Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dell still sells plenty of systems, as does HP.

Of course they do. And "plenty" of those plenty of systems are $399 computers that probably cost more in customer support than they bring in. Again, that's not the business I'd want to be in.

And in regards to lower-margin products driving marketshare and yet destroying brand image, how do you explain the likes of Toyota, Honda, and even recently Hyundai/Kia?

I think you overlooked my Toyota example.

Now look at Hyundai: while most car manufacturers have been losing marketshare or having it remain flat, Hyundia/Kia have actually been increasing their marketshare considerably. Not only that, but they're actually beginning to shed the bad reputations they have, as more and more companies consider their cars very high-quality, and yet still very much affordable.

Exactly. Their market share is increasing because they're making better quality products. Hyundai didn't decide they were going to make market share their priority. They decided to make product quality their priority. And a pleasant result of that approach has been rising market share.

I'm sorry, but both market approaches can exist. Yes, going for marketshare does often mean sacrificing margins, but it doesn't *have* to mean sacrificing your image as well.

But it very often does.

Funny that Steve would say that, given that at one time the cheapest Power Mac was around $2000. Apple eventually started selling them for as low as $1500. Eventually, they once again went back to $2000, and now they're at $2500+.

Even the iMac could once be had for < $1000, and now the introductory model sells for $1200.

What's that about never being able to raise prices again? ;)

I think Jobs actually said it's hard or difficult to raise them again. Apparently not so difficult that they couldn't do it. :(

I miss the days of the $1500 Power Mac.

Microsoft's game division has been turning a profit now for a couple of years. They make money on each console sold. They make quite a bit of money off of peripherals. And they have the highest attach rate in the industry. Care to revisit your "data"?

WRONG. Just because they're making money on each console sold now doesn't mean they've repaid the billions they've dumped into the effort since day one (including the hardware's horrific failure rate). Because they haven't. Not even close. High attach rate or not, Xbox will be in the red for a long time to come.

And how do you explain the Wii? How many has Nintendo sold? Something like 50 million + units. Nintendo has been making a sizable margin off of each Wii sold since the console was released.

Exactly. Nintendo took the right approach. Make a great product that people would want, price it at a profit. Sell lots of product, make lots of money, take a commanding market share. Business 101.

Sony and Microsoft did not follow Business 101 with their console strategies.

So first you say consoles *isn't* the way to go, but then you contract that argument by pointing out that Nintendo makes money on each Wii sold, which *is* a console. Which one is it?

Wrong. I'm saying selling at a big loss now and hoping you'll make up for it down the road is a mistake. Microsoft & Sony = stupid approach. Nintendo = smart approach. See above.

Says who? Show me an article where Toyota's reputation "took a dive". Their models have consistently still been ranked as among the most reliable by many different organizations (JD POwer, Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, etc.).

Wow, you must not follow automotive news. I'm not saying Toyota isn't a quality company, but the quality of their products took a marked dive when they started pushing for volume and anyone who follows car news knows it. Read any review and they'll gripe about the cheap interior quality - definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. And their recalls have been huge. Definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. The interior of my mother-in-law's 2004 Camry is far crappier than the quality of the 1992 Camry she had before it, and that's an observable fact.

And at the end of the day, most corporations and organizations still run Windows, and thus still end up purchasing Microsoft software. I don't think Microsoft's shareholders are sitting back, thinking "Damn, if only MS had not wanted to have so many corporations reliant on them, and instead focused on 10% of the market".

I think you've completely missed the point of my argument.

It seems like you only "discount" it because it's not Apple's approach. Sorry, that's not how things work.

Unfortunately, for many companies this is exactly how things work.

Have you tried Windows 7? It's a very, very good OS. Yes, it copies aspects of OS X. But at the end of the day, I don't care. It works. It works well.

Yes, I've been using it since RC. Better than XP? Definitely. But "very, very good?" Not really. I'd say it's "less crappy" than any version of Windows I've used before, but I certainly wouldn't give it any trophies for software design.

I guess when you specialize in mediocre products like Microsoft it's easy to keep your customers happy. They're the GM or McDonalds of the technology world. Nothing special, yet everyone buys their stuff. "Baffling" really. ;)
 
Yet, we don't hear BMW complaining about their comparatively low market share and higher profit margin, either.
You're absolutely right. Just like Apple, BMW has carved out a part of the market for itself, and is doing quite well.

It shows that both business methods can work.


And how on earth will this miniscule profitability ever come remotely close to compensating for the +$25 Billion in expenditures/losses caused by the XBox?

It will never happen.
The last I heard, the total amount Microsoft had invested in Xbox/Xbox 360 design & development was somewhere around $8 billion. Where's the $25 billion coming from? I've seen it said that the divisions that produced the Xbox, Zune, Windows Live, etc., have overall averaged a $15 billion loss in the past 10 years, but that's more than just the XBOX itself.

However, they have been sitting back saying, "Damn, our stock has basically flat-lined for past 10 years, piracy makes up a sufficient portion of our user base,

consumers believe that our products are substandard, and our CEO has overseen all of it." Again, companies such as BMW focus on 10% of the market, and

do quite well, while maintaining a reputation of high standards - things happen to work in this regard, as well.
Yes, I'm sure Microsoft's shareholders have also been pissed about all the dividends Microsoft has paid out as well, with the company still having very large cash reserves.

While I agree that a lot of consumers view Microsoft products as sub-standard, they still happen to buy them in large numbers. You'd think they'd all go running off to other companies in mass droves.

And once again, you're right, focusing on 10% of the market is perfectly acceptable. All I'm saying is, it's not the *only* option for how to do business, and it's not necessarily the best.
 
Except that your enterprise can't speak for all enterprise.

Give me some examples of Macs taking over corp.

Exchange rules the business world. Apple has nothing to can come close. Open Directory is not going to fly in a huge corp. Macs are a niche market and people acting like its taking over the world are seriously confused, especially in the enterprise market. Prime example, almost all major Net Appliances use NFS or SMB, not AFP (we use ExtremeZIP.) Apple Servers are extremely expensive and for the price not worth what you get (Promise drives as the Apple RAID, good choice Apple, NOT.) Apple is not even remotely prepared to enter the enterprise market and its ok because they aren't geared for that market.

BTW: Most enterprises are moving towards VDI or similar options and App Virtualization. Apple doesn't even allow this under there EULA.
 
Give me some examples of Macs taking over corp.

Exchange rules the business world. Apple has nothing to can come close. Open Directory is not going to fly in a huge corp. Macs are a niche market and people acting like its taking over the world are seriously confused, especially in the enterprise market. Prime example, almost all major Net Appliances use NFS or SMB, not AFP (we use ExtremeZIP.) Apple Servers are extremely expensive and for the price not worth what you get (Promise drives as the Apple RAID, good choice Apple, NOT.) Apple is not even remotely prepared to enter the enterprise market and its ok because they aren't geared for that market.

BTW: Most enterprises are moving towards VDI or similar options and App Virtualization. Apple doesn't even allow this under there EULA.

If anything linux is taking over the Enterprise world.
 
The last I heard, the total amount Microsoft had invested in Xbox/Xbox 360 design & development was somewhere around $8 billion. Where's the $25 billion coming from? I've seen it said that the divisions that produced the Xbox, Zune, Windows Live, etc., have overall averaged a $15 billion loss in the past 10 years, but that's more than just the XBOX itself.

It was already over $25 Billion as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"

Yes, I'm sure Microsoft's shareholders have also been pissed about all the dividends Microsoft has paid out as well, with the company still having very large cash reserves.

At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.

While I agree that a lot of consumers view Microsoft products as sub-standard, they still happen to buy them in large numbers. You'd think they'd all go running off to other companies in mass droves.

And once again, you're right, focusing on 10% of the market is perfectly acceptable. All I'm saying is, it's not the *only* option for how to do business, and it's not necessarily the best.

The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's

larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.
 
It was already over $25 Billion as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"



At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.



The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's

larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.

I'll see if I can find the shop again, I went into a computer store and there was actually a bargain bin for things like netbooks and laptops!
 
I'll see if I can find the shop again, I went into a computer store and there was actually a bargain bin for things like netbooks and laptops!

bargainbin.jpg

Back to school Laptop Hunters
 
These type of comments just baffle me. In the typically strongest iPhone quarter (just after the release of the new model), Apple actually lost ground against RIM in % marketshare.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Arstechnica has a diagram showing market share for several quarters ... here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars

The only reason RIM gained year on year over Apple is because the iPhone had a huge surge of pent-up demand in Q3 2008 over Q2 2008. The Arstechnica graph clearly shows the gap narrowing.
 
Of course they do. And "plenty" of those plenty of systems are $399 computers that probably cost more in customer support than they bring in. Again, that's not the business I'd want to be in.
Yes, and Dell also sells plenty of XPS and Alienware systems, and plenty of <$100 but >$400 systems, and plenty of >$1000 but <$1000 systems.

Exactly. Their market share is increasing because they're making better quality products. Hyundai didn't decide they were going to make market share their priority. They decided to make product quality their priority. And a pleasant result of that approach has been rising market share.
Their market share isn't increasing *just* because they're making higher quality products. It's a combination of making higher quality products, and still selling cars at very affordable levels. And they still are making marketshare gain a priority. Check out this link:

http://www.bnet.com/2403-13241_23-309290.html

Notice this quote from their head of sales:

"Everybody is trying to figure out how to gain market share. At the end of the last year we had 3 percent market share, so we believe there’s 97 percent out there that we can go after."

I think Jobs actually said it's hard or difficult to raise them again. Apparently not so difficult that they couldn't do it. :(
So first it's that it never happens, now it's that it's hard/difficult. Where's this quote? :p

(And don't take that as me calling you out. He probably did say something along those lines. Then again, it's not the first time Steve put his foot in his mouth).

I miss the days of the $1500 Power Mac.
So do I :(


WRONG. Just because they're making money on each console sold now doesn't mean they've repaid the billions they've dumped into the effort since day one (including the hardware's horrific failure rate). Because they haven't. Not even close. High attach rate or not, Xbox will be in the red for a long time to come.
As mentioned in an earlier post, if I recall correctly (and I may be very much incorrect on this), they've spent something like $8 billion total in investment in the "XBox project" (XBOX and XBOX360). If they continue to make a profit each quarter, it'll eventually pay itself back.

I don't think that's much different from quite a few companies. I'm sure some of Intel's developments have taken quite a bit of time to pay back.

Exactly. Nintendo took the right approach. Make a great product that people would want, price it at a profit. Sell lots of product, make lots of money, take a commanding market share. Business 101.

Sony and Microsoft did not follow Business 101 with their console strategies.
Well, Nintendo took that approach more because they couldn't keep up in the game of constantly trying to develop and release the most advanced gaming console. Remember how long it took for the N64 and Gamecube to appear. Nintendo's track record for developing top-of-the-line console hardware had become fairly bad with the last few products. It had nothing to do with thinking it was the best approach to go. It was simply the best approach for them. And it has paid off handsomely (although lately Wii sales are starting to drop quite a bit, and Nintendo's profits are considerably down).

Look at all of the free services Google provides to educational institutions. Most of those free services aren't bringing in much if any money, but it's certainly not hurting Google, as they know that a) it attaches people to their other product offerings, and b) ultimately they're likely to remain users of Google's services even once removed from the educational environment, thus increasing Google's market share in the long term.

Wrong. I'm saying selling at a big loss now and hoping you'll make up for it down the road is a mistake. Microsoft & Sony = stupid approach. Nintendo = smart approach. See above.
I'll agree that short-term big losses are risky. Short-term small losses though? Not so much. Look at the PS2, and how that turned out for Sony.

I don't think it's necessarily the best approach, but it's one approach, and sometimes you can hit it big.

Then again, you can say the same for when a company prices a product at a high cost to get a high margin, without regard for growing marketshare. That's a risk too. If the product(s) fail, that company is essentially going to have to either lower prices enough that people will buy it (thus eroding that margin) or ultimately face going out of business if they refuse to.

Wow, you must not follow automotive news. I'm not saying Toyota isn't a quality company, but the quality of their products took a marked dive when they started pushing for volume and anyone who follows car news knows it. Read any review and they'll gripe about the cheap interior quality - definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. And their recalls have been huge. Definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. The interior of my mother-in-law's 2004 Camry is far crappier than the quality of the 1992 Camry she had before it, and that's an observable fact.
Yes, Toyota is certainly doing bad in the reliability department: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/honda-and-toyota-top-reliability-survey-but-ford-closes-gap/

If anything, the complaint I've heard about Toyota's recent cars is that they're fairly plain insane (compared to the stylized interiors a lot of other companies are putting out). However, plain interior =/= low quality interior.

And I'm sorry to hear about your mother-in-law's 2004 Camry, but does that mean all of Toyota's products are? I'm sure there are people who've received defective Apple products, and complained about how Apple's QA "isn't up to the quality of years past" (or what about the issue years ago with the iPod batteries, or the first generation iPhone screen problems). Does their experience mean Apple is putting out crappy products all around? I don't think so.

I think you've completely missed the point of my argument.
No, I think you're just looking at it from a narrow view point. Apple's way =/= the only way, no matter what Steve Jobs preaches :)

Yes, I've been using it since RC. Better than XP? Definitely. But "very, very good?" Not really. I'd say it's "less crappy" than any version of Windows I've used before, but I certainly wouldn't give it any trophies for software design.
How is it not a very good OS? It's stable, far more secure than XP and Vista. Device compatibility hasn't been much of an issue so far. It can run on systems that even Vista had troubles with at times.

Sure, there are a number of areas where it's clear that they took the idea from OS X (such as the taskbar redesign and Aero), but if anything people should see that as a good thing for both camps: it means Apple did a tremendous job with their GUI design (so much so, MS wanted to copy it), and at the same time, it improves the computing experience for millions of more people.

I'd honestly love to hear why exactly you feel like Windows is still bad.

I guess when you specialize in mediocre products like Microsoft it's easy to keep your customers happy. They're the GM or McDonalds of the technology world. Nothing special, yet everyone buys their stuff. "Baffling" really. ;)
I don't think "everyone" buys GM's products. Remember, GM's marketshare has been declining by a considerable margin for several years now.

And not "everything" Microsoft produces is "mediocre". Just because you don't like Microsoft or its management doesn't mean you have to discredit everything MS puts out.

I don't like Steve Jobs at all, but I don't let that sour my viewpoint of Apple.
 
It's about 2-3% isn't it.

So apart from the laughable wishful thinking about WinMo he's right, isn't he?


They are at 2.5% right now. The smartphone market is growing like crazy, while the total cellphone market isn't. It doesn't take much to predict a steep rise of the iPhone market share way beyond what S.B. saw as absolute maximum possible. I'm pretty sure tho, it will never go beyond 10%, similar to the Mac market share.
 
It's been a feature that A LOT of people have been looking forward to, and it's finally become available. Linux supports it. Windows 7 supports it. OS X? Not so much.

Supporting a feature is not innovation. That's just... well... supporting a feature. No one had to have a new idea to support TRIM.

You are right tho, that OS X is behind in that respect, but I'm not sure how much effect the TRIM command really has for real life applications. Do you have any numbers on that?
 
It was already over $25 Billion as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"
You do realize that he references the Home & Entertainment Division (aka, the Xbox, Xbox 360, the Zune, game development studios for both console and PC, PC hardware and mobile phone software) and doesn't actually break out what the XBOX 360 itself cost? Is the XBOX/XBOX 360 a sizable chunk of it? Sure. But he treats it like the entire R&D has gone towards the XBOX/XBOX 360, and that's not the case.

There's also the fact that you're treating it as if they've lost $25+ billion. As of that writing, he clearly shows that the loss has actually only been $5.4 billion and, currently, the H&E division is now making a profit. As long as the profit keeps up (and there's no guarantee of course that it will), eventually they'll actually be in the black for the entire project/division.

At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.
Ok, and if AAPL's stock were to start to rapidly decline, and you didn't sell, what would the result be?

I never said that MS's divident was very much, but they are paying one, and I doubt those with substantial MS stock holdings are going to simply scoff at receiving money.

Tell me, how is it not having to worry about money at all? :rolleyes:

The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.
Well, you're right in that most users continue to use MS products because that's what they've been used to. And yes, a lot of companies do require their employees to use PCs. Why? Because Apple dropped the ball in that regard.

Remember, the computing market was very much open for the taking in the early 80s. Apple could very much have become the dominant company that Microsoft is today. Instead, IBM offered cheaper machines, and other manufacturers were able to follow suit since they could advertise complete compatibility. It was cheaper for corporations to buy PC or PC clones than to buy Apple systems, and because adoption so quickly began to favor PCs, this is what companies wrote software for.

Thus, you now have the current period, where most people are still more familiar with Windows, as bad as it may be. The other factor is that for the most part, Windows is perfectly adequate for what most users need.

I'd be willing to state that the majority of Windows users (and even Mac users) typically do very simple, basic computing tasks. As such, both OS' are more than suitable.

And MS' "sleazy days" are pretty much behind them. While I'm sure they wish they could get back to some of those times (and the DoJ likely wouldn't stop them, as they have larger issues to deal with), the EU would loving nothing more than to hit MS up for some more fines. Look at the extent to which MS is now going to satisfy their regulators.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.
You're right, and that's perfectly fine. Apple is making a lot of money catering to the market that they do.

Other companies are making a lot of money catering to the markets they focus on. Why do people here have to complain so much about how others make profit?
 
Supporting a feature is not innovation. That's just... well... supporting a feature. No one had to have a new idea to support TRIM.

You are right tho, that OS X is behind in that respect, but I'm not sure how much effect the TRIM command really has for real life applications. Do you have any numbers on that?
Here's a good quote from Anandtech:
Again, I won’t go into great detail here but TRIM addresses a major part of the performance degradation over time issue that plague all SSDs. A TRIM enabled drive running an OS with TRIM support will stay closer to its peak performance over time.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&cp=7

Basically, no matter which OS is being used, SSD performance will decline with time (granted, you'll typically see a degradation in performance over time with all disk drives, but it's far more apparent with SSDs).

Here's another good read on the issue:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132668/Analysis_SSD_performance_is_a_slowdown_inevitable_?taxonomyId=19&pageNumber=2
 
They are at 2.5% right now. The smartphone market is growing like crazy, while the total cellphone market isn't. It doesn't take much to predict a steep rise of the iPhone market share way beyond what S.B. saw as absolute maximum possible. I'm pretty sure tho, it will never go beyond 10%, similar to the Mac market share.

This is getting iCal'd. ;)
 
Introducing Apple Dog (iDog)

Now, Apple could release an old smelly dog with the Apple logo branded on its fur, and people would buy it up, lol.

I just did. It is called MacBook Pro. It stinks and it likes to play, mostly with beach balls or with my nerves.

By the way, I completely agree with your argument.
 
i suspect that trend will continue. every time apple updates the iphone, the numbers rise big time. and over they'll continue to dominate, while others try to copy
 
There's also the fact that you're treating it as if they've lost $25+ billion. As of that writing, he clearly shows that the loss has actually only been $5.4 billion and, currently, the H&E division is now making a profit. As long as the profit keeps up (and there's no guarantee of course that it will), eventually they'll actually be in the black for the entire project/division.

No, the loss has been cumulative. $25+ billion is nothing to sneeze at - it is a loss, nonetheless, regardless of how it is framed, and will not be recouped any time soon,

considering the lean profits which have only recently trickled in, in sporadic fashion.

Ok, and if AAPL's stock were to start to rapidly decline, and you didn't sell, what would the result be?

I never said that MS's divident was very much, but they are paying one, and I doubt those with substantial MS stock holdings are going to simply scoff at receiving money.

Tell me, how is it not having to worry about money at all? :rolleyes:

The profit I've made selling 30 shares of AAPL would make MSFT's meager dividends on 1000 shares seem insignificant. Besides, if MSFT were doing well, I would opt to reinvest the dividends rather than

to be forced to pay taxes on the quarterly hand-outs. To each, his own.

Well, you're right in that most users continue to use MS products because that's what they've been used to. And yes, a lot of companies do require their employees to use PCs. Why? Because Apple dropped the ball in that regard.

Remember, the computing market was very much open for the taking in the early 80s. Apple could very much have become the dominant company that Microsoft is today. Instead, IBM offered cheaper machines, and other manufacturers were able to follow suit since they could advertise complete compatibility. It was cheaper for corporations to buy PC or PC clones than to buy Apple systems, and because adoption so quickly began to favor PCs, this is what companies wrote software for.

Thus, you now have the current period, where most people are still more familiar with Windows, as bad as it may be. The other factor is that for the most part, Windows is perfectly adequate for what most users need.

I'd be willing to state that the majority of Windows users (and even Mac users) typically do very simple, basic computing tasks. As such, both OS' are more than suitable.

And MS' "sleazy days" are pretty much behind them. While I'm sure they wish they could get back to some of those times (and the DoJ likely wouldn't stop them, as they have larger issues to deal with), the EU would loving nothing more than to hit MS up for some more fines. Look at the extent to which MS is now going to satisfy their regulators.

Sleazy actions have a way of following the culprit, especially for those actions of significant sleazery. It comes as no surprise that 78% of the world’s Web servers are not run by a Microsoft product.

Considering how the open source Firefox browser rose from zero market share five years ago, to over 24% in October of this year, while the pitiful Internet Explorer, which remains the default on

every single Windows computer (until the ballot box goes into effect), is now estimated at 64%, things finally seem to be heading toward an equilibrium now.

You're right, and that's perfectly fine. Apple is making a lot of money catering to the market that they do.

Other companies are making a lot of money catering to the markets they focus on. Why do people here have to complain so much about how others make profit?

True, as Apple never needed to engage in monopolistic, predatory practices and sleazy OEM deals in the first place, in order to achieve their success.
 
As mentioned in an earlier post, if I recall correctly (and I may be very much incorrect on this), they've spent something like $8 billion total in investment in the "XBox project" (XBOX and XBOX360). If they continue to make a profit each quarter, it'll eventually pay itself back.

"Eventually." Uh huh. Sure. And how long do you think it will take them to break even, i.e. make up for that $8 billion investment? Do you think they can sell the Xbox 360 for 20 years? Do you think that, perhaps, after 4 years on the market that the Xbox 360 might not have a lot of sales ahead of it? Particularly when Sony now gives the consumer Blu-Ray, built-in WiFi, Bluetooth, and free online gaming for the same price? Do you think that, perhaps, Microsoft will have to release an Xbox 540/720/1080/whatever within the next few years to stay competitive?

Of course they will. And the losses will begin anew. The Xbox is never going to "eventually pay itself back" (no matter how many iterations of Marathon, er, I mean Halo they release) and anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic should see that. (Steve Ballmer apparently does not have a basic grasp of arithmetic).

Xbox is just another expensive attempt by Microsoft at "cool." Because, apparently, spreadsheet software just isn't hip with the younger crowd. Microsoft just wants to be loved, and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to get there.
 
"Eventually." Uh huh. Sure. And how long do you think it will take them to break even, i.e. make up for that $8 billion investment? Do you think they can sell the Xbox 360 for 20 years? Do you think that, perhaps, after 4 years on the market that the Xbox 360 might not have a lot of sales ahead of it? Particularly when Sony now gives the consumer Blu-Ray, built-in WiFi, Bluetooth, and free online gaming for the same price? Do you think that, perhaps, Microsoft will have to release an Xbox 540/720/1080/whatever within the next few years to stay competitive?

Of course they will. And the losses will begin anew. The Xbox is never going to "eventually pay itself back" (no matter how many iterations of Marathon, er, I mean Halo they release) and anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic should see that. (Steve Ballmer apparently does not have a basic grasp of arithmetic).

Xbox is just another expensive attempt by Microsoft at "cool." Because, apparently, spreadsheet software just isn't hip with the younger crowd. Microsoft just wants to be loved, and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to get there.

laptophunters.jpg

Business as usual

ballmer-money.png

"This can be yours!"

microsoft_decline.psd_@_100__(old,_RGB_8)-20091006-102336.jpg

"Just wait until Win7Mobile comes out!"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.