My blood pressure just went up again
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Mar 28, 2009 8:40 AM EDT |
I don't know how many more of these stories I can read. I just need to stop reading them.Quoting:Although neither Microsoft nor Intel is getting the big profit margins they want from such a low price-point market as netbooks, the two companies do have a good thing going, analysts say. Huh? A good thing? What would that 'good thing' be? Microsoft is a for-profit company. If it's not profitable, it's not a good thing. Market share means exactly nothing to Microsoft. They're already a monopolist, they're already well known, what they need is profit. Guess you have to stick to the script that things are good for Microsoft no matter what. |
| hkwint Mar 28, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
Take a cup of tea, put of your PC, relax, and consider this: Probably the author refers to both Microsoft and Intel entering a new market without having to invest _anything_ in new technologies. This brings them profit they didn't have before, because they weren't a player in this market before. Which means a rise in profit. OK, of course you are right they would have more profit if they sold their high-margin products, but that has never been an option I assume, so therefore they're glad they're making _any_ profit in this huge, new market at all. |
| bigg Mar 28, 2009 10:16 AM EDT |
@Hans As I read it, the claim is that the market share of Windows is the good thing. Even if your interpretation is correct, though: it's true that if you sell 20 million copies of Windows at a profit of $2 each, you have $40 million of additional revenue. Yet I don't see how that is a 'good thing'. How many desktop and laptop sales have you lost? Is it sufficiently profitable to recover the costs of development? "Better than nothing" doesn't qualify as a good thing. |
| henke54 Mar 28, 2009 10:41 AM EDT |
@bigg :
here is 'another one' for your blood pressure :
http://www.elasticvapor.com/2009/03/re-microsoft-moving-towa... ;-P |
| purplewizard Mar 28, 2009 3:44 PM EDT |
I got an Ubuntu Dell Mini 9 and having to use XP at work can't imagine the suffering all those netbooks users running Windows are putting themselves through compared to the usability of mine. Everyone whose seen it has been impressed by the responsiveness and shocked that it cost so little compared to the overpowered desktops that they use for comparable tasks and which still limp running XP. So as I began with, I just feel sorry for those 90% and the extra cost of their machines in order to be usable running XP. What's truly sad is that their general ignorance of the alternative means they don't even know how they were ripped off. |
| caitlyn Mar 28, 2009 5:09 PM EDT |
I don't believe the 90% figure. The NPD report did not quote sales sources. Meanwhile Asus continues to claim 30-40% Linux sales. Acer did claim 10% but later claimed they actually expected 20% to be Linux. |
| DiBosco Mar 28, 2009 6:33 PM EDT |
I've got to the stage where I just ignore bull***t like this. I have a large number of friends and colleagues who have bought Acer Aspire Ones after seeing mine and all bar one have bought a Linux version. (Not only that they are very hapy with them.) Let's face it, a 10% of netbook share is massive compared to the less than 1% desktop share everyone talks about. When you consider that it's really 30% or so, netbooks are a huge success for an operating system that has no marketing and that Microsoft sinks a lot of money into dissing, I went to PC World on Friday and bought an Aspire One with a friend. "You do realise this is a Linux machine?" asked the salesman. I assured him that were it not Linux we wouldn't be in his store. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2009 12:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:"You do realise this is a Linux machine?" I wish I could walk into a store and be asked that question. |
| chalbersma Mar 29, 2009 4:53 AM EDT |
Quote:
Even if your interpretation is correct, though: it's true that if you sell 20 million copies of Windows at a profit of $2 each, you have $40 million of additional revenue. Yet I don't see how that is a 'good thing'. How many desktop and laptop sales have you lost? Is it sufficiently profitable to recover the costs of development? "Better than nothing" doesn't qualify as a good thing XP's development cost has long been paid off. Anything they make now can be directly spent on upkeep and dividends. |
| maxxedout Mar 29, 2009 11:40 AM EDT |
IMO, this has more to do with MS locking-in their monopoly and denying the average consumer the opportunity to experience an alternative OS environment. MS' thinking, if we can keep people away from Linux we can lock-in their Win-7 upgrade $$. It's the same as spending advertising $, if they're in a market segment they are mentioned in news stories, analyst reports, etc... Game consoles mp3 players hardware search engines They are, first and foremost a marketing company, after all. OTOH, MS treats their customers like mushrooms..... BD |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!