I am not sure if the profits that Microsoft makes, on all their products, is an accurate measure of an advertising campaign for just one product.
Sorry, I went and re-read my statement, and I know for sure that I wasn't trying to say that at all, and I just don't see how you came to that conclusion unless you're trying too hard to read things into it and ignore the context of the post I was replying to.
In short, I really didn't say that, and I think you should know better than to think I meant that.
I don't know if the ads are working, but don't forget that Microsoft is still making 3x more net profit than Apple.
Yes but cash on hand goes to Apple being the only tech company with actual money in the bank.
Microsoft's value is all perceived because it's tied up in stocks. If the market crashes so does Microsoft. Hell, it happened in the nineties when the anti-trust suit hit MS which cut a big hole in Bill Gates perceived value as well.
But what gets me is Microsoft keeps advertising PCs and not Windows. Clearly there is no perceived value in Windows that it's creators won't even advertise it directly.
Yes but cash on hand goes to Apple being the only tech company with actual money in the bank.
Apple is strong enough that you don't have to lie about Microsoft not having cash. Microsoft does have cash, a little less than Apple's but still a pretty big pile. I don't know about the rest of the industry, but with you being wrong on Microsoft in such a grand way as you were, I think it's pretty safe to say there have to be several other big companies with cash on hand.
Comments
So how well is Microsoft's advertising working?
I mean Apple is making end over end profits and Microsoft is... well... it isn't really is it?
Hmmmm.
I don't know if the ads are working, but don't forget that Microsoft is still making 3x more net profit than Apple.
I don't know if the ads are working, but don't forget that Microsoft is still making 3x more net profit than Apple.
I am not sure if the profits that Microsoft makes, on all their products, is an accurate measure of an advertising campaign for just one product.
However... for those that do see a correlation....
I am not sure if the profits that Microsoft makes, on all their products, is an accurate measure of an advertising campaign for just one product.
Sorry, I went and re-read my statement, and I know for sure that I wasn't trying to say that at all, and I just don't see how you came to that conclusion unless you're trying too hard to read things into it and ignore the context of the post I was replying to.
In short, I really didn't say that, and I think you should know better than to think I meant that.
I don't know if the ads are working, but don't forget that Microsoft is still making 3x more net profit than Apple.
Yes but cash on hand goes to Apple being the only tech company with actual money in the bank.
Microsoft's value is all perceived because it's tied up in stocks. If the market crashes so does Microsoft. Hell, it happened in the nineties when the anti-trust suit hit MS which cut a big hole in Bill Gates perceived value as well.
But what gets me is Microsoft keeps advertising PCs and not Windows. Clearly there is no perceived value in Windows that it's creators won't even advertise it directly.
Yes but cash on hand goes to Apple being the only tech company with actual money in the bank.
Apple is strong enough that you don't have to lie about Microsoft not having cash. Microsoft does have cash, a little less than Apple's but still a pretty big pile. I don't know about the rest of the industry, but with you being wrong on Microsoft in such a grand way as you were, I think it's pretty safe to say there have to be several other big companies with cash on hand.