|
dam check microsofts stock
|
|
|
John_Donn
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
looking at thier ticker since the ban wave they have gone up 2 points which is true with most companies in the bull market we have going on.This has almost nothing to do with ban waves and more to do with windows 7 selling extremely well,here is a big reason why there stock has gone up in the past month. "On October 23, Microsoft Corp. announced revenue of $12.92 billion for the first quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009" i wonder if a 13 billion dollar profit would maybe raise the stock price 2 points.
Read this and you will see it does not mention ban waves or the 360 at all as for why microsoft is doing well.
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=76088
And here is their ticker
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:MSFT
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. November 2009 @ 09:37
|
|
JediOrc
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 09:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by John_Donn:
looking at thier ticker since the ban wave they have gone up 2 points which is true with most companies in the bull market we have going on.This has almost nothing to do with ban waves and more to do with windows 7 selling extremely well,here is a big reason why there stock has gone up in the past month. "On October 23, Microsoft Corp. announced revenue of $12.92 billion for the first quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009" i wonder if a 13 billion dollar profit would maybe raise the stock price 2 points.
Read this and you will see it does not mention ban waves or the 360 at all as for why microsoft is doing well.
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=76088
And here is their ticker
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:MSFT
WOW, I completely forgot about that important fact, yup that actually would do it! I stand corrected my friend.
Originally posted by funksoulb:
I didn't say that MS hadn't cut costs. It's obvious that they'd have cut costs over the last 4 years. I said that you shouldn't assume that they cut costs more than Sony.
As for the ticker thing.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation...usation
I wasn't assuming anything. The benchmarks is almost completely identical as far as power (360 n PS3) but PS3 has a cell processor and was not built by cheaper hardware than M$ did. Its not that hard to figure out, just statistics on the RROD and the heat/noise problem that it had (they are/have been fixing these issues with the new 360s for what I read).
As for the ticker comment: Thanks for that but this topic is a theory not a science (as they try to put it). Now your going to tell me that economics is hard science and facts? Everything changes and evolves, including economics. Perfect example: The Monte Carlo theory which the inventor won a NOBEL PRIZE was proven dead wrong last year. John_Donn is right on the money and he actually proved me wrong regarding the ticker move and my comments. :-/
I don't really follow M$, I just found this topic interesting. I think it has been for the past 4 years a stock that hasnt gone anywhere long term but that is MY opinion and I wouldn't force it on anyone. 2-5 point move is big for M$ but there are better stocks out there that make bigger moves.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. November 2009 @ 09:55
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I wasn't assuming anything.
Yes, you were, which is evidenced by this statement: -
Quote:
I guess the MSFT ticker proved me right...
I dunno if English is your native language, but you don't seem to be grasping what it is that I'm saying. You're talking about benchmarks and Cell processors etc., but all I was originally saying was - Don't assume that MS would have been able to reduce manufacturing costs of the 360 by a greater percentage than Sony have reduced the manufacturing costs of the PS3.
You keep quoting me and saying things that aren't relevant to what you just quoted.
|
|
JediOrc
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by funksoulb:
Quote:
I wasn't assuming anything.
Yes, you were, which is evidenced by this statement: -
Quote:
I guess the MSFT ticker proved me right...
I dunno if English is your native language, but you don't seem to be grasping what it is that I'm saying. You're talking about benchmarks and Cell processors etc., but all I was originally saying was - Don't assume that MS would have been able to reduce manufacturing costs of the 360 by a greater percentage than Sony have reduced the manufacturing costs of the PS3.
You keep quoting me and saying things that aren't relevant to what you just quoted.
gotcha, you are comparing company costs and I was comparing company manufacturing in itself. Miscomunication on my part but I will say this before I have to get back to work: I was not assuming and I should of fixed the english on my ticker comment but never-the-less to not agree the fact that 360 as a hardware itself is poorly built (leading to damages from normal usage) is blind and to have similar benchmarks but yet 360 fails after x amount of time or usage clearly shows poor manufacturing.
BUT That wasn't the topic you was talking about which makes everything a moot point.
|
|
Aiur
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by funksoulb:
Also, I think it's a false assumption to say that MS cut costs more than Sony because much of Sony's price reduction would have come from the reduced cost of the Blu-Ray drive.
Going by what John posted again, the most expensive item of the PS3 was not the Blu-Ray player, it was the motherboard. If Sony could cut their motherboard by $300+, I'm sure Microsoft has cut their board way down as well.
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 15:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Aiur:
Originally posted by funksoulb:
Also, I think it's a false assumption to say that MS cut costs more than Sony because much of Sony's price reduction would have come from the reduced cost of the Blu-Ray drive.
Going by what John posted again, the most expensive item of the PS3 was not the Blu-Ray player, it was the motherboard. If Sony could cut their motherboard by $300+, I'm sure Microsoft has cut their board way down as well.
Yes, I'm with you on that. But why do you assume that if Sony cut costs by 70%, that MS cut costs by 80%? It makes no sense at all. Besides which, the link that John posted is just to iSuppli's estimates again, not a real breakdown of costs.
|
|
Aiur
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by funksoulb:
Yes, I'm with you on that. But why do you assume that if Sony cut costs by 70%, that MS cut costs by 80%? It makes no sense at all. Besides which, the link that John posted is just to iSuppli's estimates again, not a real breakdown of costs.
Because Sony cut their costs by 70% in less than 3 years. Microsoft cut costs by 40% in one year alone, so why would they not be able to cut costs by another 30-40% in an additional 3 years? Also, we both know how the electronics business as a whole works. A cutting edge motherboard that retailed for $300 in 2006 probably retails for under $100 now.
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Aiur:
Originally posted by funksoulb:
Yes, I'm with you on that. But why do you assume that if Sony cut costs by 70%, that MS cut costs by 80%? It makes no sense at all. Besides which, the link that John posted is just to iSuppli's estimates again, not a real breakdown of costs.
Because Sony cut their costs by 70% in less than 3 years. Microsoft cut costs by 40% in one year alone, so why would they not be able to cut costs by another 30-40% in an additional 3 years? Also, we both know how the electronics business as a whole works. A cutting edge motherboard that retailed for $300 in 2006 probably retails for under $100 now.
You're not really getting this are you mate? Firstly, you are saying things like "MS cut costs by 40% in one year alone" when you have no idea if that's true or not as the figure doesn't come from Microsoft, and secondly, you are assuming that MS could cut costs more than Sony for no really valid reason.
These threads are as bad as the "MS banned a trillion people!!" ones.
|
|
Aiur
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by funksoulb:
You're not really getting this are you mate? Firstly, you are saying things like "MS cut costs by 40% in one year alone" when you have no idea if that's true or not as the figure doesn't come from Microsoft, and secondly, you are assuming that MS could cut costs more than Sony for no really valid reason.
These threads are as bad as the "MS banned a trillion people!!" ones.
You are making more assumptions than I am. Items depreciate very quickly in the computer hardware business. That is a fact and not an opinion. Neither Sony nor Microsoft came out and said that the numbers in John's link are false, so why think otherwise?
Your argument is solely based on your perception that the prices of the Arcade and Elite are too cheap in order for Microsoft to make a profit.
|
|
dt5500
Junior Member
|
25. November 2009 @ 04:24 |
Link to this message
|
There are a lot of references to percentages on this page. Now although percentages are a good way to illustrate differences and changes in value of products they are relative. Not sure what the pricing is like in the US, but in the UK the PS3 (whether it be original or slim) has a much higher retail value than that of any of the 360 models. Which makes using percentages to compare items, and thus the reduction of thier costs quite irrelevant.
For example;
if the PS3 originally was £300 and is now £250 (bearing in mind i am using hypothetical figures) then the reduction in value is £50, and is therefor a 17% reduction.
However if the 360 was £200 and is now £150, again a £50 decrease in value, this is actually a 25% reduction.
Both have reduced by £50 but the percentages are different.
I just felt that needed to be pointed out.
|
Senior Member
|
25. November 2009 @ 07:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Aiur:
Originally posted by funksoulb:
You're not really getting this are you mate? Firstly, you are saying things like "MS cut costs by 40% in one year alone" when you have no idea if that's true or not as the figure doesn't come from Microsoft, and secondly, you are assuming that MS could cut costs more than Sony for no really valid reason.
These threads are as bad as the "MS banned a trillion people!!" ones.
You are making more assumptions than I am. Items depreciate very quickly in the computer hardware business. That is a fact and not an opinion. Neither Sony nor Microsoft came out and said that the numbers in John's link are false, so why think otherwise?
Your argument is solely based on your perception that the prices of the Arcade and Elite are too cheap in order for Microsoft to make a profit.
LOL. Are you serious? So if Sony and/or MS don't out and out deny something, then it must be true? Hilarious. It's almost like "religious logic". "It's true unless you can prove it false!!!".
What assumptions am I making? I said originally that in an interview last year, someone from MS said that the hardware is not profitable, but they are making inroads into making it so. I've been trying to find a link to the interview, but I can't find it. It was discussed on Ars Technica.
|
|
d2michael
Junior Member
|
25. November 2009 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
Microsoft is a BIG company, I don't know if you can trace all of this back to the bannings (Windows 7, execs or the company buying stock, etc). There are a variety of factors for a stock going up and down. There's also the huge success of MW2 to account for, and how the success for the game also drives xbox sales.
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. November 2009 @ 08:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
strewth.. a new OS forced down everybodys throats after 2 years of a disaster.. the general public have no damn choice what they can buy in a shop.... a console which is doing well retail with moron money waster season fast approaching.. Of course the stock has gone up a little. It will go back to normal when the fantasy world of the stock markets realise it's all business as usual and we are still in a depression.
All that has happened right now is some huge pension fund has moved a massive block of stock from one place to another bumping the price for a short while. Look for a couple of the other top100 companies whose prices topped out and then fell a little at or just before M$ stock rose.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Aiur
Member
|
25. November 2009 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by funksoulb:
LOL. Are you serious? So if Sony and/or MS don't out and out deny something, then it must be true? Hilarious. It's almost like "religious logic". "It's true unless you can prove it false!!!".
What assumptions am I making? I said originally that in an interview last year, someone from MS said that the hardware is not profitable, but they are making inroads into making it so. I've been trying to find a link to the interview, but I can't find it. It was discussed on Ars Technica.
The manufacturing cost of the console to me is sensitive information, so if it wasn't true I would expect the company to come out and say that it's false.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/28/so-how...-per-360-sold/. Allow me to highlight the key point from this article, written almost 3 years ago.
Quote:
This means when Microsoft gets a major revision of the chipset at the 65 nm process node it could possibly break even on console after a reduction of the retail price. Not only would the cost of the silicon go down considerably but also the reduction in power draw and cooling needs would allow for cost reductions in those components as well. (Whether they'd choose to produce a smaller version of the 360 is another issue. They might save that for 45 or 32 nm.)
|
