5 ms·

> Now...the company has its corner, but that's it. Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardwa

> Now...the company has its corner, but that's it. Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools. > if you're a Linux or Mac developer who never touches a single Microsoft product, and pays no heed to whatever Microsoft is talking about or doing, you're probably perfectly fine doing that. The interesting thing now is that you can be a Linux or Mac developer and actually be able to use many Microsoft products. VS code is my favorite editor or any platform (actually I use it more on Linux than on Windows). I'm working on a project right now in .NET that will run as well on a Raspberry Pi as it does on Windows. I think that the market grown so significantly that no company is ever going to have the tech leadership that Microsoft had in the 90's and early 2000's. But I think Microsoft is positioning themselves to great things after fumbling though the last 5-10 years.

scarface74 7y ago
Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools. And none of those make significant amounts of profit besides cloud, Office, and Windows
- wvenable 7y ago
  https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-tech-giants-make-billions/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-tech-giants-make-billio... Bing and gaming alone makes almost as much as Windows. Devices and LinkedIn makes half as much as Windows and a 1/3 the revenue of Office. These aren't peanuts.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    That’s revenue not profit....
    - wvenable 7y ago
      When we're talking about diversification, I think revenue is a reasonable metric.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Why? Revenue without profit is meaningless. If their profitable segments stop making money then what is there to fund operations or the none profitable segments? Anyone can sell $1.00 for $0.95 as long as they have a means of getting money from other sources.
        basch 7y ago
        If linkedin revenue means they have a third of all marketshare in that vertical, and they use linkedin to add value to their core services, and attract people shopping for bundles, linkedins worth to microsoft is more than just revenue. It could easily be a loss leader just like roast chicken, to get you in the grocery store, and away from shopping at Salesforce.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I wasn’t questioning LinkedIn as much as gaming and Bing. But diversification based on revenue doesn’t decrease risk. If in the unlikely event that Windows and Office profits crater, revenue without profit won’t help.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        Unlikely, Kind of like Coca Cola becoming worthless because soda profits could come to an end.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I completely agree and I actually said in the “unlikely event”, but that doesn’t negate the fact that having a lime of business that isn’t profitable doesn’t help the company from a decreased risk stand point.
- sys_64738 7y ago
  They're loss leaders though which builds the brand. Microsoft is everywhere which is what matters to the marketing dept.
endorphone 7y ago
By corner I didn't mean niche. I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. You might go over and peruse their wares, or maybe you won't. "They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools." IBM did exactly the same thing. And FWIW, the overwhelming bulk of Microsoft's revenue comes from enterprise sales of Office and Windows. They make money on exactly the same things they made money on 20 years ago, but the pie is so much bigger they make a lot more of it.
- wvenable 7y ago
  > I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. Depends. In corporate environments, which is still a massive market, they are the central vendor. At it seems they're actually making even more headway there. Microsoft hasn't really lost influence, it's just the market is so much bigger now that influence isn't total. And they're making in-roads in those other markets. Microsoft missed out on mobile but that's a new market rather than a loss of their existing market. And now that's a growth opportunity for them. > IBM did exactly the same thing. I think you're point is to say that Microsoft is the new IBM but I don't think that follows. IBM has always been IBM even when they owned much more of the market. Even Microsoft hated working with them. > And FWIW, the overwhelming bulk of Microsoft's revenue comes from enterprise sales of Office and Windows. Less than 50% now (see my other comment).
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Presumably 1st gen IBM wasn't such a punchline. Most of their dysfunction seems to be driven by monetizing legacy products, but there was a time when they didn't have any legacy products.
- aliswe 7y ago
  Are you saying that Microsoft is not a central vendor for cloud? If so, how? And about the overwhelming bulk of their revenue veing from the same sources as 20 years ago, it seems their operating revenue is 60% cloud services, admittedly a lot of that is office 365 but let's not forget azure revenue which although lumped together in statements must be huge.
dgemm 7y ago
> Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools. I think Amazon is probably far more diversified than Microsoft. Unless they are so diversified that they aren't even considered a "tech" company anymore.

scarface74 7y ago

Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools. And none of those make significant amounts of profit besides cloud, Office, and Windows

wvenable 7y ago
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-tech-giants-make-billions/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-tech-giants-make-billio... Bing and gaming alone makes almost as much as Windows. Devices and LinkedIn makes half as much as Windows and a 1/3 the revenue of Office. These aren't peanuts.
- scarface74 7y ago
  That’s revenue not profit....
  - wvenable 7y ago
    When we're talking about diversification, I think revenue is a reasonable metric.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Why? Revenue without profit is meaningless. If their profitable segments stop making money then what is there to fund operations or the none profitable segments? Anyone can sell $1.00 for $0.95 as long as they have a means of getting money from other sources.
      - basch 7y ago
        If linkedin revenue means they have a third of all marketshare in that vertical, and they use linkedin to add value to their core services, and attract people shopping for bundles, linkedins worth to microsoft is more than just revenue. It could easily be a loss leader just like roast chicken, to get you in the grocery store, and away from shopping at Salesforce.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I wasn’t questioning LinkedIn as much as gaming and Bing. But diversification based on revenue doesn’t decrease risk. If in the unlikely event that Windows and Office profits crater, revenue without profit won’t help.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        Unlikely, Kind of like Coca Cola becoming worthless because soda profits could come to an end.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I completely agree and I actually said in the “unlikely event”, but that doesn’t negate the fact that having a lime of business that isn’t profitable doesn’t help the company from a decreased risk stand point.
sys_64738 7y ago
They're loss leaders though which builds the brand. Microsoft is everywhere which is what matters to the marketing dept.

endorphone 7y ago

By corner I didn't mean niche. I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. You might go over and peruse their wares, or maybe you won't. "They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools." IBM did exactly the same thing. And FWIW, the overwhelming bulk of Microsoft's revenue comes from enterprise sales of Office and Windows. They make money on exactly the same things they made money on 20 years ago, but the pie is so much bigger they make a lot more of it.

wvenable 7y ago
> I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. Depends. In corporate environments, which is still a massive market, they are the central vendor. At it seems they're actually making even more headway there. Microsoft hasn't really lost influence, it's just the market is so much bigger now that influence isn't total. And they're making in-roads in those other markets. Microsoft missed out on mobile but that's a new market rather than a loss of their existing market. And now that's a growth opportunity for them. > IBM did exactly the same thing. I think you're point is to say that Microsoft is the new IBM but I don't think that follows. IBM has always been IBM even when they owned much more of the market. Even Microsoft hated working with them. > And FWIW, the overwhelming bulk of Microsoft's revenue comes from enterprise sales of Office and Windows. Less than 50% now (see my other comment).
- ethbro 7y ago
  Presumably 1st gen IBM wasn't such a punchline. Most of their dysfunction seems to be driven by monetizing legacy products, but there was a time when they didn't have any legacy products.
aliswe 7y ago
Are you saying that Microsoft is not a central vendor for cloud? If so, how? And about the overwhelming bulk of their revenue veing from the same sources as 20 years ago, it seems their operating revenue is 60% cloud services, admittedly a lot of that is office 365 but let's not forget azure revenue which although lumped together in statements must be huge.

dgemm 7y ago

> Microsoft is the most diversified tech company of the top tech companies. They have cloud, software, hardware, game consoles, search engine, development tools. I think Amazon is probably far more diversified than Microsoft. Unless they are so diversified that they aren't even considered a "tech" company anymore.