ROFLMAO!!!
Lower that minimum expectation bar much?
miCrapsoft apologists... gotta luv 'em!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Beats Microsoft in First Quarter Profit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ROFLMAO!!!
Lower that minimum expectation bar much?
miCrapsoft apologists... gotta luv 'em!
It's because MS Office has become the de facto standard in most parts of the world. Companies have built there IT-strategy around these products and there's a huge eco-system of companies delivering technology that builds into this. Also the products are definitely good enough. They work day out and day in for millions of people all over the world. Changing this would be a huge gamble for any company, and more so the bigger it is.I still don't understand why nobody has managed to make a viable alternative to Microsoft Office, esp. Microsoft Excel. Apple's iWork is fine, but clearly not enough and of course there is no Windows version. Google is too obsessed with the cloud and ad thing and didn't make Google Docs a local app for Windows / Mac / Smartphones with Dropbox like cloud capabilities.
So Microsoft can continue to be fed with its Windows / Office monopolies for the foreseeable future.
So, why should they? Answer: They shouldn't...
Interesting (debatable) point, but it doesn't make any difference...
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
They've rested on laurels for a long time now.
This article points out that Microsoft has a hard time with large numbers of pirated copies of Windows being used out there. It made me think that there are probably people knowingly running prated copies of Windows, who visit sites like macrumors to try and champion their beloved Windows. LOL. I'm sure it happens.
This article points out that Microsoft has a hard time with large numbers of pirated copies of Windows being used out there. It made me think that there are probably people knowingly running prated copies of Windows, who visit sites like macrumors to try and champion their beloved Windows. LOL. I'm sure it happens.
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Very true.
- Windows Mobile was among the first platforms for smartphones and failed miserably.
- Global personal computer sales are slumping (-3% in Q1 2011) while Macs achieve a growth of 26%. There's clearly a loss of traction for Windows going on, despite all the praises for Windows 7.
Is the global sales growth drop due to Windows? How many percent gain of the overall OS market has Apple gained with the 26% increase in Mac sales?
Windows representing AFAIK at least 90% of the worldwide installed base, the dip in PC demand is all linked to a drop of Windows PC demand.
Apple's global market share progressed by 1.4 point YoY to 4.6% in Q1 2011. In US figures, Mac market share progression is similar, 1.5 to 8.5%.
Those figures do not include iPad and other tablets and include netbooks.
And a little correction: Mac growth is actually 28%, not 26% as I wrote before.
yes, 50% or so came from iPhone and iPad. So what's your point? These run on iOS which is a scaled-down version of the actual OS X operating system.
As far as "PC" marketshare: Apple has shown most of the growth in industry YoY for about 30 quarters in a row. Yes, it is easy to say that it is easy to double Market share when you are talking about a couple of percentage points. But we can still put it in perspective:
-- Apple has about 90% marketshare of computers at 1000 dollars and above.
-- Apples sells computers to consumers who vote with their dollars. PC 90% is due to large corporate buys and lock-ins and also counts anything that runs some version of Windows, possibly including cash registers and petrol pumps.
-- Apple is either about 3rd or about 5th largest PC maker by unit in the world, depending on how you count it: a lot of studies do not count iPads in the total because of some arbitrary metric or because they are paid by MS or another big company to exclude it.
-- consumers are, in fact, buying iPads in place of net books, which were oh so popular a couple of years ago, when it was said Apple could not compete and Apple should build an entry level netbook. Since then, PC makers have lost a lot of value trying to compete for the bottom, at the same time MS continues to generate serial numbers for exorbitant amounts.
-- Apple completely dominates mobile and portable -- MacBook Air and MacBook Pro at high end, and iPad at low end.
-- Apple's revenue this past quarter is about as much as Dell's whole Market cap! Maybe Mikey should just sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders (but who would want it). He did innovate BTO and online shop distribution chain back in the day. But he hasn't innovated products, production methods, materials, batteries, SoCs, supply chain, retail, customer support and satisfacton, etc.. Etc., in the way Apple so handily has.
Steve Jobs said years ago that he did concede the PC desktop "war", but the battlefield has moved on and new territories have opened up for exploration and colonizing. There isn't a single MS explorer or settler on the horizon. Unless you count their beloved interactive multi-camera tracking system -- and only then has it become worthwhile when they finally came up with the idea to put it in front of the TV for entertainment instead of sticking it in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Apple is working on SDKs that will allow every developer to create immersive 3D interfaces because face recognition technology with the one FaceTime camera will allow the device to calculate angle and distance of face from screen.
What it has to do with MS is that they have an aging dinosaur of an OS that is still DOS based and that they can't properly scale, and this becomes ever more evident by the day. They can only add lipstick to their old products and many of their customers still prefer Windows XP! They need to start again and reengineer an OS from scratch as Apple did when it bought Jobs' NEXT.
But can MS do it? Highly doubtful. DOS was bought in and they made the deal of the century with it. They put Windows UI over it, finally, because they had access to Apple source code for ten years. they absolutely wreck anything they get their hands on, ala Danger. Now the SalesGuy is running the company... fastest path to irrelevance.
MS' immediate existence is not in jeopardy -- they will continue to print their undeserved money for years to come. But their future relevance grows ever more questionable by the day. In short, Apple has plenty of headroom for Mac OS to grow into, while Windows at 90% can only go down.
Last edited:
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. Apple does and mobile devices make up a large part of Apple's sales and revenue. They are a tiny blip on the radar percentage wise as far as pc's are concerned, no matter how you spin the numbers. 90% >4.6%. And yes, Apple makes a tremendous amount of money on the products they sell, far more than anyone else, and I realize that most of you take a tremendous amount of personal pride in the money Apple makes. And as a consumer, I find that absolutely bizarre. But that's just me.
Goodbye Microsoft. Fade away as soon as possible. Unless its deal with Nokia can give first aid treatment.
As a consumer, it is not irrelevant how much money a company makes when it comes to choosing a product or service to purchase. Apple being super-profitable is comforting to the extent that it means the Apple ecosystem will be sustainable for years to come.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while I agree that the news of its death is highly exaggerated, the current state of things is worrying as far as it means the company, despite its very high market-share in PC OS, is not anymore an industry leader as in bringing out bleeding-edge innovation and inspiring the market: outside of Windows, Office and the XBox, all their initiatives are abysmal failures. That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doomed: it has a high potential and the money for bouncing back, but that will be at the cost of tough, painful decisions they have to make NOW. And meanwhile, the actual leaders, namely Apple and Google are not going to sleep.
Haha, you're funny. I'm no fan of the Xbox, but you've got to be kidding if you think Nintendo is ever really going to kill Sony/MS. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles, but most main virtually unused, cos the Wii is woefully under-powered, propped up by the same old kiddy franchises and once you get past the new gimmicks gets boring fast.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
We have finally WON THE WAR!
There are two groups of Apple consumers:
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
There are two groups of Apple consumers:
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
Hard to understand the relevancy of this for the companies. Nintendo has made a lot more money in this round of the "console war" than their competitors. For one thing they've earned money with every single console sold unlike Sony and MS.
You might not be a fan of the XBox, but underestimating the market power of those "kiddie" franchies, thirty-somethingss grew up with is not particularly wise. Especially since those very same people now have families of their own. Don't you think they are likely to introduce their kids to Mario? Of course they are...
Nintendo will likely have the most powerful console out there and the only new gaming console in the market.
XBox is doing OK, (or well if considering the kinnect launch). Still: after spending enormous amounts of money just getting into the race they are still fighting hard to remain in second place. It's not likely to become a sure steady income in the same way Office and Windows have been...
Wrong.
The exact OPPOSITE is true.
Apple takes some serious risks. How else do they move the entire industry in new directions?
iPhone. iPad. Both massive risks. Both were dismissed by major industry players. The iPad especially was dismissed by a lot of folks on MR. Vertical business model in an industry where everyone in in a race to the bottom and where some version of Windows dominates on computers. Big risk. Completely ditching OS 9 overnight and moving to OS X. Big risk as well. Apple is really the only one on the block that bothers to try new things.
Here's some claim chowder. Mmmm, deeeelish!
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9197388/
So what happened? This "oversized iPod Touch" did this:
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-profits-top-expectations-xbox-office-trump-pc-slump
In its quarterly filing, Microsoft indicated that the consumer PC market was the primary culprit for the decline pointing in particular to a 40 percent decline in netbook sales in the consumer market. Thats more evidence of the iPads impact on the market. Many consumers are opting for the Apple slate rather than Windows-based netbooks to fill the gap between the PC and the phone.
40% decline in netbooks, huh?
Remember seeing articles like these a while back?
David Carnoy, February 2009: "Why Apple Must Do a Netbook Now"
Preston Gralla, March 2009: "Why Apple Will Have to Release a Netbook"
Charles Moore, March 2010: "Apple Still Needs a Sub-$700 Conventional Notebook"
Apple TOOK A RISK and did the iPad instead. And look what happened.
Cheap netbook junk is circling the drain and major players are suddenly in the tablet game full-tilt. AFTER Apple laid the groundwork. Apple's big risks pay off. Whether Apple thinks they're a "sure thing" is a different story. They're likely pretty confident in what they produce because they know better than everyone else, whether it's the other major industry players, pundits, etc.
MS' backbone is their universal licensing racket. Winblows on PCs. No need to innovate. Blame netbook decline. Blame a "market reset." Blame your mom. But never blame your aging cash cow whose udders are now almost completely dry. MS is NOT a risk-taker. Especially in the enterprise. Especially in operating systems. Especially by copying Apple 3 years late ALMOST EVERY TIME. Let Apple take the risks, and then Zune it! Or release a smartphone no one really gives a damn about.
Please, don't go talking about risks. Because the only one to have any friggin' shred of creativity in the industry and the power to mass produce the fruits of it is Apple. Their moves for the past decade have been nothing less than complete and total daring. They often come out of left field with products that no one initially understands, that are laughingly dismissed by other major players (Ballmer on the iPhone, nearly everyone on the iPod), but that we end up using and everyone else ends up copying shortly after. Part of the reason an industry player that does the exact opposite of the other major players is about to surpass Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company on the planet.
Three points:
1) Microsoft is primarily a software that is transitioning from a two trick pony into a diverse company addressing many areas - such diversification will take years to occur but to write Microsoft off at this stage is simply being stupid (as some have done on other forums out there on the internet).
2) Apple is stretched too thinly with the latest font fiasco being one of many fiascos; from the design defects in MacBook Pro's generation after generation to the design defect in the iPhone 4, the constant bugs appearing and made worse in each release and update of Mac OS X. Then there is the mountain of bugs in iOS with phones being dropped in terms of support asap and bugs once again not being fixed. Sooner or later people are going to catch onto the fact that Apple isn't dedicating the resources to their products and it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Apple is on a winning streak but remember that these winning streaks can't last forever.
3) Lion appears to be yet another example of a rushed job by Apple where once again a mountain of bugs are introduced, old bugs aren't being fixed promptly, promises but failure to deliver, new features but old hardware unsupported even though the actual hardware itself supports the said features (OpenGL 3.x support being one example of that). Again, sooner or later people are going to hook onto the fact that once again Apple ships yet another half baked operating system that'll require minimum 2-3 combo updates just to make it useful not only for end users but also for third party vendors to write their applications against.
Cheer all you want but there are genuine issues that need resolving by Apple but I don't see it happening any time soon. As for me, I am holding off till the end of this year to decide whether I stick with Mac's or whether I head over to the Windows world. If they can't even design a 17 MacBook Pro correctly then I don't hold out much hope that Lion isn't a complete clusterf-ck.
Edit: For WP7 haters, I suggest you actually use one before judging it. Microsoft is like Intel, a large company that takes a while for the ship to be turned around - anyone who remembers the P4 fiasco should remember how long it took for them to get back on track again. Microsoft is in the same situation, it will take at least 1-2 years to get back on track and by that time Microsoft will have a product for the tablet that'll be running Windows and Microsoft Office. People may boohoo Microsoft but when push comes to shove the big corporates will be wetting their pants with delight when they see a tablet running Microsoft Office.
1) Microsoft is primarily a software that is transitioning from a two trick pony into a diverse company addressing many areas - such diversification will take years to occur but to write Microsoft off at this stage is simply being stupid (as some have done on other forums out there on the internet).
2) Apple is stretched too thinly with the latest font fiasco being one of many fiascos; from the design defects in MacBook Pro's generation after generation to the design defect in the iPhone 4, the constant bugs appearing and made worse in each release and update of Mac OS X. Then there is the mountain of bugs in iOS with phones being dropped in terms of support asap and bugs once again not being fixed. Sooner or later people are going to catch onto the fact that Apple isn't dedicating the resources to their products and it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Apple is on a winning streak but remember that these winning streaks can't last forever.
3) Lion appears to be yet another example of a rushed job by Apple where once again a mountain of bugs are introduced, old bugs aren't being fixed promptly, promises but failure to deliver, new features but old hardware unsupported even though the actual hardware itself supports the said features (OpenGL 3.x support being one example of that). Again, sooner or later people are going to hook onto the fact that once again Apple ships yet another half baked operating system that'll require minimum 2-3 combo updates just to make it useful not only for end users but also for third party vendors to write their applications against.
Cheer all you want but there are genuine issues that need resolving by Apple but I don't see it happening any time soon. As for me, I am holding off till the end of this year to decide whether I stick with Mac's or whether I head over to the Windows world. If they can't even design a 17 MacBook Pro correctly then I don't hold out much hope that Lion isn't a complete clusterf-ck.
Edit: For WP7 haters, I suggest you actually use one before judging it. Microsoft is like Intel, a large company that takes a while for the ship to be turned around - anyone who remembers the P4 fiasco should remember how long it took for them to get back on track again. Microsoft is in the same situation, it will take at least 1-2 years to get back on track and by that time Microsoft will have a product for the tablet that'll be running Windows and Microsoft Office. People may boohoo Microsoft but when push comes to shove the big corporates will be wetting their pants with delight when they see a tablet running Microsoft Office.
Last edited:
Just like Apple get a disproportioned amount of positive press due to their mind share they also get a disproportioned amount of negative press when something goes wrong. Apple are top (or very near) the top in practically all larger consumer satisfaction tests and have been so for years. If all these "real" problems were of importance this simply wouldn't be true. Every company in the world experience occasional problems. **** happens, it's how you deal with it that really matters.
Apple obviously doesn't always make the best product in a give space, but they never release a crap product. It's quite funny how it is possible to lambast Apple for poor quality while praising Microsoft in the same post. Windows 7 might be good, but it is quite possibly the only Windows releases since Win 95 that hasn't been perceived as under-delivering compared to the hype.
If this is truly the post-PC era however, MS have quite likely peaked, at least in the OS-space. Despite "all the resources in the world" and a head start (WinMob) they have managed to put themselves clearly in third place in a three horse race. Apple with iOS/iPad are delivering a great tool today, and Android are almost there as well. The iPad is making inroads in the corporate world and the next generation of MS' tablets are... well, where are they?
This time Microsoft aren't up against Netscape. They are up against the highly focused success-machine that is Apple 2.0. They are also facing a formidable adversary delivering FREE licenses of their popular OS as opposed to Microsoft's licensing-scheme. Yes, I'm sure Office on tablets could be a killer app, but Microsoft might be forced to create said apps for both iOS and Android unless they want to enable some competitor to fill this space.
Last edited:
I'm glad both companies make a record profit ...
I don't think the two companies can really be compared directly to each other. There is lots of overlap and one would have to have a closer look at the overlap area only. Both of areas where they make more than the other.
I don't think the two companies can really be compared directly to each other. There is lots of overlap and one would have to have a closer look at the overlap area only. Both of areas where they make more than the other.
Yes, we'll just wait patiently while they catch up. No rush.
Oh, and Apple and Google just called and said they'll stop innovating and stand still as a friendly gesture.
This isn't 1995.
MS is unprepared for the current competitive situation. Google has shown just how flat-footed and out of touch MS really is. We have a mass-market commodity-ware vendor that apparently has the power to give things away for free that are "good enough." Before, MS used to be the "just good enough" vendor. Then you've got Apple on the Premium end showing the way forward.
This "You just watch, MS will catch up eventually" tactic is currently and will in the future continue to produce diminishing returns.
MS is Zuning it in the current tech climate. Bad management, false starts, a string of failures, continual embarrassment . . . all of this would be no problem at all, if only investors, shareholders, directors - whoever has the power - would call for the entire top-level management at MS to be terminated. THAT is positive change. But same old same old . . .
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center. And unlike Apple, Microsoft -has- data center / server products that people WANT to use and that are years ahead of the pack (Sharepoint Portal Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Terminal Services, just to name a few) - and a LOT of their RD goes there.
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
I still don't understand why nobody has managed to make a viable alternative to Microsoft Office, esp. Microsoft Excel. Apple's iWork is fine, but clearly not enough and of course there is no Windows version. Google is too obsessed with the cloud and ad thing and didn't make Google Docs a local app for Windows / Mac / Smartphones with Dropbox like cloud capabilities.
So Microsoft can continue to be fed with its Windows / Office monopolies for the foreseeable future.
because you don't take down an established company going head to head with one of their core products. your product will have to be a lot better to compete, and it will be too expensive.
if you want to win you need to wait for the tech cycle to change and take advantage of it. like apple did with the PC tech cycle giving way to smaller more mobile devices. give it a few years and they may start to replace PC's, but most likely will just live in unison
MS Office has so much features that no one person uses all of them, but the entire user base uses all the features.
x-box and gaming are a huge money maker. millions of people pay $50 a year for x-box live