Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 22:43 UTC
Microsoft With holiday PC sales apparently unscathed by the lack of Windows Vista, Microsoft reported quarterly earnings Thursday that topped expectations and its own forecast. The software giant said it earned USD 2.63 billion, or 26 cents per share, on revenue of USD 12.54 billion, for the three months ended December 31. That compares with earnings of USD 3.65 billion, or 34 cents per share, on revenue of USD 11.83 billion for the same quarter a year ago.
Thread beginning with comment 206009
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not surprised...
by japh on Fri 26th Jan 2007 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprised..."
japh
Member since:
2005-11-11

"don't attack Microsoft for doing something that every other company does - Coca Cola pay for prime place in the shelf; should they be punished for just conducting business as anyone else does?"

Well, there has been a lawsuit or two that indicates it's not just "business as anyone else".

I don't know what they did to get to become that dominant, but they have been making sure that OEM's had very little choice but to sign those contracts that stopped them from selling any competing OS.
Read up on how Be Inc couldn't even GIVE away their OS because of those contracts.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not surprised...
by kaiwai on Fri 26th Jan 2007 08:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Not surprised..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know what they did to get to become that dominant, but they have been making sure that OEM's had very little choice but to sign those contracts that stopped them from selling any competing OS.
Read up on how Be Inc couldn't even GIVE away their OS because of those contracts.


Bullcrap; I know the contract they would have signed; I've seen the damn thing! its a contract that outlines exclusivity in supply which in return the OEM receives a major discount on purchasing Windows licences; the discount - can be up 80% compared to the regular OEM packs that are sold via the usual distributors.

If you're an OEM; you can either make a deal with Microsoft with an exclusive contract or you can purchase OEM Windows licence packs off distributor in lots of IIRC 10's, 50's, 100's, 1000's and upwards; the cost decreases as the number of licences increase, but the discount isn't as steep as one would expect if one when into an exclusive contract.

These companies CHOSE to enter into a contract knowing full well that in the future it would inhibit their chances of diversifying their product range by also offering what ever else was out there - that is the cold hard truth; if you want someone to blame, you can clearly blame the manufactuers who took on the patrionising view of 'we know whats best for the stupid users, so we'll only sell Microsoft software' - and when the trial came forward, you and all the OEM's come out of the wood work, claiming they were pillaged and raped by Microsoft, forced into signing contracts at gun point - and funny enough, all these companies then sign up to another contract, after blackmailing Microsoft, and demanded lower prices for OEM copies of Windows.

Its hypocracy in action, and may I suggest you look at the reality; both OEM's and Microsoft are scumbags; Microsoft screwing the end user with poorly tested inferior products, and OEM vendors fobbing the responsibility off on others when they don't get their own way or when they're caught out.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Not surprised...
by japh on Fri 26th Jan 2007 09:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprised..."
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

"These companies CHOSE to enter into a contract knowing full well that in the future it would inhibit their chances of diversifying their product range by also offering what ever else was out there"

Sure they did. They also knew that their ability to compete right now would be limited if they didn't sign their contract.

If all the OEMs would refuse to sign this (and paying a higher price for the windows licenses) they could have had options to sell more things later.

Most people wants Windows on their machine and don't care about anything else so the deal wasn't terrible for the OEMs. At least not worse than the option. The deal was really good for Microsoft. In the end, the only ones who it wasn't good for was the consumers.

If you read the DoJ "Findings of facts" (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm) you'll see that it is pointed out in numerous places how this hurt competition and in the end the consumers.

You can say that this is the way everone does business all you want, that doesn't make it right. If other companies do the same thing, I hope they too get taken to court.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Not surprised...
by segedunum on Fri 26th Jan 2007 11:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprised..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

These companies CHOSE to enter into a contract knowing full well that in the future it would inhibit their chances of diversifying their product range by also offering what ever else was out there

They didn't choose anything. Using your rather silly Coca Cola analogy, if other foods that I ate depended on me drinking Coca Cola at the same time otherwise I'd starve (or the all new Coca Cola Explorer), then shops wouldn't have a choice but to sell Coca Cola. It's a hard and fast pre-requisite, and it's something that unscrupulous companies like Monsanto would absolutely love to achieve. Would that be acceptable do you think?

That's called a monopoly, and Microsoft's is as secure a monopoly as we have ever seen. You can shout, scream and say "but people could go elsewhere" all you like, but it is still a monopoly and they are things that governments have laws to govern.

...forced into signing contracts at gun point - and funny enough, all these companies then sign up to another contract, after blackmailing Microsoft, and demanded lower prices for OEM copies of Windows.

Ever seen the film Total Recall? When you are living in a market and world where oxygen is a hard and fast requirement, there isn't any produced naturally and someone happens to be selling it, that's called leverage.

Honestly, I don't know what some of you have been drinking (Coca Cola probably) after years of evidence as to how this works, but I suppose a pig headed reluctance to see facts in the face will see you through.

Edited 2007-01-26 11:28

Reply Parent Score: 4