4 ms·

Why are Microsoft's profits from Windows excluded from the numbers while profits from OS X are included? Why isn't MS considered part of the PC industry?

by yslow 13y ago

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Because... Reasons... The headline doesn't look as clickbait-y otherwise most likely. Or because Microsoft doesn't make "PCs"(well not really) and Mac does. But MS does make devices/phones/Xbox (which is a PC in console's clothing). Edit: I'm glad that they at least lump it in with PCs now though... It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC. But now that they are just Intel PCs running OSX it seems hard to debate.
- aestra 13y ago
  >It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC People still get angry if you call their Apple branded personal computer a PC and will argue with you forever about why it isn't one. It makes as much sense as saying the iPhone isn't a phone and the iPad isn't a tablet.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    I notice that this is changing (albeit very slowly) and people generally give up the argument when you point out to them that any Intel based PC can run OSX (and any mac can natively run windows) because Apple PCs are just Intel computers with different shells.
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    It does amuse me when people refuse to lump iPads in with PC's (which points up the fact that Apple is by far the leading PC vendor).
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Well in a sense they are not. The difference was made up by Apple many years ago (before the John Hodgeman commercials even) that Apple Computers were not PCs. The point made sense to the extent that they used their own architecture and chips (not just Intel computers running a different OS). But in the classic sense yes iPads are Personal Computers. They just are not PCs in the 'I bought an IBM' (when you purchased a Gateway/Dell/Compaq) and you really mean an x86 sense.
hk__2 13y ago
OS X is free now.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  It is 'free' if you buy their PC. The same way Windows is 'free' if you buy a windows PC from any PC manu who doesn't allow you to take it off the invoice. It is folded into the cost of the hardware at this point. So yes I can see what you're saying in terms of profits on the OS vs another OS. But it is not free (as in beer) exactly.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    No, OS X is also free if you upgrade in contrast to windows.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Not really a good comparison given that OSX 'upgrades' are available on a yearly (sometimes bi-yearly) basis. Which is about the same time span as Service Packs which are free. And you've still paid for the hardware, which is where the price is wrapped into, since about Snow Leopard. Not saying it isn't good (I am a half-time Mac user). But calling it 'free' is not entirely the case. I used to get pretty annoyed at having to pay for a new version of OSX from 10.2-10.5 every year or so.
    - nkassis 13y ago
      Sure but he's pointing out that to get the free upgrades you had to pay for a license at some point that entitles you to free upgrades that Apple makes available.
      - Argorak 13y ago
        Which is also not true. I never payed for OS X, like as a line item on an invoice. I do cover the cost of manufacturing, as with _every other good sold for profit_ out there. I do cover the cost of the software on the hardware, but the same is true for about any device I buy. The thing is: Microsoft is trading software as a good. Even if I buy a machine with Windows, I can actually, in some legislations, ask for my license money back and my machine gets cheaper. So I didn't get Windows "for free". So their market is software and should be counted as such. Apple sells hardware as a good and doesn't ask for any fee for the software that comes with it. So that element is free. Even if I would ask for my money back, the answer would be "sure, here's your 0 Dollar". Yes, it is an accounting question, especially because in the Microsoft case, your vendor pays the fee for you immediately. You cannot buy an OS X license anywhere anymore.
acdha 13y ago
Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly. What you're seeing is a sign that this will change — and that every major PC vendor is probably now wishing they'd invested significantly in software back when they had the profits to do so because that's the only way off of the lowest-price treadmill. Microsoft is already trying things like Surface to compete with Apple directly – I'm sure they actively weigh the benefits of a Microsoft desktop balanced against the likelihood that PC vendors will start pouring money into something like Linux. I'm tempted to say it would be worth it even if it accomplished nothing other than getting vendors to making the out-of-the-box Windows desktop experience so bad.
- yslow 13y ago
  >Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly But you're still comparing profits from (OS + hardware) to (hardware) by not including Windows' profits.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Because Microsoft is a supplier not a computer manufacturer. If you're going to include them, then why not include Intel or Samsung PC revenues as well?

Why are Microsoft's profits from Windows excluded from the numbers while profits from OS X are included? Why isn't MS considered part of the PC industry?

by yslow 13y ago

Why are Microsoft's profits from Windows excluded from the numbers while profits from OS X are included? Why isn't MS considered part of the PC industry?

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

Because... Reasons... The headline doesn't look as clickbait-y otherwise most likely. Or because Microsoft doesn't make "PCs"(well not really) and Mac does. But MS does make devices/phones/Xbox (which is a PC in console's clothing). Edit: I'm glad that they at least lump it in with PCs now though... It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC. But now that they are just Intel PCs running OSX it seems hard to debate.

aestra 13y ago
>It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC People still get angry if you call their Apple branded personal computer a PC and will argue with you forever about why it isn't one. It makes as much sense as saying the iPhone isn't a phone and the iPad isn't a tablet.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  I notice that this is changing (albeit very slowly) and people generally give up the argument when you point out to them that any Intel based PC can run OSX (and any mac can natively run windows) because Apple PCs are just Intel computers with different shells.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  It does amuse me when people refuse to lump iPads in with PC's (which points up the fact that Apple is by far the leading PC vendor).
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Well in a sense they are not. The difference was made up by Apple many years ago (before the John Hodgeman commercials even) that Apple Computers were not PCs. The point made sense to the extent that they used their own architecture and chips (not just Intel computers running a different OS). But in the classic sense yes iPads are Personal Computers. They just are not PCs in the 'I bought an IBM' (when you purchased a Gateway/Dell/Compaq) and you really mean an x86 sense.

hk__2 13y ago

OS X is free now.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
It is 'free' if you buy their PC. The same way Windows is 'free' if you buy a windows PC from any PC manu who doesn't allow you to take it off the invoice. It is folded into the cost of the hardware at this point. So yes I can see what you're saying in terms of profits on the OS vs another OS. But it is not free (as in beer) exactly.
- Argorak 13y ago
  No, OS X is also free if you upgrade in contrast to windows.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Not really a good comparison given that OSX 'upgrades' are available on a yearly (sometimes bi-yearly) basis. Which is about the same time span as Service Packs which are free. And you've still paid for the hardware, which is where the price is wrapped into, since about Snow Leopard. Not saying it isn't good (I am a half-time Mac user). But calling it 'free' is not entirely the case. I used to get pretty annoyed at having to pay for a new version of OSX from 10.2-10.5 every year or so.
  - nkassis 13y ago
    Sure but he's pointing out that to get the free upgrades you had to pay for a license at some point that entitles you to free upgrades that Apple makes available.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      Which is also not true. I never payed for OS X, like as a line item on an invoice. I do cover the cost of manufacturing, as with _every other good sold for profit_ out there. I do cover the cost of the software on the hardware, but the same is true for about any device I buy. The thing is: Microsoft is trading software as a good. Even if I buy a machine with Windows, I can actually, in some legislations, ask for my license money back and my machine gets cheaper. So I didn't get Windows "for free". So their market is software and should be counted as such. Apple sells hardware as a good and doesn't ask for any fee for the software that comes with it. So that element is free. Even if I would ask for my money back, the answer would be "sure, here's your 0 Dollar". Yes, it is an accounting question, especially because in the Microsoft case, your vendor pays the fee for you immediately. You cannot buy an OS X license anywhere anymore.

acdha 13y ago

Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly. What you're seeing is a sign that this will change — and that every major PC vendor is probably now wishing they'd invested significantly in software back when they had the profits to do so because that's the only way off of the lowest-price treadmill. Microsoft is already trying things like Surface to compete with Apple directly – I'm sure they actively weigh the benefits of a Microsoft desktop balanced against the likelihood that PC vendors will start pouring money into something like Linux. I'm tempted to say it would be worth it even if it accomplished nothing other than getting vendors to making the out-of-the-box Windows desktop experience so bad.

yslow 13y ago
>Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly But you're still comparing profits from (OS + hardware) to (hardware) by not including Windows' profits.

snowwrestler 13y ago

Because Microsoft is a supplier not a computer manufacturer. If you're going to include them, then why not include Intel or Samsung PC revenues as well?