words "bloody idiots, fanboyism, pathetic, misplaced" that fueled me to respond in the first place!

[elgruga]

The Nazi's were a well managed killing machine, I was not fond of them either.

And just like the Nazi's, msft should be tried for crimes against humanity for slowing the pace of mankinds technical evolution.
:)

And that is the END of this thread. The Nazis are here.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well, if this goes through there goes any remaining support for Linux and MacOSX from Yahoo. I might as well clear out my yahoo mail accounts (the only reason I still use Yahoo other than the occasional game of online Euchre) before they take over and head on over to Gmail. If others out there hate Microsoft as much as I do, yahoo's use may go down even more once Microsoft takes over.

[deejemon]

*

[darkblu]

I'm amazed at all those here who think MS is doing great as a company. Don't you know what a monopoly is, people? Do you think the majority of MS customers, especially buisnesses, go with MS because they love MS products? Do you think they'd still do the same if they had not been entangled in MS bindings all over?

[diamond.g]

Another honest question. If MS were to disappear tomorrow, meaning no support for Vista or XP for anyone. Is it possible for Apple to get everyone to convert to OS X? I mean is it possible Apple would then sell the OS separate from the hardware?

I am just not sure I understand why everyone wants MS to go away. It just doesn't seem like Apple could keep up with the demand if MS did disappear.

[jayducharme]

Here's an interesting analysis of the pending deal by John Markoff in the New York Times. He makes a good point: for much of its existence, Microsoft has been playing catch-up, whether against Apple or Netscape or Google. Markoff feels that buying Yahoo is yet another re-active Microsoft strategy that has come too late.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/technology/03valley.html?em&ex=1202187600&en=d1049203ae0dc529&ei=5087%0A

[woodsea]

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.
Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.
Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?
How come :apple: doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

[DukeofAnkh]

FYI: if anyone else is jumping ship and wants to get your messages out of Yahoo Mail without paying to enable Yahoo POP service, there's a nifty little open-source tool YPOPS! that will grab Yahoo mail messages out of your account and allow a POP client (ie: MAIL or Thunderbird) to import them.
http://ypopsemail.com/

You can also just set your Yahoo account to forward everything to your new gmail account and associate the yahoo account with gmail so you can send replies from it, if you really want to, within gmail. That's more or less what I do, except that my yahoo account is my spam/subscription account and I don't really need to reply from it.

I'm not going to be happy dropping flickr, but what can you do?

bad news for flickr and its users. yes, that includes me. oh well, time to check out google's picasa.

I kind of like Goolge/Picasa web albums more, because of the integration with Picasa on Windows and the Picasa uploader in OS X. The former is more or less iPhoto and the latter let's you drag and drop images in to be uploaded.

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.
Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.
Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?
How come :apple: doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

The short version is that they tried this in the 90's and it didn't go well for them. They make their money primarily on hardware.

[God^Cent]

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.
Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.
Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?
How come :apple: doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

Because when apple designs a new product they make it to be used in the future. Most of our macs will still be used 5 or 6+ years from now. Now compare that to MS's pc's; the life span goes down to about 3 or 4 years. Apple may be limiting the hardware that is available to us, but is making a computer that is customized to the OS unlike MS's OS that must work for millions of hardware configurations.
I Quote Steve Jobs "those wanting to do great software, needing to make hardware."
This is why apple:apple: will never be Microsoft.

[CRAZYBUBBA]

The short version is that they tried this in the 90's and it didn't go well for them. They make their money primarily on hardware.

I would say that iWork '08 is a step in the right direction.

[EagerDragon]

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.
Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.
Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?
How come :apple: doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

Your question is a bit off topic since we are talking about M$ and Yahoo, but here it goes:
Apple makes the hardware and software to work together and to Just work. Apple limits the video cards, audio chips, etc to a set they are comfortable they can support.

Other hardware manufacturers use a much larger set of hardware, mostly for the best price that can do the job. This would mean many millions of possibilities that would have to be supported by Apple with drivers and general support when a user has problems.

Last but not least it would kill their hardware Mac business and put them in direct competition with Microsoft at price points that would generate an all out war. Apple prefers to sneak in by the backdoor and gain market share slowly and prefer to have much higher markups than DELL and others.

While DELL sells a lot more computers than Apple, Apple stock valuation is higher than Dell by a long shot.

Apple does not want to sell to the unwashed masses with such a diverse number of hardware differences, their support cost would be thru the roof and they would lose money or have to raise the price of the OS significantly if all they sold was the OS and not computers.

I can only guess that you want OSX in a cheap build machine because of all the options it opens to you and for gaming, however that is the main reason why Apple does not sell the OS. They don't want to support all the possibilities and all the associated support calls. Besides Apple loves to sell hardware at decent markups.

There is little price difference between a Mac and a DELL if you match the hardware components exactly. Apple offers you a quality system that is just going to work with the OS and they also provide the best customer satisfaction and the best customer support. Selling just the OS would kill all of that.

Office sells well because people want to use the same software that they use at work. With Bootcamp and parallel, they can use the same exact copy under windows if they want. However there are a lot of other alternatives that are free or are offered by Apple but people prefer to use the same tool as at work. While we make a big to do about how some of those tools and in some ways superior to Office, the bottom line is that people are too lazy to learn something new and don't want to take a risk that there maybe an incompatibility between what they use at home and the Office software they use at work. You and I may try new things, but most users wont.

Most users just do email, browse the web and listen to music, for them they could use Linux and a cheap machine, but they lose out on the games and the support. Besides they would need to take the time to learn something new and they are just not willing to do it. Over long periods of time people try Linux and Mac OSX but is in relativly low numbers and over very long periods of time.

[woodsea]

Yet, they have the XBox 360 which is a success. I am not saying it will win but they are making money off the software that plays on their hardware.
Thanks for your reply EagerDragon, that was very well stated.

[Project]

Yet, they have the XBox 360 which is a success. I am not saying it will win but they are making money off the software that plays on their hardware.
Thanks for your reply EagerDragon, that was very well stated.


The Xbox project has lost $6bn over 8 years. I guess the definition of success is open to interpretation.

[EagerDragon]

Yet, they have the XBox 360 which is a success. I am not saying it will win but they are making money off the software that plays on their hardware.
Thanks for your reply EagerDragon, that was very well stated.

You are welcome.

BTW XBox 360 came out at a price point that lost them a lot of money on each sale with a recoup on the games. I thin (could be wrong) that now the box is in the black by a small margin as price of the components have come down. They made it a success by underpricing the device below cost and by having good games. M$ has the cash to loose and still come out ahead at the end.

Their Zune player is probably another example, but I can not be sure. Profits after a long series of sales. Vista is another long term money maker, while a lot of users downgraded to XP, sooner or later they will go with Vista.

[surferfromuk]

Another honest question. If MS were to disappear tomorrow, meaning no support for Vista or XP for anyone. Is it possible for Apple to get everyone to convert to OS X? I mean is it possible Apple would then sell the OS separate from the hardware?

I am just not sure I understand why everyone wants MS to go away. It just doesn't seem like Apple could keep up with the demand if MS did disappear.

I don't think everyone here wants Microsoft to disappear it's just that we don't want them to own absolutely everything.

Apple and Google are pretty much the only two companies stopping that from happening.

[EagerDragon]

Another honest question. If MS were to disappear tomorrow, meaning no support for Vista or XP for anyone. Is it possible for Apple to get everyone to convert to OS X? I mean is it possible Apple would then sell the OS separate from the hardware?

I am just not sure I understand why everyone wants MS to go away. It just doesn't seem like Apple could keep up with the demand if MS did disappear.

Not very likely to happen anytime soon (M$ disappearing). M$ is the big winner in my opinion due to corporations. They buy the bulk of the number of PCs with some flavor of windows or another. My corporation for example has about 90,000 desktop windows machines, since people want the same as work (in general) that also represents about 40,000 more home computers running windows, in total that 130,000 windows licenses due to a single company decision to use windows as the desktop.

Apple would need to do several things in order to compete with windows and have a chance at the desktop:
1) Let corporations know what they plan in the future. Apple is very secretive, companies like to plan for upgrades to hardware and software 3 to 5 years into the future.
2) Provide a second source for the systems. Corporations do not like a single source that may extort them with price hikes in the future or with exorbitant support charges in the future. Companies like to be able to calculate their Return on Investment (ROI) from year to year.
3) Tools to lock down the systems so users can not install software that is not blessed by the company
4) Scalable way to monitor and controls all the Macs while minimizing the personnel to support them.
5) Scalable way to push patches to all the desktops, preferably automatically with zero support issues after the patch. Be able to select which patches get push out.
6) Volume based discounts on the hardware and software.
7) Corporate wide plans so the corporation can roll out software to giant numbers of desktops at a substantial discount without worries of using up all the licenses. For example: Say 1 mil dollars for OSX Leopard upgrade to install in as many Macs as they could have even if it is 5 mil Macs.
8) Preferential support for software and hardware, and a say on the priorities Apple gives to enhancements and fixes for the future.

If Apple was willing to do that (which is not) Macs would have 70+ percent of the market in 5 years time.

[CRAZYBUBBA]

<snip>
7) Corporate wide plans so the corporation can roll out software to giant numbers of desktops at a substantial discount without worries of using up all the licenses. For example: Say 1 mil dollars for OSX Leopard upgrade to install in as many Macs as they could have even if it is 5 mil Macs.
<snip>
If Apple was willing to do that (which is not) Macs would have 70+ percent of the market in 5 years time.

Excellent.

With regards to #7.. isn't this the case with osx server already? (unlimited liscences)

[EagerDragon]

Excellent.

With regards to #7.. isn't this the case with osx server already? (unlimited liscences)

Yes there is an unlimited version for server but not an unlimited for desktops. Personally I would merge the two but I don't run Apple. It would be nice if everyone could learn how to administer a server without having to spend another 500 to 1000 extra. One OS to rule them all, hehehe.

Correction: I never read the user agreement for OSX server, so I am not sure if you can install them on desktop and or on unlimited number of desktops. I seem instead to remember that you can install it in a single server and provide access to an unlimited number of users which I think is what Apple intends. Again not sure.

[Cassie]

I don't mind if Microsoft buys Yahoo. As long as they only make minor changes to their services (maybe just graphical changes) It will still be the same great Yahoo.

My only concern is Yahoo Mail. It's my main email provider, and if it turned into hotmail, I don't know what I'd do. (except NOT going to Gmail.)

[EagerDragon]

I don't mind if Microsoft buys Yahoo. As long as they only make minor changes to their services (maybe just graphical changes) It will still be the same great Yahoo.

My only concern is Yahoo Mail. It's my main email provider, and if it turned into hotmail, I don't know what I'd do. (except NOT going to Gmail.)

As Gmail now provides both (pop and imap) for free, Gmail is a good solution to the best of my knowledge.

What do you get from Yahoo email that you do not get from GMail besides push mail which Gmail could but does not implement?
BTW with this merger..... I see Google implementing push mail in the future to better support the iphone and other handheld devices. But just a guess on my part.

[asdavis10]

Microsoft can buy Yahoo!. It won't affect Google as they are already years ahead of both in search technology. This proposed takeover will only create more useless (matter of opinion) products that Microsoft will try and force upon people. Besides, its going to be at least 1-2 years before we see any joint products come out. I wonder how Bill can use this to force the Tablet PC form factor onto people. I'll stick with Google as my home page on my Macs (in any form factor), Google Maps on my iPhone and iPod Touch, and Gmail over Yahoo! mail or Hotmail.

[Unspeaked]

The point of business is to make money, right?

Are you seriously trying to argue that Microsoft is somehow a loser and Apple and Google are somehow winners because of STOCK charts?!

The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.

Your arguments would be valid if Microsoft were privately held, but since they choose to be public, their number 1 priority is their shareholders and their shareholders are not happy.

[Lord Sam]

The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.

Your arguments would be valid if Microsoft were privately held, but since they choose to be public, their number 1 priority is their shareholders and their shareholders are not happy. Well spoken. Well speaked, or should I say unspeaked.:D

[Badandy]

The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.

Your arguments would be valid if Microsoft were privately held, but since they choose to be public, their number 1 priority is their shareholders and their shareholders are not happy.

What else do you want them to do? They are making money hand over fist, expanding faster than Apple (Naimfan's post noted about revenue, I'm speaking about profit ATM) while still being a much larger company. Just because the public won't push up the price of stock doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. Sure, Apple's stock has been crazy over the past couple years, but it's lost, what, 40% of it's value in a month? And I own it.

[Syrus28]

I don't think everyone here wants Microsoft to disappear it's just that we don't want them to own absolutely everything.

Apple and Google are pretty much the only two companies stopping that from happening.

Umm... Google poses a lot bigger threat to "owning everything" than Microsoft could even dream of. Take a Read at this (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/14/080114fa_fact_auletta) or this (http://www.masterplanthemovie.com/)

"The ads attacking Google and its “server farm” were a prelude to what may be Google’s next frontier: the mobile-telephone business. There are almost three billion mobile phones worldwide, and Schmidt expects a billion more in the next four years. If the phones use Google software to sell advertising, Schmidt thinks that over time it is “mathematically possible for Google to become a one-hundred-billion-dollar corporation.” Two vital markets are television, which is “easily attainable,” and mobile phones, which are “more personable” and more “targetable” than most advertising. To achieve this goal, Google would need to claim ten per cent of all global advertising, which now amounts to just under a trillion dollars."

"He remembers a day in 2002 when he walked into Page’s office and Page started to show off a book scanner he had built. “What are you going to do with that, Larry?” Schmidt recalls asking. “We’re going to scan all the books in the world,” Page replied. Eventually, Google began to do just that."


The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.

Your arguments would be valid if Microsoft were privately held, but since they choose to be public, their number 1 priority is their shareholders and their shareholders are not happy.
You must be talking about Microsoft then. Microsoft has more money than Apple can dream of. Microsoft makes more money than Apple could dream of. Microsoft's profits were more than 3 times the amount of Apple's. Microsoft's profits grew at a 79% rate (Faster than Apple's) Microsoft just had their best quarter ever. So, why exactly would their stock holders not be happy? I bet you Apple's stockholders couldn't be happy enough [Hey, I said it right - right?] to have Microsoft's revenue and profits.

Apple is not the end all be all of growth.


Also, I like how people point to Microsoft's individual products profitability to judge how Microsoft (as a whole) is failing.

Xbox: People do not understand how the gaming industry works. It is common practice to sell the consoles for less than it costs to manufacture. They tend to make that money up towards the end of the console's life when manufacturing starts to make them a profit. However, Microsoft cut the Xbox's life short and instead focused on the 360. Why? Because Microsoft does not depend on one product to make a profit. They can literally throw billions of dollars at their products and invest towards their future.

Zune: The Zune has been out for a little more than a year [right?] In that time, it gained a supposedly 10% market share in hard-disk mp3 players (Considering that was the only kind they made). Microsoft was willing to cope with the costs to gain the market share first. They worry about profit later. Why? Again, simply because they can afford too. Now Microsoft aims to do that again with the flash based zunes. And frankly, I think they will because they are guarenteed to throw billions of dollars at their products until they succeed. And When Microsoft products do succeed, they bring in a ton of profits. They know this.

And FYI. Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division (Which includes Xbox and Zune) did indeed turn a profit. They even posted a 3% growth last quarter. Correct me if im wrong, but Microsoft has NO "failing divisions" The closest you can get to that is the Entertainment and Devices Division which brought in half a billion dollars in profit. Not Bad.

[Unspeaked]

You must be talking about Microsoft then. Microsoft has more money than Apple can dream of. Microsoft makes more money than Apple could dream of. Microsoft's profits were more than 3 times the amount of Apple's. Microsoft's profits grew at a 79% rate (Faster than Apple's) Microsoft just had their best quarter ever. So, why exactly would their stock holders not be happy? I bet you Apple's stockholders couldn't be happy enough [Hey, I said it right - right?] to have Microsoft's revenue and profits.

Please refer to the stock chart I posted a couple of pages ago and you'll see the answer to that question is very obvious.

Wait, I'll make it easier enough and post it here:

LINK1 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft)

Hey, Microsoft doesn't even outperform the S&P500. How pathetic is that?

LINK2 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft)

There's a big difference between making money and shareholder profit. If Microsoft doesn't manage the profits you brag about well, it will show up in the share price (and it does).

[LizKat]

Another honest question. If MS were to disappear tomorrow, meaning no support for Vista or XP for anyone. Is it possible for Apple to get everyone to convert to OS X? I mean is it possible Apple would then sell the OS separate from the hardware?

I am just not sure I understand why everyone wants MS to go away. It just doesn't seem like Apple could keep up with the demand if MS did disappear.


Well... linux flavors can help suck up the leftovers...

I don't want M$ to go away. I just want them to simplify their stuff and for God's sake write something into whatever is their administrator function that will make it tougher for virus-flaunters and spyware mongers to vandalize or hijack the machines. It can't just ALL be about market share that the M$ OS systems are the ones get attacked so effectively all the while.

Should probably stop this rant right here because I don't currently use a machine that runs Windows or Vista...

BUT: I don't like corresponding with friends whose machines run that stuff because all it takes is one unapplied patch on their end and blam, my email address is hijacked off their machine (again) and two days later my ISP is busy bouncing back spam spoofed from me to the whole planet, geez.

So finally I got a Yahoo setup, so I could keep that stuff farther away from me. So now M$ wants to buy YH... Wow I am really thrilled. :(

[Syrus28]

Please refer to the stock chart I posted a couple of pages ago and you'll see the answer to that question is very obvious.

Wait, I'll make it easier enough and post it here:

LINK1 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft)

Hey, Microsoft doesn't even outperform the S&P500. How pathetic is that?

LINK2 (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft)

There's a big difference between making money and shareholder profit. If Microsoft doesn't manage the profits you brag about well, it will show up in the share price (and it does).

Yes, over the period of 5 years, Microsoft looks rather stagnant. Lets look at recent growth.

In the last 3 months (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft&c=%5EGSPC), Microsoft has outperformed Apple, while both under-performed the S&P 500.

In the last 6 months (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft,%5EGSPC), Microsoft has outperformed both Apple and the S&P 500.

[Unspeaked]

Yes, over the period of 5 years, Microsoft looks rather stagnant. Lets look at recent growth.

In the last 3 months (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft&c=%5EGSPC), Microsoft has outperformed Apple, while both under-performed the S&P 500.

In the last 6 months (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft,%5EGSPC), Microsoft has outperformed both Apple and the S&P 500.

When speaking of investments, a 3 month window may as well be a 3 second window. If you're going to try and time the market in 3 month increments, you'll have just as much luck playing the roulette wheel at the nearest casino.

Sure, one can pull narrow numbers out of the air to prove whatever point they'd like, but only a fool would argue Microsoft stock has been a better investment than Apple's over the vast majority of the past 10 years.

[Syrus28]

When speaking of investments, a 3 month window may as well be a 3 second window. If you're going to try and time the market in 3 month increments, you'll have just as much luck playing the roulette wheel at the nearest casino.

Sure, one can pull narrow numbers out of the air to prove whatever point they'd like, but only a fool would argue Microsoft stock has been a better investment than Apple's over the vast majority of the past 10 years.
Yes, I understand the relatively short time that is. However, it was just to disprove the various statements of how Microsoft is dying/dead and your statement because it seems some people on these forums can only comprehend things in relation to Apple itself.


You Statement:
"The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that."

[Badandy]

When speaking of investments, a 3 month window may as well be a 3 second window. If you're going to try and time the market in 3 month increments, you'll have just as much luck playing the roulette wheel at the nearest casino.

Sure, one can pull narrow numbers out of the air to prove whatever point they'd like, but only a fool would argue Microsoft stock has been a better investment than Apple's over the vast majority of the past 10 years.


It's almost not worth responding to you. You are judging a company's strengths and weaknesses based on the stock market! I'm just emphasizing that with an exclamation point, because you still seem to not get it. Microsoft is not wholly responsible for how the public views the stock. The point is that they are doing better business than Apple. There, simple sentence. Deal with that how you want, point to an abstract number governed by public opinion. I mean, need I point out the 500 examples of stocks that were riding high before the tech bubble burst that weren't solid companies? Stock price does not dictate business acumen or performance.

[LizKat]

Now there's reports (reuters) say maybe Yahoo will push back and try to hook up with Google as a way to put off M$. Interesting, gotta read more about that in the morning!!

[Syrus28]

Now there's reports (reuters) say maybe Yahoo will push back and try to hook up with Google as a way to put off M$. Interesting, gotta read more about that in the morning!!

Yahoo + Google = The Most Monopolistic Company that never lived. That would never be allowed by the U.S. let alone E.U.

Besides, Yahoo and Google overlap on almost every single thing they do. How would they merge?

[gifford]

I wouldn't shed a single tear if msft keeled over tomorrow.

Fingers crossed eh.

However great and profitable people think msft are, the reality is that their future is looking iffy, they may have just had their best quarter yet, but they will be overtaken in the next few years.

The mobile biz will be what eventually dethrones msft, their monopoly will be stripped practically overnight.
And will come as quite a surprise to most people by the looks of it.

[DukeofAnkh]

I would say that iWork '08 is a step in the right direction.

Certainly. I would love to be able to use it exclusively too, especially since Office 04 makes me want to punch the screen each time I open it. Unfortunately, Office does things I need that iWork doesn't. But ignoring the whole not working properly on Intel thing (my 08 hasn't arrived yet...) I don't think Office is a bad app. Probably MS's best asset in light of what everyone thinks of Vista.

[michaelverdin]

Come on Yahoo, you're the only IM company with homegrown Windows and Mac video capable clients, look to the long term and don't take the money!

Also, i really don't want to have to uninstall yahoo messenger and delete my mail plus account that i just paid £11 for m'kay

[phillipjfry]

What could MS possibly do with Yahoo they couldn't do with their own search engine?


...Ballmer's "stand behind our product" announcement of taking a 3 billion dollar write-off on 360 repairs, extending the warranty on all 360 consoles to 3 years, refunding anyone who had paid for repairs. He said, We're going to take care of our customers. If anyone has a defective hardware failure up to 3 years after purchase, we're going to take care of you, free, no problem.

What he didn't say: All the 360s hardware problems, pretty much save dropping it, are due to excess heat. The "3 red lights" failure is a heat-related failure. All the other onboard chip failures are heat-related. But you got your 1 light, 2 light and our 3 light failures. He didn't mention the part where you only have 2 lights or 1 light, same defect or no, you can go take a flying leap...

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on? :confused:
was pretty unaware of this

[LizKat]

Yahoo + Google = The Most Monopolistic Company that never lived. That would never be allowed by the U.S. let alone E.U.

Besides, Yahoo and Google overlap on almost every single thing they do. How would they merge?

They won't. But it's a nice delaying tactic while YH tries to run something else through a spreadsheet in the meantime. Round up someone with deep pockets and an abiding dislike of M$ or whatever. Maybe Ellison like to buy it instead of another antiquity or building another ocean racer.

Go yahoo! Improvise!

[Naimfan]

Yahoo + Google = The Most Monopolistic Company that ever lived.

Does anyone else remember AT&T? :D Or public utility companies? Etc.

The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.


First, that is not necessarily true.

Second, both companies are making terrific profits.

Third, the performance of a stock is far from the end-all of of a company making money for its stockholders.

[robanga]

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on? :confused:
was pretty unaware of this

The 360 is an awesome product but it is well known that you will likely go through at least one replacement. MSFT replaces them pretty quickly and they supposed to move to the new 65nm processors which will help alleviate the heat failures.

The online experience alone is worth it. Buy it and enjoy it.

[Naimfan]

The 360 is an awesome product but it is well known that you will likely go through at least one replacement. MSFT replaces them pretty quickly and they supposed to move to the new 65nm processors which will help alleviate the heat failures.

The online experience alone is worth it. Buy it and enjoy it.

Why not wait for the 65nM processors, then? When are they expected?

[Unspeaked]

It's almost not worth responding to you. You are judging a company's strengths and weaknesses based on the stock market! I'm just emphasizing that with an exclamation point, because you still seem to not get it. Microsoft is not wholly responsible for how the public views the stock. The point is that they are doing better business than Apple. There, simple sentence. Deal with that how you want, point to an abstract number governed by public opinion. I mean, need I point out the 500 examples of stocks that were riding high before the tech bubble burst that weren't solid companies? Stock price does not dictate business acumen or performance.

You know what would be great? If you could point out a single instance in this thread where I put down Microsoft. Because I haven't.

I don't know where your unbridled love for the company comes from, but if you take a closer look at what I've been saying, you'll see that I've simply been doing a courtesy by trying to answer some question you yourself brought up about why people feel the way they do about Microsoft. I never said they don't make money hand over fist, I just said they generally mishandle their purchases and their stock hasn't been doing as well as some other tech companies.

At least Syrus28 - the other vocal member in Microsoft's corner - seems to have the ability to see thing objectively. It seems as if the moment anyone directs a bad thought towards Microsoft, you label their arguments invalid.

If Microsoft was doing as wonderful as you claim it is, it wouldn't feel the need to drop over $40 billion on Yahoo! in the first place.

[jlbrown23]

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on? :confused:
was pretty unaware of this

Buy it and IMMEDIATELY stress it as much as you can(put the most graphic intensive game you can in) for about 24 hours(you don't have to PLAY it all that time ;-) ). Also, stand it vertically(this blocks the largest vent). If you don't get the 3 red bars after that, you are probably OK. My first XBox 360overheated on me almost immediately so I was able to get it back to the store for an exchange within the 5 day window & the second unit hasn't given me any problems(with a 35% failure rate, the chances you'll get ONE bad one are pretty high, but two would be a little unlucky).

The store tried sending me to MS to remedy the problem, but inevitably this means delays and beauracracy, so I held them to their 5 day exchange policy(they were even able to swap out the HD so I could keep all my saves).

MS has done a pretty good job keeping this quiet - I didn't know about it myself until my unit kept overheating & I googled it. 35% failure rate is absolutely disgraceful, although I do have to admit that the WORKING product is a lot of fun(Bioshock and Oblivion ate my Christmas break).

[Badandy]

You know what would be great? If you could point out a single instance in this thread where I put down Microsoft. Because I haven't.


I don't know if it was you specifically, but at least you agreed with the "fact" that Microsoft is a failing company.


I don't know where your unbridled love for the company comes from, but if you take a closer look at what I've been saying, you'll see that I've simply been doing a courtesy by trying to answer some question you yourself brought up about why people feel the way they do about Microsoft.

I understand that, but I don't have unbridled love for MS. I respect what they've done as a company and how they've withstood the bubble burst and everything, but I'm an Apple guy. The only MS products I own are Office 2008 for mac and Xbox 360 (stolen, but never had a problem with it).

I never said they don't make money hand over fist, I just said they generally mishandle their purchases and their stock hasn't been doing as well as some other tech companies.

And I never said that there stock was doing as well, I'm just saying that stock price is not a good indicator of company strength.

At least Syrus28 - the other vocal member in Microsoft's corner - seems to have the ability to see thing objectively. It seems as if the moment anyone directs a bad thought towards Microsoft, you label their arguments invalid.

Syrus28 is making some great points, I agree, but you have to understand, this isn't personal. I'm not indicting you for being an invalid (jk, we were talking about validity), but what I am saying are that the arguments people are espousing pointing to the rumored downfall or inadequacy of Microsoft compared to Apple (your argument about stock price, others about imminent downfall with no facts) are invalid in my opinion. I'm glad this discussion is continuing though, it's a good thread.

If Microsoft was doing as wonderful as you claim it is, it wouldn't feel the need to drop over $40 billion on Yahoo! in the first place.

They're not perfect in everything they do, they want to increase market share in search engines, nothing wrong with that. Maybe a bad business decision, I guess we'll see if the deal goes through, but they're doing something about their inadequacy in this particular segment of tech.

[Badandy]

I wouldn't shed a single tear if msft keeled over tomorrow.

Fingers crossed eh.

However great and profitable people think msft are, the reality is that their future is looking iffy, they may have just had their best quarter yet, but they will be overtaken in the next few years.

The mobile biz will be what eventually dethrones msft, their monopoly will be stripped practically overnight.
And will come as quite a surprise to most people by the looks of it.

I'm more responding to these kind of comments than to anyone in particular, I apologize if I was being a bit childish with the patronising (yay British spelling).

But in response to this post in particular: What in the world are talking about?

[PlaceofDis]

Does anyone else remember AT&T? :D Or public utility companies? Etc.

remember? isn't AT&T exactly how it used to be these days?

[Unspeaked]

...

I can totally respect this post, and the opinions you state within it.

Oddly enough, if you check out some of my posts outside of this thread, you'll see that I'm far from an Apple "fan boy" and have taken issue with many of their business practices in the past.

As I alluded to, I was more than anything else playing devil's advocate and trying to express the thinking behind folks who say Microsoft lacks leadership and innovation, etc.

But that's why I come to the forum: to discuss and debate ;)

[hulugu]

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.

First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.

Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.

Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.

Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?How come :apple: doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before. ;)
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.

[Naimfan]

remember? isn't AT&T exactly how it used to be these days?

Not even close. AT&T used to make up all the RBOCs, the "Long Lines" division, as well as the equipment division--Western Electric, which included Bell Laboratories.

[Syrus28]

First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.
All good points, but remember that Apple releasing OS X and Apple having a hardware business can NEVER coincide. Dell, HP, Sony, all see Apple as serious competition in the PC business. Why would they all of a sudden fund Apple's growing business, especially considering they build their entire business plan off of Windows. Apple releasing OS X would indeed by suicide.



Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.
What's the reason for buying a Mac if your sole intention is to run Bootcamp? Believe it or not, Apple's smooth curves and clean designs are not swaying people to buy Mac's. Mac OS X is.



Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before. ;)
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.
Not to mention that Microsoft is the biggest 3rd party developer for Mac OS X in general. MS Office just sells well on the Mac platform. I'd say its name brand recognition at its finest. No matter how good iWork '08 is, Apple would be hard-pressed to dethrone MS Office. Practically every one associates a word processor as "Word" and a powerpoint as "Powerpoint. "Excel" as a spreadsheet. Apple can't take that kind of recognition away. That's stronger brand recognition than "iPod" is for MP3 players. In fact, I see alot of people realizing Apple isn't the only one in the MP3 player game, but maybe thats just my experience.

[diamond.g]

I wouldn't shed a single tear if msft keeled over tomorrow.

Fingers crossed eh.

However great and profitable people think msft are, the reality is that their future is looking iffy, they may have just had their best quarter yet, but they will be overtaken in the next few years.

The mobile biz will be what eventually dethrones msft, their monopoly will be stripped practically overnight.
And will come as quite a surprise to most people by the looks of it.
Can you please explain?
First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.



Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.



Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before. ;)
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.
So is is safe to say that in order for Apple to truly kill MS they would basically have to become MS? I mean Apple can't possibly supply all of the worlds computers, and they wont license OS X. So how can they kill MS?

Someone is going to have to explain it as if I am a 2 year old because obviously I am not understanding something.

[surferfromuk]

With 40B operating costs it would actually only take 3 years of 'year on year' 20% decline in sales to bankrupt Microsoft..

..and funnily enough that's beginning to happen - and there's a reason Vista is expensive - it's propping up the company - they simply can't afford to make it cheap!

...and when a company that makes 90% of the worlds operating systems demonstrates they can't even do EVEN that properly it's no wonder people are flocking in their droves to Apple.

And quite right too - Apple should be at the top - it's the correct natural order - the big cats should reign over the fat bloaty worms that stole their way to the top all those years ago...

2012 could be a totally different story if Microsoft continue to fail and Apple continue to create incredible innovative products.

I see Microsoft's desperate dive for Yahoo as further evidence that they haven't got a clue...

[hulugu]

All good points, but remember that Apple releasing OS X and Apple having a hardware business can NEVER coincide. Dell, HP, Sony, all see Apple as serious competition in the PC business. Why would they all of a sudden fund Apple's growing business, especially considering they build their entire business plan off of Windows. Apple releasing OS X would indeed by suicide.

Bingo. Apple would be in the position of selling software or nothing.




What's the reason for buying a Mac if your sole intention is to run Bootcamp? Believe it or not, Apple's smooth curves and clean designs are not swaying people to buy Mac's. Mac OS X is.

I don't disagree, in fact I've been arguing this fact for forever and a day, my point is, if you want to run Windows and OSX there's a solution and Apple can get those users who want both. If Apple went to porting OSX to Dell, their costs would go up for little gain.

Can you please explain?

So is is safe to say that in order for Apple to truly kill MS they would basically have to become MS? I mean Apple can't possibly supply all of the worlds computers, and they wont license OS X. So how can they kill MS?

Someone is going to have to explain it as if I am a 2 year old because obviously I am not understanding something.

I never said Apple would kill MS, so let's put that bon mot to bed. What I see is a slowly flagging company, desperate to use Yahoo! to prop up a flagging empire. Expecting another empire to fill this vacuum ignores the myriad of small companies and new ideas that are just around the corner. I don't expect Microsoft to fail tomorrow, but I don't see their fall halted by gobbling up another company.

There's more to this than a zero-sum game, but if Microsoft wants to survive they better start innovating. Breaking the piggy-bank for Yahoo! doesn't do this, IMHO.

[Naimfan]

There's more to this than a zero-sum game, but if Microsoft wants to survive they better start innovating. Breaking the piggy-bank for Yahoo! doesn't do this, IMHO.

Well said. I agree with you.

[gifford]

I'm more responding to these kind of comments than to anyone in particular, I apologize if I was being a bit childish with the patronising (yay British spelling).

But in response to this post in particular: What in the world are talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that in the not too distant future microsofts OS monopoly will have disappeared. Many many more phones are sold than computers, but phones will BECOME the computers of the future.

It will not be very long before Windows OS is overtaken by numerous other smartphone OS's, OSX being one of them , Android another.

Infact in terms of installed operating systems I can only guess that windows is already in second place to Symbian, though I see little future in this OS and it's popularity will dwindle as it was designed for an age of exceptionally low processor speeds which we are thankfully through.

Now the real game begins, it's possible to run a full operating system on a mobile, and I do not believe msft has the ability to succeed in this market.
And if they fail, the stranglehold they once had will be gone forever, the future is in the hands of Apple and Google.
Unix will eventually power everything, and what can be given away free will be given away free. To survive in the future you will either have make money from advertising, or from selling hardware, which is why google and apple are so well placed.

[Syrus28]

Uggh I thought we went over this before!!

With 40B operating costs it would actually only take 3 years of 'year on year' 20% decline in sales to bankrupt Microsoft..
So in the case that Microsoft buys Yahoo 3 times over, Microsoft goes bankrupt. Sure. Microsoft doesn't make bid budget acquisitions like this every year. No one does.

..and funnily enough that's beginning to happen - and there's a reason Vista is expensive - it's propping up the company - they simply can't afford to make it cheap!
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid people. Microsoft grew at a faster rate than Apple did in the last 6 months. Microsoft's profits are more than 3 times that of Apple!! Do you not understand this?!?!?!


...and when a company that makes 90% of the worlds operating systems demonstrates they can't even do EVEN that properly it's no wonder people are flocking in their droves to Apple.
All the criticism of Vista, yet it has overtaken Mac OS X in 8 months. So exactly what "droves" are you talking about?

And quite right too - Apple should be at the top - it's the correct natural order - the big cats should reign over the fat bloaty worms that stole their way to the top all those years ago...
... Apple fanboyism at its finest.

2012 could be a totally different story if Microsoft continue to fail and Apple continue to create incredible innovative products.
Vista is growing at about 10x the rate of Mac OS X. So if people considering this "failing", Mac OS X isn't even alive.


I see Microsoft's desperate dive for Yahoo as further evidence that they haven't got a clue...
How in the world is this a "desperate dive" ? They just offered $44 billion dollars to expand its online business. Tell me how "desperate" can even be included in this discussion. And Microsoft hasn't got a clue... Wow! Microsoft makes 3 times the profit of Apple, and they haven't got clue? I think its you who doesn't have a clue.

And Excuse all my "comparison" of Microsoft to Apple. It seems like people can only see other companies in relation to Apple.

[surferfromuk]

Well it's a speculative fantasy I grant you doesn't make me a STUPID STUPID STUPID PERSON...

Microsoft's Operating costs are roughly 40B on 60B t/o

If SALES decline (which if you'd read the thread you would have UNDERSTOOD THIS) by 20% a year and costs stay roughly the same in 3 years they are history...Sorry you don't like it but that's how the figures run.

Not only is their s/w bloated - they are as a company bloated. They have totally lost the ability to make their CORE products relevant and great.

Sure a lot of bad things would have to happen and I don't see it because there will always be plenty of stupid people like you backing them up - but IF the Yahoo merger totally tanked and Vista and Office sales nosedive by 20-30% then let me tell you STUPIDO - that would be enough to put them in the crapper.

OK?

(Droves BTW - 3% to 8% Mac marketshare in little over three years and still accelerating - that's droves!)

[Syrus28]

Well it's a speculative fantasy I grant you doesn't make me a STUPID STUPID STUPID PERSON...
Indeed it doesn't. It was my over-reaction.

Microsoft's Operating costs are roughly 40B on 60B t/o

If SALES decline (which if you'd read the thread you would have UNDERSTOOD THIS) by 20% a year and costs stay roughly the same in 3 years they are history...Sorry you don't like it but that's how the figures run.
Why would their sales decline by 20% 3 years in a row after a record quarter? Maybe Im not getting this. Can you please explain

Not only is their s/w bloated - they are as a company bloated. They have totally lost the ability to make their CORE products relevant and great.
No matter your opinion (which it is, an opinion) Microsoft is/has still doing better than Apple recently, if you look at the numbers

Sure a lot of bad things would have to happen and I don't see it because there will always be plenty of stupid people like you backing them up - but IF the Yahoo merger totally tanked and Vista and Office sales nosedive by 20-30% then let me tell you STUPIDO - that would be enough to put them in the crapper.
I don't understand your post. What sign is there are Windows/Office sales "decreasing" at all, let alone 20-30%. Windows Vista sold 100 million copies in 8 months. MS Office 2007 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/303571_msftoffice14.html) "sales rose 98 percent and shipments increased 61 percent" than its previous version.

OK?

(Droves BTW - 3% to 8% Mac marketshare in little over three years and still accelerating - that's droves!)
If that's droves, Vista is selling like candy. Vista went from 0% to 10% market share in 8 months!

[gifford]

If that's droves, Vista is selling like candy. Vista went from 0% to 10% market share in 8 months!

yes but vista is not creating market share, it is at the expense of msft's other products.
Vista has gained 10% share of a market that is n% smaller thanks to apple.

[diamond.g]

yes but vista is not creating market share, it is at the expense of msft's other products.
Vista has gained 10% share of a market that is n% smaller thanks to apple.

Does that mater if Vista's market share is still larger than Apples?

[Syrus28]

yes but vista is not creating market share, it is at the expense of msft's other products.
Vista has gained 10% share of a market that is n% smaller thanks to apple.
You think Vista's entire market share is composed of pre-XP users? There are "new" computer users also. I think XP has lost some 7% marketshare since Jan 07. So that 3% (which it still gained in 8 months) is coming from somewhere... And I don't think anyone will admit its coming from Mac OS X, so... We can agree that it is getting new users also.

[gifford]

You think Vista's entire market share is composed of pre-XP users? There are "new" computer users also. I think XP has lost some 7% marketshare since Jan 07. So that 3% (which it still gained in 8 months) is coming from somewhere... And I don't think anyone will admit its coming from Mac OS X, so... We can agree that it is getting new users also.

Are you for real?

If apple gains n% market share, MSFT's market share drops n%... simple as that.

You cant have 110% of a pie!

Thats if apple are not taking share from Linux , which they obviously are not.

[Syrus28]

Are you for real?

If apple gains n% market share, MSFT's market share drops n%... simple as that.

You cant have 110% of a pie!

Thats if apple are not taking share from Linux , which they obviously are not.

The computer industry is not a stagnant market. It gains NEW users each and every day. To think that Apple and Microsoft correlate that "if apple gains n%, Microsoft looses n%" is kinda ignorant.

Apple + Linux + Microsoft = 100% today, but could equal 99% tomorrow... There aren't "N" amount of users, and those users continue to grow.

[gifford]

Does that mater if Vista's market share is still larger than Apples?

Of-course , if a small company is gaining market share and a big company is losing market share. No matter how big the differences between the two companies, and IF the trend continues , one day the small company will be bigger.

[Syrus28]

Of-course , if a small company is gaining market share and a big company is losing market share. No matter how big the differences between the two companies, and IF the trend continues , one day the small company will be bigger.

But the small company + big company do not equal 100% of the computer market. Do you think that every Mac user use to be a Windows user? There is room for growth on both parties...

[gifford]

The computer industry is not a stagnant market. It gains NEW users each and every day. To think that Apple and Microsoft correlate that "if apple gains n%, Microsoft looses n%" is kinda ignorant.

Apple + Linux + Microsoft = 100% today, but could equal 99% tomorrow... There aren't "N" amount of users, and those users continue to grow.

What?! I said n% not n-number of users, there is a HUGE difference.

And tomorrow 99% can not be the full market share, as full market share would obviously be 100%!

[gifford]

But the small company + big company do not equal 100% of the computer market. Do you think that every Mac user use to be a Windows user? There is room for growth on both parties...

Room for growth in terms of total computers sold, but we are talking % of market share here! OMG

[Syrus28]

What?! I said n% not n-number of users, there is a HUGE difference.

And tomorrow you can not have 99% of the full market share, as full market share would obviously be 100%!

Im saying that there is not a set-in-stone number of Computer Users. It GROWS every day.

Like i said, Mac+Windows+Linux users of today does not equal 100% tomorrow.

How do you not understand this? There is room for growth in both parties. Do you obviously think that the market is capped and the only way for each parties to get new users is to take from each other? No. But thats what your implying

[Syrus28]

Let me try to explain in clearer terms.

Here was your statement
If apple gains n% market share, MSFT's market share drops n%... simple as that.

This clearly implies 100% of Apple's market share is coming from Windows. This, in turn, implies that Microsoft's market share is capped and there is no room for growth. It also implies that for either of the parties to gain market share, they would have to take from each other.

That is completely false. There is room for growth for both parties outside of taking them from each other.

[gifford]

Im saying that there is not a set-in-stone number of Computer Users. It GROWS every day.

Like i said, Mac+Windows+Linux users of today does not equal 100% tomorrow.

How do you not understand this? There is room for growth in both parties. Do you obviously think that the market is capped and the only way for each parties to get new users is to take from each other? No. But thats what your implying

Where exactly have I said that the total number of users will fall or not increase?
100% today is 100% tomorow!

1,000,000,000 total computer users 05/02/08 = 100% market share
1,000,000,001 total computer users 06/02/08 = 100% market share

[gifford]

Let me try to explain in clearer terms.

Here was your statement


This clearly implies 100% of Apple's market share is coming from Windows. This, in turn, implies that Microsoft's market share is capped and there is no room for growth. It also implies that for either of the parties to gain market share, they would have to take from each other.

That is completely false. There is room for growth for both parties outside of taking them from each other.

Oh my, look at what you are saying above "gain market share", that would suggest a % of the total computers sold at any given day.
If one company is gaining market share, it would make sense (unless the laws of maths physics and reality have changed recently) that anther comany loses market share...


They may well both sell more computers total, EVEN THOUGH one company has decreased it's market share at the expense of another. This is where you are getting confused.

[Syrus28]

Posted too early :D

Ok, lets say the market consists of 100 people. Microsoft has 90 people, Apple has 9 people. Tomorrow, 6 more people join. 5 of them go to Microsoft, 1 to Apple. Microsoft now has 96/106 people, Apple has 10/106. The Next day, 11 people join. Microsoft takes 10, Apple takes 1. Microsoft now has 105/116, Apple has 11/116.

106/ 117 .90598 [Microsoft] 90.5% > 90&

11/117 = .09401 [Apple] 9.4% > 90%

Now I know this is a rough example, and after thinking about it, your partially right. But, its still possible for both Microsoft and Apple to increase their market share from one point, to another point. How? Well if Microsoft even had even 1 period of growth (%) outpacing Mac OSX, then it is possible. Or am I still thinking of it wrong?

[Badandy]

With 40B operating costs it would actually only take 3 years of 'year on year' 20% decline in sales to bankrupt Microsoft..

..and funnily enough that's beginning to happen - and there's a reason Vista is expensive - it's propping up the company - they simply can't afford to make it cheap!

...and when a company that makes 90% of the worlds operating systems demonstrates they can't even do EVEN that properly it's no wonder people are flocking in their droves to Apple.

And quite right too - Apple should be at the top - it's the correct natural order - the big cats should reign over the fat bloaty worms that stole their way to the top all those years ago...

2012 could be a totally different story if Microsoft continue to fail and Apple continue to create incredible innovative products.

I see Microsoft's desperate dive for Yahoo as further evidence that they haven't got a clue...

Syrus: It's not even worth responding to posts like this. I'll bold the parts that are ignorant.

Let's go over this, Suferrer from the UK:

Apple is making a profit. Microsoft is making a profit. Apple is increasing profit every quarter. Microsoft is increasing profit at a more rapid pace than Apple.


Is that easy enough to get?

[dejo]

1,000,000,000 total computer users 05/02/08 = 100% market share
1,000,000,001 total computer users 06/02/08 = 100% market share
You and Syrus28 are confused. Market share is not a measurement based on the total installed base but instead on the number of sales over a period (usually quarters or a whole year) of time. But I agree that 100% is always 100%.

[gifford]

You and Syrus28 are confused. Market share is not a measurement based on the total installed base but instead on the number of sales over a period (usually quarters or a whole year) of time. But I agree that 100% is always 100%.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
"Market share, in strategic management and marketing, is the percentage or proportion of the total available market or market segment that is being serviced by a company."

I dont think I have confused this anywhere.
Though i should have been a bit clearer above by saying "1,000,000,000 total NEW computer users " instead.

Syrus28 on the other hand finds it all very confusing

[Badandy]

You are both quite right and wrong.


What you are saying is that all companies combined cannot have more than 100% of the market.

What Syrus is saying is that just because there is a 10% increase in the quantity of Mac OSX licenses out does NOT MEAN that there is a 10% decrease in Microsoft Window's market share or of licenses sold.

That is what I gathered, at least.

Either way, gifford, all of your points on the "imminent" doom of Microsoft were addressed.

[gifford]

You are both quite right and wrong.


What you are saying is that all companies combined cannot have more than 100% of the market.

What Syrus is saying is that just because there is a 10% increase in the quantity of Mac OSX licenses out does NOT MEAN that there is a 10% decrease in Microsoft Window's market share.

That is what I gathered, at least.

I think I made it clear enough to Syrus that I was talking about apple's increasing 'market share' (thats been in the news) not just OSX Licenses, though they are also increasing obviously.
In-fact i used the words 'market share' 17 times on this page alone :)

market share is market share at the end of the day, not total licenses sold by any one OS

[Syrus28]

I think I made it clear enough to Syrus that I was talking about apple's increasing 'market share' (thats been in the news) not just OSX Licenses, though they are also increasing obviously.

market share is market share at the end of the day, not total licenses sold

What Im just saying that its not just as easy at "If apple gains n% market share, Microsoft looses n% market share" Because Apple + Microsoft does not = 100%

[gifford]

What Im just saying that its not just as easy at "If apple gains n% market share, Microsoft looses n% market share" Because Apple + Microsoft does not = 100%

So are you saying that apples gains are at the expense of Linux?
As that would be the only other main player in the traditional computer market.

I seriously doubt they are gaining fro Linux, so they are gaining from MSFT, there is nobody else.

[CRAZYBUBBA]

So are you saying that apples gains are at the expense of Linux?
As that would be the only other main player in the traditional computer market.

I seriously doubt they are gaining fro Linux, so they are gaining from MSFT, there is nobody else.

I think that he means that there is a growth in Personal computing where users are buying computers for the first time for college etc and going apple.

[gifford]

I think that he means that there is a growth in Personal computing where users are buying computers for the first time for college etc and going apple.

I know what he is trying to get at, but even a "growth in Personal computing where users are buying computers for the first time" is still 'market share' of which msft is losing % to aapl.

Still the same thing even if they are new users, its just market share.

[gifford]

"Ok, lets say the market consists of 100 people. Microsoft has 90 people, Apple has 9 people."

ok so thats...
msft 90%
apple 9%


"Tomorrow, 6 more people join. 5 of them go to Microsoft, 1 to Apple. Microsoft now has 96/106 people, Apple has 10/106."

hang on, microsoft should have 95/106!
and apple 10/106.

ignoring that..

OK I see where the confusion lies, I think you are looking at market share as accumulated over a period of time, which is ok, but then you are also comparing daily rise and falls.

You should really compare by the same timeframe otherwise it's possible to skew the comparison in favor of one or the other due to microblips in the stats.

[Badandy]

Apple is making a profit. Microsoft is making a profit. Apple is increasing profit every quarter. Microsoft is increasing profit at a more rapid pace than Apple.


Is that easy enough to get?

This is really what we are talking about at the end of the day. What good is marketshare if it doesn't translate to profits? None. But it IS translating to profits, which is a good thing. I just brought up this stuff to people who think Microsoft is one, big failing company. Did you read surferfromuk's post? It's laughable.

[Syrus28]

"Ok, lets say the market consists of 100 people. Microsoft has 90 people, Apple has 9 people."

ok so thats...
msft 90%
apple 9%


"Tomorrow, 6 more people join. 5 of them go to Microsoft, 1 to Apple. Microsoft now has 96/106 people, Apple has 10/106."

hang on, microsoft should have 95/106!
and apple 10/106.

ignoring that..

OK I see where the confusion lies, I think you are looking at market share as accumulated over a period of time, which is ok, but then you are also comparing daily rise and falls.

You should really compare by the same timeframe otherwise it's possible to skew the comparison in favor of one or the other due to microblips in the stats.
I see where I was wrong. 87% is 87% no matter if its 87/100 or 174/200. Because along with the increase of new users, both parties experience new users.

However, Microsoft [the big company] is in the most favorable position. Apple [the little company], gets, what, maybe 75% of its users from people who go to Mac OS X to "escape" Windows.

Now, even with how much Vista was criticized, outsold all of Mac OS X (been out 7 years) in 8 months. What happens if Windows 7 is good? Thats what I think Apple has to worry about - another successful Windows. If that happens, Apple's main supply line for new users is suddenly cut when Windows suddenly satisfies its users needs. It has to come sometime.

In the case of Apple, no matter how good their OS "just works", Windows satisfies the large majority of users. So they see no reason to change.

[hulugu]

I see where I was wrong. 87% is 87% no matter if its 87/100 or 174/200. Because along with the increase of new users, both parties experience new users.

However, Microsoft [the big company] is in the most favorable position. Apple [the little company], gets, what, maybe 75% of its users from people who go to Mac OS X to "escape" Windows.

Now, even with how much Vista was criticized, outsold all of Mac OS X (been out 7 years) in 8 months. What happens if Windows 7 is good? Thats what I think Apple has to worry about - another successful Windows. If that happens, Apple's main supply line for new users is suddenly cut when Windows suddenly satisfies its users needs. It has to come sometime.

In the case of Apple, no matter how good their OS "just works", Windows satisfies the large majority of users. So they see no reason to change.

Well, this makes the assumption that new users will stay with Windows even if Windows 7 is awesome. This assumes that OSX doesn't become equally as awesome. This also assumes that Microsoft has woken up and is capable of coding an awesome operating system. And, this assumes that users continue to be satisfied with Windows.

I've been thinking about Microsoft and inertia. Windows has been a mile-long freight train winding through the countryside. But sometime ago, they ran out of coal, and thus the train has been coasting on its own inertia, driven forward by the shear force of it's initial movement. But, gradually, the train is slowing. Until someone fires that engine again, Microsoft will eventually grind to a halt and once that happens, it will take an amazing amount of energy and luck to get it started again.
So, Windows 7 better be really, really good.

[Syrus28]

Well, this makes the assumption that new users will stay with Windows even if Windows 7 is awesome. This assumes that OSX doesn't become equally as awesome. This also assumes that Microsoft has woken up and is capable of coding an awesome operating system. And, this assumes that users continue to be satisfied with Windows.
Well many people already take Mac OS X as superior, and look where that has gotten them. 8% market share. It will take a lot more than just being better. It has to be a combination of being better, and Windows being significantly, and I mean really significantly, worse.

I've been thinking about Microsoft and inertia. Windows has been a mile-long freight train winding through the countryside. But sometime ago, they ran out of coal, and thus the train has been coasting on its own inertia, driven forward by the shear force of it's initial movement. But, gradually, the train is slowing. Until someone fires that engine again, Microsoft will eventually grind to a halt and once that happens, it will take an amazing amount of energy and luck to get it started again.
So, Windows 7 better be really, really good.
With all this figurative speech, you forget that Microsoft still just had its best quarter ever, making 3x as many profits, and grew faster than Apple. Also, Microsoft was able to churn out a highly criticized Windows version called Vista and put it against the so called "Most Advanced OS in the world" and completely burn it's total market share in 8 months. All I'm saying is, Apple better be ready. Microsoft isn't stupid.

[hulugu]

Well many people already take Mac OS X as superior, and look where that has gotten them. 8% market share. It will take a lot more than just being better. It has to be a combination of being better, and Windows being significantly, and I mean really significantly, worse.


With all this figurative speech, you forget that Microsoft still just had its best quarter ever, making 3x as many profits, and grew faster than Apple. Also, Microsoft was able to churn out a highly criticized Windows version called Vista and put it against the so called "Most Advanced OS in the world" and completely burn it's total market share in 8 months. All I'm saying is, Apple better be ready. Microsoft isn't stupid.

I'm not forgetting how indomitable Microsoft really is. Florid prose aside, you can't compare Microsoft to Apple, you should be comparing Microsoft of 2007 to Microsoft of 2001. According to the NDP group, sales of Vista were 56% less than Windows XP during the same release period. Of course, the PC market is 56% larger than it was and according to Microsoft more than 80% of people get their operating system when they buy a new computer, but nonetheless this is a change.

Apple is small and it's not Microsoft's only competitor.

[Syrus28]

I'm not forgetting how indomitable Microsoft really is. Florid prose aside, you can't compare Microsoft to Apple, you should be comparing Microsoft of 2007 to Microsoft of 2001. According to the NDP group, sales of Vista were 56% less than Windows XP during the same release period. Of course, the PC market is 56% larger than it was and according to Microsoft more than 80% of people get their operating system when they buy a new computer, but nonetheless this is a change. Apple is small and it's not Microsoft's only competitor. According to the NDP, software sales as a whole has been rather flat from 2000-2006. In the year, 2007 software sales generated a 15% increase from last year, from $2.9 Billion to $3.3 Billion. Vista and Office 2007 are credited for 80% of this growth. And while Vista sales are down from the initial debut of XP, Windows [Vista] sales are up 40% from 2006.

Now Office 2007... Thats another story. Sales of Office 2007 are up 100% compared with sales of Office 2003 in its initial months. That led Office to account for 17 percent (by dollar volume) of all software sold at retail stores last year. So yes its a change. A change in the right direction.

[hulugu]

According to the NDP, software sales as a whole has been rather flat from 2000-2006. In the year, 2007 software sales generated a 15% increase from last year, from $2.9 Billion to $3.3 Billion. Vista and Office 2007 are credited for 80% of this growth. And while Vista sales are down from the initial debut of XP, Windows [Vista] sales are up 40% from 2006.

Now Office 2007... Thats another story. Sales of Office 2007 are up 100% compared with sales of Office 2003 in its initial months. That led Office to account for 17 percent (by dollar volume) of all software sold at retail stores last year. So yes its a change. A change in the right direction.

Interesting. I stand corrected.

[Syrus28]

Interesting. I stand corrected.
Believe me. I was suprised too :D

Here's the link (http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9861625-56.html)

[robanga]

There can be no doubt that this industry is still largely being driven by the folks in Redmond. Their success in 2007, even with all of the problems and bad press that Vista has faced, is remarkable. I guess that comes with having such a large share of the market. Any upgrade, even one with issues generates a lot of money.

A lot of the initial resistance I saw in people I work with and around to Office 2007, has evaporated and they are upgrading left and right. It won't be long before IT departments force the upgrade.

Vista is not even close to being universally loved, but one can not argue with the numbers above.

Apple is hot now though, and will no doubt gain share. Can you imagine 15% share in OS on the desk? That would be awesome.

[surferfromuk]

Indeed it doesn't. It was my over-reaction.


Why would their sales decline by 20% 3 years in a row after a record quarter? Maybe Im not getting this. Can you please explain


No matter your opinion (which it is, an opinion) Microsoft is/has still doing better than Apple recently, if you look at the numbers


I don't understand your post. What sign is there are Windows/Office sales "decreasing" at all, let alone 20-30%. Windows Vista sold 100 million copies in 8 months. MS Office 2007 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/303571_msftoffice14.html) "sales rose 98 percent and shipments increased 61 percent" than its previous version.

OK?


If that's droves, Vista is selling like candy. Vista went from 0% to 10% market share in 8 months!


Microsoft owning 90% of the worlds desktop is like one company making 90% of the worlds food (junk food at that) - and your argument is that because 'people are still eating' Microsoft's 'food' that they are an incredible success.

The short of it is - people need to 'eat' and until 2 years ago most people didn't even know Apple sold computers and Apple wasn't in a position to 'feed the world'.

That's changing and people are considering 'a healthier diet'.

Now, unless you really have been sent here from Microsoft to wage war on Apple fans, please do not tell me that you think Vista is a superior O/S to OSX?

Which means that Microsoft's' continuing market share dominance is not based upon being the superior product but merely by ignorance and complacency in the purchasing public and maybe a few dirty shenanigans by Microsoft ( as is their standard operating procedure)

Now I'm not saying Apples is perfect or going to take over the world or that Microsoft is going to have a 20% decline in sales but for the first time in my living memory I've finally seen and 'chink' in Microsoft's armor AND they have to support an incredbile amount of operating costs which makes them vulnerable to collapse in weak market conditions - especially if they go spend $40B on a failing search engine company whose assets could simply walk out of the door - that is worth a speculative fantasy which is what I did.

Too bad that Steve Balmer doesn't like that reality and sent you here to 'fight your corner'.

In short, we can dream can't we - of a world free from Microsoft's desktop tyranny, incompetence and bully boy business tactics ?

If Steve Jobs had not been kicked out of Apple in 85 we'd have seen OSX Leopard in 1995 and we'd be on OSX 20 by now - that's the difference - the world lost out cos Microsoft got given the whole thing on a plate - for free.

[Unspeaked]

Microsoft owning 90% of the worlds desktop is like one company making 90% of the worlds food (junk food at that) - and your argument is that because 'people are still eating' Microsoft's 'food' that they are an incredible success.

But how often is the market leader also considered the "best?"

Walmart is the retail leader, McDonalds is the restaurant leader, Ford is the automotive leader (in the US), Carrie Underwood is the music sales leader.

By nature, for something to be "Number 1" it needs to be vapid and appeal to the lowest common denominator.


Now, unless you really have been sent here from Microsoft to wage war on Apple fans, please do not tell me that you think Vista is a superior O/S to OSX?

Which means that Microsoft's' continuing market share dominance is not based upon being the superior product but merely by ignorance and complacency in the purchasing public and maybe a few dirty shenanigans by Microsoft ( as is their standard operating procedure)

Now I'm not saying Apples is perfect or going to take over the world or that Microsoft is going to have a 20% decline in sales but for the first time in my living memory I've finally seen and 'chink' in Microsoft's armor AND they have to support an incredbile amount of operating costs which makes them vulnerable to collapse in weak market conditions - especially if they go spend $40B on a failing search engine company whose assets could simply walk out of the door - that is worth a speculative fantasy which is what I did.

Too bad that Steve Balmer doesn't like that reality and sent you here to 'fight your corner'.

In short, we can dream can't we - of a world free from Microsoft's desktop tyranny, incompetence and bully boy business tactics ?

The trouble with this argument is that you're looking at Microsoft as Apple's competitor.

In a sense, they are. But Apple's real competitors are Dell, Sony, HP and company.

As much as Mac users hate to admit it sometimes - because we're all so in love with the operating system and user interface - Apple is a hardware company above all else. OS X, iLife, the iTunes Music Store and other goodies are just there to drive sales of MacPros, iMacs, MacBook and iPods. That's their bread and butter.

[diamond.g]

The trouble with this argument is that you're looking at Microsoft as Apple's competitor.

In a sense, they are. But Apple's real competitors are Dell, Sony, HP and company.

As much as Mac users hate to admit it sometimes - because we're all so in love with the operating system and user interface - Apple is a hardware company above all else. OS X, iLife, the iTunes Music Store and other goodies are just there to drive sales of MacPros, iMacs, MacBook and iPods. That's their bread and butter.

Which is why I was confused. How can Apple sell more OS X based systems than all of the PC manufacturers combined?

Until that happens MS will always have more of the market (percentage or otherwise) than Apple. AFAIK the only way for OS X to take over would be to decouple it from the hardware. Apple has tried that once and it nearly killed them, I don't see things being much different this time around either.

[gifford]

Which is why I was confused. How can Apple sell more OS X based systems than all of the PC manufacturers combined?

Until that happens MS will always have more of the market (percentage or otherwise) than Apple. AFAIK the only way for OS X to take over would be to decouple it from the hardware. Apple has tried that once and it nearly killed them, I don't see things being much different this time around either.

Give apple 3 years and OSX will be installed on more devices than all MSFT's OS offerings combined.
This, for some of you microsoft lovers , may be hard to understand as it requires foresight.

To quote my previous post as to reasons why...

I'm talking about the fact that in the not too distant future microsofts OS monopoly will have disappeared. Many many more phones are sold than computers, but phones will BECOME the computers of the future.

It will not be very long before Windows OS is overtaken by numerous other smartphone OS's, OSX being one of them , Android another.

Infact in terms of installed operating systems I can only guess that windows is already in second place to Symbian, though I see little future in this OS and it's popularity will dwindle as it was designed for an age of exceptionally low processor speeds which we are thankfully through.

Now the real game begins, it's possible to run a full operating system on a mobile, and I do not believe msft has the ability to succeed in this market.
And if they fail, the stranglehold they once had will be gone forever, the future is in the hands of Apple and Google.
Unix will eventually power everything, and what can be given away free will be given away free. To survive in the future you will either have make money from advertising, or from selling hardware, which is why google and apple are so well placed.

[diamond.g]

Give apple 3 years and OSX will be installed on more devices than all MSFT's OS offerings combined.
This, for some of you microsoft lovers , may be hard to understand as it requires foresight.

To quote my previous post as to reasons why...
Not a MSFT lover by any means, I am just trying to understand where some of this MS is dead rhetoric was coming from.

If you are saying devices in general you may want to know that windows can be found in more devices than os x as well (http://www.windowsfordevices.com/articles/AT5422326956.html).

Overall I would be stoked to actually get an xMac. As soon as Apple makes one they will get all those people that like to upgrade their own hardware, but are tired of Windows and bored with Linux. Otherwise why else is the OS86 thing so big?

[Unspeaked]

Give apple 3 years and OSX will be installed on more devices than all MSFT's OS offerings combined.

That is crazy, and a perfect example of the things Mac users say that make us look like we live in a bubble (or reality distortion field, if you will).

[Syrus28]

Microsoft owning 90% of the worlds desktop is like one company making 90% of the worlds food (junk food at that) - and your argument is that because 'people are still eating' Microsoft's 'food' that they are an incredible success.
Anyway you look at it, Windows is a enormous success. Your confusing success with being the best. Any way you look at it, Wal-Mart, Ford, or even Carrie Underwood are all an enormous success. Never did I say they were "the best".

That's changing and people are considering 'a healthier diet'.

Now, unless you really have been sent here from Microsoft to wage war on Apple fans, please do not tell me that you think Vista is a superior O/S to OSX?
Yes, because its impossible to think Vista is better than Leopard right? Apple fanboyism at its best. Besides that, I do not think Vista is better than Mac. However, I don't hold Mac OS X on some pedestal of greatness that all other OS's fail to compare. Thats the difference between me and you.

Which means that Microsoft's' continuing market share dominance is not based upon being the superior product but merely by ignorance and complacency in the purchasing public and maybe a few dirty shenanigans by Microsoft ( as is their standard operating procedure)
Windows doesn't have to be the superior product. It is, however, able to satisfy the large majority users, or else the majority of people would be looking for an alternative. Especially considering Apple brand recognition is at its highest. But why don't they? Because not everyone buy $1000 computers or has a need for half the stuff Mac does better than Windows. Or maybe they have some software that is dependent on Windows. Maybe they like to play Computer Games? Whatever the reason, Apple doesnt satisfy their needs. or else they would have the dominant market share.

Now I'm not saying Apples is perfect or going to take over the world or that Microsoft is going to have a 20% decline in sales but for the first time in my living memory I've finally seen and 'chink' in Microsoft's armor AND they have to support an incredbile amount of operating costs which makes them vulnerable to collapse in weak market conditions - especially if they go spend $40B on a failing search engine company whose assets could simply walk out of the door - that is worth a speculative fantasy which is what I did.
Sure, its ok to speculate, but when people start to ignore the numbers right in front of them, and calling for the fall of Microsoft, it just gets annnoying.

Windows sales are up 40% over the previous year, Office 2007 sales are up 100%+ over the sales of Windows 2003 over the same period.

Vista/Office 07 are though to be responsible for 80% of the 15% increase in software sales of 2007 over 2006.

Windows Vista, in 8 months, sold more than Mac OS X has did in 7 years.

The Xbox division just posted it's first profits [$537 million].

The Devices/Entertainment Division as a whole posted 3% profit increase (despite Zune).

Microsoft as a whole just had its best quarter ever. Profits grew at a rate faster than Apple's [79% vs ~50%].

So while you may think you see a 'chink' in Microsoft's armor, it just shows how ignorant you are. Or at least explain more. Shows some examples of such weakness instead of "forecasting" your own opinion on how Microsoft is falling, because the numbers just don't show it.

Too bad that Steve Balmer doesn't like that reality and sent you here to 'fight your corner'.
Pssh... As long as he would pay me...

In short, we can dream can't we - of a world free from Microsoft's desktop tyranny, incompetence and bully boy business tactics ?

If Steve Jobs had not been kicked out of Apple in 85 we'd have seen OSX Leopard in 1995 and we'd be on OSX 20 by now - that's the difference - the world lost out cos Microsoft got given the whole thing on a plate - for free.
Whatever you say buddy :D

[a456]

This buyout which relies on MS taking out a loan in order not to use up all of their cash reserves would be great - for Apple. Yahoo lags so far behind Google and MSN Live Search lags so far behind Yahoo. MS will end up cash strapped, losing money on its gadgets like the XBOX and Zune, and desperately trying to find the money they need to put together a half decent (and I really mean "half" decent) Windows 7. Meanwhile they will be still way behind Google.

Ballmer said the other day that MS needed to spend more on advertising Vista - well there will be no advertising budget with the way MS are throwing away cash at the moment. Steve Jobs must be pissing himself laughing at all the mistakes MS keep making.

[BongoBanger]

gifford, your argument falls down for the same reasons posted in other topics - the OSX used in the iPhone and iPod Touch is not the same as the OSX used in Macs (i.e. Tiger and Leopard), it's an item specific variant. Therefore if you're comparing OSX as an operating system you have to accept it has these variants and compare it to every variant of Windows, not just Vista. This would include all previous Windows operating systems, the Xbox, Xbox 360, Windows Mobile, the Zune (LOL), etc otherwise it's not a fair comparison. Vista is MS's latest iteration of a PC operating system just as Leopard is Apple's. That's what should be compared directly.

As for market share, I'd point out that sites like marketshare.hitlist.com (which show Macs claiming between 5 and 7% of web traffic) and w3schools.com (which shows 3 to 4%) are only based on browser activity and even then only on a subset of sites. What's of more relevance is PC unit sales volume where Apple has improved but remains a niche product largely centred on the North American market.

Thus reports of Microsoft's imminent demise are greatly exagerated.

[Lord Sam]

If this happens, it'll put Microsoft in more of a position to actually do things, instead of lounging about, letting it's huge "Empire" collapse on itself.