And Xbox, but this isn't unique to MS when it comes to shareholders. Shareholders love it when cost cuts are announced, layoffs being companies go to method of appeasement.
No availabilty because of popularity or problems
- Thread starter NGC
- Start date
And Xbox, but this isn't unique to MS when it comes to shareholders. Shareholders love it when cost cuts are announced, layoffs being companies go to method of appeasement.
And bye to XBox, XBox Music, and about everything that Microsoft works on, beside Microsoft Research (for patents), Windows, and Azure.
Microsoft has sadly very stupid shareholders. They are analysis, and the way an analyst works is simple: drop anything that is not super profitable, ignoring that you can survive like this. It's the same ones that say the Nintendo should stop making their console and make all their games on smart phone and other devices, and are pushing for yearly release of games like what Activations does with Call of Duty. Ignoring the fact that if Nintendo do that:
-> The games will be crap, because Nintendo does the console for THEIR games.
-> They are a toy manufacture, and they see themselves as exactly that. It would go against everything from Nintendo.
-> It would sale out all their IP's, and lose all value. Consumer will stop buying them.
-> It would not allow Nintendo renown and unique deep polish of their games.
-> It would loose all sense creativity, which is why Zelda, and Mario keeps selling every time.
-> Games on phones and tablets simply sucks. You can't make a quality game for 1$.. the best you get is Flash style games, and hope it sales millions to get your money worth. And no one is interested in paying 30$, let alone 60$ for a smartphone game.
-> Nintendo makes money on the console, and this part of their revenue. Sony and Microsoft loose money on theirs, and hope for several games AND accessories purchase to be successful.
That's Nintendo,l same for Microsoft. The Surface line of products has awaken the computer market. Before the Surface Pro, what did 1500$ get you if you needed an ultrabook on average? Windows 8 minimum screen resolution, TN panel crap screen, system is filled with junk and advertisement, no OS disk to re-install your system clean (recovery partition has all the junk), cheapo build quality, poor cooling engineering, Intel integrated graphics, 4GB of RAM, Core i5, and a shitty slow SSD, the cheapest they could get, just to say that it has an SSD, and maximize profits to bring the profits numbers back when people bought more computers to please their investors. Basically they were selling out.
That is why Dell went private. It was sick and tired in pleasing their investors, by producing crap and selling out their name to 400$ laptops and such overpriced systems. No wonder why Apple sales of computers are up... it was the only decent product out there. Heck I wanted to get one. My 2008 laptop still beats everything that was out at the time (14inch, "thin" (at the time), "light" (at the time), higher resolution: 1440x900, non-glossy screen, sure it's TN but IPS panels were still too expensive back then, Nvidia Quadro GPU with dedicated memory, solid high-quality keyboard, Surface Pro 2 quietness, the fan rarely spinned, and even if it did, was super quiet. Despite using a normal Core 2 Duo (no ultra low voltage), and a Nvidia GPU, which BOTH where much less power efficient than todays offering. 9-10h of battery life, backlit keyboard, ambient light sensor. Had everything: proper location of ports, where the large ports were on the back, and small ones on the side. You had eSATA and DisplayPort, magnesium construct, 1 screw slide out panel gives you full internal access of the system, like 8 or so screws (all the same size), and the motherboard is all out. It's easier to service than a desktop computer! Why was all this impossible now, when it was back then? That is why I kept my laptop for 5 years! There was nothing mildly interesting. If it did, it had horrible battery life, or some other downside.
Microsoft released the Surface line of product, Samsung and HP decided to try and sabotage it, and HP still is, by saying crap things about Windows 8, and how it's "impossible" to beat or come even close to Microsoft offering (even though TODAY, they are alternatives, proving all HP statements to be false), it made Lenovo, Dell, and heck even Acer start innovating. Acer started to make higher end products too. They are not great, but better than before.
There was a lack of passion and innovation. I strongly believe that Microsoft is what helped revive this with the Surface line of product. Also, while it might not be profitable (things are RARELY are when they are released, heck even the iPod did super poorly for it's first gen model, it worked after with the clicky wheel, sub-1000$ price tag, improved headphones, and iTunes) with gen 1, and perhaps started with the second gen, it is a product that show care Windows. It says: "This is the proper Windows experience. If you system that you bought doesn't work like the Surface Pro, then it's the OEM fault, not Windows".
Blackberry (used to be known as RIM) was a company that focused only on enterprise solutions.. look at where they are now? When you are large, you can't focus on 1 thing, even though the other might not be successful. It's about branding, putting your name out there, showcase some 'Halo' style product. Heck Nvidia does that. They have a GPU that cost over 1000$ the GeForce Titan. Does it sell well? nope. Not at all, in fact. Nvidia makes most of it's money with the Tesla and Quadro cards, and not with their GeForce line, despite more (based on Steam states) than 50% of PC gamers uses Nvidia GPUs. But, the Titan shows to teh world what Nvidia can do. It boost Tesla sales, it boost Quadro sales. Look at Matrix? remember them? They still exists... somewhat. They pulled out of the consumer market, and now because no one sees their name, it doesn't come in mind in the enterprise space to get their products. So now, the company is dying very slowly. Heck, they are so desperate they are working on speed cameras, joining one of the thousand other company selling the same product.
Last edited:
I personally don't think Microsoft will make such a drastic turn, at least not in the foreseeable future. Clearly, at present, Microsoft is trying to increase market share in the mobile consumer marketplace as evidenced by the Nokia purchase. Some analysts and some powerful shareholders, however, are pushing for Microsoft to give up on these markets and focus exclusively on the enterprise market. Time will tell. I suspect that if Microsoft make headway into the mobile marketplace this push will disappear.
CrippsCorner
Well-Known Member
Remember they're a services and devices company now! I don't think they would go back on it this soon... they're starting to spend a lot of money on advertising and I think it's doing quite well, albeit it's far too American focused, but that's the norm unfortunately.
Cannot be. The pissed off HW partmers such as Acer or Asus, do not contribute much, if anything at all to the Surface Pro's parts list.
Highly unlikely.
Most likely. But SP1's are now available for $500. See: Microsoft Surface Pro with 128GB Memory 9UR-00001 - Best Buy
Nope. If that's an issue, they just build them anyhow and reflash them later -- stopping the assembly line while waiting for the fix would be very costly.
That may be part of the problem.
Unlikely.
Proprietary parts (i.e. display) are agreed upon well in advance, so there shouldn't be any issue. mSATA SSDs, at least the 64, 128,. and 256G versions are widely available on open markets, so they shouldn't have any issue with those either. They, just like everyone else, use a number of suppliers for many parts.
It's a new version, and so the initial demand is high. Give them a couple more months, and availability won't be an issue.
I was working for Flip (and we were profitable) when Cisco acquired us and killed us off because of the shareholders. Pretty friggin annoying....
Tekn0
New Member
Investors want Microsoft?s new CEO to kill Xbox, Bing and Surface
Investors want to kill Surface. Apparently they are reporting 900 million in losses due to unsold Surface units. This is worrying :/
Investors want to kill Surface. Apparently they are reporting 900 million in losses due to unsold Surface units. This is worrying :/
The $900 Million Write Down was a long time ago, it was based on discounts and advertising (it wasn't a write off which would be the inventory). In Q2 FY14 (OCT-Dec 2013) MS made $900 Million in Surface Sales.
This the most stupid article I have ever read.
Kill XBox? It's a MASSIVE revenue for Microsoft. It has saved the company numerous times. Every game produced by a third party company is 8-10$ license fees in Microsoft pocket. That is why PC games are usually 10$ cheaper.
In addition, Microsoft get 60$ per year for almost all XBox One and 360 users for it's XBox Live subscription to play online games.
Surface sales has DOUBLED since the last generation, as well. It's no iPad, but it's when it DOUBLES, then you know you are doing something right.
You may say: "Yea but the investors says..."
Most investors are looking for a quick buck. They are not interested in Microsoft long terms success, they want the stock to go up, sell, then never talk about Microsoft ever again, until it drops down, to buy some more.
So the way it works is that anything that does have a HUGE success, in their eyes, should eliminated immediately. Lets say Apple releases the iPhone 6, and the success of it is not as great as iPhone 5. Still very good, but not as great? Guess what investors will say? "Apple should sell the iPhone division, and pull out". That is exactly what they need to say, and it is the role of the CEO to do gatherings, fancy golf games, and all that crap to talk to each of it's big investors, to say: "Look don't pull out, this is the vision of Microsoft, this is the new plan of action we will take, as we know that the product reduce success was not the product itself, was because <insert some reason here>". And do meeting all day, none stop. That's part of the job of the CEO, beside taking company decision, and getting the last word on conflicting idea or paths.
Look at Nintendo. Oh the WiiU sales aren't great? Investors says that they should pull a Sega, or do mobile games... First of, Nintendo is doing A LOT better than with the GameCube. Nintendo had to sale the GameCube for 99$.. a 250$ console, for 99$ rather quickly, and even then, it didn't really help. Yet they are still doing fine, as they spend their money wisely, don't spend more than what they make (unlike Sony, which is now selling it's own headquarters, PC division, firing massive people, just to stay afloat), and make money on the console (well except the GameCube when they drop the price to 99$). Why this decision from investors? Simple:
-> They expect that Nintendo game will magically translate well on phone witch lack any of control. Investors either don't know that, or they do know, and hope that people will buy it for the name "Mario", "Zelda", then the stock will jump really high (Angry bird style), sale everything, people will realize of shitty the games are as you need proper controls for these games, and well the investors don't care, they got their money.
-> If Nintendo sales their games on multiple platform, then it would make more money, GTA style, and pull a Call of Duty where you release every year, massive profit. Ignoring the fact that Nintendo games, the reason why they are successful, is because the console is uniquely adapted for it. That is right, Nintendo makes a game console for themselves, NOT for third parties. Why? Because Nintendo sees themselves as a toy manufacture, and Nintendo games provides a unique experience that you can't get anywhere else. If they put Nintendo IPs on other consoles, then it strips their game from that unique experience, and then it just becomes "generic platformer" or "generic adventure game #12".
Investors aren't loyal. It's not their company. They want revenue NOW. Tomorrow, they dont' care, they'll be invested at some different company, bugging them. That is why Dell switch to private. They were sick and tired of selling out their name by producing el-Cheapo, non-innovative, generic computers, because investors are pushing Dell to meet their quarterly results in a market where people don't buy computers anymore, because they find their tablet and/or phone is plenty adequate to surf the web, and check their e-mail is that is what they do. Hence the joke: iMac: The 2000$ Facebook machine. As the user doesn't need the provided performance, does nothing on it because e-mail and Facebook, but just got it because of the social status value, something fairly unique to Apple in technology (usually it's clothing).
News site LOVES to report investors comments. Why? Because it's "bad news", and people like you, loves to click on them and read them. It buys their newspaper too. People try to find out why, and have lack of information to actually say: "Wait, this article is stupid!".
Notice how, every new version of Windows, it's always, everywhere on the news, and even little corner review sites begging for viewership, going "Windows x sucks!", and then always say how the previous version of Windows was better. Heck it even happened with Windows 7, the beloved OS by many. People called the task bar a replica to MacOS (clearly false), and how Vista.. yes VISTA, got it right. People freakout so much, that you had computer manufacture, like today with Windows 8, build a Task bar replacement program to bring the old Windows look (well with Windows 8 its the start menu). Then it quickly disappeared as people got it, and saw how rather good it was, and what they read was total crap. Look at Windows XP. Same story. "Windows 2000 was the best Windows. Windows XP sucks, it's buggy, it's this and that".. and now "OMG Windows XP for life!!!!". The same crap over and over and over again. Look at Windows 9... people will STILL complain, and say how Windows 8 did things better, and yet, because companies follows a 6 year life cycle for upgrades, they'll get it, and sales will jump sky high, and now all the haters desperate with clicks, will shut up, and actually get the OS to make a proper opinion for themselves, and not base everything on screen shot and assumes how it all works. Remember when people said that Vista could not play MP3's? Or how the """new""" Start Menu, was impossible to use, yet it is identical to the one of XP? Yea... good times.
As long as people click on those things, it won't end. By the way, same applies for Apple new MacOS X versions, and iOS.
Last edited:
I'd say it was Flippin' annoying.
Similar threads
