Microsoft IS indeed a dying company, they are down 13% and competition is Up 50%. Plus they have an idiot who thinks he's a visionary running the company.
Those Windows 7 and MS Office sales sure have dried up haven't they!
The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune. You can play semantics over whether of not he "earned" it, but to be successful for as long as he has been at his game, that is an achievement.
Perhaps but you can say the same about professional gamblers:
It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
And perhaps it is a personal achievement of his to share his amassed wealth with those less fortunate.
What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
And maybe you don't value his contributions to charity
That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
Just because Warren doesn't bring the starving child food himself doesn't make the food his money buys any less filling.
They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous.
No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
This entire site is devoted to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.
I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.
Microsoft IS indeed a dying company, they are down 13% and competition is Up 50%. Plus they have an idiot who thinks he's a visionary running the company.
Sorry, i know I shouldn't waste my time and rise to such a short and ill informed comment.. but it remains sad that a few people who have probably used a Mac for less time than they have been able to drink (that's assuming they have ever used a Mac of course) still thing that Microsoft has to lose for Apple to do well.
As Steve Jobs himself commented some years ago, that's not the case. Bboth companies are and remain hugely successful, and stock valuation is not the 'be all and end all' of measuring a company?s success. (Its also a very fickle one - as any listed company knows).
Microsoft far from being a dying company just published their best financial results ever, still make more net profit than Apple (even now where Apple revenue is higher) due to Microsoft?s higher SW margins (and Apple's margins are amazingly good, so they take some beating). That may change - Apple may pull ahead - who knows, but it does not mean MS is declining (just as Apple making more money than Google does not mean Google are dying either!
Microsoft does not have the consumer profile that Apple does (though innovative tech like Kinect and Xbox Live are strong steps in engaging the consumer - and Windows Phone 7 looks interesting) .. but their core business is an remains just that - business.
Microsoft servers run behind the scenes in the majority of companies, and standards like Exchange are so widely respected and used that .. yes, partners like Apple licence them for use in iPhone etc.) Office is a world standard, that has now moved to the www and where Google has made little inroad - and they even support our favourite HW platform still - despite all the snide carping in these and other forums... Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 has just been released to excellent reviews... though I know there will inevitably be a bunch of 'Mr Angry and Sad types' who say that's Office is the work of the devil... and the only ?true? way is iWork (good product but limited i several areas).
Hey ho... for those of us with a bit more silver in the hair (read sense), we know this is a dynamic industry and in 10 years the hot products will no doubt look very different again - but I'll take any bet that both Apple and Microsoft are both still multibillion companies that lead their respective markets... the fun will be in seeing who else has joined them.. and how they are both then positioned.
It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.
What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.
That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.
They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.
No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?
I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.
Unbelievable nieve these comments are. I honestly pity your outlook on the world. Communism has been shown to destroy nations, yet you postulate that North America become communist?
Perhaps the most ironic part is that you advocate communism for the better part of your post, then go on to praise Apple at the bottom. Apple is the poster product for capitalism - no big time investors, no Apple.
I think what a lot of these people don't realize, is that all these wealthy venture capitalists are there to help ideas grow. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak didn't have the necessary capital to start Apple, so they turned to Mike Markkula (an affluent angel investor).
I also love how you scoff at Warren Buffet donating of 37 Billion to charity - absolutely pitiful on your part.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.
Why even bother posting that? Do you normally push into other peoples conversations, roll your eyes and sook about something? Surely that can't be working for you?
Read the post I was responding to. Read my post to the end. Make sure you understand, if you don't then take time out and think about it. If you have something intelligent to add then post away, otherwise don't bother wasting your time.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Some food for thought.
Precisely why I trust his handling of the funds over my elected officials.
And while it's all well and good to say that people should be selfless by nature, it's simply not reality. The sooner we accept facts like this rather than trying to force the larger part of humanity to change through some means of government control, the better off we will all be.
If you want to help people, then help them. What my neighbor does or does not do for the greater good does not affect my ability to make a contribution. Just like whatever personal fortune he may be sitting on is not preventing me from making my own.
Perhaps if people reallocated some of the time they spend pissing and moaning about how unfair things are to actually making a positive difference in their own lives (and if desired, the lives of others), we'd see some real change and not just some bullsh!t on a bumper sticker.
It's much more likely that the sale of the stock indicates Balmer is on his way out already.
The kind of big re-alignment of company goals and staffing that would push a "famous" CEO like Balmer out, who is so closely associated with the companies fortunes, would seriously affect the stock. Balmer would be wise to cash out if he had heard rumours of his own ousting.
Unfortunately, while Balmer *staying* is good news for Apple fans, Balmer *leaving* is bad news for everyone, probably including Microsoft stockholders in the short run.
Not a chance. IF Ballmer's selling shares is a sign that he's leaving, it's probably a massive BUY signal for MSFT.
OTOH, it could just be his typical loony 'thinking' style. I used to have a boss who is convinced that taxes are going to quadruple in the next couple of years and we're going to have hyperinflation again, so he's selling all his assets and buying gold. Ballmer has never struck me as being any more intelligent than that.
You don't earn your intelligence; in that respect you are blessed. Capitalism works, but there is also such a thing as proportionality. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between innovation and reward. There is nothing wrong in making that observation.
Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.
Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous. This entire site is devoted to to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.
Yes, most people use the word "should" when standing on soapboxes and pulpits.
And did you just say nobody needs Apple's products? Who are you to declare what mankind's needs are? A century ago, people like you would've argued that nobody needed electricity, sound recording, refrigeration, the telephone, or the internal combustion engine. Or the first mass market personal computer, the Apple ][. They're all luxuries for wealthy people. In fact, we don't need money, we can go back to barter economies...
And yet, look at how these unnecessary inventions have reshaped the world, and the economies they have sustained! The same is true in the information age, with the Internet and ubiquitous personal computing. It will transform civilization, and we will need these things.
Maybe you can go back to the stone age, but I'm staying right the fuck here in the 21st Century. I need my iPod, iPad, MacBook Air and 24/7 connection to the Internet.
Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.
I don't know what the 'rules of global capitalism' exactly are, although obviously we all live in a smaller world figuratively. I think the G20 meetings are of much interest, and precedents are being established right now. The EU is a work in progress. Yes, we live in a global economy.
For those of us who have worked in the computer industry – our endeavors have made new situations possible. I've been getting photos from relatives vacationing in Europe in almost realtime. I am old enough to remember a controversy over the replacement of slide rules by hand calculators in college. I remember my negative reaction when I first heard the term 'data mining' in the now by-gone mainframe era.
A thoughtful post, of which I appreciate. Don't assume I advocate 'laissez-faire.' I try to be pragmatic, and learn from experience as best as I can. The law (and 'rules') have yet to coalesce regarding computers and a global economy.
Ballmer, aside from the other meathead symptoms, is an anti-tax Republican who gave lots of money to an tax initiative, I-1098 in Washington state. It would have levied a state tax of 5% on individuals making over $400,000. Ballmer, of course, would have been included. Gates Sr. was an endorser of the affirmative. The negatives won.
Hope you guys like the future, where if the poor want anything, they'll have to pay for it in sales taxes, while fatheads like Ballmer pay zip.
Oh. I forgot. This is because Ballmer is motivated by every last penny he can extract from the company as he drives it over a cliff.
By the way, if you look at that last quarter, Microsoft made billions on Office and Windows upgrades. They made about $300 million on the Xbox. Kick that up another, say, $300 million for Kinect, and so what?
Comments
Microsoft IS indeed a dying company, they are down 13% and competition is Up 50%. Plus they have an idiot who thinks he's a visionary running the company.
Those Windows 7 and MS Office sales sure have dried up haven't they!
The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune. You can play semantics over whether of not he "earned" it, but to be successful for as long as he has been at his game, that is an achievement.
Perhaps but you can say the same about professional gamblers:
http://www.investorguide.com/gambling-vs-investing
It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.
And perhaps it is a personal achievement of his to share his amassed wealth with those less fortunate.
What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.
And maybe you don't value his contributions to charity
That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.
Just because Warren doesn't bring the starving child food himself doesn't make the food his money buys any less filling.
They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.
Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous.
No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?
This entire site is devoted to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.
I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.
Microsoft IS indeed a dying company, they are down 13% and competition is Up 50%. Plus they have an idiot who thinks he's a visionary running the company.
Sorry, i know I shouldn't waste my time and rise to such a short and ill informed comment.. but it remains sad that a few people who have probably used a Mac for less time than they have been able to drink (that's assuming they have ever used a Mac of course) still thing that Microsoft has to lose for Apple to do well.
As Steve Jobs himself commented some years ago, that's not the case. Bboth companies are and remain hugely successful, and stock valuation is not the 'be all and end all' of measuring a company?s success. (Its also a very fickle one - as any listed company knows).
Microsoft far from being a dying company just published their best financial results ever, still make more net profit than Apple (even now where Apple revenue is higher) due to Microsoft?s higher SW margins (and Apple's margins are amazingly good, so they take some beating). That may change - Apple may pull ahead - who knows, but it does not mean MS is declining (just as Apple making more money than Google does not mean Google are dying either!
Microsoft does not have the consumer profile that Apple does (though innovative tech like Kinect and Xbox Live are strong steps in engaging the consumer - and Windows Phone 7 looks interesting) .. but their core business is an remains just that - business.
Microsoft servers run behind the scenes in the majority of companies, and standards like Exchange are so widely respected and used that .. yes, partners like Apple licence them for use in iPhone etc.) Office is a world standard, that has now moved to the www and where Google has made little inroad - and they even support our favourite HW platform still - despite all the snide carping in these and other forums... Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 has just been released to excellent reviews... though I know there will inevitably be a bunch of 'Mr Angry and Sad types' who say that's Office is the work of the devil... and the only ?true? way is iWork (good product but limited i several areas).
Hey ho... for those of us with a bit more silver in the hair (read sense), we know this is a dynamic industry and in 10 years the hot products will no doubt look very different again - but I'll take any bet that both Apple and Microsoft are both still multibillion companies that lead their respective markets... the fun will be in seeing who else has joined them.. and how they are both then positioned.
Perhaps but you can say the same about professional gamblers:
http://www.investorguide.com/gambling-vs-investing
It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.
What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.
That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.
They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.
No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?
I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.
Unbelievable nieve these comments are. I honestly pity your outlook on the world. Communism has been shown to destroy nations, yet you postulate that North America become communist?
Perhaps the most ironic part is that you advocate communism for the better part of your post, then go on to praise Apple at the bottom. Apple is the poster product for capitalism - no big time investors, no Apple.
I think what a lot of these people don't realize, is that all these wealthy venture capitalists are there to help ideas grow. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak didn't have the necessary capital to start Apple, so they turned to Mike Markkula (an affluent angel investor).
I also love how you scoff at Warren Buffet donating of 37 Billion to charity - absolutely pitiful on your part.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Some food for thought.
Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.
Why even bother posting that? Do you normally push into other peoples conversations, roll your eyes and sook about something? Surely that can't be working for you?
Read the post I was responding to. Read my post to the end. Make sure you understand, if you don't then take time out and think about it. If you have something intelligent to add then post away, otherwise don't bother wasting your time.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Some food for thought.
Precisely why I trust his handling of the funds over my elected officials.
And while it's all well and good to say that people should be selfless by nature, it's simply not reality. The sooner we accept facts like this rather than trying to force the larger part of humanity to change through some means of government control, the better off we will all be.
If you want to help people, then help them. What my neighbor does or does not do for the greater good does not affect my ability to make a contribution. Just like whatever personal fortune he may be sitting on is not preventing me from making my own.
Perhaps if people reallocated some of the time they spend pissing and moaning about how unfair things are to actually making a positive difference in their own lives (and if desired, the lives of others), we'd see some real change and not just some bullsh!t on a bumper sticker.
It's much more likely that the sale of the stock indicates Balmer is on his way out already.
The kind of big re-alignment of company goals and staffing that would push a "famous" CEO like Balmer out, who is so closely associated with the companies fortunes, would seriously affect the stock. Balmer would be wise to cash out if he had heard rumours of his own ousting.
Unfortunately, while Balmer *staying* is good news for Apple fans, Balmer *leaving* is bad news for everyone, probably including Microsoft stockholders in the short run.
Not a chance. IF Ballmer's selling shares is a sign that he's leaving, it's probably a massive BUY signal for MSFT.
OTOH, it could just be his typical loony 'thinking' style. I used to have a boss who is convinced that taxes are going to quadruple in the next couple of years and we're going to have hyperinflation again, so he's selling all his assets and buying gold. Ballmer has never struck me as being any more intelligent than that.
Political statements are best left for Political Outsider but the reason for ...
Better left to Political Outsider, then a lengthy political statement. Typical - rules don't apply to the ruling class.
You don't earn your intelligence; in that respect you are blessed. Capitalism works, but there is also such a thing as proportionality. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between innovation and reward. There is nothing wrong in making that observation.
Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.
Gold medals don't buy things like money does unless you send them to MC Hammer.
That is, without question, the funniest thing you have ever written here.
Ah, but it trickles down, you see...
No, that's just the uber-rich relieving themselves on everyone else.
I don't care even if you're SJ himself, the system that allows those kinds of payouts is sickening.
What "system" are you talking about?
Do you think that when people sell personal property, something should be limiting how much they can make from that sale?
How about when you sell your house? You should be limited to what you can get for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/27/tech..._pdc/index.htm
CNN Story about Microsoft as a dying brand.
Haha, very funny. 404 NOT FOUND. I get it. You are saying Microsoft isn't dying.
Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous. This entire site is devoted to to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.
Yes, most people use the word "should" when standing on soapboxes and pulpits.
And did you just say nobody needs Apple's products? Who are you to declare what mankind's needs are? A century ago, people like you would've argued that nobody needed electricity, sound recording, refrigeration, the telephone, or the internal combustion engine. Or the first mass market personal computer, the Apple ][. They're all luxuries for wealthy people. In fact, we don't need money, we can go back to barter economies...
And yet, look at how these unnecessary inventions have reshaped the world, and the economies they have sustained! The same is true in the information age, with the Internet and ubiquitous personal computing. It will transform civilization, and we will need these things.
Maybe you can go back to the stone age, but I'm staying right the fuck here in the 21st Century. I need my iPod, iPad, MacBook Air and 24/7 connection to the Internet.
Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.
I don't know what the 'rules of global capitalism' exactly are, although obviously we all live in a smaller world figuratively. I think the G20 meetings are of much interest, and precedents are being established right now. The EU is a work in progress. Yes, we live in a global economy.
For those of us who have worked in the computer industry – our endeavors have made new situations possible. I've been getting photos from relatives vacationing in Europe in almost realtime. I am old enough to remember a controversy over the replacement of slide rules by hand calculators in college. I remember my negative reaction when I first heard the term 'data mining' in the now by-gone mainframe era.
A thoughtful post, of which I appreciate. Don't assume I advocate 'laissez-faire.' I try to be pragmatic, and learn from experience as best as I can. The law (and 'rules') have yet to coalesce regarding computers and a global economy.
Hope you guys like the future, where if the poor want anything, they'll have to pay for it in sales taxes, while fatheads like Ballmer pay zip.
Oh. I forgot. This is because Ballmer is motivated by every last penny he can extract from the company as he drives it over a cliff.
By the way, if you look at that last quarter, Microsoft made billions on Office and Windows upgrades. They made about $300 million on the Xbox. Kick that up another, say, $300 million for Kinect, and so what?
Who can love a fat person?
Fat people are disgusting.
Who can love a fat person?
didn't see that coming.
didn't see that coming.
I suppose we could have.