3 ms·

This is why. http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=real&recessi

by xfax 14y ago

This is why. http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa...

Argorak 14y ago
So, he doubled revenue over the last 10 years. They were already high to begin with, but lets see... http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:IBM,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa... Even more impressive: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:IBM,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=indexed&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa... So, basically, Microsoft let its two main rivals close in at a tremendous pace. If I had Microsoft stock, I'd be rather disappointed.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  If that is your metric to judge by, then imagine how disappointed google investors are.
  - laconian 14y ago
    ??? Using that metric, MSFT: +115% since 2004. GOOG revenues: +3,320%
    - ThomPete 14y ago
      Please remember the context of this discussion. They point is that Googles revenue comes form one source and they haven't been able to find another just yet as users are moving to mobile. The growth you see is based on a revenue model made a long time ago not on their current performances which are to say the least as embarrassing as anything MS have done over the years. This should be concerning investors in google more than anything. Cause what do they do when most people are on mobile?
      - rieter 14y ago
        Google owns mobile advertisement, as well as mobile search. They are in an excellent position for the future.
        ThomPete 14y ago
        Really? Why aren't they making any money with it now then?
        Useful_Idiot 14y ago
        Because the entire industry is a shell game? ~Fundamentals, people, fundamentals. [aka: if you really think that a producer of gadgets is worth more than most countries' GDP, then you're a fucking idiot. Apple et al is a shell game. ~$100 billion for toys. Not how humanity got to the moon]
        Useful_Idiot 14y ago
        http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html The level to which the user base has ignored this, and merely uses the down-vote button to incline their personal displeasure is hilarious. If you don't want to be Digg / Reddit / Metafilter, then don't trust your monkey user base Hint: I've never used a "down-vote" button, on any site, even in realms of rabid Libertarian Neo-Fascist thought-land. Why? . . Because I'm not a fucking retard who thinks their personal opinion means that their self image as a 'special snowflake' is valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k HN is seemingly full of idiots.
- xfax 14y ago
  Shareholders and long term investors (aka those who care most about management) look for long term stable growth in core businesses. Yes, you can argue that their performance compared to competitors has been dismal but MSFT is still a solid investment and has seen double digit growth rates for over 10 years - this is incredibly hard for a company this size. Most will argue that this good management. For example, look at their revenue growth quarter-over-quarter: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenue_growth#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenue_growth&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=3/31/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenue_growth#series=type... Also, GOOG and AAPL don't pay dividends (yet), which is a very good proxy for shareholder value: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/dividend_yield#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:dividend_yield,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:dividend_yield,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:dividend_yield&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=3/31/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/dividend_yield#series=type... I'm not saying MSFT can't do better; OP asked why Ballmer is tolerated and I wanted to point out that there are plenty of reasons why.
  - Argorak 14y ago
    Well, my point was that throwing in a revenue chart of one company only is just not a way of explaining things. There are many reasons why you could want Ballmer to stay - as you say, a replacement could even do worse - but that chart alone is not one of them. Especially because in our growing industry, the growth roughly matches the growth of the market. It is certainly not "plenty of reasons". Hewlett Packard has similar revenue development with MSFT and still they are firing CEOs left and right.

by xfax 14y ago

Argorak 14y ago

So, he doubled revenue over the last 10 years. They were already high to begin with, but lets see... http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:IBM,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa... Even more impressive: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenues,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:IBM,type:company,calc:revenues,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:revenues&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=7/2/2012&format=indexed&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa... So, basically, Microsoft let its two main rivals close in at a tremendous pace. If I had Microsoft stock, I'd be rather disappointed.

ThomPete 14y ago
If that is your metric to judge by, then imagine how disappointed google investors are.
- laconian 14y ago
  ??? Using that metric, MSFT: +115% since 2004. GOOG revenues: +3,320%
  - ThomPete 14y ago
    Please remember the context of this discussion. They point is that Googles revenue comes form one source and they haven't been able to find another just yet as users are moving to mobile. The growth you see is based on a revenue model made a long time ago not on their current performances which are to say the least as embarrassing as anything MS have done over the years. This should be concerning investors in google more than anything. Cause what do they do when most people are on mobile?
    - rieter 14y ago
      Google owns mobile advertisement, as well as mobile search. They are in an excellent position for the future.
      - ThomPete 14y ago
        Really? Why aren't they making any money with it now then?
        Useful_Idiot 14y ago
        Because the entire industry is a shell game? ~Fundamentals, people, fundamentals. [aka: if you really think that a producer of gadgets is worth more than most countries' GDP, then you're a fucking idiot. Apple et al is a shell game. ~$100 billion for toys. Not how humanity got to the moon]
        Useful_Idiot 14y ago
        http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html The level to which the user base has ignored this, and merely uses the down-vote button to incline their personal displeasure is hilarious. If you don't want to be Digg / Reddit / Metafilter, then don't trust your monkey user base Hint: I've never used a "down-vote" button, on any site, even in realms of rabid Libertarian Neo-Fascist thought-land. Why? . . Because I'm not a fucking retard who thinks their personal opinion means that their self image as a 'special snowflake' is valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k HN is seemingly full of idiots.
xfax 14y ago
Shareholders and long term investors (aka those who care most about management) look for long term stable growth in core businesses. Yes, you can argue that their performance compared to competitors has been dismal but MSFT is still a solid investment and has seen double digit growth rates for over 10 years - this is incredibly hard for a company this size. Most will argue that this good management. For example, look at their revenue growth quarter-over-quarter: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenue_growth#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:revenue_growth&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=3/31/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenue_growth#series=type... Also, GOOG and AAPL don't pay dividends (yet), which is a very good proxy for shareholder value: http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/dividend_yield#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:dividend_yield,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:dividend_yield,,id:GOOG,type:company,calc:dividend_yield&zoom=&startDate=1/1/2000&endDate=3/31/2012&format=real&recessions=false http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/dividend_yield#series=type... I'm not saying MSFT can't do better; OP asked why Ballmer is tolerated and I wanted to point out that there are plenty of reasons why.
- Argorak 14y ago
  Well, my point was that throwing in a revenue chart of one company only is just not a way of explaining things. There are many reasons why you could want Ballmer to stay - as you say, a replacement could even do worse - but that chart alone is not one of them. Especially because in our growing industry, the growth roughly matches the growth of the market. It is certainly not "plenty of reasons". Hewlett Packard has similar revenue development with MSFT and still they are firing CEOs left and right.