| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft is a dying consumer brand | |
|
||
| Time: 10:35 EST/15:35 GMT | News Source: CNN | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Consumers have turned their backs on Microsoft. A company that once symbolized the future is now living in the past. Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets. It has even fallen behind in Web browsing, a market it once ruled with an iron fist. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:37:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/27/2010 11:40:18 AM |
|
"With Xbox, Microsoft succeeded at innovating: It created a competitive video game brand for hardcore gamers. But even Xbox was outdueled by Nintendo with the Wii, which outsold Xbox by appealing to casual gamers."
MS rushed their buggy, immature product to market to pip Sony at the post. They were losing $100 per unit to try and get market share. The Red Ring of Death debacle caused them to take a billion dollar writedown, thus guaranteeing the division will take an eternity to be profitable, if ever. And they call that 'innovation'? It's certainly a different market approach than most companies would take, but then most companies have to live or die with their decisions, and don't have the luxury of a multi-billion dollar warchest to allow them to stumble & bumble their way into various markets. |
| #2 By 428624 (70.67.12.154) at 10/27/2010 1:10:50 PM |
|
PS3 loses up to $306 per unit, Xbox 360 profits $76 per sa
"Materials and manufacturing costs for the 20Gbyte model exceed the suggested retail price of $499 by a total of $306.85, iSuppli’s Teardown Analysis service estimates... In contrast, the HDD-equipped Xbox 360 has a manufacturing and materials total of $323.30, based on an updated estimate using costs in the fourth quarter of 2006. This total is $75.70 less than the $399 suggested retail price of the Xbox 360. " http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11/16/ps3-loses-up-to-306-per-unit-xbox-360-profits-76-per-sale.htm |
| #3 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 10/27/2010 1:54:44 PM |
|
#3: Iketchum: " we're an aging population"; the WASP are and looking at history, which always repeat itself, I predict that between fifty and one hundred years from now the US will implode as the Roman Empire did for the exact same reasons; demographic. This post was edited by Fritzly on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 13:55. |
| #4 By 7754 (173.8.117.81) at 10/27/2010 3:48:32 PM |
|
#1: they lost FAR LESS than Sony was losing when the PS3 came out. Xbox 360 buggy? Hardware, maybe, but I had one pretty early on, and I really haven't seen any software issues.
I think if they're really serious about mobile, they should be taking the same exactly approach they did with the Xbox--buy their way into the market. They have cash. It'd be better spent on some promotions than some acquisition they might just squander anyhow. They also appear to have been caught so flat-footed with regard to "tablets" ("tablet" really isn't the best word to use because of the association with Tablet PCs, which are really not in the same category) that they are now what, 18 months away from a product? Their entire CES keynote was ridiculously bad, and they seem content with Windows 7's "success," I think not realizing that the "success" is partly relative to the poorly received Vista (though I'd say misperceived--case in point being the wide praise for Windows Server 2008). In fact, they now seem to be rallying around Windows and Office. I don't think I bought into this view before, but the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to feel that Ballmer needs to step aside. He'd make a brilliant CFO, but... I don't know exactly how to describe it, but look at the history. He'll let something like Windows Mobile languish and not have guts enough to invest in it, staff it with more than a handful of developers, and give them enough rope until way late in the game--he didn't realize until only 18 months ago that WinMo required serious attention? Seriously? WinMo was never great, it's just that their competition stunk. I think he just looked at the sales spreadsheet and thought "why invest?" when it was "doing well in the market." Obviously they know their company better than I do, of course, but that's how it appears to me today. They have some bright spots like SharePoint (an amazing product aside from some baffling gaps--the lack of decent integration with Outlook is just inexcusable), but when you have an organization with that much talent and other incredible assets/benefits and still struggles, I think you have to look to the leadership. |
| #5 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 10/27/2010 4:14:48 PM |
|
#4: Let's all get back to this page in 100 years to see if you were right on the money about the US implosion. In the meantime, we in the US will keep working to make manufacturing in the US attractive again, starting with a government filled with people who care instead of ethically challenged greedy bastards. Legal changes to US law should include no corporate tax, only personal income and sales taxes, limited tort for accidents or decades old actions, R&D increase, and repeal of the moronic Sarbanes-Oxley law that, by itself, made the US the least desirable country to house a corporation.
|
| #6 By 9589 (67.237.69.124) at 10/28/2010 7:53:22 AM |
|
Bold statements from all (except the usual moronic statements from coffee boy), but the only way you are going to get there is get the socialists out of office.
That means actually picking up a sample ballot BEFORE you go to your polling place and STUDY IT. Don't just punch the straight "R" button. Turn down the bonds (likely your city and county are broke - your state is almost assuredly so), and study who wants to run your courts and schools. That is where a lot of what is wrong today is being decided. In any event, most of you can vote early. Do so. Don't wait until next Tuesday and then something comes up and you can't vote for whatever the reason. Vote in the conservatives. No, not just the Rs. There are plenty of them that are quite happy to run up spending like President Bush did. If you don't vote, vote complain. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/28/2010 9:03:17 AM |
|
#7: If you don't vote, vote complain.
What was that you were saying about moronic statements, Captain Genius? You're about a half-step above parkkker in the evolutionary scale where you can't help but kneecap yourself with idiocy when trying to one-up someone else. And then you look like a tool when it's thrown back in your face. But don't worry; if you don't like what I;'m saying, you can always vote complain. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 10/28/2010 9:16:28 AM |
|
It would be really a good idea to keep the discussion limited to technology avoiding politics issues.
I do not come to Activewin to read tirades about Republican or Democrats, less than ever political suggestions. Thanks. |
| #9 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 10/28/2010 9:16:46 AM |
|
Double post.....
This post was edited by Fritzly on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 09:45. |
| #10 By 7754 (173.8.117.81) at 10/28/2010 9:50:12 AM |
|
Since this has turned into a political debate, I'll just throw in 2˘. Honestly, it seems disingenuous of the Republicans to claim either fiscal responsibility (Bush? PAYGO?) or that high taxes are why the economy is stagnant. Given what we're spending--both during Bush and during Obama--we should be taxed MUCH higher... but this isn't happening YET. It doesn't matter what party is in control next, though--we already spent another boatload money we didn't have, now we have to pay it back.
Don't give me baloney about lowering taxes. We don't have that option anymore. The current government may have made that situation worse, but for the Republicans/Tea Party folks to parade around as the defenders of a government we can actually afford is ridiculous. We can't lower taxes enough to "stimulate" the economy enough to effectively deal with this large of a debt we've given ourselves. Stop looking to a change in government to grow the economy. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." Democrats are guilty of this, but Republicans are no less guilty. Or rather, we are guilty. |
| #11 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 10/28/2010 4:03:38 PM |
| Some are still angry over the whole colony uprising thing. |
| #12 By 428624 (70.67.12.154) at 10/28/2010 5:57:56 PM |
|
#11 "Given what we're spending--both during Bush and during Obama"
Not very similar. http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/obama_budget_deficit_chart.jpg "Don't give me baloney about lowering taxes. We don't have that option anymore." Lower taxes = more entrepeneurs willing to risk investing in their businesses which means more net taxes. Higher taxes = less risk = even lower tax revenues. The option is cut spending drastically, stop the green nonsense that ourtsources CO2 production AND jobs to China ... AND LOWER TAXES. Let people keep more money for the risks they takes with their businesses and they will produce more taxes. But, if you want more businesses to invest offshore, go ahead and raise taxes. Capital can move from country to country. Why invest in a dying economy? |
| #13 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 10/28/2010 7:22:51 PM |
|
"Let people keep more money for the risks they takes with their businesses and they will produce more taxes."
My place of work has been on a wage freeze for two years now. Not because of taxes. It's because of the stock market crash and housing bubble. We are making less money today than the previous generation, not because of taxation but because of a down grade of the working class by the PRO-business "greed at all cost" class. |
| #14 By 7754 (173.8.117.81) at 10/28/2010 7:32:03 PM |
|
#13: lower taxes = more entrepreneurs = more net taxes? No. There is a narrow range of numbers where it can happen, yes, but we're not anywhere near that level. Case in point, it didn't work under Bush. That was the principle at that time, and we had multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits every year. It's a great principle in theory and makes for a great soundbite, but when you put it in current numbers, it just doesn't work. GHW Bush realized this, and it cost him re-election.
The GW Bush years showed that the Republicans talk a big talk but really aren't interested in cutting spending either. Whether Obama is worse isn't the point. It's not a partisan issue. It's not the parties that are at fault, it's the people electing them. We don't have the discipline to lower our own spending. Whether it's Republicans or Democrats putting up proposed budgets, neither pass scrutiny. Neither add up. When you spend nearly twice what you make in one year, you gotta pay up at some point. We already spent all we had last year, and then another $1.4T more. If we keep expecting that the government will get us out of this by spurring the economy somehow, we're doomed. Entrepreneurs thrive because of their will and drive, not the incentive of a pittance tax cut. Keep in mind--we still aren't paying higher taxes yet. If anything, the economy should be rocking with the amount we've borrowed. A $100B tax cut is not going to lift this economy out of the doldrums. Higher taxes aren't going to help the economy either, but there is no way we can continue to spend like this. Our economic success will be determined by what we're willing to do and sacrifice privately to achieve it, regardless of the government we give ourselves. |
| #15 By 428624 (70.67.12.154) at 10/28/2010 10:14:13 PM |
|
If the Bush Tax Cuts expire:
"Peter Hooper at Deutsche believes that an end of the Bush tax cuts could remove a full 2.5% from U.S. GDP in 2011. This could be enough to kill the economic recovery." http://www.businessinsider.com/deutsche-bank-growth-will-be-slammed-in-2011-thanks-to-the-end-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-2010-7 I guess we will find out whether he is right ... the hard way. |
| #16 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 10/29/2010 12:32:13 AM |
|
#16: What economic recovery? The fed is playing a numbers game. Since GDP = V x M (velocity of money - dollar turn over per year for you young 'uns - multiplied by the money supply)
when the fed increases the money supply year over year by 7% and claims a 3% increase in GDP (hypothetical, but close to reality) the actual turn over of the dollar decreased which indicates that the economy decreased by 4%, as $600 billion in less tax income this year evinces. |
| #17 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 10/29/2010 7:56:10 AM |
|
Microsoft is a dying consumer brand?
Microsoft reported $16.2B in revenue for Q1 .. Microsoft has seen strong demand for its recently launched Office 2010 productivity suite and Windows 7 has been a strong performer ever since it was released just over a year ago. In addition, sales of Xbox 360 consoles grew by 38 percent to 2.8 million. Microsoft's Xbox 360 division alone racked in $1.2 billion according to Gamasutra, with sales of Halo: Reach accounting for $350 million of that total. |
| #18 By 16797 (99.236.143.109) at 10/29/2010 11:57:20 AM |
| Lloyd, please stop it already. |
| #19 By 89249 (72.213.159.5) at 10/31/2010 9:26:11 AM |
| blu you've obviously never looked at the historical tables provided by the cbo. |
| #20 By 7754 (173.8.117.81) at 11/1/2010 3:46:41 AM |
|
#19: from what I can tell, everything I've said is more or less exactly what the CBO is saying:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11659 Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels. ...If the United States encountered a fiscal crisis... policymakers would probably need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner. I realize that government spending math is not trivial since you have phenomena like the multiplier effect--it's not like that money just evaporates. But that number jostling is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic--we've crossed that 77% debt-to-GDP tipping point, and the trajectory is a continually rising one. Small-scale accounting tricks can't save us from years and years of living beyond our means. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:37:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
