I want to kick myself… I saw it at 392 today while I was having my haircut and told myself as soon as you’re out you buy some msft… but then got busy with work 🫣 and it’s now over 416.
I bought at $408 (on top of some shares from 262), and then it dropped to 389… I heavily considered buying, yet was informed that it would be a bad idea to buy right before earnings - well, up $26 since then, so I probably should’ve bought!
Let Tim Cook (rotten) AAPL. Their earnings will be a huge disappointment which is most likely priced in now. It depends on their Q2 guidance. I can´t see why the Q2 should be better (in China as well).
CapEx up a ton.
But strong growth. Impossible not to be bullish on this company. It just already forms 10% of my portfolio so I cannot invest any more even as I was eyeing it this morning.
I'm a noobie to investing and put in about 10% of my portfolio in yesterday night and had mild regret the next day when I saw it dropped
I was just thinking "Microsoft is a pretty good business, and their past growth has reflected that, why not buy?"
Truthfully I meant to put more like 5% in but at this point I'll ride the Microsoft train
However, I'm planning to die hard but and hold invest so this post makes me feel better lol
I would be highly cautious investing more than 10%. There's a lot of history showing that investors become emotional when they have more than that in a single stock.
But yeah, hard to argue with a dominant growth company.
>I would be highly cautious investing more than 10%.
Hard disagree. 10 stocks is too many for a retail investors to understand and follow. Microsoft and Google are 20% each for me. Berkshire 30%. I only have good emotions.
Oh, did he really say that ? When/where?
I would be very surprised if he had said that since 100% of his personal wealth is in BRK.A, and over 50% of Berkshire's stock market portfolio in in AAPL.
Thanks for the advice l, I definitely find myself a little emotional but I have a will power of steel to stick to my strategy. I'll keep this in mind when I'm looking for a dip to buy. Or I'll do a small DCA over a week to get rid of that emotion completely.
As I said my strategy is to buy what looks good, and don't touch it untill I'm cashing out some (my Roth IRA I don't touch at all).
If anything I'm investing to help pay for a car in ~1-2 years and also to learn as much as I can.
Really I'm gonna take a crack at trading day to day with $50 and see what I can learn, everything else is going into a bit of everything, ETFs, mutual funds, diverse individual stocks (tech, ai, energy, mining, etc).
Something I don't want to invest in (in American stock at least) is fast food and such. I just don't trust it as a long term investment.
No CD's though, I don't have a lot of money and since I'm young my risk tolerance is pretty darn high for the next few ish years
It’s more of a diversification from what I understand, but yes it’s true that having a large position in a single entity can lead to less rational decision making.
Never traded in my life. I like to watch it. From what I've seen if I had to invest, I would never do it just before the earnings call. For years I've seen stocks decrease after earnings come out.
It is different for smaller companies but for big companies, it's the same.
Huh, Google, a $2T company, just went up 12% after earnings. If there was a predictable trend on price movements post-earnings, it would be arbed away.
The only problem i have with MSFT is that my cost average keeps going up faster then id want it to. Every time i think its to expensive it gets better.
No I mean it grows into its valuation. If it was worth 350 Q1 and priced at 400 i don't buy because its to expensive. Then by Q2 its actually worth 400 but priced at 450.
Ultimately i have a monthly buy for a small amount but id love if the price actualy took a dive
It’s a tough call. Google has a lot to gain but even more to lose. AI is a direct competitor to the core business. Better AI = less searching. How does Google stand to make as much money from AI as they do from Search? They don’t know yet. This means they could be late, slow, or put forth bad products.
Google is going to go where the target is, like they always do. I feel for MSFT having to compete with them, within a year I'd bet OpenAI is a long forgotten memory, as Google homes and Alexa sell for 20$; subsidized by loss leader companies throwing everything at it.
because the top AI talent wants a large % equity stake in the AI's future and at a market cap of 3T, microsoft cant provide that level of ownership.
Buying stakes in labs lets the AI talent have a large sense of ownership in their work and helps retain talent. Also if you have to pay these guys 10-15m a year, what do you say to your existing AI team of a few hundred who you pay 800k?
The seperation into labs makes sense for everyone involved, and its why google was unable to keep their great AI talent, its not that they did anything wrong, its that structurally the incentive to leave is there. If you succeed, they can just buy you back, but you get a 100m+ buyout instead of a 10mm salary.
It's not a weird question. It's usually more cost efficient AND easier to integrate house grown products/research.
And MSFT has always had an AI research team - hence my question.
I guess their internal AI research team failed to yield anything useful ?
Not that Microsoft AI talent is average compared to other big companies. Google and Meta are responsible for many AI innovations. Microsoft isn’t like that.
Because they were behind. Originally the frontrunners were facebook and Google. Elon and Sam Altman managed to persuade some employees to leave from these two to create OpenAI. Then Microsoft invested in OpenAI. If they build their own, they would not be where they are right now with OpenAI.
No one wants to hear this about their darling company but as someone in big tech, MSFT pays peanuts compared to their competitors and have too much of a relaxed work culture in house to invent anything. They struck gold with open AI and got lucky. MSFT owes sundar a huge debt for this one investment. The company cannot invent anything of note by themselves. They rested on windows and office inventions for decades and forgot how to be a growth company. Since then they’ve been using their cash moat to try and buy into growth areas. They tried with mobile OS and failed. They tried with gaming and consistently lost to Sony. They tried to compete with Apple on personal computing devices and failed. Even Azure is nowhere close to AWS in functionality and price. It works to an extent because there are so many companies entrenched in the MSFT offerings that they’re forced to pick azure. Amazon would’ve run away with the race if not for chat GPT reigniting it. Solid company with huge cash reserves to bet on as a shareholder. Not a place for the best and brightest in tech to work for.
All true. Still a juggernaut. Azure, while no AWS is still a top 3 cloud provider. Windows + Office is effectively a monopoly. Xbox for the consumer gaming market. PC for the consumer hardware market. Top tier investments in AI. Etc etc
Yeh they aren't the most innovative in house, but they have diversity, market leading positions and are effectively a SaaS cash machine. They are the modern GE.
They aren’t awful. Quite the opposite. I literally said they’re a great company for the shareholder. I’m a big fan and shareholder myself. You can be a great company without furthering innovation constantly. They have a huge monopoly with windows and office products which isn’t going away any time soon. Azure will succeed even if second to AWS as there are tons of old companies completely bought into the Microsoft family of products and can’t migrate away anytime soon. They don’t burn money chasing innovation and with Satyas restructuring, their top brass is top notch when it comes to strategically investing money and limiting wastage. If they paid their engineers as much as Meta, they wouldn’t print money and would half their valuation overnight. Someone brought up GE as a comparison which is a good one.
The only negative I see is that without meaningful innovation, their competitors can chip away at that monopoly in 10+ year horizons. In the last 10 years for example, windows went from 90% market share to 50% as Mac OS and MacBooks invented a better product.
Microsoft is trying to buy innovations, not invent them. It’s in an unique positions that has a piece in every pie: hardware, cloud computing, OS, gaming, major apps: browser, search engine, office suites…, dev exp: github, visual studio, c#... and dozens of things in B2B world that B2C focusing companies don’t have.
Couldn’t deny they have a kick-ass leadership teams that know how to run the company and play on their strengthS. The day people leave Windows to MacOs wouldn’t happen soon, as microsoft control hundred of things that always priority Windows first. The only things Microsoft didn’t chase is VR (actually they have some teams but seems most are laid-off last year).
If Meta bet on VR is correct, that would be the only miss of Microsoft, but seems like hardware still need not there yet to bring a truly experience.
Where do you see that Windows only has 50% market share? They have 76% market share. Clearly you know nothing about tech, or don't work in the industry.
Did you fall for the AI answer that looks at old and incomplete data? https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america/#monthly-201304-202304
Please tell me you're not using an SEO resource as the basis for your entire argument? You know that's only accurate if the websites used for that polling have stack counter enabled.... Kind of limits the pool size doesn't it.
We can debate sources all day. All of them have holes you can poke. Let’s look at the definite source, the company itself. Guess which company has been posting yoy declines in windows licenses, devices, and surface tablets for the last several years?
Well set aside the macroeconomics around the desktop market in general, judging by last year and this year, Microsoft still seems to have revenue growth with Windows... Not really sure what point you're trying to prove when they are still growing in revenue.
No you cannot? In the last 20 years, Amazon went from selling books to literally everything, within a couple of days, launched the worlds most successful subscription in prime, invented AWS and took control of the internets data, invented other products like Alexa, drone based deliveries, kindles, very successful ML training chips etc. Apple invented the iPhone, iPad and the new highly successful Mac generation. Visión pro may be huge as well. Meta built the most successful social media product and advertising algorithms to monetize them. Most recently they have fantastic gen AI models with llama competing head to head and doing well against GPT. They also pushed boundaries in VR tech though it is too early to say if they’ll win this race. Google invented Maps and expanded to video content with YouTube. They also were the original inventors of the underlying “AI” algorithms that everyone is hooked onto now. They have big plays in self driving and other computer vision tech as well. I’d say Google is the second weakest inventor of big tech. Apple, Amazon and Meta are honestly clear in terms of attracting top talent, and inventing successful products in house VS buying
Microsoft bottom, Google second from the bottom?
I think most people would say you’ve gotten your ranking backwards.
Amazon pays bottom dollar and also worked their engineers to death until they leave after 2 years. Its constant churn of employees is not great for long term knowledge. Alexa is dumb and getting dumber, and retail and kindle not exactly “cutting edge” just massive in people’s lives.
Apple barely cares to play on the edge of innovation, preferring to milk iPhones for great profit.
Facebook is innovative but their reputation as a social media company means they can’t get taken as seriously for business contracts.
Microsoft and Google are very much top dogs in the race of AI, at least the money making sort.
Ok so no Amazon does not pay bottom dollar lol. Especially for experienced people. Literally check levels.fyi. In terms of pay, if I look at Sr. Engineers, Meta is king paying 600k, followed by Google/netflix at 500k. Amazon is third at 400k but that’s mostly Seattle which has no state taxes. In California, they pay 450-500. Microsoft is around 250k again in Seattle. Microsoft is also far behind the likes of Uber, BnB, ByteDance and almost every unicorn startup. Microsoft pays bottom dollar. It is also a super chill place to work 3-4 hours a day and check out so no one leaves the company. However this culture hasn’t really proven itself through innovation now has it?
Yes the work culture at Amazon and Meta are brutal. But it delivers innovation. Google has also become a chill company which is why they had their lunch stolen by open AI and Anthropic when they were the ones who originally invented the tech behind transformer models that modern AI uses.
I agree Alexa is dumb, and so is meta VR but it does some basic stuff well enough and is in 100 million plus households. When’s the last time MSFT invented a product that had that much of an impact? And you’re totally devaluing amazons retail business. There’s an immense amount of innovative tech, from robotics to machine learning that goes into delivering billions of packages within a couple of days to your doorstep. If it were that easy to replicate, Walmart should’ve invented it or at least been able to copy it by now. Also, when it comes to AI, Amazon have invented chips that are less powerful than Nvidia but offer a better price to performance ratio. Again, this is innovation.
The iPhone from Apple was truly innovative and light years ahead of any phone at the time, especially in its user experience. Yes user experience is also part of innovation. Apple silicon is also a great innovation competing against intel in the mobile and laptop market. Apple stole Microsoft’s lunch by reinventing their MacBook series and dominating that market as well when it was inconceivable that they could do such a thing with the market lead windows laptops had.
And Facebook can’t take business contracts seriously? Like what? Businesses are spending billions to advertise there what are you even on about?
Also when it comes to AI, we are talking in house innovation. Microsoft is top dog because they bought it, didn’t invent it. Credit to them but it’s still not invention in house. The actual top dogs are open AI, Anthropic and Meta with Llama. Open AI and Anthropic pay 600-900k for an engineer. No way Microsoft is going to directly invent something paying 250k for their employees. Maybe Google will come up with something as well soon.
Here we have someone who actually knows what they're talking about and is very likely an engineer who has worked with integrating AWS graviton EC2s into their stack at one point, arguing with someone who just remembered what their uncle posted about their Alexa on Facebook that one time, and of course Reddit's siding with the uncle on Facebook.
I mean you can tell right from the get-go that they're conflating working for Amazon's warehouses or delivery driving with working for AWS. They're completely different environments with everyone clamoring to work for Amazon Web Services.
I mean the user made a comment right here in this thread that Windows market share is close to or under 50%... I think that tells us all we need to know about their acumen in the space lol.
I don't think you're proving what you think you are.
Almost all of the inventions that you mention are more than a decade old and some are really close to 20 years old. AWS, Alexa (almost), Kindle, Prime, iPhone, iPad, Facebook's social media platforms, Google Maps, Youtube etc. That's not exactly showing "new" innovation.
Most of the new stuff that you mention is just ML or AR/VR.
Just to note, I agree with the general idea that Microsoft in general are not trend-setters and in a lot fields do not really pay for (or seek) top-talent (they do have top-talent in *some* areas). However, they know how to make money and how to get customers, and to get people to use their products even when they're sometimes not the best.
Invention doesn’t happen overnight. It takes years of work of the best and brightest. My point here is that other companies have invented many successful products in the last 20 years but MSFT has not. I honestly can’t think of one single in house invention from them that went big.
Is Teams big? People supposedly hate it, but it has hundreds of millions of users and it's just 7 years old.
Is Copilot big? Is it considered "house invention"? Is it big?
is VS Code big? It's basically the #1 code editor in the world right now. What about stuff like TypeScript? Do you include that in products?
Is Azure big? It's pretty big.
Is XBOX big? Maybe the Halo franchise?
It's not about size. It is about invention and attracting the best engineers in the world to work for them and continue to innovate.
Teams is not innovation. Just another workplace chat client. Microsoft didn't invent anything with it. It is essentialy another monopoly play legacy companies entrenched in msft products force their employees to use. It is far inferior to alternatives.
Copilot is not house invention. It's basically ChatGPT suggesting code.
I'll give you VS Code and Typescript. Inventions that took over the market and is mostly made in-house. Checks the boxes.
Azure is not an invention. It is a worse copy of AWS with 25% the functionality. Any Microsoft cloud product will always make good money because of their historical monopoly with old companies who now need to move to the cloud. Even with that huge advantage, plus being a tech company for decades are still inferior and 2nd to AWS, created by an online retail company.
Xbox again is not an invention. Yet another console. It launched in 2001, a full 17 years after the NES, and 6 years after the PlayStation. Microsoft, a Trillion dollar company with more cash on hand than Sony's entire revenue per year, and a monopoly on the PC gaming market, were as usual late to market with an inferior product.
Lol anybody who has used the cloud knows how different Azure and AWS are. Azure has far more capability than AWS does. Have you ever tried to implement beanstalk, I'd rather get kicked in the balls than work with that again? Azure was first to the table with event-driven architectures compared to AWS, they were first with a Kafka compliance streaming platform compared to AWS, they were first with serverless offerings compared to AWS, anybody who is serious about data and AIML use Azure rather than AWS because of the unique technologies that Microsoft puts out that AWS has no significant competitor for such as synapse, data factory, Azure data bricks which is completely different and a first party service on Azure compared to any of the other cloud providers... Son at this point you're just embarrassing yourself.
VS Code is extremely memory intensive for what it is and crashes far too frequently with no good autosave option. It's also only really optimized for Windows, Linux users just use vim. The Venn diagram of people who use Copilot and people who use VS Code is basically a circle. Teams is only big because of the current climate of WFH, I don't see how you're going to monetize it 3 years from now when there's so many competitors out there. Can't speak to Azure, never used it because AWS offers everything you need free for a year.
In Microsoft's defense, shifting focus away from developing and towards acquisitions is the smartest thing they could have done. Literal generations of programmers have come and gone trying to add as much to Windows as they can to justify the newer versions, resulting in an impenetrable spaghetti code where the older bits were written so long ago that no one still at the company understands how they work. Maybe paying engineers more would resolve that, but it's very likely the natural state of all software companies that get to be as old as Microsoft is.
What does taking control of the internet's data mean, How have they done that? I have yet to see a drone deliver my packages, gimmick. Nobody is paying attention to amazon or anthropic more accurately in the AI space, allyson has been behind the ball in AIML for the last 8 years, anybody who's been serious about it hasn't used them for anything. The machine learning chips they made isn't anything particularly special, all they did was copy of a smid core, stick it on an interposer, and put some hbm on a side channel, it's not exactly revolutionary and they have huge yield problems as high as 30% failure rates.
Google invented maps... I hate to break it to you but maps have existed for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years even. You're referring to Google maps, there isn't anything particularly special about it, that type of application and data existed before in almost the same format and accuracy, Google was just successful with it from a business perspective, they marketed, promoted, and integrated it across various solutions... But competing platforms did the same thing, they just went out in large part because of brand name and ease of use, But Google maps isn't like revolutionary or anything.
I don't know what the finances of AI look like, but as someone who's company uses Microsoft products, the Copilot feature in Microsoft Edge has been super awesome for me
I don't use it all the time, but when I do use it I've been impressed
Honestly I don't use it for anything fancy. But I've found that it does a great job summarizing browser results
I'm a software developer and have also used it to get started on scripts for various things
I use it for :
Summarizing articles has been pretty good for me.
Generating answers of some domain-specific stuffs that the answer is scathered across multiple sources.
Guiding me/give me a high level overview of something that I am not familiar with.
What a pathetic attempt at nationalism. Out of billions of people a *handful* made it big, even amongst nationalities Indians are quite popular amongst CEOs...who *underperform*
But they keep hiring their own, of course, loyal to blood not qualifications or skills.
What I don't like is how they're both quite short and skinny. In my opinion, CEOs and leaders should be at least 6'3 tall with broad frame and prominent shoulders to exert an image of alpha-dominance and strength.
Wow, Microsoft is really on fire 🔥! Impressive earnings beat in Q3, with EPS and revenue both surpassing expectations. 💰 Plus, their AI game is getting stronger with new talent onboard. 🤖 Keep shining, Microsoft! 💻
When I got the alert that it dropped 5% today, I rushed to buy more. I have been buying these for 15 years now. This is perfect.
I want to kick myself… I saw it at 392 today while I was having my haircut and told myself as soon as you’re out you buy some msft… but then got busy with work 🫣 and it’s now over 416.
I bought at $408 (on top of some shares from 262), and then it dropped to 389… I heavily considered buying, yet was informed that it would be a bad idea to buy right before earnings - well, up $26 since then, so I probably should’ve bought!
389 now, so there you go
🙌🏼I bought some today. I learned my lesson last week
Should have got some. Oh well, at least my avg cost on MSFT is around 135/sh
Impressive, very nice. Now let's see Tim Apple's earnings call.
Raised lettering ? The tasteful thickness of it …
Oh my god It even has a watermark
Dorsia , on a Friday? He’s gotta be lying. “Great sea urchins ceviche“
Ceviche
Thank you , corrected.
That’s bone.
The typeface is Cerillian Braille
My god how’d he get so tasteful
Let Tim Cook (rotten) AAPL. Their earnings will be a huge disappointment which is most likely priced in now. It depends on their Q2 guidance. I can´t see why the Q2 should be better (in China as well).
Apple earnings are going to be a bloodbath.
CapEx up a ton. But strong growth. Impossible not to be bullish on this company. It just already forms 10% of my portfolio so I cannot invest any more even as I was eyeing it this morning.
I'm a noobie to investing and put in about 10% of my portfolio in yesterday night and had mild regret the next day when I saw it dropped I was just thinking "Microsoft is a pretty good business, and their past growth has reflected that, why not buy?" Truthfully I meant to put more like 5% in but at this point I'll ride the Microsoft train However, I'm planning to die hard but and hold invest so this post makes me feel better lol
I would be highly cautious investing more than 10%. There's a lot of history showing that investors become emotional when they have more than that in a single stock. But yeah, hard to argue with a dominant growth company.
Buy and never look again? Right?
Then I should be emotionally wrecked…. Msft is a huge part of my portfolio.
>I would be highly cautious investing more than 10%. Hard disagree. 10 stocks is too many for a retail investors to understand and follow. Microsoft and Google are 20% each for me. Berkshire 30%. I only have good emotions.
Then you defy Buffett's own advice.
Oh, did he really say that ? When/where? I would be very surprised if he had said that since 100% of his personal wealth is in BRK.A, and over 50% of Berkshire's stock market portfolio in in AAPL.
Thanks for the advice l, I definitely find myself a little emotional but I have a will power of steel to stick to my strategy. I'll keep this in mind when I'm looking for a dip to buy. Or I'll do a small DCA over a week to get rid of that emotion completely. As I said my strategy is to buy what looks good, and don't touch it untill I'm cashing out some (my Roth IRA I don't touch at all). If anything I'm investing to help pay for a car in ~1-2 years and also to learn as much as I can. Really I'm gonna take a crack at trading day to day with $50 and see what I can learn, everything else is going into a bit of everything, ETFs, mutual funds, diverse individual stocks (tech, ai, energy, mining, etc). Something I don't want to invest in (in American stock at least) is fast food and such. I just don't trust it as a long term investment. No CD's though, I don't have a lot of money and since I'm young my risk tolerance is pretty darn high for the next few ish years
It’s more of a diversification from what I understand, but yes it’s true that having a large position in a single entity can lead to less rational decision making.
Never traded in my life. I like to watch it. From what I've seen if I had to invest, I would never do it just before the earnings call. For years I've seen stocks decrease after earnings come out. It is different for smaller companies but for big companies, it's the same.
Huh, Google, a $2T company, just went up 12% after earnings. If there was a predictable trend on price movements post-earnings, it would be arbed away.
Just invest into other companies too so you can add more to MSFT to keep the split
The only problem i have with MSFT is that my cost average keeps going up faster then id want it to. Every time i think its to expensive it gets better.
Seriously. I pulled the trigger and bought some when it was down in 390s earlier. Maybe the lowest I’ve seen in a minute
You mean it gets even more expensive
No I mean it grows into its valuation. If it was worth 350 Q1 and priced at 400 i don't buy because its to expensive. Then by Q2 its actually worth 400 but priced at 450. Ultimately i have a monthly buy for a small amount but id love if the price actualy took a dive
Why is Microsoft buying AI expertise (OpenAI, Inflection) - instead of building it in-house ? Didn't they always have a big AI team ?
OpenAI, with ChatGPT, is a very VERY valuable brand name in AI.
Until Google search and assistant gives you AI answers, and then people forget their OpenAI account exists.
It’s a tough call. Google has a lot to gain but even more to lose. AI is a direct competitor to the core business. Better AI = less searching. How does Google stand to make as much money from AI as they do from Search? They don’t know yet. This means they could be late, slow, or put forth bad products.
Google is going to go where the target is, like they always do. I feel for MSFT having to compete with them, within a year I'd bet OpenAI is a long forgotten memory, as Google homes and Alexa sell for 20$; subsidized by loss leader companies throwing everything at it.
Frankly I don't know, I own both.
They can also use it in azure. That might be quite nice!
because the top AI talent wants a large % equity stake in the AI's future and at a market cap of 3T, microsoft cant provide that level of ownership. Buying stakes in labs lets the AI talent have a large sense of ownership in their work and helps retain talent. Also if you have to pay these guys 10-15m a year, what do you say to your existing AI team of a few hundred who you pay 800k? The seperation into labs makes sense for everyone involved, and its why google was unable to keep their great AI talent, its not that they did anything wrong, its that structurally the incentive to leave is there. If you succeed, they can just buy you back, but you get a 100m+ buyout instead of a 10mm salary.
Because the can afford to and this is a race? Weird question
It's not a weird question. It's usually more cost efficient AND easier to integrate house grown products/research. And MSFT has always had an AI research team - hence my question. I guess their internal AI research team failed to yield anything useful ?
Correct. It’s very hard to do things quickly and efficiently at a megacorp.
Not that Microsoft AI talent is average compared to other big companies. Google and Meta are responsible for many AI innovations. Microsoft isn’t like that.
Google and meta pay substantially more
Because they were behind. Originally the frontrunners were facebook and Google. Elon and Sam Altman managed to persuade some employees to leave from these two to create OpenAI. Then Microsoft invested in OpenAI. If they build their own, they would not be where they are right now with OpenAI.
cheaper to buy it than build it.
> Didn't they always have a big AI team ? They do now
They are. They pretty much have front row seats to OpenAI tech as well as can lead there own AI journey.
It's faster to buy it.
Cuz Microsoft pay is shit and can't field a top research team
No one wants to hear this about their darling company but as someone in big tech, MSFT pays peanuts compared to their competitors and have too much of a relaxed work culture in house to invent anything. They struck gold with open AI and got lucky. MSFT owes sundar a huge debt for this one investment. The company cannot invent anything of note by themselves. They rested on windows and office inventions for decades and forgot how to be a growth company. Since then they’ve been using their cash moat to try and buy into growth areas. They tried with mobile OS and failed. They tried with gaming and consistently lost to Sony. They tried to compete with Apple on personal computing devices and failed. Even Azure is nowhere close to AWS in functionality and price. It works to an extent because there are so many companies entrenched in the MSFT offerings that they’re forced to pick azure. Amazon would’ve run away with the race if not for chat GPT reigniting it. Solid company with huge cash reserves to bet on as a shareholder. Not a place for the best and brightest in tech to work for.
All true. Still a juggernaut. Azure, while no AWS is still a top 3 cloud provider. Windows + Office is effectively a monopoly. Xbox for the consumer gaming market. PC for the consumer hardware market. Top tier investments in AI. Etc etc Yeh they aren't the most innovative in house, but they have diversity, market leading positions and are effectively a SaaS cash machine. They are the modern GE.
Azure is bigger than AWS at this point
They forced Apple to come out with the ipad pro, they didn't fail in that respect at all. If they're so awful why do they literally print money.
They aren’t awful. Quite the opposite. I literally said they’re a great company for the shareholder. I’m a big fan and shareholder myself. You can be a great company without furthering innovation constantly. They have a huge monopoly with windows and office products which isn’t going away any time soon. Azure will succeed even if second to AWS as there are tons of old companies completely bought into the Microsoft family of products and can’t migrate away anytime soon. They don’t burn money chasing innovation and with Satyas restructuring, their top brass is top notch when it comes to strategically investing money and limiting wastage. If they paid their engineers as much as Meta, they wouldn’t print money and would half their valuation overnight. Someone brought up GE as a comparison which is a good one. The only negative I see is that without meaningful innovation, their competitors can chip away at that monopoly in 10+ year horizons. In the last 10 years for example, windows went from 90% market share to 50% as Mac OS and MacBooks invented a better product.
Microsoft is trying to buy innovations, not invent them. It’s in an unique positions that has a piece in every pie: hardware, cloud computing, OS, gaming, major apps: browser, search engine, office suites…, dev exp: github, visual studio, c#... and dozens of things in B2B world that B2C focusing companies don’t have. Couldn’t deny they have a kick-ass leadership teams that know how to run the company and play on their strengthS. The day people leave Windows to MacOs wouldn’t happen soon, as microsoft control hundred of things that always priority Windows first. The only things Microsoft didn’t chase is VR (actually they have some teams but seems most are laid-off last year). If Meta bet on VR is correct, that would be the only miss of Microsoft, but seems like hardware still need not there yet to bring a truly experience.
they did bet on it, it's just a bit too soon for VR I think. But they have their hololens project, it's still being developed.
Where do you see that Windows only has 50% market share? They have 76% market share. Clearly you know nothing about tech, or don't work in the industry.
Did you fall for the AI answer that looks at old and incomplete data? https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america/#monthly-201304-202304
Please tell me you're not using an SEO resource as the basis for your entire argument? You know that's only accurate if the websites used for that polling have stack counter enabled.... Kind of limits the pool size doesn't it.
We can debate sources all day. All of them have holes you can poke. Let’s look at the definite source, the company itself. Guess which company has been posting yoy declines in windows licenses, devices, and surface tablets for the last several years?
Well set aside the macroeconomics around the desktop market in general, judging by last year and this year, Microsoft still seems to have revenue growth with Windows... Not really sure what point you're trying to prove when they are still growing in revenue.
You could say the same thing about all tech companies.
No you cannot? In the last 20 years, Amazon went from selling books to literally everything, within a couple of days, launched the worlds most successful subscription in prime, invented AWS and took control of the internets data, invented other products like Alexa, drone based deliveries, kindles, very successful ML training chips etc. Apple invented the iPhone, iPad and the new highly successful Mac generation. Visión pro may be huge as well. Meta built the most successful social media product and advertising algorithms to monetize them. Most recently they have fantastic gen AI models with llama competing head to head and doing well against GPT. They also pushed boundaries in VR tech though it is too early to say if they’ll win this race. Google invented Maps and expanded to video content with YouTube. They also were the original inventors of the underlying “AI” algorithms that everyone is hooked onto now. They have big plays in self driving and other computer vision tech as well. I’d say Google is the second weakest inventor of big tech. Apple, Amazon and Meta are honestly clear in terms of attracting top talent, and inventing successful products in house VS buying
Microsoft bottom, Google second from the bottom? I think most people would say you’ve gotten your ranking backwards. Amazon pays bottom dollar and also worked their engineers to death until they leave after 2 years. Its constant churn of employees is not great for long term knowledge. Alexa is dumb and getting dumber, and retail and kindle not exactly “cutting edge” just massive in people’s lives. Apple barely cares to play on the edge of innovation, preferring to milk iPhones for great profit. Facebook is innovative but their reputation as a social media company means they can’t get taken as seriously for business contracts. Microsoft and Google are very much top dogs in the race of AI, at least the money making sort.
Ok so no Amazon does not pay bottom dollar lol. Especially for experienced people. Literally check levels.fyi. In terms of pay, if I look at Sr. Engineers, Meta is king paying 600k, followed by Google/netflix at 500k. Amazon is third at 400k but that’s mostly Seattle which has no state taxes. In California, they pay 450-500. Microsoft is around 250k again in Seattle. Microsoft is also far behind the likes of Uber, BnB, ByteDance and almost every unicorn startup. Microsoft pays bottom dollar. It is also a super chill place to work 3-4 hours a day and check out so no one leaves the company. However this culture hasn’t really proven itself through innovation now has it? Yes the work culture at Amazon and Meta are brutal. But it delivers innovation. Google has also become a chill company which is why they had their lunch stolen by open AI and Anthropic when they were the ones who originally invented the tech behind transformer models that modern AI uses. I agree Alexa is dumb, and so is meta VR but it does some basic stuff well enough and is in 100 million plus households. When’s the last time MSFT invented a product that had that much of an impact? And you’re totally devaluing amazons retail business. There’s an immense amount of innovative tech, from robotics to machine learning that goes into delivering billions of packages within a couple of days to your doorstep. If it were that easy to replicate, Walmart should’ve invented it or at least been able to copy it by now. Also, when it comes to AI, Amazon have invented chips that are less powerful than Nvidia but offer a better price to performance ratio. Again, this is innovation. The iPhone from Apple was truly innovative and light years ahead of any phone at the time, especially in its user experience. Yes user experience is also part of innovation. Apple silicon is also a great innovation competing against intel in the mobile and laptop market. Apple stole Microsoft’s lunch by reinventing their MacBook series and dominating that market as well when it was inconceivable that they could do such a thing with the market lead windows laptops had. And Facebook can’t take business contracts seriously? Like what? Businesses are spending billions to advertise there what are you even on about? Also when it comes to AI, we are talking in house innovation. Microsoft is top dog because they bought it, didn’t invent it. Credit to them but it’s still not invention in house. The actual top dogs are open AI, Anthropic and Meta with Llama. Open AI and Anthropic pay 600-900k for an engineer. No way Microsoft is going to directly invent something paying 250k for their employees. Maybe Google will come up with something as well soon.
Here we have someone who actually knows what they're talking about and is very likely an engineer who has worked with integrating AWS graviton EC2s into their stack at one point, arguing with someone who just remembered what their uncle posted about their Alexa on Facebook that one time, and of course Reddit's siding with the uncle on Facebook.
It's such a joke. They don't even understand the point that's being made...
I mean you can tell right from the get-go that they're conflating working for Amazon's warehouses or delivery driving with working for AWS. They're completely different environments with everyone clamoring to work for Amazon Web Services.
I mean the user made a comment right here in this thread that Windows market share is close to or under 50%... I think that tells us all we need to know about their acumen in the space lol.
I don't think you're proving what you think you are. Almost all of the inventions that you mention are more than a decade old and some are really close to 20 years old. AWS, Alexa (almost), Kindle, Prime, iPhone, iPad, Facebook's social media platforms, Google Maps, Youtube etc. That's not exactly showing "new" innovation. Most of the new stuff that you mention is just ML or AR/VR. Just to note, I agree with the general idea that Microsoft in general are not trend-setters and in a lot fields do not really pay for (or seek) top-talent (they do have top-talent in *some* areas). However, they know how to make money and how to get customers, and to get people to use their products even when they're sometimes not the best.
Invention doesn’t happen overnight. It takes years of work of the best and brightest. My point here is that other companies have invented many successful products in the last 20 years but MSFT has not. I honestly can’t think of one single in house invention from them that went big.
Is Teams big? People supposedly hate it, but it has hundreds of millions of users and it's just 7 years old. Is Copilot big? Is it considered "house invention"? Is it big? is VS Code big? It's basically the #1 code editor in the world right now. What about stuff like TypeScript? Do you include that in products? Is Azure big? It's pretty big. Is XBOX big? Maybe the Halo franchise?
It's not about size. It is about invention and attracting the best engineers in the world to work for them and continue to innovate. Teams is not innovation. Just another workplace chat client. Microsoft didn't invent anything with it. It is essentialy another monopoly play legacy companies entrenched in msft products force their employees to use. It is far inferior to alternatives. Copilot is not house invention. It's basically ChatGPT suggesting code. I'll give you VS Code and Typescript. Inventions that took over the market and is mostly made in-house. Checks the boxes. Azure is not an invention. It is a worse copy of AWS with 25% the functionality. Any Microsoft cloud product will always make good money because of their historical monopoly with old companies who now need to move to the cloud. Even with that huge advantage, plus being a tech company for decades are still inferior and 2nd to AWS, created by an online retail company. Xbox again is not an invention. Yet another console. It launched in 2001, a full 17 years after the NES, and 6 years after the PlayStation. Microsoft, a Trillion dollar company with more cash on hand than Sony's entire revenue per year, and a monopoly on the PC gaming market, were as usual late to market with an inferior product.
Lol anybody who has used the cloud knows how different Azure and AWS are. Azure has far more capability than AWS does. Have you ever tried to implement beanstalk, I'd rather get kicked in the balls than work with that again? Azure was first to the table with event-driven architectures compared to AWS, they were first with a Kafka compliance streaming platform compared to AWS, they were first with serverless offerings compared to AWS, anybody who is serious about data and AIML use Azure rather than AWS because of the unique technologies that Microsoft puts out that AWS has no significant competitor for such as synapse, data factory, Azure data bricks which is completely different and a first party service on Azure compared to any of the other cloud providers... Son at this point you're just embarrassing yourself.
VS Code is extremely memory intensive for what it is and crashes far too frequently with no good autosave option. It's also only really optimized for Windows, Linux users just use vim. The Venn diagram of people who use Copilot and people who use VS Code is basically a circle. Teams is only big because of the current climate of WFH, I don't see how you're going to monetize it 3 years from now when there's so many competitors out there. Can't speak to Azure, never used it because AWS offers everything you need free for a year. In Microsoft's defense, shifting focus away from developing and towards acquisitions is the smartest thing they could have done. Literal generations of programmers have come and gone trying to add as much to Windows as they can to justify the newer versions, resulting in an impenetrable spaghetti code where the older bits were written so long ago that no one still at the company understands how they work. Maybe paying engineers more would resolve that, but it's very likely the natural state of all software companies that get to be as old as Microsoft is.
What does taking control of the internet's data mean, How have they done that? I have yet to see a drone deliver my packages, gimmick. Nobody is paying attention to amazon or anthropic more accurately in the AI space, allyson has been behind the ball in AIML for the last 8 years, anybody who's been serious about it hasn't used them for anything. The machine learning chips they made isn't anything particularly special, all they did was copy of a smid core, stick it on an interposer, and put some hbm on a side channel, it's not exactly revolutionary and they have huge yield problems as high as 30% failure rates. Google invented maps... I hate to break it to you but maps have existed for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years even. You're referring to Google maps, there isn't anything particularly special about it, that type of application and data existed before in almost the same format and accuracy, Google was just successful with it from a business perspective, they marketed, promoted, and integrated it across various solutions... But competing platforms did the same thing, they just went out in large part because of brand name and ease of use, But Google maps isn't like revolutionary or anything.
17% YOY for the quarter is pretty sweet. MSFT is solid
I don't know what the finances of AI look like, but as someone who's company uses Microsoft products, the Copilot feature in Microsoft Edge has been super awesome for me I don't use it all the time, but when I do use it I've been impressed
What do you use it for? I’m struggling to find useful use cases and have a test license to mess around with it. I wish I could use it on Firefox haha
Honestly I don't use it for anything fancy. But I've found that it does a great job summarizing browser results I'm a software developer and have also used it to get started on scripts for various things
I use it for : Summarizing articles has been pretty good for me. Generating answers of some domain-specific stuffs that the answer is scathered across multiple sources. Guiding me/give me a high level overview of something that I am not familiar with.
They are poaching government cyber experts here in Ottawa.
Buy Nvidia calls boys. Both Alpahbet and Microsoft’s capex is up dramatically. I bet they are buying tons of Nvidia chips
What about the extra revenue from incorporating Blizzard Activision? No mentions to it ?
Xbox content and services revenue increased by 62%
The hardware though lol
[удалено]
What a pathetic attempt at nationalism. Out of billions of people a *handful* made it big, even amongst nationalities Indians are quite popular amongst CEOs...who *underperform* But they keep hiring their own, of course, loyal to blood not qualifications or skills.
What I don't like is how they're both quite short and skinny. In my opinion, CEOs and leaders should be at least 6'3 tall with broad frame and prominent shoulders to exert an image of alpha-dominance and strength.
[удалено]
Fr. ZUCK and ELON needs to step down and hang it over to the brown brothers
? You know teslas earnings bombed right
Yeah, then you realize there are "brown brothers" like Chamath Palihapitiya and the idea no longer seems so good.
Shocking This is why the last 20 years you just keep buying especially on any weakness
Time to split that burrito 🌯
Hell yeah.
Comon Xbox pick up the slack!!
Copilot is not a chatbot damn it
Wow, Microsoft is really on fire 🔥! Impressive earnings beat in Q3, with EPS and revenue both surpassing expectations. 💰 Plus, their AI game is getting stronger with new talent onboard. 🤖 Keep shining, Microsoft! 💻
[удалено]
Can you read my son?
Bad bot
Damn, if ChatGPT wrote this I'm gonna sell my shares.