I think that is a conservative estimate. Considering the fans of Windows 7 here on Tim's, I am guessing that several posters here will be buying multiple copies just to support Microsoft, not even to install into systems. Of course, it is also possible that these same posters are similar to all the Bots that were out and about during the presidential race, paid staff members that simply put out alot of propaganda.
I do honestly think that $680 million dollars is conservative for upgrades. Maybe though the biggest sales will happen the year after release, so $680 million for either 2009 or 2010 might be accurate, while 2011 may see much more.
$1.5B is only 7.5M copies sold at $200. 7.5M isn't even a drop in the bucket considering how many computers exist in the world (over 70M new computers sold each year). Am I missing something here? $1.5B doesn't even cover office supplies for the company of 100,000 people. Microsoft doesn't unlock for doors for $1.5B, much less for an OS release. Why write an article about made-up numbers?
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]$1.5B is only 7.5M copies sold at $200. 7.5M isn't even a drop in the bucket considering how many computers exist in the world (over 70M new computers sold each year).[/citation]
Funny that you mention those right next to each other. Those new computers may have Windows 7 on them already. In which case, Microsoft makes a fraction of even the OEM retail price, as the OEMs like Dell get huge bulk discounts. But then you have the people that will buy the retail version, and the people buying the premium versions. So it could balance out.
Am I missing something here? $1.5B doesn't even cover office supplies for the company of 100,000 people. Microsoft doesn't unlock for doors for $1.5B, much less for an OS release. Why write an article about made-up numbers?[/citation]
See, I would have been amazed if that was 1.5B in profit (from their 9B yearly profit), but they used revenue, then stated that MS's annual revenue is 60B (so they aren't talking profit/cash flow).
Lets say that MS only gets $40 for each OS they sell (OEM, after-market, upgrade, whatever), that's still only 37 million copies. That's not a good forecast for Microsoft, predicting only 50% market share. I can't imagine MS will still sell Vista after 7 hits the market, so what is going to be sold on the other 33 million PCs (and note, ~70mil was the 2007 number for PCs sold in the U.S.).
didn't i say it, and you'all gave me the thumbs down, now the truth comes out, their stock price has been hammered and windows 7 is all about raking in the money and hopefully getting their stock price to rise by a few cents. linux anyone?
I personally think Windows 7 should have really been a patch to Vista to bring that product up to the expectations. However, that wouldn't help then make a lot of money. (All said and done, I'm a tablet pc user so I am very happy with Vista due to its inking capabilities.)
However, at my university the pressure is growing to migrate to the new OS and utilize the features of Server 2008 - we won't go Vista, but we will probably go Windows 7.
However, I am again seriously considering Linux again. I'm no longer a heavy gamer, and I can get most the software I want. If I'm really need windows apps, then I'll use VMWare to get access. However, I cannot afford to shell out the high price for Microsoft's OS and Office products anymore. That money could be put to much better uses while going open source.
[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]didn't i say it, and you'all gave me the thumbs down, now the truth comes out, their stock price has been hammered and windows 7 is all about raking in the money and hopefully getting their stock price to rise by a few cents. linux anyone?[/citation]
People seems to forget that Microsoft is a BUSINESS ENTITY. What does that mean? Profit is the name of the game. They are not running a charity over there, giving out free software. The purpose of developing a new software is to SELL IT.
If Windows 7 performs well, i think they deserved to get paid for their hard work. Isn't that what business is all about?
This bashing for MS trying to make a profit is really ridiculous.
[citation][nom]lexspecialis[/nom]This bashing for MS trying to make a profit is really ridiculous.[/citation]
No one is bashing them for making a profit. It is the method in which they plan to use bait and switch methodology in which to sell two copies of it's software. The bait is a computer with the latest software, Windows 7, the switch, oops, sorry, but you cannot have your antivirus, a messaging service, the internet AND something else running at the same time, unless you send us $199.00, which is about the entire cost of your new netbook computer.
Antivirus pretty much needed if you are internet connected. Seperate chat and internet applications are very much given, and then wanting to hit a calculator, or any other application to do anything else is going to hang up and tell you that you have hit your limit of running programs.
While I got rated down to unseen for the first post, my position still stands. This is all part of Bill Gate's original statement of eventual Microsoft sales, you will be charged per use, minute, hour, day, week, month, year. It is just a step in that direction.
Well, you got a laptop with Windows 7 installed, now pay us more money in order for you to be able to actually use the computer. The tools are all there, as Microsoft says it will specifically install every single needed peice of software to do everything, the only difference between started, home basic, premium, business and ultimate installs will be the license tied to it. Next update to Windows 7 will be a feature that allows limited duration licenses when Microsoft finds it cannot get enough upgrades at $199.00, it will start selling daily $5.00 licenses to th people who are poor enough they cannot justify a $199 upgrade, but can afford $5.00 today, then tomorrow, and the next day, and after how many days have they paid for a full product, but do not OWN said product? It may not happen as I say, but the way that Microsoft is setting things up gives a clear path down the road that I just gave.
Personally, I like Microsoft, always have. I loved windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows XP. I also love Microsoft Office, and I am very much happy with their prices for that product for home/student users, now, but not in the past when a home user was still expected to pay $300 for a copy of it. Just because I like Microsoft does not mean I have to like every product, nor do I have to like every action they take. If they can make $50,000,000,000 in profit, great, but I say make that money on the up and up with direct sales and honest methods. Not back door hurt the poor the most methods, which is exactly who this type of setup is going to hurt the most. I can afford to buy a Microsoft Ultimate Windows 7, if I choose to, and while I also will likely buy a netbook, more people who will buy a netbook will be buying one because that is the only laptop they can afford to buy their child for schoolwork, and maybe 3 or four of them if it is a big family, and when that switch comes to their doors, they are not going to be in a position to just suck it up and make the payment needed to upgrade. I fear then, when Microsoft looks at it's profits, it will do what anyone in such a position would do that does not really care if they provide value to their customers, make a pay per play version that in the end sucks the money out of that poor families wallets month after month after month. Poor people who choose to pay per play make the mistake of short term pleasure for long term pain, but anyone who sets up the process for which it is allowed is not much better in my opinion. Maybe it will never go this route, but I see the paving stones being laid to allow it to happen.
The new m$ scheme to milk more money is getting clearer:
1. OEMs get the crappy cheapest version to install on their low cost products
2. Lusers get frustrated, blaming OEMs (see EULA)
3. m$ arrives with the wonder-"solution" to luser problems: upgrade
4. Lusers pay more directly to m$, skipping OEMs
5. m$ unlocks the castrated version
6. "Everybody" happy - mostly m$ & shareholders, lusers screwed again, wintards will claim in unison "windblobs is great"
Vista ( http://file.sh/windows+vista+torrent.html ) for the rough edges it has compared to 7, is every bit as good in the security field. Technically, out of the box, it's more secure. So that won't be the case this time around. And for the record, it was the truth between XP and Vista. Vista x64 is substantially more secure through OS protections than XP is. Vista still won't be as fast as 7. Won't have the superbar. But under the hood, for the most part, they're pretty much the same.