View Single Post
Old 12-07-2012, 06:33 AM   #63
Nathanael
Groupie
Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 185
Karma: 1110435
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shanghai, China
Device: Sibrary G5
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
Many of Microsoft's corporate products, such as SQL Server, Exchange Server, Sharepoint Server, Commerce Server, etc, are leaders in their fields. A very high proportion of the largest companies in the world run...

These products ... are highly commercially successful products.
Hmm, am I really being that obtuse? Since I can't figure out how to say it any more clearly, I'll repeat my previous quote again:

Quote:
"Microsoft has *tried* many other things. It has made money at *none* of them."
"Leaders in their fields", certainly. Widely used, absolutely. "Commercially successful"? If by "commercially" you mean "financially", I'm not sure I agree.

I've just spent the past couple of hours googling, and have been unable to locate a breakdown of operating income by product for Microsoft, so I'll do a bit of speculating based on overall numbers.

A recent WSJ article, commenting on the importance of Windows and Office to Microsoft's profitability, observed that in FY12 Microsoft's "three other divisions together generated 42% of revenue but no operating profit between them." That is, while Server and Tools, Entertainment and Devices and Online Services brought in 42% of MS's FY12 revenues, after subtracting off operating expenses Microsoft made no money on them, which is exactly what I said. But that's a bit disingenuous.

Here is Microsoft's FY12 operating income breakdown by division (in millions):

Windows & Windows Live: $11,460
Server & Tools: $7,431
Online Services: ($8,121)
Business: $15,719
Entertainment and Devices: $364
Coporate-level activity: ($5090)
TOTAL: $21,763

Since I haven't been able to find a breakdown by product, for the sake of argument I'll just pretend the Tools side of Server and Tools accounted for 50% of the S&T profits, and (again, for the sake of argument), we'll give Exchange and SQL Server each one third of that half.

That works out to about $1.25 billion profit per product. Given a total operating income of nearly $35 billion ($31 billion of which derived from Windows and Office), that's what I define as "made no money at". Certainly, it's not money Microsoft could survive on. (In addition, I would argue that both Exchange and SQL Server are only as successful as they are because they're tied to Windows, but that's an argument for another day.)
Nathanael is offline   Reply With Quote