On May 10, 10:29 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Microsoft Partner Points to Soft Vista Demand
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Overall, it's difficult to say how well Vista is doing. Yes, Microsoft
> | has sold more than 20 million Vista licenses. But how many customers
> | actually requested the operating system? And how many more would send
> | it back to Redmond, if only they knew how? Based on all the negative
> | Vista buzz, Apple is actually suggesting that the Vista party is over
> | before it starts.
Apple has it's own problems. It's about like the day the devil
appears to this man and says "I have good news and bad news". The
good news is that you will have your own business and there will be
HUGE demand for your product. The bad news is that it's the ice cube
concession and you are going to have one HELL of an inventory problem.
Apple only ships OS/X on it's Mac computers. The problem is that
without alternate sourcing, they can't keep up with the demand.
Furthermore, since Apple hasn't licensed OS/X to another vendor, they
don't meet alternate source requirements for federal, government, and
corporate contracts.
> | In reality, PC vendors are selling boatloads of Vista systems to
> | consumers. But perhaps not as many as expected. How else can you
> | explain Dell's decision to re-introduce Windows XP on some systems while
> | at the same time launching consumer PCs with Ubuntu Linux preinstalled.
> `----
Keep in mind that Microsoft often offers an "Option" to the the OEM
licenses. For an additional few percent, the OEM can have the option
of installing previous versions of Windows, but they get COUNTED as
the newest operating system. IBM (now Lennovo) has always picked up
the option, and often sold numerous machines with the previous
operating system. Microsoft still counted all licenses sold under
this coverage as the newest version. For example, when NT 4.0 was
released, IBM still had the option of shipping Windows 95 if it was
requested. When Windows 2000 was released, customers could order
either Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000. When Windows XP came out,
customers could order either Windows 2000 or XP.
After reviewing the licenses, reviewing beta releases, and getting
feedback from major customers who had been evaluating beta copies of
Vista, most of the OEMs decided to pick up the option. The irony is
that Microsoft actually makes MORE money on a Vista/XP choice license,
than they get from the same OEM if they had committed to Vista-only
licenses. The OEMs pretty much knew the train was coming long before
they could see the engine or hear the whistle. They had read the
schedule.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has "laid an egg". Windows NT 3.x
and Windows ME were both bombs. However, Microsoft recovered because
they were able to announce vapor-ware. When NT 3.x bombed, Bill
announced "Chicago". It was announced in 1993, almost immediatly
after Windows NT 3.1 was released, but wasn't actually delivered until
August of 1995, as Windows 95. When Windows ME bombed, Microsoft
anounced Windows XP, which was released about 18 months later. XP was
about to bomb, but Microsoft "force fed" the channel. They told
corporate customers that unless they accepted delivery of millions of
XP licenses, they would no longer get any support for XP. Worse, they
required these corporate customers to accept 3 year extensions and
price increases of as much as 300%, and finally, they had to sign the
extensions less than a month after the official general availability
release,. The move was timed to make sure that as many corporate
customers as possible signed their extensions and accepted the
licenses BEFORE Microsoft released their automated update service.
OEM XP customers were getting the same updates as a free service that
Corporate XP customers were paying several million dollars for. To
Microsoft's credit, they did provide low-interest financing of the
licenses which were included in the support costs. This is similar to
a "New York Lease". In New York State, when you sign a lease, you
agree to be obligated for the entire 1 year's rent. The landlord
gives you interest free financing of the debt, which you pay of in
monthly rent payments.
When Microsoft pulled the stunt with XP, as many as 85% of it's
corporate customers decided to formulate a migration plan. Nearly
every CIO was ordered to formulate a plan which would be implemented
within 18 months, which would allow the company to switch to Linux in
6 months or less. At this point, if Microsoft tries to "force feed"
the corporate customers, they are likely to find that Windows is out,
and Linux is in.
> http://techiqmag.com/2007/05/10/microsoft-partner-points-to-soft-vist...
>
> Apple's market share is said to have doubled in 8 months. Linux market share
> cannot be measured.
There are indicators that show Linux growing at more than 40% per
year. Some metrics even indicate Linux growing as much as 40% per
QUARTER. Linux plays nice with Windows, which means that Linux could
be finding it's way into millions of PCs, without actually displacing
Windows 2000 or Windows XP. The problem for Vista is that Microsoft
decided not to make Vista play nice with Linux. The result is that
many of those who want Linux on their PCs are ordering Windows XP
instead of Vista on their PCs. Even worse, for Microsoft, the new
machines are designed to run Linux as their primary operating system.
Linux supports 64 bit processors, SATA hard drives, and multicore
machines even more efficiently than Windows. Customers are also
ordering machines with OpenGL oriented video cards.
> Related:
>
> Microsoft's Record Quarter: Shareholders Paid for Most of the Upside Surprise
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Said another way, Microsoft achieved record breaking earnings during
> | the Vista launch quarter by taking money out of its assets, not
> | through amazing sales of Vista and Office."
I think I pointed this out last week, the day after Microsoft first
released their financial report. We're seeing some people looking at
the same financial report more carefully, and reaching similar
conclusions to mine. In effect, Microsoft has funded it's own channel
stuffing scheme, and it's even reported in the financial report. It's
probably a good thing. Ironically, this may actually make it legal.
> | Now taking money of its savings account isn't necessarily a big deal.
> | ... However, as a point in contrast, Apple Inc. has been launching a
> | lot of products over the last nine months and has added almost $2
> | billion to its balance sheet and assets in the same period that
> | Microsoft's assets dropped $6 billion.
> `----
Ironically, Apple decided that they didn't need to release Leopard
right away, because they already couldn't keep up with demand caused
by Vista. Most of the machines being sold now will be capable of
running Leopard, but most people still like the current version so
much more than Vista, that there was no need to rush the release.
Apple's biggest problem is that they can't keep up with demand. At
several stores that sell Macs, Mini-Macs had been sold right off the
display shelves. Even high-end Macs and iBooks were being sold off
the display rack.
> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070503/34354_id.html?.v=1
|
|
