The Media Does Not Properly Report Microsoft Profits and Losses (It's Partly Intentional)
The book-cooking by Microsoft isn't a new problem. They swap buckets, create new buckets, or reallocate reporting units to make it seem like there is always growth, even when there's none (or degrowth). Sometimes they reclassify and rebrand in order to meet goals tied to some buzzwords, e.g. Clown Computing (ever wonder why they claim fantastic growth for "Azure" while laying off a ton of people in Azure every few months since 2020?).
This morning I attempted to find accurate information about operating systems in Microsoft's ledger or bean-counting (accounting) or whatever. It's very hard to find information about "devices" or "client" or "Windows" or "Surface" sales (they keep reclassifying or merging those things, like they fused together "XBox" and "Activision" so as to claim 'huge growth'... in reality XBox was steadily falling, as shown in every metric).
A reader has put forth the hypothesis that the LLM craze is leading to a shortage of nVidia chips in laptops and that would in turn lead to better GNU/Linux support as the OEMs turn to AMD and Intel for graphics hardware. Is there any way to test that?
I cannot say much about nVidia because I always avoid their products, but it's clear that nVidia is the main victor/gainer of the current hype. That's why it "invested" in 'Open'AI - hoping to delay or stall its inevitable collapse (now it's bailouts in exchange for a presidential bribe).
When it comes to laptops, Microsoft clearly has a problem because technical media has reported that "HEY HI PCs" were a giant failure. Intel barely wants to comment (to the media) on just how much of a failure those were... or what the real (rather than perceived) advantages would be. Anything behind the hype? Nope, nothing. No comment.
So how many Vista 11 (preloaded) copies were sold with new PCs? Judging by data from statCounter, not much, not many... Microsoft-connected media dodges the question. "It does seem that they are moving line items over to the 'ai' category," an associate said (maybe also "HEY HI PCs"), "but there is not proof of which budgets those are coming from."
Other Microsoft apologists talk about revenue, but some of it is circular, which means a kind of a fraud. Microsoft pays 'Open'AI, which in turn pays Microsoft. 'Open'AI is run by a known scammer, Scam Altman, now sued by his own sister for sexual abuse. Why does anybody trust what 'Open'AI has to say about anything? The company is an epic failure and it's run by a disgusting person who boosts Donald Trump. Scam Altman isn't a genius; it's all perception management, which one can buy in today's publishers.
As an associate said today, "revenue is not the same as profit, it is entirely possible for revenue to be up while the company as a whole turns an overall loss" (which is what happens at 'Open'AI and in many parts of Microsoft).
Looking at some very shallow coverage, the people at The Register played along with the carnival of buzzwords. Microsoft's media mole (Jordan Novet) - a Microsoft propagandist for well over a decade already - talked about the shares, not the losses. The Bill Gates fan club went with the "AI" lunacy too. Why not ask real questions? Why not check the reality and instead parrot Wall Street and Microsoft officials?
What are those things anyway? What does Microsoft call "AI" and why? Are PCs also "AI" now?
The SEC's database "fails to work in a normal browser," an associate said about the official page, further citing obfuscated figures.
So basically almost all the media repeated talking points from Microsoft with zero scrutiny. That's bad. This article speaks of "Profit Decline At Microsoft", but it focuses on just one area. Other reports parroted the "funny money" narrative, wherein Microsoft is "worth" more than 321 billion dollars and lost this much in "value" in one day. Did it occur to the authors that Microsoft isn't actually worth trillions and is having serious problems, as two waves of layoffs in January alone served to show? β
"Microsoft, the worldβs most valuable company, declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, according to Smithers."