Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 16:40 \__
>
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 16:01 \__
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> >> Let is face a certain reality. Microsoft are dwindling more quickly
> >> >> than anybody anticipated. The stocks show it, the investors say so, and
> >> >> there is other evidence all around us.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.schestowitz.com/Weblog_Frames/msft_slumps.jpg (15%+ drop in
> >> >> less than one month!)
> >> >>
> >> >> All that this company can do is reach out for its deep pockets (filled
> >> >> with tainted gold) and *pay* Web hosts to pick up Windows over superior
> >> >> software, which is *free*. This is a proven fact. Also, they sell the
> >> >> XBox 360 for a considerable loss. That's a _well-known_ fact.
> >> >>
> >> >> All that this company does is giving an _illusion_ that Microsoft lives
> >> >> on. In reality, its pockets are being emptied; And the cash cows
> >> >> (notably Office and Windows) are being made obsolete by their various
> >> >> mature alternatives.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oops. I forgot to add bloggers, whom Microsoft pay to publish stuff in
> >> support of Microsoft. Media sources such as CNET likewise.
> >
> > This is marketing and PR... How is this related to the company dying
> > very quickly?
>
>
> The company expends money is making the media biased.
<sarcasm>Well thank goodness that you are not biased one least
bit.</sarcasm>
Fact is that Microsoft has (and has historically had) a large
advertising budget. The whole point of spending money is to reach the
media and consumers and bias them towards your products. Why the hell
do you think they spend the money in the first place?
> >> Also, I forgot to mention forum trolls:
> >>
> >> http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/gizmos/2005/11/2_grassroots_an.html
> >
> > Okay - Forms? Why are you trying to change the subject?
>
>
> Don't play naive. The point is that _they are PAYING these people_.
>From the article:
<quote>
Almost forgotten now is the fake grassroots campaign of 1998 and the
earlier Microsoft Munchkins. I'll allow Tech TV to refresh our memories
about Microsoft's astrotufing:
</quote>
Did you catch the part about 1998 and earlier? The same 1998 that
occurred 8 years ago. Your sentence is wrong... they WERE paying these
people.
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | Some years back, Microsoft practiced a lot of dirty tricks using online
> >> | mavens to go into forums and create Web sites extolling the virtues of
> >> | Windows over OS/2. They were dubbed the Microsoft Munchkins, and it
> >> | was obvious who they were and what they were up to. But their numbers
> >> | and energy (and they way they joined forces with nonaligned dummies who
> >> | liked to pile on) proved too much for IBM marketers, and Windows won
> >> | the operating-system war through fifth-column tactics.
> >> |
> >> | Mr Dvorak wonders if Microsoft is today using reverse-dirty-tricks to
> >> | promote the Xbox 360: pay people to create Web sites that slam the
> >> | gaming computer in order to provoke a barrage of defenders.
> >> `----
> >>
> >>
> >> Want to see a _live_ example? Then read on!
> >>
> >>
> >> > This absolutely the dumbest post I've read in a long time. Dying?
> >> > Unfortunately the facts don't support your hyperbole.
> >>
> >>
> >> And this, of course, comes from Larry Qualig, a formet Microsoft employee.
> >
> > I worked there from 1996 to 1998 when they acquired a company that I
> > was working for at the time. Considering that I haven't received a
> > check from them in almost a decade I'm reasonably sure I'm no longer on
> > their payroll.
>
>
> As your posts in the past indicated, the company remains close to your heart.
What a joke. No computer or operating system is "close to my heart"
anymore than a toaster-oven, cell-phone or lawn-mower is "close to my
heart." If something as stupid as a operating system is "close to YOUR
heart" then you should get a new perspective on life.
> Moreover, you program using their tools. Thus, your skills and prospects
> depend on their existence. With interests in mind, your argument is
> (indirectly) financially inclined and therefore biased.
You have absolutely ZERO idea what I do, what tools I use and what my
skills are. So do go on making an ass out of yourself and pretending
that you do. As I've posted here several times in the past... I develop
software that runs on HPUX, AIX, Solaris, Linux (RHES and SES), zOS,
NT-Server and OSF. Yes, you are completely clueless as to what I do and
with what tools.
(Hint: You may want to reference some of the dozens of posts I've made
here regarding multi-platform development, subtle differences between
different *nix platforms, platform independent class libraries,
big-endian vs. little-endian programming issues, etc. Some of these
posts are as recent as last week.)
> Try to argue with an Eskimo about global warming...
>
>
> >> > Let's look at the last quarter - what you consider evidence/proof of
> >> > your position. Microsoft grew revenue in *every single market segment*
> >> > they are in. Total revenue grew by 10% and total profits grew by 9%. A
> >> > year ago they made $3.3 Billion in profit for the quarter and this year
> >> > they 'only' made $3.9 Billion in profit.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ahem! The world is becoming more modernised. More people buy computers,
> >> servers, and their dependence on the technology rises, not linearly.
> >> Moreover, don't forget /inflation/.
> >
> > Inflation is nowhere near 10%. Given that they grew *profits*
> > (increased profits) at a rate of $2.4 Billion dollars per year it's a
> > little early to proclaim that "It's official: Microsoft is dying very
> > quickly." They first need to have declining profits and start losing
> > money - just like Sun and Novell.
>
> With 2 billion dollars invested in the fight over Web services (notably
> Google), that profit will grow no more. With 0.5 billion invested in
> struggles with IBM, there is even less. And we haven't touched Open Source
> yet...
For someone who claims to read financial journels you are terribly
clueless as to the meaning of the term "profit." Yes, Microsoft did
invest $2 billion fighting over web-services and $500 million against
IBM. But these things are already accounted for in the financials
*before* the profit. Profit is what is left over AFTER these and all
other expenses are paid.
It's absurd to say that the Billions in annual profit they make isn't
real because they spent billions on these and other items. The Billions
in profit is what is *left over* after they already spent all this
money.
> >> > I guess that "all this company can do is reach out for its deep
> >> > pockets" - huh? (Hint: Just the $600 million dollar 'increase' in
> >> > quarterly profits from last year is more profit than most companies
> >> > make in an entire year.)
> >> >
> >> > Dying very quickly? From this post of yours it seems that you are
> >> > either grasping at straws or losing your mind very quickly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Larry, you are so blinded by the numbers that Ballmer feeds y'all through
> >> a plastic tube. Have you read the financial papers recently? Well, I do.
> >> From all perspectives, it's grim for Microsoft. The XBox 360, for example,
> >> is an illusion. It's intended to massage figures and manipulate public
> >> opinion.
> >
> > Where in the world did you come up with this Ballmer issue? (Try and
> > stay on topic) It is *YOU* who is blinded by your unhealthy obsession
> > with Microsoft. The numbers I'm quoting come directly from official SEC
> > financial filings.
> >
> > I'm quite positive that I read financial publications more than you do.
> > No, I don't have any money invested in Microsoft nor do I plan on
> > investing in them. But this doesn't mean that "it's grim for Microsoft"
> > - the company Microsoft. It's grim for the stock price because the
> > growth rates are no longer what they once were. But financially the
> > company is in excellent health. You seem to confuse and equate "stock
> > price" with the financial condition of a company. They are *not* the
> > same thing.
>
>
> I beg to differ. No company can remain in a static state. Either you
> expand your horizons or slowly diminish.
I never said anything about a company remaining in a static state so I
have no idea what your difference is to.
> At present, investors can see that Microsoft ceased to extend.
> They lose ground on the Web, as well as in terms
> of software sales.
> The company is shrinking. Its savings are also being
> spent wildly, as the example below illustrates.
No. The company is growing at a 10% annual rate which is slower than
the historical growth rate. For someone who thinks of themself as some
sort of financial wizzard you seem to have a 10% annual growth rate
confused with something else if you think the company is "shrinking."
Microsoft is not "shrinking" - their growth rate is shrinking. This
means that the company is still growing... just not as fast as before.
> >> Ballmer confident Xbox 360 losses will turn around
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | Ballmer humbly admitted that the cost of producing Xbox 360 consoles
> >> | was a wee bit higher than expected.
> >> `----
> >>
> >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31463
|
|
