Comment by froo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by froo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think the OP is completely ignoring Microsoft's previous years financials (strong consistent growth since before Vista and after) and instead basing his argument on two data points (and not the whole data set) and pointing and saying the sky is falling.

It appears that Microsoft can blame their quarterly's on the global financial thing as that is a valid reason, when you take all other financial data points into account. Saying it is all Vista's fault is a straw man argument, given ALL of the data shows otherwise.

If anyone cares to look at the actual financial data, rather than making wild claims, you would notice that Microsoft's Growth alone last year was about half of Google's total revenue. Sure, Google is doing fantastic, but that's not to say Microsoft is completely F-ing it up (like the Author claims when comparing the two).

Secondly, I won't dispute the figures that Apple are outselling Microsoft in the >$1000 market, because I don't have access to all the figures but I personally would expect that would be the case given that is the market Apple targets. I would suggest that if the Author wants to take a realistic view of Microsoft's position in the computer market, he should look at TOTAL machines sold, not just one market segment.

It would be like arguing that Ferrari dominate every other car manufacturer worldwide because they make the most cars that are red that come from Italy...

[Disclaimer: Not a Microsoft Employee or Fanboy, just sick of propaganda]

EDIT - fixed an error with Google/Microsoft revenue/growth comparison

You are wrong to call this propaganda.

The core of Gruber's argument is that Apple's market share (not Google's) is growing quickly, whereas Microsoft's is falling.

Gruber also acknowledges that the numbers don't take into account the whole of the PC market, and he brings up a couple of important points you need to consider before thinking that Microsoft is making up for its losses in the sub-$1000 PC market. Quotes:

"What is particularly alarming about Microsoft’s numbers is that revenue from its Windows PC division suffered an even greater year-over-year revenue decline than the company as a whole: 29 percent."

"Even given that NPD’s numbers represent only retail sales, is there any reasonable doubt that Apple’s share of the non-retail market for $1,000+ computers is also growing?"

Also, it's misleading for you to suggest that Gruber implies that Microsoft is "completely F-ing it up" when comparing them to Google. His 'working title' aside, the purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate that other companies in the industry are not falling short of projections, as Microsoft has. He is suggesting that blaming the revenue decline on the economy isn't a strong argument.

You use the term 'propaganda' pretty loosely. Many things written on Daring Fireball are sarcastic and overly-dismissive when it comes to Microsoft, but it's clear that John Gruber put a lot of thought and work into this essay. Try to do the same with your criticism.

"Try to do the same with your criticism."

You know, I still disagree with you but I think you're arguing from a completely biased standpoint.

I looked through your all of your previous comments and noticed that ~85% of them were on Apple related submissions.

So while I'm not going to blatantly call you a Fanboy, but... where there's smoke...

As for Microsofts revenue decline, they had a bad product with Windows Vista.. they did the same thing before with Windows ME and I'll hazard a guess that they'll probably screw up several OS's in the future.

The fact is, sometimes top tier companies make products that don't gel with consumers.

Recent examples? Microsoft with Vista, Apple and the Apple TV, Google with Knol...

While we're looking at company's failures, lets just ignore Apple's track record when Jobs wasn't there shall we? I mean, its not like they've had any bad products before </sarcasm>

Even still, Vista was released in January 07 (source: Wikipedia) and Microsoft managed to have at least 1 full year of high growth during that time, which is assumed to be during the "bad time" of Vista. So you could realistically argue that this years numbers were a result of recession.

(I'd suggest that Microsoft's OS and the budget PC market is more sensitive to financial downturns than Apple given it's marketed towards people who have smaller incomes than your typical Apple consumer, thus people are less likely to buy Windows based PC's when times are tough. That's just conjecture on my part though)

Microsoft isn't on a long slow decline, it's a bump in the road, plain and simple.

This article was nothing but propaganda (or blatant fanboyism, take your pick).

"The core of Gruber's argument is that Apple's market share (not Google's) is growing quickly, whereas Microsoft's is falling."

He compared Google's revenue growth to Microsoft's (6th paragraph), so I figured it was fair game to compare the two. I never compared Apple's revenue to Microsoft's simply because I haven't bothered to look recently.

I just know these figures when I looked to verify or disprove a Google fanboy's comment previously on HN

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=671770

I apologize for the last sentence in my comment there. It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

The problem with your 'bad product' argument is that Windows is Microsoft's bread and butter. As Gruber pointed out, "Windows is at the core of everything Microsoft does that makes money."

The same isn't true for Apple TV or Google Knol. Neither of these are core products. Its why the article doesn't trot out the Zune as the reason for Microsoft's decline. Also, neither of those products are considered bad, there just isn't a large market for them.

The same can't be said for Windows, the market is huge for operating systems.

This article is something other than propaganda or blatant fanboyism. DF points out a serious problem for Microsoft, that "People who love computers overwhelmingly prefer to use a Mac today. Microsoft’s core problem is that they have lost the hearts of computer enthusiasts."

Yes, it's a blog about Apple. Yes, it's an article about the decline of Microsoft. But he identifies serious weaknesses in Microsoft's business, and he's not spreading misinformation. I don't think anyone who takes the software industry seriously would say Microsoft is down for the count, but they certainly have to start making better software (fortunately for them, Windows 7 looks just that).

"I don't think anyone who takes the software industry seriously would say Microsoft is down for the count, but they certainly have to start making better software (fortunately for them, Windows 7 looks just that)."

Exactly the point I was trying to make. How can anyone suggest that they're on a long slow decline when Windows 7 appears to be the upswing from the short 2 years lifespan of Vista?

It's less of a "long slow decline" and more of a speed bump, which is exactly what I was saying. That makes this article less informative, because it only applies as the result of one product (Vista) in Microsoft's entire suite of products.

Meanwhile, this article only uses data that supports a positive view of Apple (retail in the above $1000 market) while ignoring the data that shows otherwise (every other market).

Propaganda can be defined as "the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause" and given the nature of the Daring Fireball, plus the deliberate use of information that only supports their view (while ignoring the rest of the data that can show otherwise) means that this article was indeed propaganda.

You're going to judge someone not by the merits of their arguments but by the topics which they've chosen to argue? That is a weak, disgusting, small-minded practice that has no place on HN. You should be ashamed.

Will you guys please stop?

I think this is the first time I've found myself downmodding both flamers

When you're dealing with highly biased people, it can be difficult arguing their points when their argument is so obviously slanted in one direction. They only use the data that backs up their position while completely ignoring the rest of the data available.

It's like dealing with religious zealots arguing the merits of creationism. Or a better argument would be trying to convince someone that a tree is dead by pointing at the 5 brown leaves and ignoring the rest of the healthy tree.

That's why I think it's better to use the data as a whole and draw an conclusion from it. I think it is a valid argumentative style and so I think your comment was not called for.

Realistically, the only way we'll know is several years down the track. Will Microsoft be on their "long slow decline" or will this article be more FUD.

My money's on the latter, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com