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 206026
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not surprised...
by japh on Fri 26th Jan 2007 09:05 UTC 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[5]: Not surprised...
by kaiwai on Sat 27th Jan 2007 00:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprised..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


So you actually admit in the above paragraphs that it was the vendors who chose to enter into the contract, it was the vendors who restricted choice.

Microsoft offered them the choice; cheaper by more restrictive contract or the slightly more expensive option with more flexibility - and they choice the cheaper more restrictive one.

So if one were to actually take companies to court, it should be the OEM's restricting choice to the public by refusing to offer alternatives.

Thanks for admitting that the fault lies with the hardware vendors and not Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 3