“Microsoft profit jumped 51 percent year over year and recorded record quarterly revenue during Q1 of its fiscal year 2011, the company said today, killing Wall Street estimates as skepticism surrounded Microsoft’s cash cows. Net income skyrocketed from $3.57 billion in Q1FY10 to $5.41 billion in the quarter ending Sept. 30, launched by strong sales of Windows 7 and Office 2010. The year-ago period, however, was a low point as Microsoft weathered the poor economy. Earnings per share was 62 cents, eclipsing the Wall Street consensus estimate of 55 cents. And while analysts had expected revenue of $15.8 billion, Microsoft reported $16.2 billion – up 25 percent over the year-ago period.”
Microsoft Profit Jumps 51 Percent with Record Q1 Revenue
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2010-10-29 8:07 amspiderman
Release a good product and people will buy it in a free market.
You mean people buy Windows and Office on the “free market”? I bought Windows recently because I could not find a computer without it with decent hardware specs and price, just to wipe it off the hard disk and install an “alternative” OS. The weird thing is that I already had a Windows license from previous computer where I also wiped it off the hard drive. I understand this is a free market and I’m free to buy a crappy Macintosh with low hardware specs but very high price and still wipe Mac OS X off from the hard drive, or to order a linux box on the web with even lower specs, even higher price and no support for the hardware. It’s a pain but that is the price of the free market, isn’t it? I love the free market, but what about my freedom?
2010-10-29 8:39 amrom508
Can’t you ask for a refund on Windows? I’ve read articles about people doing it. If you don’t agree with Windows license, etc. you can return the software for a refund.
I’ve been using old hardware and open source software for years, so I don’t know what tricks MS and their resellers employ to stop people claiming refunds when they buy a new computer with Windows preloaded.
2010-10-29 9:28 amspiderman
You have to send the computer back to the OEM within 30 days of purchase. The original package must not have been opened. Few of them will refund. Some will “refund” about â‚¬70 for a software that cost â‚¬300 (I doubt even the OEM version is so cheap). Most won’t even refund the transport.
Here are the prices refunded by Acer:
* Windows XP Home : â‚¬40
* Windows XP Pro : â‚¬70
* Windows XP Media Center : â‚¬60
* Windows Vista Home Basic : â‚¬35
* Windows Vista Home Premium : â‚¬40
* Windows Vista Business : â‚¬60
* Windows 7 Home Basic : â‚¬35
* Windows 7 Home Premium : â‚¬40
* Windows 7 Professionnal : â‚¬70
* Windows 7 Ultimate : â‚¬90
(Windows 7 ultimate is sold â‚¬319)
The OEM who will refund are Acer, Samsung and Toshiba.
Those who don’t: Fujitsu Siemens, HP, Sony, Dell, Lenovo.
So you send your computer, you pay for the transport, you can’t use your computer for one month or so, sometimes longer and you may or may not get a refund of â‚¬70. The time you spend doing that is not even worth the refund.
Thank you “free market”!
Edited 2010-10-29 09:29 UTC
2010-10-29 10:07 amrom508
Well at some point in the future I would probably need to buy a laptop. I quite like Thinkpad X200s, so before I even part with my cash, I’ll ask Lenovo about their policy of refunding Windows. If they tell me to fuck off, I will refuse to buy their products.
If enough people do this, computer manufacturers would need to change their attitude.
There was an article about some guy who asked for similar refund from Lenovo and they agreed, as long as he signed NDA to keep quiet about the deal.
2010-10-29 12:40 pmspiderman
Basically, they don’t care about the tiny minority of people who want the hardware without the software. They only care about the money. Selling hardware is not as profitable as selling software, because software has no duplication cost. So they link the sale of hardware with the software. This is illegal in most countries but it does not matter as long as the legal cost is lower than the benefit for them.
2010-10-29 3:18 pmjgagnon
Windows does not cost Acer the same price you would pay at retail. They buy it MUCH cheaper and those prices sound about right for your refund.
2010-10-29 6:19 pmspiderman
How would I know? They don’t publish the cost of the software, so all you can have is a wild guess and the price they accept to refund. I have to take their word for it. It is very highly unlikely that they refund more than the cost they pay. They may be refund what they paid Microsoft, or they may refund less. Basically they do everything behind closed doors and they refund what they want to refund. That is what they call the free market my friend. They are free to tell you what they want to tell you and to pay what they want to pay. You are free to live in the dark age or to buy what they sell at the price they set and go through the trouble they want you to go through if you want them to apply the law.
Basically, they don’t care about the tiny minority of people who want the hardware without the software.[i][/i]
The OEM system install has been the gold standard in the home and SOHO market for thirty years.
The buyer shops for the balanced and tested configuration of hardware and software that fits his needs and budget.
It is sold with a warranty and maybe a service contract –
For the holiday shopper, Walmart.com is offering an incredible 242 Win 7 laptops, 96 desktops, 232 Windows keyboards, 111 Windows printers, 78 Windows webcams, 504 Windows PC games – something like a thousand software titles for Windows in all.
The numbers are telling.
The “Windows refund” is bogus – little better than a scam, really.
2010-10-29 6:24 pmspiderman
Indeed. The free market is all about the biggest fish. The biggest fish eat the smaller ones and grow bigger. Big volume breads lower price, which breads even more volume. Alternatives are not allowed on the free market.
Hmm Wonder how much of this is from their extortion campaign against linux. Probably not much… yet.
I do like Microsoft (please don’t kill me), but this is sad. Because Ballmes manages to milk the existing products very well, but keeps short on innovation.
They killed so many good projects recently – in research, or in active products – it’s easy to lose count. For example they started a very good ecosystem of dynamic languages on .Net (IronPython being faster than regular CPython in some instances), however now the projects are spun off, and some good people are trying to rebuild the community around them.
They spent 500 million dollars on Kin fiasco, but canceled the Courier tablet project (which was ahead of everything in comparison).
And the list goes on. Windows and Office are still productive, so are Server and Xbox businesses. As long as they can milk those cows, we’ll see less and less innovative products form MS.
Edited 2010-10-29 00:55 UTC
This is what I call a “genuine advantage”
Release a good product and people will buy it in a free market. I would also attribute some of this profit to Mac and Linux. I know twisted logic, but Microsoft is well known to rest on it laurels when there is no competition, however they have a lot of talent, when they have to fight they release some good stuff. Windows 7 is def their best yet,