You're right. Add in $10M for marketing, $60M for Bill's house, another
$10-20M for political bribe^H^H^H^H^H campaign donations, another $100M
to build Microsoft Campus, and we haven't even made it to the 20% mark.
George
Carl Parrish wrote:
>
> George,
> Not that I really know (or even care) one way or the other on this just
> wanted to remind you not to forget to add marketing (do you remember the
> Win95 rollout?), testing (uhh.....), maintance and other misc cost. I
> mean it has to cost *something* to ship a lawyer on a plane to threaten
> to blow a company our of existence for daring to compete with them,
> right???? Anyways my point is if even just half of the cost for M$
> products went into their development I think it would have a *much*
> better product than it has now.
>
> Carl P.
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 20:24, George Toft wrote:
> > Hi Doc,
> >
> > Do you have a reference for this claim? Here's my math:
> > Number of copies of Windows sold by Microsoft by 1999: 200 million
> > Average licensing cost disclosed during Anti-Trust trial: $50 (about)
> > Total revenue: $1 Billion.
> >
> > I really don't think MS paid that much for their OS development.
> > Windows 95 was built by 100 people (based on an Easter Egg embedded
> > in Windows). Let's say they averaged $60K per year, and it took 3
> > years to build: $60K * 100 * 3 = $18,000K. So it cost about
> > $30Million (had to adjust for overhead, SS taxes, benefits, etc).
> >
> > Here's a link from MS that shows they sold 1 million copies
> > of Win2K Server (which they get about $750 each):
> > http://www.microsoft.com/nz/presscentre/articles/2000/Mar15-03-OneMillionPR.stm
> > So that means they made almost $1 billion in about 1 month time,
> > on just Win2K Server.
> >
> > Somehow, I'm not convinced they are selling it at a loss. Surely
> > it is not a profitable as the Server series, but it is still
> > profitable.
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dr. Ghastly" wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, thier OS software sales sells at a loss. They make money on thier
> > > Office and other software, such as MSSQL 2000
> > >
> > > So selling thier OS at a substantially lower price would just hurt them
> > > more, and is still an anti-trust violation stemming back fromt he days of
> > > Rockefeller selling at a loss (on purpose) to drive other companies out of
> > > busniess.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Lee Einer" <appealsman@cox.net>
> > > To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Steve Ballmer's bogus threat
> > >
> > > > Hi, Kim-
> > > >
> > > > They (MS, the Tyrants of Redmond,
> > > > etc) could attempt such a thing,
> > > > but I think that if they tried it,
> > > > even under the present
> > > > business-friendly administration,
> > > > the Department of Justice would
> > > > hand MS their own procreative parts
> > > > on a hotdog bun (please God, let me
> > > > live to see it...)
> > > >
> > > > I think there is also a limited
> > > > extent to which a business can ask
> > > > it's customers to waive their legal
> > > > rights- subscription or no, such
> > > > things are subject to judicial
> > > > review, tests of reasonableness,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, give it six months or a
> > > > year, and see. Even if Microsoft
> > > > takes it on the chin in this
> > > > anti-trust suit, they will still be
> > > > selling the Windows OS, under any
> > > > conditions they have to abide by,
> > > > because it's the closest thing they
> > > > have to a stranglehold on the
> > > > software market. They certainly
> > > > can't make ends meet by selling
> > > > their Office suite or their
> > > > browser...
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, anyway. Time will tell :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lee Einer
> > > >
> > > > http://members.cox.net/appealsman/
> > > > ________________________________________________
> > > > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> > > post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > > >
> > > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> > > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > >
> > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)