__/ [ 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.
>> 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_.
>> ,----[ 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.
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. 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...
>> > 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. 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.
>> 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
|
|
