Did Microsoft Alter Windows Sales Figures? 165
Saxophonist writes "InformationWeek claims to have analyzed Microsoft's most recent Form 10-Q and observed that a reported increase in earnings for the Windows unit may be due to accounting trickery rather than actual sales growth. Microsoft apparently increased its reported revenues for its Windows, Server & Tools, and Office units at least partly through shifting revenues from other units. While there may be nothing 'to suggest the company's revisions violate any accounting rules,' the actual growth in Windows sales was likely nowhere near the high double-digit percentage growth claimed. InformationWeek speculates that revenues from Xbox and Surface may have been among the revenues shifted to the other divisions."
Yes (Score:3, Funny)
They're a Fortune 100 company. They did.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is better than NY state government. NY state budgeted 12 million dollars over 3 years for a new type of drivers license. They received 3 million over 2+ years.
That is the real problem with government accounting. They don't know how much money they really are working with only what they think they might be estimating they have.
When those estimates are wildly off based off of bad methods of statistics deficits sore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True but most corporations budget based on conservative estimates. The government predicts based off everyone paying exactly what they owe in taxes without deductions. Also a company can go bankrupt. a Country can also go bankrupt but it is very very messy.
Re: (Score:2)
They do via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report [wikipedia.org]
Deficits "sore" in the short term public view to keep the public spooked and scared.
As for MS they have always played loss leader as they embrace and extend their way into new markets.
The problem for MS has always been one of image. Wealth creation at a personal level for its staff that is ever expandin
Re: (Score:2)
Well look at it this way - they aren't fudging their balance sheets as bad as the US Government
Shouldn't they have to count the government as a subsidiary?
Common Practice (Score:3, Informative)
They're a Fortune 100 company. They did.
Yes. Most companies have a growing, but money-losing "star", a flat but highly profitable "cash cow" and a few others that are in between. It is common practice to disguise the actual performance of those business units by creatively defining segments for external SEC reporting.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft wants to make their company seem like it is more profitable so that their share values go up, shareholder confidence returns, and they give the people the impression that they are still on top making the best product. Apple's been killing them in the area of revenue yet Microsoft had been ahead in profit. Now Apple has that crown too--even with obvious overhead of paying for the bill of materials (BOM). Microsoft seems to have problems coming up with new ideas and technology. Everyone knows they are basically stuck with Windows and Office, and that that'll last only so long.
So, people distrust them and they have an issue with demonstrating they are still on top (which they are, just not the very top any longer). So, they cook the books to make it seem like they are doing better than they are with their new product.
Does anyone here have any knowledge of products that Microsoft is developing that will satisfy the masses addiction to technology? Don't say WinMo7 because that's pretty much going to flop in my opinion. Anything else? I don't think they can sustain following up on other's products. They need something new and unique to them. A new radical version of Windows isn't it either. They are basically loosing on the embedded front, they are loosing on the smart phone market, they are loosing the tablet wars (which I don't think they can bring themselves out of).
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they didn't. Even a basic check, like reading the press release, tells you what they did.
Infoweek made at best a gaffe. They took the figures for the 3 months ended 30 Sept 2009 originally stated and compared them to the 30 Sept 2010 figures recently released, even though right beside those 2010 figures are the 30 Sept 2009 figures updated to reflect the new accounting policy.
Calculating using the figures sitting side-by-side, this change in policy does not distort growth. This what accounting rules require (at least under IFRS, I can't imagine US GAAP does differently), and why. MS also used the revised policy in the %'s given in the press release, so they are both under the same policies. Nowhere in the PR does MS refer to the faulty figures Infoweek is complaining about. Infoweek's article is all about them realising that they were using the wrong figures but not realising that it was due to their own mistake.
For Infoweek to compare against the wrong figures they had to ignore the comparatives given right there in a spreadsheet file given by MS and instead go find an old file, and ignore the prominent disclosure given to the change in the press release [microsoft.com] that provides the link to the filing:
In addition, we have recast certain prior period amounts within our Form 10-Q that conforms to the way we internally managed and monitored segment performance during the current fiscal year.
As for the deferral of income from Vista sales with W7 upgrade packs, that follows accounting rules too (well, assuming they calculated it properly). Regardless, the entire second paragraph is dedicated to explaining the impact of the accounting rule and even removing it to show the underlying performance:
Prior year results reflect the deferral of $1.47 billion of revenue, an impact of $0.12 of diluted earnings per share, relating to the Windows 7 Upgrade Option program and sales of Windows 7 to OEMs and retailers before general availability in October 2009. Without the deferral in the prior year, first-quarter growth rates for revenue and operating income were 13% and 20%, and growth in net income and earnings per share were 16% and 19%, respectively.
Oh and there's reconciliations and everything in the accompanying slides. Infoweek's "exclusive" refers to their mistake regarding policy changes that were very prominently disclosed.
I know MS isn't exactly celebrated around here, but posting this kind of thing detracts considerably from the credibility of the more valid criticisms.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"oh wait their lying in they're motto too."
That doesn't seem right...
SOP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it called "Lies; Damn Lies; and Corporate Accounting"?
Accoutant Interview: (Score:5, Funny)
The first guy says, "4".
The mgr thanked him for his time and dismissed him because he was too honest. Then he called the second guy in. "What's 2+2?", he asked again.
"5" was the response.
He was thanked and rejected because he was incompetent, The manager then asked the third accountant in. "What's 2+2?"
The third accountant answered, "What do you want it to be?"
He was hired on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not quoting it right.
First of all, it is not an accountant interview, it is the interview for the Chief Economist of Romanian Socialist Republic.
Q: How much is 2+2.
A: That depends, if you have to give - 3, if you have to take - 5.
And he was not hired on the spot. The person to be hired was the nephew of Tovarish Cheushesku.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SOP? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought pretty much every publicly traded company did stuff like this?
Not just publically traded. I worked by a privatley owned company where basically each departments end of year bonus was decided by a bunfight to decide which department was responsible for how much revenue and at what cost. The only fixed thing was the company total, they shuffled things between departments and divisions at will.
Re:SOP? (Score:5, Funny)
decided by a bunfight
If only *all* things in life could be decided by a bunfight.
*sigh*
Re:SOP? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic that so many that don't like Fox or Newcorp pumped so much money into the organization by paying to see Avatar.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/avatar-leads-news-corp-to-us25bn-profit/story-fn65t1pq-1225901426210 [theaustralian.com.au]
That in mind, there's a bit of irony running into conservatives complaining that Avatar had a liberal agenda.
I guess it is also ironic to see those that like Newscorp and dislike MS-NBC liking Microsoft.
Maybe it's time for Microsoft to produce a movie, but what? I doubt they'd g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the EU is still harassing [arstechnica.com] them about it to this day. Here's a hint - the EU doesn't require Apple to have a ballot for *it's* browser, only MS.
Re:SOP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your example is actually correct. Microsoft as a monopoly is restricted in what they are allowed to do much more so than a smaller company like Apple. It might not always make sense, but abuse of monopoly power is a very serious offence.
These days it might sound funny to talk about Microsoft as a 900-pound gorilla, but at one time they definitely were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what do they have a monopoly? About the only think I can think of is in stand-alone MP3 players and even that is debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a monopoly over their own products, duh!
(note: this is intended to be a joke, mods)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, music. I was only looking for monopolies in markets where they actually make the product. Never thought of their music channel. Good example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/story/itunes-now-70-digital-music-sales-amazon-growing/2010-05-27 I know this is kind of an old link but 70% of the market qualifies as monolopy. Plus the fact that they are about 30% of all music sold in the us every month.
Monopoly does not mean highest marketshare. Marketshare is only one test of monopoly power. One of the other tests of monopoly power is whether you can get suitable alternatives. Another test is barrier to entry.
In the case of music, iTunes is not the only source of music. You can buy music by buying CDs through brick and mortar as well as online sales. Even if you limit the market to online music, you can get music through iTunes, Amazon, Zune Marketplace, etc. The only limitation is that you have to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Failure, my ass. Shooting yourself in the foot ON PURPOSE is not failure. They hit their taget, didn't they? That's not failure.
the truth! (Score:2, Funny)
Since I'm a shareholder -- by virtue of mutual fund shares in my 401k and IRA accounts -- I want to know the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the truth! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this isn't consigned to Microsoft, like an above commenter said, every Fortune 500 company has done it to varying extents. It's difficult to make illegal, too, because there's no one technique used (seems to be as much an art as it is a science, finding loopholes that aren't closed); so it's impossible to write a law that's general enough to stop the practice yet still enforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the truth! (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting quote:
The spokesperson said some of the changes were the result of embedded systems products being moved from EDD to Server & Tools and Mac Office's move from EDD to the Business unit after Bach left.
For many years, Mac Office revenue was counted towards Entertainment and Device Division. I've always thought that was rather strange that it wasn't part of the Microsoft Business Division where it belonged. MS might have organized revenue based on the executive in charge which is normal. But also it could be that MS was trying to soften the massive losses of the Xbox first seven years.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more like if that hardware isn't a standard X86 box running Windows, shove it to the guys that deal with weird hardware; like the talking barneys, brown music players, and Macs.
Anyway, XBox runs some form of the Windows API, and Surafce runs on Vista; so I'm sure if they were third party companies they would be buying Windows licences... so why account for it as 'free' to the Windows division?
Re: (Score:2)
But see, that's the beauty of corporate accounting. They never actually lie,.
Enron was the master of it. Every company does it. Capitalists are out to kill capitalism. In my view, they will succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it goes a lot further than Fortune 500 companies. It is all USA companies, large or small.
Anyone who has been successful in running their own business can tell you that the Federal Income Tax law is written in such a way that it pretty much requires a business to use accounting procedures that are not intuitively obvious to the outsider. If you don't do so, you will not be in business for very long.
Consider that a common way for a USA start-up to fail is to show too much profit too early in the
Re:the truth! (Score:5, Interesting)
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
Here's what you are missing: Everyone expects Microsoft to be highly profitable in their core business, and investors are used to the sad fact that Microsoft wastes a billion here and there on things like buying revenue for Ping. So if the losses in the online division grow, or XBox doesn't as well as expected, nobody cares much because the main business is safe as ever. All those losses in online can be stopped any second by just leaving that business area, if Microsoft wants, so it's nothing to worry about.
But if Microsoft makes less money in Windows, Office, or Server, or if it is found out that it props up its main business by moving money from other areas, that is a very, very bad sign and investors would be quite unhappy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a sad state of investing that investors like companies that are growing or expanding. In decades past, it was enough that a company was profitable and stable. But back then most companies offered dividends with shares. More companies are going away from dividends and thus there is not a lot of interest by investors to be concerned with stability. They want growth.
If MS cut all the unprofitable products, then that would show then as not growing or expanding in anything other than Office and Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a sad state of investing that investors like companies that are growing or expanding.
It's not a sad state at all. In fact, it's based on extremely basic finance math. If a company isn't growing, and is paying the same dividend, the value of your investment stays the same and your investment does not grow in value. If that dividend yield is low as most are, you would be better served choosing another investment. The only way to make money on an investment [the typical long position at least] is for it to appreciate in value or for it to pay a high enough income. Since most companies are choo
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's dividends are dwarfed by the amount they've spent on buying back shares. This is one way that MS keeps it's stock price steady,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what you are missing: Everyone expects Microsoft to be highly profitable in their core business, and investors are used to the sad fact that Microsoft wastes a billion here and there on things like buying revenue for Ping. So if the losses in the online division grow, or XBox doesn't as well as expected, nobody cares much because the main business is safe as ever. All those losses in online can be stopped any second by just leaving that business area, if Microsoft wants, so it's nothing to worry about. But if Microsoft makes less money in Windows, Office, or Server, or if it is found out that it props up its main business by moving money from other areas, that is a very, very bad sign and investors would be quite unhappy.
Hrm....maybe all those unprofitable divisions aren't so unprofitable after all?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Information Week story is quoting from an SEC filing that Microsoft made. A filing Microsoft knows is public. So Information Week didn't exactly bust anything open here, and you just have to decide if you care about Microsoft's results on a segment by segment basis, or if you are happy owning the company in general.
Re: (Score:2)
To misquote Jck Nicholson from A Few Good Men [wikipedia.org], "You're a shareholder. You can't handle the truth!"
Re:the truth! (Score:5, Funny)
Obvious retort: You can't handle the truth.
This brilliant parody has been floating around for quite a while, author unknown (I found it at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraudenron.htm )
A take-off from the movies "A Few Good Men" (Some phrases are in the original script and some are altered.)
Tom Cruise: "Did you order the shredding?"
Jack Nicholson: "You want answers?"
Tom Cruise: "I think I'm entitled."
Jack Nicholson: "You want answers!!"
Tom Cruise: "I want the truth!"
Jack Nicholson: "You can't handle the truth!"
Jack Nicholson: "Son, we live in a world that has financial statements. And those financial statements have to be audited by men with calculators. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Dept. of Justice? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Enron and you curse Andersen. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Enron's death, while tragic, probably saved investors. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves investors. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that audit. You need me on that audit! We use words like materiality, risk-based, special purpose entity...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent auditing something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very assurance I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a pencil and start ticking. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!!"
Tom Cruise: "Did you order the shredding???"
Jack Nicholson: "You're damn right I did!"
Funny, hell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since I'm a shareholder -- by virtue of mutual fund shares in my 401k and IRA accounts -- I want to know the truth.
Just think about it.Vapor ware => Vapor sales, ergo, 401k and IRA => Vapor.
Desperate CEO? (Score:2)
Re:Desperate CEO? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just don't think this is new for them, just easier to notice.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? (Score:2)
Not as hideously corrupt or confusing as you might imagine:
The spokesperson said some of the changes were the result of embedded systems products being moved from EDD to Server & Tools
Isn't it all basically shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic anyway?
Re:Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's turning out more like shuffling governors in the Ottoman or British Empires. A slow, gradual, slightly-pathetic decline as one setback overshadows another.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than windows and office, the rest of the company is about as profitable as any other stereotypical .com.
Moving embedded systems from one data table to another is irrelevant, its not like they'll ever make money.
Standard slashdot car analogy: doesn't matter if I categorize my latest car repair tools purchase under "hobby expense" or "automotive:maintenance" or "medical:mental health/stress reduction" its still crapping out the same amount of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
umm.. I doubt that Hindenburg had deck chairs.
It's shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Thank you from the literal net.
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite sure Hindenburg had deck chairs. She had decks. She had chairs, and unless they were also inflated with hydrogen or bolted to walls they were clearly resting on the decks.
Deck chairs. QED.
"You're welcome" from the hyper-literal net.
Re: (Score:2)
But the amount of time that the disaster took was so short that one didn't have time to do much shuffling at all. Also deck chairs are specific type of chair typically found on a ship and not just a generic chair on a deck. So it is still a broken metaphor please correct and use Titanic.
Company released sales figures (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Company released sales figures (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe, but how many companies have "Cowboy Neil" in their sales figures?
Re:Company released sales figures (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Company released sales figures (Score:5, Interesting)
Except of course that people are using these numbers to do something important.
And this isn't just an idle problem: There have been colleges, pension funds, charitable foundations, and retirees crippled financially for decades because they looked at companies like Enron which were generating good consistent returns and decided that it was a good investment. This stuff does real damage to people, and the SEC simply doesn't have the resources to stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to believe in the power of capitalism. But what I've seen lately is not just capitalism...it's pure greed. It's an economy run by narcissists who care of nothing else but their own personal pocketbooks. The company, the workers, the investors....it means nothing to them other than a means to an end. And we worship these people. And on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... the SEC simply doesn't have the resources to stop it.
Well, we can't have that ol' debbil "Big Gov'ment" steppin' all over the mystical, all-knowing, self-correcting, super-duper Free Market, now can we?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Enron is a completely different case. They were actually lying about their financial status. MS did in fact earn as much money as their reports say, and did have as many expenses. They just decided that, for reporting purposes, it looks better if they attribute a greater share of that profit to sales of Windows and Office rather than sales of Xboxes. Nobody is going to suddenly discover that MS is actually bankrupt and has been lying in their statements; at worst they might learn, in surprise, that enternta
Is any huge corporation completely honest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is CmdrTaco a Pedophile? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is CmdrTaco a Pedophile? (Score:4, Insightful)
The story headline was "Exclusive: Microsoft Altered Windows Sales Numbers". I take the slashdot headline as questioning whether the story is completely accurate. Your beef appears to be with the story headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Very simple: If a headline screams "X?", the article will say "!X". If it was any different, the headline would scream "X!!!"
That's great because it saves you the time to actually read the article.
The Surface has revenue to shuffle? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Investors expect Xbox to lose money; they're used to it. If Windows starts losing money they'll freak the hell out.
Investors expect Xbox to lose money initially. They expect any product to become profitable eventually. Seven years of losses is a bit too much for investors to take, and it hasn't quite broken even yet even though the Mac Office was being used to soften the losses. As an investor, I'd want to know when the product will be profitable overall. Also what the heck happened to the mobile unit? The Kin was a disaster and WP7, while it looks good, will be operating at a loss while it launches.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does WP7 look good? Besides the huge amount that Microsoft has dumped in marketing it really is a half baked OS at launch.
I mean it wasn't a buggy, half complete mess of a product that some of their products have been. For example the Kin. It was a "social" phone without many social features. It crashed a lot. The advertised features didn't work right. While the WP7 lacks the maturity of the iPhone, Android, even WebOS, it is at least usable. Many of their version 1.0 products can't say the same. It will take time for WP7 to catch up, but it's a decent start.
Re: (Score:2)
WP7 is version 7, not version 1. It's unfair to compare a 7.0 release to the 1.0 releases of other companies. But, in this case, if one would compare a WP7 phone with an iPhone 1.0, WP7 loses.
Re: (Score:2)
What? iPhone 1 had no cut and paste and no multitasking as well, but it also had no apps, no MMS, no 3G, and initially cost $500-$600, later cut down to a still ridiculous $300-$400.
Windows Phone 7 at least comes in a variety of form factors from a variety of manufacturers on a variety of carriers, and the list will continue to expand, so there is more choice than with iPhone. While it doesn't have as many apps, the list is growing, and the ones I've used so far have been of high quality. For me, the benefi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how it isn't half complete. No cut and paste, no multitasking, and no custom ring tones?
That seems half complete to me.
And it isn't version 1.0 it is Version 7! The last version of Windows Mobile was I think 6.5. Where do you think the 7 came from?
Besides trying to hitch hike on Windows 7 not sucking. Windows Phone 7 still uses the CE kernel. So nope it is not a 1.0 release it is a 7.0 release.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how it isn't half complete. No cut and paste, no multitasking, and no custom ring tones? That seems half complete to me.
Your definition is it didn't have the features you wanted. My definition of half complete is missing or buggy advertised functionality. Like the Kin has Facebook "integration" but no events among other things. No calendar app in a phone despite it being a "social" phone. It has Twitter but you can't retweet? It would like a digital music player not being able to play MP3s like Sony tried to pull off with their first Network Walkmans.
Re: (Score:2)
Or features that every other current smart phone on the market has?
Lets take a look at this feature by feature.
Multitasking.
Android yes
WebOS yes
Symbian S60 yes.
IOS 4 yes "limited"
Cut and paste.
Android yes.
WebOS yes.
IOS yes.
Symbian I don't know to be honest I would guess yes.
Custom ring tones?
Just about every phone on the market.
I would say that it is half baked and frankly since Windows Mobile 6.5 and early had cut n paste and multitasking it is just too odd for words.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that WP7 is missing many features that other smart phones have. My point was WP7 is a usable product from MS which isn't normal for them. Will some consumers want the missing features, yes? But they can actually use the product as it was intended. Normally their products are barely usable like the Kin, Vista, and WM6. WM6.5 was barely usable for me. It kept crashing for no reason and it was a pain to do anything with it. I'm glad I didn't have to pay any money for it because it was a
IT anti-monopolies coordination central? (Score:2)
Speculates (Score:3)
InformationWeek speculates that ...
Another word for "speculate" is "guess." A news organization should do neither.
And then Monkey Boy sells his stock (Score:5, Interesting)
So the company lies/misstates/whatever to make the core businesses look better and prop up the stock.
And the, by some coincidence, monkey boy sells a billion or two of stock.
Move along. Nothing to see here.........
Commerce is deceit (Score:2)
When will people realize that corporate commerce is based on deceit. Who the hell is surprised that MS is cooking the books?
news or not? (Score:2)
I am not exactly sure of the point of this article. IMHO financial accounting is an art and it is more about company appearance and image than concise financial reporting. IRS and accounting rules allow companies to manipulate the data to "hide" details that would otherwise disclose details about proprietary internal operations. If you look closely, you can usually find accounting trickery. This does not make the company "evil" or dishonest, it just allows them to both present honest financial information t
XP "Downgrade" (Score:2)
Of course the numbers are fake. Every computer sold today with XP on it counts as a Windows 7 sale, the "downgrade" is a BTO option.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean XP looks pathetic?
BTW, I think the XP number is a bit low. There are millions of XP machines out there that never browse the internet. They are quietly running kiosks, embedded in industrial machinery, or executing tasks on corporate LANs. There isn't much reason to move these systems off of XP (that is until some genius plugs an ethernet cable into them).
Re: (Score:2)
Fanboi? That's funny.
No, I wondered what the OP thought was pathetic about XP? Is it the OS itself? Is it pathetic that it is still in use? I really don't get it.
At this point, aren't all operating systems more or less equivalent? There are compelling applications out there that might lead one to need a particular OS, but the operating system by itself isn't very interesting.
A few questions (Score:2)
The real question is who has the remaining 16.76% of the market? How much did they have one year ago? I remember when, not so long ago, Microsoft had about 95% of the desktop market.
Frankly, considering this trend, I would think twice before investing in Microsoft stock these days.
Re: (Score:2)
While you are probably right in the sense that these numbers are being miscounted, I don't think many sales are being made of pre-loaded computers where the end user is removing Windows 7.
Sure, there are some people who move to Linux, but really, is it that large a number? In the geek market, maybe, but geeks either know how to build machines themselves or know how to get around preloading. And many times, they just get used equipment that can't run Windows well, but runs Linux just fine. As for everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Windows XP was also out for a very long time.. longer than many PC's lifespans. Why not carry over the XP license from your old machine to the new one? Purchasing a new machine with a new copy(and license) of XP is a waste. I have the feeling win7 will be the same way.
Time to wake up. (Score:2)
this is why I hate not being able to just walk into a high street shop and buy a computer pre-loaded with Linux or with no OS pre-loaded at all...
far too many sales that end up with the OS being wiped to replace with Linux or else reversion rights being exercised to install XP are being counted as Windows 7 sales...
This is the geek in Fantasyland.
The webstat counts users not licensees - and it doesn't much matter whether you look at Net Applications, StatCounter or W3Schools. Win 7 took about a 20 to 25% m
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Microsoft is cooking the books, who gives a rats ass how they account for the gajillion dollar revenue.
How come whenever anybody posts something about Linux, MS fans come up with "but look at market share!"
Why should I give a rat's ass about any company's market share? I don't care about MS's market share OR revenue, but I'd bet money a shareholder of MS or Red Hat would.
This is old news. "Microsoft lied again". I say "so what". Business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
How come whenever anybody posts something about Linux, MS fans come up with "but look at market share!"
...What?
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that MS doesn't alter sales figures.