Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Jul 2012 23:57 UTC
Microsoft "Microsoft today announced quarterly revenue of $18.06 billion for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Operating income and loss per share for the quarter were $192 million and $0.06 per share. The financial results reflect the previously announced non-cash, non-tax-deductible income statement charge of $6.19 billion for the impairment of goodwill and the deferral of $540 million of revenue related to the Windows Upgrade Offer."
Thread beginning with comment 527503
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The reason is that the result is extremly poor for a company that has a monopoly in several areas and is part of duopolies and triopolies. A lower than expected revenue means lower share payout than expected and people get angry that microsoft has not utilized it's *polies to a greater and better extent. Personally i prefer microsoft under Ballmer than under Gates. Interoperabillity has been alot better and the people hired is not such dicks as they used to be during win98-winME era.

I actually like doing buissness with microsoft now. (shocker)

Reply Parent Score: 1

MollyC Member since:

Microsoft's operating income was 6.9 billion, the expectations were 5.8 billion. So what are you talking about?

Reply Parent Score: 2

bassbeast Member since:

Funny, I liked it better under Gates and here is why: while interoperability is indeed better, which I would argue would have happened anyway simply because MSFT couldn't control the web, one of the two critical products it has has frankly suffered BADLY under Ballmer and I'm of course talking about the OS.

Gates had it right when he had the consumer OS and the business OS as separate properties because frankly what is good in one isn't good in another. the business users (and the gamers frankly) want a low resource OS that just gets out of the way so they can run their third party apps (or games) with a minimum of fuss. the consumers want more wizards, hand holding, and lots of pretty.

Ballmer's entire strategy has been to make consumer bling and if it works for business fine, if not he doesn't care. It was able to work with XP simply because it was released at the start of a MHz war so PCs quickly became so powerful the bling didn't matter. Vista and Win 8 are perfect examples of ignoring business for the sake of consumer markets only in the case of win 8 they aren't even using focus groups, just making this mish mash mess of a tweeting twitting social crap to try to lure the FB generation.

Its sad, that is what it is. as you pointed out just the monopolies and duopolies should have gave them 3 to 4 times what it did, even in a down economy, and would have if Ballmer hadn't been spending like a drunken sailor while ignoring his customers. Here is the Steve Ballmer strategy in 3 steps, 1.-See what is popular, 2.-buy or build a half baked copy that is buggy and behind the curve, 3.-fail miserably.

Give me Gates any day, he may have been an ass but he was an ass with a plan, all Ballmer is is a copycat and not even a good one at that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:

Old consumer Windows, while for a long time much more viable or even better than most alternatives ( ), were still kinda rubbish. The world is better off without them.

Corps use the "bloat" of all the included tools a lot; you simply don't have to use them; them being available doesn't really impact performance, the bling still doesn't matter (plus, win8 is kinda more snappy)
It was in the times of Ballmer that some nice new things were pushed through (Ribbon doesn't seem like much of a copycat; Xbox seems to have most healthy ~indy tooling & ecosystem around it, and recently innovates most in the field, with Kinect; the table kind of Surface is very theirs), or things that perhaps were painful but necessary (the technical overhaul of Vista, largely responsible for Vista SE being the most adored OS evah)

Reply Parent Score: 2