Hacker News Reader

Comment by Argorak | Hacker News Reader

So, he doubled revenue over the last 10 years. They were already high to begin with, but lets see...

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa...

Even more impressive:

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenues#series=type:compa...

So, basically, Microsoft let its two main rivals close in at a tremendous pace. If I had Microsoft stock, I'd be rather disappointed.

View on HN

Shareholders and long term investors (aka those who care most about management) look for long term stable growth in core businesses. Yes, you can argue that their performance compared to competitors has been dismal but MSFT is still a solid investment and has seen double digit growth rates for over 10 years - this is incredibly hard for a company this size. Most will argue that this good management.

For example, look at their revenue growth quarter-over-quarter:

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/revenue_growth#series=type...

Also, GOOG and AAPL don't pay dividends (yet), which is a very good proxy for shareholder value:

http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/dividend_yield#series=type...

I'm not saying MSFT can't do better; OP asked why Ballmer is tolerated and I wanted to point out that there are plenty of reasons why.

Well, my point was that throwing in a revenue chart of one company only is just not a way of explaining things. There are many reasons why you could want Ballmer to stay - as you say, a replacement could even do worse - but that chart alone is not one of them. Especially because in our growing industry, the growth roughly matches the growth of the market. It is certainly not "plenty of reasons". Hewlett Packard has similar revenue development with MSFT and still they are firing CEOs left and right.

If that is your metric to judge by, then imagine how disappointed google investors are.

??? Using that metric, MSFT: +115% since 2004. GOOG revenues: +3,320%

Please remember the context of this discussion.

They point is that Googles revenue comes form one source and they haven't been able to find another just yet as users are moving to mobile. The growth you see is based on a revenue model made a long time ago not on their current performances which are to say the least as embarrassing as anything MS have done over the years.

This should be concerning investors in google more than anything. Cause what do they do when most people are on mobile?

Google owns mobile advertisement, as well as mobile search. They are in an excellent position for the future.

Really?

Why aren't they making any money with it now then?

Because the entire industry is a shell game?

~Fundamentals, people, fundamentals.

[aka: if you really think that a producer of gadgets is worth more than most countries' GDP, then you're a fucking idiot. Apple et al is a shell game. ~$100 billion for toys. Not how humanity got to the moon]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com