News - Microsoft's quarterly results beat investor expectations

Quote:

---

Devices and Consumer revenue; from Windows, Xbox and Surface, were up 12 per cent.

---

Read more.

"We are making good progress in our consumer services like Bing"

Does anyone actually use Bing?

Quote:

---

Satya Nadella, CEO at Microsoft ... went on to indicate that Microsoft will be pushing ahead with "bold, innovative products that people love to use." Microsoft is expected to complete the purchase of Nokia's mobile device business later today.

---

Here's a suggestion ... let the Nokia engineers lead phone products. I've seen too many comments that in the past Nokia's been able to do some really droolworthy products, then someone - marketing? - has watered them down into something a lot less impressive.
Despite having an admittedly pro-Nokia bias, I've been a lot more impressed with the Nokia Windows Phone than the HTC of similar cost. I've seen nothing from HTC or Samsung that'd persuade me to switch from Android to Windows Phone - on the other hand Nokia have some intriguing products.

Quote:

---

Microsoft sold in 2.0 million Xbox console units, including 1.2 million Xbox One consoles.

---

So that's effectively 1 old Xbox for every 1.5 new ones? Seems pretty good going considering the drawbacks of the XBone. Still think they would have sold a lot more if they ditched the requirement to have Kinect and gave any method to be able to run some of the older titles.

Microsoft needs to go back to its roots and remember its not just an OS provider, its the other programs and services which will be its profitable lines again. Office for iPad finally being released must make up a large portion of those new 365 subscribers. How that was allowed to sit finished but unreleased for so long was silly.

A flip of this Apple; although doing very well at the moment should consider opening up itunes to android users in the same way it did to Microsoft Windows users. Why waste all those potential sales, particuarly when many android users are used to itunes on their desktop PCs.

So many analysts are predicting Microsoft tables and phones will start clawing huge portions of the market but I don't see why this should change yet. Premium users are still heading to iOS and other users to Android in huge numbers.The Slates started off firmly in the high end market and even when moved to budget to mid range didn't really shift.

As for the XBOX, even with a reduced price I think its rival the PS4 will still shift higher numbers. The bad PR and the reviews stating that only the PS4 could play all of its games at 1080p and beyond may mean this console war is already over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

Microsoft needs to go back to its roots and remember its not just an OS provider, its the other programs and services which will be its profitable lines again.

---

I'm not sure whether you're up to date, but Microsoft has been pushing the "apps and services" line for quite a while now ... along with Cloud of course. In fact one commentator (might have even been MJF) has stated that the OS is merely the "initial fix" to get you drawn in to the whole Microsoft environment. Effectively MS Office is seen as the "best" office suite and that, in turn, has a big "runs on Windows" sticker - so you want Office and are forced to get Windows to run it on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

A flip of this Apple; although doing very well at the moment should consider opening up itunes to android users in the same way it did to Microsoft Windows users. Why waste all those potential sales, particuarly when many android users are used to itunes on their desktop PCs.

---

iTunes :yucky: Lord knows how they can "improve" it and make it worse. There's stuff like DoubleTwist already available to allow Android users to use their iTunes-hosted content, and I think Samsung used to be able to also import iTunes playlists etc. But allow an official iTunes client on Android - what's in it for them? They (Apple) would surely argue that if you want mobile iTunes then why not just "upgrade" to one of their phones? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

So many analysts are predicting Microsoft tables and phones will start clawing huge portions of the market but I don't see why this should change yet. Premium users are still heading to iOS and other users to Android in huge numbers.The Slates started off firmly in the high end market and even when moved to budget to mid range didn't really shift.

---

Don't agree with this. iPhone is widely perceived as either "expensive" or not as technically good as other high-end phones, hence comments along the lines that "buying an iPhone is a fashion statement". Similarly there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with high-end Android phones just being "warmed over" versions of last years model. Slates were way over priced in my opinion - a severe, but hopefully not fatal, misstep by Microsoft.
Where I think Windows Phone could do well is in the low- to mid-range. There you have hardware restrictions and WP8 seems to do better with a tight hardware budget than Android does, (Apple doesn't want this kind of buyer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

As for the XBOX, even with a reduced price I think its rival the PS4 will still shift higher numbers. The bad PR and the reviews stating that only the PS4 could play all of its games at 1080p and beyond may mean this console war is already over.

---

Agree here - only the most hardened XBox fan would claim that the XBone launch was anything other than a disaster - just seemed to be a long series of missteps and retractions - e.g. remember that one that stated that the XBone always had to be connected to the internet for example?
I would admit to some bias towards XBox (two in the house), but even I'm thinking that if I go next-gen (unlikely since I've got a large XBox library) then it's a lot more likely to be PS4 than XBone. The price difference is a major factor, but I also like the look of the PS4 a whole lot more. At the end of the day, if I've got to start a game library afresh then I don't have any reason to be loyal to Microsoft. Hence my comment above - if there was a way of transferring my copies of CoD:MW, BF3, etc to XBone then that would have been a lot more attractive in my opinion.

Although MJF may think that, I really fail to see the evidence. I work in I.T security at the moment and can assure you the OS is Microsofts core business. The eco system that Apple so successfully built and now Google are far in advance of Microsoft and will remain so for some time. Paying developers to port apps to your store is a sign of trouble.

If Microsoft was serious about bringing users into its Eco system and driving apps and entertainment as it's core business, it would make Windows desktop free.

Let's not forget other 'super powers' of the I.T world have suffered badly, particularly HP and IBM who are both solutions providers for the most part not the consumer driven power houses we once knew, although HP is trying to address that (poorly).

I wish Microsoft every success as they help to keep me in employment and made a percentage of my qualifications possible, but you have to ask yourself where will they be in 10 - 20 years times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

Although MJF may think that, I really fail to see the evidence. I work in I.T security at the moment and can assure you the OS is Microsofts core business. The eco system that Apple so successfully built and now Google are far in advance of Microsoft and will remain so for some time. Paying developers to port apps to your store is a sign of trouble.

---

OS is definitely "core" business, then Office, then Cloud with gaming and mobile bringing up the rear - at least from what I've seen. Second part of that quote is undoubtedly true if you're focussing solely on the consumer space, but remember that Microsoft also makes a lot of revenue from businesses.

As to the need for "bribing" developers - remember the Catch-22 for mobile ... you need apps to attract users, but developers only go where they can be assured of a large user/customer base. Apple got an undoubted advantage by being first with their mobile app store, remember how difficult it was for Google Play to get a foothold? So, I guess I'm kind of okay with the idea of having to "support" ;) developers. The big question is whether it'll work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

If Microsoft was serious about bringing users into its Eco system and driving apps and entertainment as it's core business, it would make Windows desktop free.

---

Agree - to an extent. Like you I think "Microsoft 2014" needs to look at new ways of getting users onboard - especially after the foobar that was Windows 8. Subscriptions - a la Office 365 - won't work because no-one's going to be impressed if their OS stops working because their license expired. In which case, I'm thinking that some kind of "service plan" would be a better idea. So you buy media (<£10?) and be able to use it, but if you want the non-security related upgrades (and maybe some non-core "Plus" type features) then you need to be on that monthly service plan. Better still if there's a way to have a plan SKU that allows you also to - for example - move from Windows 7 to Windows 9 once you buy the Windows 9 media.
All this nonsense about different "editions" and then particularly the "OEM v's Retail" debate are just turn offs. Far better to have some kind of license deal that has one set of media that can then enable additional features (or not) according to the license you have. Heck, we already have "activation" so it's not as if this'd be a big step. Oh, and an "annual" license option would also have to be there to satisfy the folks that don't want their PC "calling home" monthly to check it's license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walibe

Let's not forget other 'super powers' of the I.T world have suffered badly, particularly HP and IBM who are both solutions providers for the most part not the consumer driven power houses we once knew, although HP is trying to address that (poorly).

---

Very good point. Then again, IBM was always more about selling to business than Joe Public - although hiving off their Intel server business to Lenovo made little sense to me. That said, IBM Global Services were, and in fact still are, a powerhouse and a strong revenue stream. Oh, and despite working for the competition, their Unix servers are STILL very :drool: -worthy.

HP on the other hand, seem to have a positive knack of choosing clueless idiots as CEOs - folks who seem hellbent on forgetting what the core values of the company are. Mark Hurd in particular with his "never mind quality, we'll just sell you two for the same price" approach was (imho) more of a saboteur than Carly Fiorina was. Only thing I can say about Meg Whitman is that at least she's "going back to the roots" of professing to put the customer first and trying to deliver products that people would want to buy, even if they aren't necessarily in the bargain basement end. For example, they've got some nice tablets available, if you ignore the Slate 7 "buy it, drop it, buy another" dross. Omni 10 is a budget (<£250) tablet that runs full-blown Windows - wouldn't want to run Photoshop on it, but definitely a viable alternative to Galaxy Tab etc.

Thanks sent for the reply - always interesting to hear another "IT professional's" views. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

....

Oh, and an "annual" license option would also have to be there to satisfy the folks that don't want their PC "calling home" monthly to check it's license.

....

---

Well, personally, I'm NOT paying a subscription for an OS, monthly or annually, any more than I will for Photoshop, and I've been using that for, oh, about 20 years. Adobe lost me by going rental. Monthly or annually, I don't care. I will make a buying decision about a product, and buy or not. And if I do, at some future point I'll decide to upgrade, or not. Some of my PCs are still running XP, because they do what I expect of them, and I gain nothing from upgrading. Had I been paying a subscription, it would have cost me a fortune over recent years.

So, for me, no, subscriptions, annual or otherwise, are a non-starter. Companies want it because it's a regular revenue stream, which is precisely why I won't buy software that way. I want to know, when I decide to buy, precisely what it'll cost me, in total, not make an open-ended commitment to keep stumping up money. Hell, I have a PAYG mobile phone because I want control of usage, and cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Well, personally, I'm NOT paying a subscription for an OS, monthly or annually, any more than I will for Photoshop, and I've been using that for, oh, about 20 years. Adobe lost me by going rental. Monthly or annually, I don't care. I will make a buying decision about a product, and buy or not. And if I do, at some future point I'll decide to upgrade, or not. Some of my PCs are still running XP, because they do what I expect of them, and I gain nothing from upgrading. Had I been paying a subscription, it would have cost me a fortune over recent years.

So, for me, no, subscriptions, annual or otherwise, are a non-starter. Companies want it because it's a regular revenue stream, which is precisely why I won't buy software that way. I want to know, when I decide to buy, precisely what it'll cost me, in total, not make an open-ended commitment to keep stumping up money. Hell, I have a PAYG mobile phone because I want control of usage, and cost.

---

I'm not sure whether you're backing me up or refuting what I said ... need more coffee this morning.

If the latter then I specifically said "Subscriptions - a la Office 365 - won't work because no-one's going to be impressed if their OS stops working because their license expired.". So my proposed "annual license" was merely to ensure that your machine continued to get the feature upgrades - maybe "annual service plan" would have been a better way to put it?

I realise that you're of the "it's not broken so I don't need to fix it" camp, but there are others out there who'd like the ability to upgrade to the latest (although not necessarily "the greatest" to continue that cliché) without having to effectively rebuy. I'm also thinking that perhaps a service plan also might offer the opportunity for some "value add" - like offering 3rd parties the chance to use Windows Update as their update mechanism too.

One thing that annoys me about Windows is that every piece of software seems to come with it's own updater that usually has to be installed to run on boot. I've yet to find much software that only checks for updates daily the first time you run it. My main machine is running Ubuntu where there is a single upgrader for everything, so moving to Windows seems pretty "last century" ... oh, and Unity annoys me a whole lot less than MUI (had to get the obligatory dig in).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

I'm not sure whether you're backing me up or refuting what I said ... need more coffee this morning.

...

---

Well, kind-of neither.

I was picking up on the idea of software by subscription, as opposed to outright, as in the sense of perpetual licence. As far as I'm concerned, a piece of software is a product, not an on-going service, and when I make the decision to buy or not, I want to know what it's going to cost.

Also, kind-of as an aside, the deal with subscription seems to be automatically keeping a package up to date by automatically updating, and I've been bitten before by automatic updates actually breaking something that was working perfectly well before it was automatically fixed.

In effect, because I want control over both my PCs and the total cost, I'm nit at all interested in software by rental. That's not to say I can't see why it appeals to some people, and especially some businesses. If MS, for example, want to offer Office on a 365 basis, and people want to rent it, fine. But I won't, now or ever, and if MS do what Adobe did, I'll either stick with the latest version I have prior to them going subscription, or switch to a non-rental oroduct from a competitor.

So it wasn't really either agreeing or disagreeing, though closer to agreeing, but picking up on the principle of subscription, and commenting on why, personally, I reject it utterly.

Oh, and as for Unity, I'm not it's greatest fan, but at least, unlike MUI, picking your GUI and dumping one you don't like is relatively easy. I wouldn't be as angry over MUI as I am if MS had just given users the option to turn it off. But no, they thought they knew best, and now, whatever they do next to backpeddle, a lot of the damage is done, and irreversible. And that's my dig-for-the-day (TM) over, too.

I am surprised by some of the numbers....although I guess Surface had to pick up at some time and it probably doesn't take much to increase Bings search share...although I have seen many free programs force bing on you recently, plus that stupid download from Windows update installs it as well, so I wonder how much of that increase was nefariously gained.

Office 365 isn't my bag and I haven't really looked at the pricing for it but I can imaging that it could be quite attractive to smaller businesses if priced correctly.
Not really a fan of rent-an-app but as I work for an IT company that provides cloud services, I do see how popular that side of thing is, especially with regards to companies who don't want huge costs up-front for new systems.......it does seem the way forward for now at least.

Yup, shaithis, I can see the appeal for companies ... or some companies. For some individuals, too. I'm just not interested, personally.

For instance, I have (at home) several PCs with MS Office installed. One is 2007, one 2003, a couple are Office XP. All legit. All acquired at various times, on various deals. The XP versions have cost me nothing, £0/year, pretty much £0/decade, beyond that original outlay, which due to the deal, was modest. And every year I get (some) use out of them, the amortised cost/year drops further. If I was paying a subscription, it would have cost me a LOT more over the years than that initial outlay.

On the other end of the spectrum, I bought some collecting databases several years ago (Collectorz packages for books, CDs and movies). I regularly get "upgrade" offers and probably could have bought them again, twice over, for what upgrades cost. But, the initial packages do what I wanted and needed, so they are un-upgraded. I, me, myself control the cost. And, those packages will probably still be serving me, for that one initial outlay, in another 10 or 20 years.

So, whether as an individual or a small business, and I'm both, I'd rather look at cost versus benefit NOW, before I decide to buy, and not commit to a monthly payment, ad infinitum. I fully expect to still be using those same Collectorz packages when I'm drawing my pension, and very likely the same versions of Office, Photoshop, etc, as I am now.

If, AND ONLY IF some really radical, cost-justified benefit occurs in a new version will I upgrade. Otherwise, I'm content with my current feature set, and it not costing me one more penny.

And that is what I mean when I say I'm buying a product, not an on-going service.

Also, it's not just about cost-effectiveness. It's also something psychological.

A few years ago, a sudden bout of serious illness saw my finances go from comfortable (buying a BMW M3 outright, for cash, or rather bank cheque) to struggling to pay utility bills. Well, that (thankfully) is well in my past. Now, I have NO debts (well, about £16 outstanding on credit card, for domain renewals, and the card bill having arrived last friday). Other than that, nothing. Zero. Anything we buy, we buy outright, or don't buy it. That applies to everything from groceries, to houses and cars. We also keep monthly commitments to the bare minimum, which is basically utilities and council tax.

Why? Well, partly at least, it's the shock of that illness and the effect on finances. So, I've reverted to what I actually think is a healthy life choice - zero (or as close as practically possible) credit, and minimum commitments. One example .... PAYG mobile phone. I cancelled the contract years ago, and will not go back.

And that mindset feeds through to my attitude on software. Take Photoshop .... is it worth £600-ish to me for CS6? If so, I buy it, and it'll work for me until, and if, I ever decide to upgrade. If not, I don't buy. If I subscribe, even at the current 'Photo package' price of, IIRC, £10/month, that's still £120/year, indefinitely, even assuming the price doesn't go up. And it will. Nah, not going there.

While I understand the appeal to some, of always having the latest version, I decide if today's version and feature set are worth today's price, and buy or not accordingly, without committing a single penny to tomorrow, next year or next decade.