canukstorm

tht said:

danvm said:

davidw said:

danvm said:

crowley said:

danvm said:

9secondkox2 said:

Says the company trying to monopolize AAA gaming by literally buying the competition. 

MS does the same thing Apple does. They just aren’t successful. 

This is petty jealousy snd and anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft. 

I read that MS will be #3 after the acquisition, so I don't think they are trying to monopolize AAA gaming.  

If they were #1 then they'd be succeeding, not trying.

Xbox Series X is selling out, GamePass is at 25M subscriptions and games like Halo, FH5 and SoT are extremely popular in consoles and PCs.  Even their games are selling extremely well in Steam.  Don't you think they are succeeding, even though they are not #1? 

You are forgetting that Microsoft do not make a profit selling their Xbox. Never had (so they say.). So selling out of their Series X Xbox results in a bigger loss, not more profit.

Plus Game Pass is not making a profit. If might be breaking even at its best.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-news-not-the-only-focus-ps-seemingly-admits-game-pass-is-not-profitable-but-neither-is-xbox-console/

So Microsoft depends on that 30% commission they charge in their Microsoft Store on an Xbox. It's that 30% commission on third party games, plus their Live subscription, that makes gaming very profitable for Microsoft.  No way Microsoft will allow a third party store in an Xbox, to take away any of their 30% commission. 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422691/microsoft-xbox-consoles-profit-software-services-revenue-apple-epic-games-trial

Just  because they sell their hardware at a loss, doesn't mean that they are more entitled to charge a 30% commission in their Microdot Store on an Xbox, than Apple with their commission in their Apple App Store. Selling their hardware at a loss is the business model Microsoft chose, in order to gain marketshare over Sony as fast as possible. Not a business model that they were forced into. And it has been proven to be a very profitable business model, if done right. 

And I'm pretty sure that Microsoft generate way more profit from selling games on each Xbox they sell, than Apple from selling apps on each iPhone they sell. If there were 1.5B Xboxes out there, Microsoft gaming division would probably be more profitable than all of Apple, Inc..     

Like you said, MS makes money in software and services around the console.  The console itself will be too expensive if MS had to sell it at full price.  Just look at the cost of the Apple TV 4K.  It has 64GB of storage, 3GB of RAM and no controller for $200.  Compare that to the Xbox Series S, that has 3x the RAM, 8x the storage, far more advanced CPU and GPU and includes a controller for $300.  How much do you think Apple would sell a device with the Xbox Series S / X specs?  I don't think consumers will be attracted to a device so expensive, and that's the reason they absorb the cost of the device, and use games and services to make money.  

IMO, one of the reasons they are pushing for GamePass is to stop making consoles, since you'll be able to play in any device, PC / Mac / Linux, smartphone, tablet and even TV apps.  Let's see how it goes.  

I'd like to see an actual breakdown of XBox hardware revenues, charges, R&D, etc across its lifetime. I took apart my XBox One about a year ago, and there looks to be only about $200 worth of hardware in that box. With controllers in the box, maybe the total BOM of the whole green box was $350. Depending on how the "cost of selling and servicing hardware" is book-kept, I wouldn't be surprised if MS has a 10% margin on it after several million units.

I don't totally believe the implications of Lori Wright's testimony saying MS has never made a profit on XBox hardware, and I'd like to see a breakdown. MS had a $1b or more costs for repairs of Xbox RROD in the aughts. They may have had others, who knows, it's been a long time. But if there are unplanned billion dollar charges for repairs, that can take what is planned to be a breakeven or marginally profitable hardware segment into a loss for every piece of hardware.

As for Apple hardware, barring actual evidence, I think every non-accessory piece of hardware (Apple TV, Watch, iPhone, iPads, Macs) are fully margined along a 33:33:33 ratio. 33% of the retail price is BOM, 33% is the cost of developing+selling+servicing the hardware, and 33% is their margin. The ratio is higher for some products, lower for others, and changes depending on the state of the supply chain and the sales performance of the hardware, but it is going to be somewhere along there.

Based on this, a $200 Apple TV has a BOM of about $67. The BOM for the A12, 3 GB LPDDR4 and 64 GB NAND would be, what, $45 combined. It's 3+ year old hardware, and I wouldn't be surprised if the BOM was even lower. Apple has sold a gajillion A12 SoCs. Depending on how Apple manages the soft costs and what margin they are willing to live with, they could sell the $200 Apple TV for $100 and still make a profit. A lot smaller than now, but a profit still.

This hardware business stuff is of course irrelevant to the rationale for charging a platform fee for digital goods. It's only used by people to make themselves feel better about this or that situation, but it is irrelevant to the business dealings between platform owners and 3rd parties. Or its only relevancy is as an emotional play. Eg, a game publisher has every right to ask MS for a lower platform fee. That MS may sell an XBox unit at a loss or a profit is irrelevant, MS also has every right to say take it or leave it. Somewhere between all these constraints, all parties have to design and manage their products for profitability.

KITA said:

Intel has had so many delays and setbacks, it's just hard to trust these types of claim. It's obvious that they have a lot of talent and capabilities, but their business operation has had them drag their feet until it was far too late. Foundry issues have also been a big part of their undoing. It's amazing how far behind they were on getting their 10 nm out the door. They've been known to have a few aces up their sleeve in the past, but it's just not so clear that will be the case this time around.

canukstorm said:

lkrupp said:

Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.

Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted.  And I don't mean that in a positive way.

Ikrupp's posts are nothing short of cancerous with nothing of value to add to any discussion. The only aim of his posts are to promote hatred and divide among readers and members here.

Absolute poison.

slurpy said:

canukstorm said:

lkrupp said:

Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.

Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted.  And I don't mean that in a positive way.

And you’re one of the biggest negative trolls on this forum, so that assessment by you means less than nothing. 

lkrupp said:

Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.

lkrupp said:

crowley said:

I won't be rushing.  No features of any interest; I tried Focus mode and Tab Groups already and both were a waste of time.

Perhaps you should move to Windows 11. I hear it’s amazing and has many features of interest to you.