XBOX 720 to be 6 times more powerful then the Wii-U

#231cnfjti3Posted 12/7/2012 4:32:38 AM
It sure as hell plummeted in 2008

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that did not plummet in 08. Same with any tech companies in the tech bubble. What's important is how microsoft did relative to the market at the time, and from that stand point, it seems microsoft just slightly outperformed the market at that time.

it is obvious that MS hasn't lit a fire under any investor in the last 10 years

Quite honestly, neither has most things in the market for the last 10 years. We averaged a rate of 4 to 5% annual. Meanwhile, microsoft jumped 80% just under 10 years ago, making it's annual 6%.

In the world of IT/high technology, that is death.

Lol. Seriously. This is really another ridiculous statement you are making. Microsoft did as well as Intel in that time, do you see Intel going anywhere? In fact, do you know of any large tech firms that went bankrupt?

When Nintendo has released a new console/handheld in the last 10 years it has printed money, and they have no "other divisions" to cushion the blow.

You should really check out nintendo's performance for that time. It peaked in 07, and went pretty much back down to its 02 levels recently.

Nintendo's been doing much worse than microsoft in recent time (5 years), which is probably due to them having no "other divisions" to cushion the blow from the mobile market.
#232jungfreudPosted 12/7/2012 10:40:33 AM
cnfjti3 posted...

That's great and all, except microsoft hasn't plummeted in the last 10 years.

It sure as hell plummeted in 2008

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that did not plummet in 08.


That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

it is obvious that MS hasn't lit a fire under any investor in the last 10 years

Quite honestly, neither has most things in the market for the last 10 years. We averaged a rate of 4 to 5% annual. Meanwhile, microsoft jumped 80% just under 10 years ago, making it's annual 6%.


That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

In the world of IT/high technology, that is death.
Lol. Seriously. This is really another ridiculous statement you are making. Microsoft did as well as Intel in that time, do you see Intel going anywhere? In fact, do you know of any large tech firms that went bankrupt?


Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

When Nintendo has released a new console/handheld in the last 10 years it has printed money, and they have no "other divisions" to cushion the blow.

You should really check out nintendo's performance for that time. It peaked in 07, and went pretty much back down to its 02 levels recently.

Nintendo's been doing much worse than microsoft in recent time (5 years), which is probably due to them having no "other divisions" to cushion the blow from the mobile market.


Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.
#233GM_Posted 12/7/2012 1:34:44 PM
Quote:cnfjti3 posted...

That's great and all, except microsoft hasn't plummeted in the last 10 years.

It sure as hell plummeted in 2008

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that did not plummet in 08.


That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

it is obvious that MS hasn't lit a fire under any investor in the last 10 years

Quite honestly, neither has most things in the market for the last 10 years. We averaged a rate of 4 to 5% annual. Meanwhile, microsoft jumped 80% just under 10 years ago, making it's annual 6%.


That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

In the world of IT/high technology, that is death.
Lol. Seriously. This is really another ridiculous statement you are making. Microsoft did as well as Intel in that time, do you see Intel going anywhere? In fact, do you know of any large tech firms that went bankrupt?


Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

When Nintendo has released a new console/handheld in the last 10 years it has printed money, and they have no "other divisions" to cushion the blow.

You should really check out nintendo's performance for that time. It peaked in 07, and went pretty much back down to its 02 levels recently.

Nintendo's been doing much worse than microsoft in recent time (5 years), which is probably due to them having no "other divisions" to cushion the blow from the mobile market.


Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.

@jungfreud

MS lost something like $1 billion on the original XBox due to selling it at a massive loss, aggressive advertising and buying out developers. They literally lost money with every sold unit.

Yet it's Doom and Gloom when it happens to Nintendo.
#234cnfjti3Posted 12/7/2012 7:06:06 PM
That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

So your point is that every single company in the world is on the brink of collapse because they all plummeted in 08? Well, how nice.

That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

Actually, my argument was that Microsoft outperformed the S&P in the last 10 years, which actually says a lot about their success.

Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

So since microsoft is doing better than all of these companies, might I assume you are suggesting that microsoft will likely collapse after all these companies you've mentioned has gone bankrupt?

Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.

This isn't about which company I'm supporting. I'd choose Nintendo over Microsoft any day. However, the blatant misinformed comparison you've made between Lehman's and Microsoft was just over the top absurd.
#235pearl arowanaPosted 12/7/2012 8:29:56 PM
GM_ posted...
Quote:cnfjti3 posted...

That's great and all, except microsoft hasn't plummeted in the last 10 years.

It sure as hell plummeted in 2008

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that did not plummet in 08.


That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

it is obvious that MS hasn't lit a fire under any investor in the last 10 years

Quite honestly, neither has most things in the market for the last 10 years. We averaged a rate of 4 to 5% annual. Meanwhile, microsoft jumped 80% just under 10 years ago, making it's annual 6%.


That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

In the world of IT/high technology, that is death.
Lol. Seriously. This is really another ridiculous statement you are making. Microsoft did as well as Intel in that time, do you see Intel going anywhere? In fact, do you know of any large tech firms that went bankrupt?


Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

When Nintendo has released a new console/handheld in the last 10 years it has printed money, and they have no "other divisions" to cushion the blow.

You should really check out nintendo's performance for that time. It peaked in 07, and went pretty much back down to its 02 levels recently.

Nintendo's been doing much worse than microsoft in recent time (5 years), which is probably due to them having no "other divisions" to cushion the blow from the mobile market.


Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.

@jungfreud

MS lost something like $1 billion on the original XBox due to selling it at a massive loss, aggressive advertising and buying out developers. They literally lost money with every sold unit.

Yet it's Doom and Gloom when it happens to Nintendo.


microsoft lose money because they selling console with high spec to consumer (for that time)

nintendo lose selling console made from cheap, weak spec, oudated tech to consumer\

so rofl
---
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or abministrator]
#236jungfreudPosted 12/8/2012 6:30:25 AM
cnfjti3 posted...
That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

So your point is that every single company in the world is on the brink of collapse because they all plummeted in 08? Well, how nice.

That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

Actually, my argument was that Microsoft outperformed the S&P in the last 10 years, which actually says a lot about their success.

Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

So since microsoft is doing better than all of these companies, might I assume you are suggesting that microsoft will likely collapse after all these companies you've mentioned has gone bankrupt?

Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.

This isn't about which company I'm supporting. I'd choose Nintendo over Microsoft any day. However, the blatant misinformed comparison you've made between Lehman's and Microsoft was just over the top absurd.


Eh, you have defeated me with erratic pointlessness. Nothing you have written above has any bearing whatsoever on the things you had said previously which I refuted. You claim Microsoft hasn't fallen in value, it has, change your position.

You claim Microsoft is successful because it has slightly exceeded the average growth of market over the last 10 years, mostly on the back of a successful year 10 years ago, I point out that for a company like MS to be unable to grow at all for nearly 10 years could hardly be called success, you change the metric. You say no tech companies have failed lately, I mention several, you go on some weird tangent about companies failing in order.

If Microsoft were to fail tomorrow, it would be because they have shifted money around and hid their losses by doing exactly what you are praising them for, which is hiding their problems under a variety of divisions and products while failing to make any money in any of them and simply trading on the name and legacy of the business to qualify for continued financial support. Just like Lehman Brothers did. Not sure why that is so absurd of a comparison for you, though you have had ample time to explain and have utterly failed to do so.
#237ElGadoPosted 12/8/2012 6:50:54 AM
jungfreud posted...
cnfjti3 posted...
That's great and all, but if that is your position then don't make statements then contradict yourself.

So your point is that every single company in the world is on the brink of collapse because they all plummeted in 08? Well, how nice.

That is your argument, most things in the market haven't interested investors in the last 10 years? I don't think I need to spend much time with this one.

Actually, my argument was that Microsoft outperformed the S&P in the last 10 years, which actually says a lot about their success.

Well, AMD and Sony are on the ropes, half the video game business has folded and the rest exists in a state of indentured servitude, mega giants like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway are either dead or radically restructuring their businesses. But I'm sure you will find some equivocation to argue that away.

So since microsoft is doing better than all of these companies, might I assume you are suggesting that microsoft will likely collapse after all these companies you've mentioned has gone bankrupt?

Nintendo suffered their first quarterly loss in 30 years in April. Microsoft's game division has never made a dime in profit. Again, if you want to buy games from a company that props up it's game division with an OS monopoly, I wish you all the Windows 8 in the world. I prefer to support a company that either lives or dies based on it's success with the thing I am paying them money for.

This isn't about which company I'm supporting. I'd choose Nintendo over Microsoft any day. However, the blatant misinformed comparison you've made between Lehman's and Microsoft was just over the top absurd.


Eh, you have defeated me with erratic pointlessness. Nothing you have written above has any bearing whatsoever on the things you had said previously which I refuted. You claim Microsoft hasn't fallen in value, it has, change your position.

You claim Microsoft is successful because it has slightly exceeded the average growth of market over the last 10 years, mostly on the back of a successful year 10 years ago, I point out that for a company like MS to be unable to grow at all for nearly 10 years could hardly be called success, you change the metric. You say no tech companies have failed lately, I mention several, you go on some weird tangent about companies failing in order.

If Microsoft were to fail tomorrow, it would be because they have shifted money around and hid their losses by doing exactly what you are praising them for, which is hiding their problems under a variety of divisions and products while failing to make any money in any of them and simply trading on the name and legacy of the business to qualify for continued financial support. Just like Lehman Brothers did. Not sure why that is so absurd of a comparison for you, though you have had ample time to explain and have utterly failed to do so.


Microsoft isn't failing anytime soon it has 223 billion dollars in market cap and it's nearest competitor is Apple. It gives out a steady dividend, and it's stock has been hovering above 20$ per share for the longest time. It's a really boring stock, which is why it's known on Wall Street as "Mr Softee." While it may be true that MSFT doesn't have much growth left to it, that doesn't make it a bad stock. When you become so dominate, and corner certain markets, there is only so much left to grow.

Anyways, are you a Finance major or something? You sound really misinformed and ignorant.
#238jungfreudPosted 12/8/2012 7:49:41 AM
ElGado posted...


Microsoft isn't failing anytime soon it has 223 billion dollars in market cap and it's nearest competitor is Apple. It gives out a steady dividend, and it's stock has been hovering above 20$ per share for the longest time. It's a really boring stock, which is why it's known on Wall Street as "Mr Softee." While it may be true that MSFT doesn't have much growth left to it, that doesn't make it a bad stock. When you become so dominate, and corner certain markets, there is only so much left to grow.

Anyways, are you a Finance major or something? You sound really misinformed and ignorant.


Weird that you would assume the "ignorant" person is a finance major. Guess that is the state of business education in this country.

I'll just recopy what I wrote originally which seems to have angered all you junior Goldman Sachs types:

"So you are willing to buy the Dow Chemical Station which has Angry Birds and Call of Duty at launch? Don't be stupid. A big company still has to prove it can compete in a specific industry to earn confidence and investment. Anyone who has followed IT for the last couple decades knows that Microsoft is a redwood that is intent on destroying itself despite a huge, massive, unprecedented control of the OS market. Hard to find a single thing they have done right since Windows 3.1. Remember, Lehman Brothers was worth billions until it was worth nothing, A bad company that can't make money can fail overnight."

Two points there which you have willfully distorted:

1. Any company with huge assets can enter an industry, undercut the competition, and run them out of business over time if it is willing to accept the losses. This was exactly Microsoft's plan with the Xbox. They failed, but they also spent a colossal amount of money doing it. Just like the Zune, just like Windows Phone, just like Games for Windows, just like the Surface. This is their business strategy. It is not sustainable.

2. Microsoft is a textbook example of a company that has completely rested on it's laurels and pursued a very cynical and ineffective business strategy for the last 20 years (see above). They simply haven't been struck in their achilles heel, the OS business, effectively yet. But when it happens, it will completely sink that aspect of their business in a relatively short time, just like HP, Gateway, etc got hit when the bottom fell out of the desktop business. People are buying fewer traditional computers every year, and Windows 8 is a confusing mess that few people are going to want to relearn. Heck, even I am considering buying a Mac at this point.

I want to make clear I'm not one of these kneejerk MS haters, but it is obvious Microsoft is flailing and hasn't had a clear vision for where it wants to go or what the next big thing is since, well, Windows 3.1.

To return to topic, the Xbox 720 that people are imagining is the exact same thing they have relied on so far, and it will either be super expensive or sell at a massive loss (much more likely). That would not be out of character for Microsoft, and I think it is that kind of strategy that will eventually bring them down. For the consumer, I just feel bad for the people who will get their Xboxs Zuned and have to go out and buy a Nintendo because that is the only company that can actually make money in the video game industry.
#239cnfjti3Posted 12/8/2012 8:28:42 AM
If Microsoft were to fail tomorrow, it would be because they have shifted money around and hid their losses by doing exactly what you are praising them for, which is hiding their problems under a variety of divisions and products while failing to make any money in any of them and simply trading on the name and legacy of the business to qualify for continued financial support. Just like Lehman Brothers did. Not sure why that is so absurd of a comparison for you, though you have had ample time to explain and have utterly failed to do so.

You do realize Lehman Brothers failed due to their high exposure to the high risk housing market at the time right? They were heavily leveraging their positions (31:1 ratio) right before the subprime mortgage crisis. So when the mortgage instruments lost most of their value, so did Lehman, 31 times faster.

Microsoft, in comparison, is not in the investment industry. It does not deal with risky financial assets, nor do they really have a way of losing money that fast. Yes, it can be on the road to an eventual decline, but that road will take much much longer to finish than it did for Lehman. Unless Microsoft goes all in on a new product, they will not finish in any way even close to the extravagant way Lehman did.

As well, and again, I'm not supporting Microsoft in any way, but as it stands, Microsoft is still the 4th largest company in the world as of this year. Maybe that will give you a little perspective on where Microsoft is and how long their decline will take.
#240jungfreudPosted 12/8/2012 9:17:52 AM
cnfjti3 posted...
If Microsoft were to fail tomorrow, it would be because they have shifted money around and hid their losses by doing exactly what you are praising them for, which is hiding their problems under a variety of divisions and products while failing to make any money in any of them and simply trading on the name and legacy of the business to qualify for continued financial support. Just like Lehman Brothers did. Not sure why that is so absurd of a comparison for you, though you have had ample time to explain and have utterly failed to do so.

You do realize Lehman Brothers failed due to their high exposure to the high risk housing market at the time right? They were heavily leveraging their positions (31:1 ratio) right before the subprime mortgage crisis. So when the mortgage instruments lost most of their value, so did Lehman, 31 times faster.

Microsoft, in comparison, is not in the investment industry. It does not deal with risky financial assets, nor do they really have a way of losing money that fast. Yes, it can be on the road to an eventual decline, but that road will take much much longer to finish than it did for Lehman. Unless Microsoft goes all in on a new product, they will not finish in any way even close to the extravagant way Lehman did.

As well, and again, I'm not supporting Microsoft in any way, but as it stands, Microsoft is still the 4th largest company in the world as of this year. Maybe that will give you a little perspective on where Microsoft is and how long their decline will take.


I agree completely with everything you wrote there. My intention was not to compare the two companies directly, but simply to point out that a seemingly healthy company can be in much worse condition than they appear based on the financial data.