The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
><1313@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:19:01 -0400
><t5mdnYkz67Z6hDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing apples
>>> (last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
>>> investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most people
>>> because they think MSFT is worth investing in).
>>
>> Changes to how financials are reported would require a line in the
>> footnotes describing the change. I didn't see it. Could you point me
>> to the line in MSFT's 10Q where they describe the change?
>>
>> Also, statistic in the financial reports that compare this year's
>> numbers to a previous year's would require that previous year's numbers
>> be recalculated to reflect any changes in how earning are calculated.
>>
>> Please notify the SEC if you feel that MSFT improperly made changes the
>> changes to their accounting practices. If you are not willing to stand
>> by your accusations with a formal report to the SEC then we'll assume
>> you're a liar.
>
Ah, don't you just love the introduction of the word "improperly"...
> It makes no difference; Vista is doing very well in the
> marketplace, generating unprecedented sales for Microsoft.
> But there is a fundamental disconnect here -- several,
> in fact.
>
> [1] Microsoft continues to sell its OS primarily through
> OEMs. These OEMs are contractually obligated to
> sell Vista machines, presumably; therefore, any new
> machine, absent special consideration by these OEMs
> (e.g., Dell's Ubuntu promotion), must have Vista
> preinstalled thereon.
>
> [2] Microsoft sells Vista, but that doesn't mean customers
> will *use* Vista; many may very well wipe the disk
> and install XP, or wipe and install Ubuntu or any of
> a number of distros. Microsoft still gets its money,
> despite that particular license never being used
> at all.
>
> [3] It is possible (I'm not sure how likely) that at
> least part of that revenue is being realised by a
> customer upgrading his system to Ultimate from Home
> Basic or some other lower edition. The Ultimate or
> business editions are the only editions which have
> certain desirable functionality.
>
> How much % any of these will factor in is not clear to
> me at this time absent additional data.
>
> And then there's the issue as to whether this has relevance
> to Linux. I say that it does, if only in the commercial
> realm -- any dollar spent on Vista is one dollar less
> that could be spent on Red Hat, machine improvements,
> good sandwiches, a new car, etc. To that end, the report
> appears to be of peripheral importance, but not totally
> irrelevant.
>
> As for Microsoft accounting changes -- again, I have
> no data.
This is well documented. By re-organising on a fairly regular basis,
large companies make it more difficult for external analysts to
determine just how well or badly individual units are doing. Of course,
so long as the /overall/ figures are returned, then there's nothing
legally *improper*, as your troll above is trying to imply, however, the
point he so clearly fails to grasp is that this kind of reorganisation
is deliberate in order to minimise the visibility of problems, whilst,
ideally, emphasising successes. As Microsoft are a bit short on
successes at the moment, I'm sure they'll setting for minimising problem
units, like the Zune, the Xbox360, Vista, Office...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
