I guess I was most amazed that in 1991 Apple's profits were greater than Microsoft's. I was playing Ultima 6 and King's Quest V back then... I didn't know anything existed but the IBM PC.
[deleted]
Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
11–20 of 87 posts
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#12While it is significant that Microsoft's falling behind Apple, I'm not particularly surprised that OS sales are slightly lower than it was last year at Microsoft. Last year was the start of the launch of Windows 7.
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#13Misleading. Microsoft's quarterly profit grew pretty quickly (above 30%). It's just that Apple's profit grew faster, causing it to take the lead in the race.
Not misleading at all. You just misunderstood. A drop is a drop even when it's relative.
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#14For me, it's more interesting that Apple did this without a lot of the shady business & licensing practices that Microsoft engages in. Edit: Before downvoting me, take a look at my comment history. I'm not your typical Apple fan/Microsoft basher.
Do you think Apple's walled approach to iOS apps and content on iOS platforms is more honorable than Microsoft's open development initiative? (i.e. letting anyone write Windows applications). To me, their decision to prevent iOS apps from getting content outside of its walled garden (and bypass the 30% fee) is much more anti-competitive than whatever Microsoft did. I don't know if anyone downvoted you (I didn't). I j…
How is the "walled garden" anti-competitive. It doesn't stop anyone from writing applications for android, WebOS, etc. Apple is selling a hardware experience. We have a choice, use IOS devices with the walled garden experience, or use an alternative like Android or WebOS devices. Furthermore, "honor" has nothing to do with the ability to write apps for a platform without paying a fee. This is not similar to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices in the past.
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see what's misleading here. Doesn't your sentence basically mean the same thing the title does? As you said, microsoft's profits grew slower, and they had lower profits than apple did, which means the story title is far from misleading.
MS didn't drop below Apple, Apple grew above MS. It's a pretty important distinction - drop means they declined, Apple is now making more money than Microsoft, and Microsoft is making more money than they used to too .
When describing standing in sports you don't say "X won less than Y so Y is ahead", you say "X dropped below Y in the standings". Most financial reporting is based on sports speech.
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#16For me, it's more interesting that Apple did this without a lot of the shady business & licensing practices that Microsoft engages in. Edit: Before downvoting me, take a look at my comment history. I'm not your typical Apple fan/Microsoft basher.
Do you think Apple's walled approach to iOS apps and content on iOS platforms is more honorable than Microsoft's open development initiative? (i.e. letting anyone write Windows applications). To me, their decision to prevent iOS apps from getting content outside of its walled garden (and bypass the 30% fee) is much more anti-competitive than whatever Microsoft did. I don't know if anyone downvoted you (I didn't). I j…
"Do you think Apple's walled approach to iOS apps and content on iOS platforms is more honorable than Microsoft's open development initiative? (i.e. letting anyone write Windows applications)."
I can make an OS X application and market it, distribute it in any way I wish. I can even use Apple's IDE, libraries, and compiler tools.
Why are you comparing that to the device OS (which by the way, Microsoft also implements a similarly restricted approach for in their Windows Phone Marketplace).
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#17I guess I was most amazed that in 1991 Apple's profits were greater than Microsoft's. I was playing Ultima 6 and King's Quest V back then... I didn't know anything existed but the IBM PC.
Office came out in 1990 and took a while to take over. MS-DOS wasn't as profitable as Windows would be.
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#18Misleading. Microsoft's quarterly profit grew pretty quickly (above 30%). It's just that Apple's profit grew faster, causing it to take the lead in the race.
I don't think it's misleading. Since it says that MS profit "drops below Apple's", it's making reference to a relative difference, in which case it did drop.
It can be understood in multiple ways, maybe not intentionally misleading but it could be written better.
"My height grew above Yao Ming's last year". Did I surpass his height last year or grow more during that period of time?
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#19For me, it's more interesting that Apple did this without a lot of the shady business & licensing practices that Microsoft engages in. Edit: Before downvoting me, take a look at my comment history. I'm not your typical Apple fan/Microsoft basher.
Do you think Apple's walled approach to iOS apps and content on iOS platforms is more honorable than Microsoft's open development initiative? (i.e. letting anyone write Windows applications). To me, their decision to prevent iOS apps from getting content outside of its walled garden (and bypass the 30% fee) is much more anti-competitive than whatever Microsoft did. I don't know if anyone downvoted you (I didn't). I j…
Please stop trolling. Microsoft did a ton of shady things. For instance: Colluding with SCO to spread Linux IP FUD [1]; suing Lindows around the world, even“ex parte,” and getting a ruling from some a Dutch judge that every day someone could download Lindows from the Netherlands, Lindows owed MSFT an additional 100,000€ for trademark violation [2]; the whole Java Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing; forcing OEMs to not ship PCs with Linux installed if they wanted standard OEM discounts on Windows; the whole federally-convicted-of-antitrust bit; etc.
And I for one LOVE the walled garden as it provides me with demonstrably higher-quality, malware-free apps that don’t just rip off someone else’s IP/icon haphazardly the way most Android apps seem to do. The walled garden does NOT prevent end users from installing web apps to the home screen, sans Apple approval. It is also NOT anticompetitive, unless you know something no one else does.
[1]: http://news.cnet.com/2100-7344_3-5172426.html?tag=nefd_lede
[2]: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Microsoft-Kee... and http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/03/62644 and more generically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=465335
Re: Microsoft's quarterly profit drops below Apple's for the first time in 20 years
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think Apple's walled approach to iOS apps and content on iOS platforms is more honorable than Microsoft's open development initiative? (i.e. letting anyone write Windows applications). To me, their decision to prevent iOS apps from getting content outside of its walled garden (and bypass the 30% fee) is much more anti-competitive than whatever Microsoft did. I don't know if anyone downvoted you (I didn't). I j…
How is the "walled garden" anti-competitive. It doesn't stop anyone from writing applications for android, WebOS, etc. Apple is selling a hardware experience. We have a choice, use IOS devices with the walled garden experience, or use an alternative like Android or WebOS devices. Furthermore, "honor" has nothing to do with the ability to write apps for a platform without paying a fee. This is not similar to Microsoft…
Just like any browser could run on the Mac or Linux, and ignore Windows if they preferred. Or Dell could sell Linux machines, and not Windows if they didn't want to.
The point is that Apple and MS both used the fact that vendors need them to make money (and while competitors for both exist, competitors yielded less likely return), and leveraged that position.