60 million Win 7 copies sold!!!

[deadrats]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-revenue-windows-7-sales,9544.html

Microsoft this week announced its second-quarter results, which must have the company fairly happy as it hit record revenue at $19.02 billion for the second quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009, a 14 percent increase from the same period of the prior year.

Through the second quarter, Microsoft said it sold over 60 million Windows 7 licenses, giving it the claim of being the fastest selling operating system
in history.

just mind blowing!!! over 19 billion dollars in 3 months?!? 60 million copies of Win 7 sold?!? why?!?

i wish there was some way to find out how many people that bought Win 7 had also bought Vista and how many of either will be picking up Win 8 in July of 2011:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-8-RTM-Release-Date,9527.html

i could understand if each Win 7 license was about $10 and they managed to sell a couple of million copies world wide, but 60 million copies at hundreds of dollars per copy, already?

WOW, just WOW.

[ocgw]

wow?

I nor anyone I know is even the slightest bit surprised

hell anyone not in coma for the last 6 months should not be surprised

I'll bet none of the "programmers" were surprised

ocgw

peace

[JohnnyMalaria]

Hmmm, I wonder...

[MJA]

3 days before win7 beta starts to lose some of it's functions

[redwudz]

W7 is also bundled with most any newer computer, so not all of those sales are 'voluntary'. I like W7, but I see no reason at present to replace all my Vista installs with it.

[deadrats]

I nor anyone I know is even the slightest bit surprised

hell anyone not in coma for the last 6 months should not be surprised

I'll bet none of the "programmers" were surprised

really? and exactly what indisputable data did you have prior to Win 7 achieving this sales volume to suggest that it would sell this well?

considering you have acknowledged that Win 7 is basically service pack 3 for Vista and considering Vista has been lambasted by almost everyone, the most logical expectation would have been to assume that people, after being burned by their Vista purchases, would shun Win 7, yet the opposite seems true.

i have a serious question for you, if you had not received your copy of Win 7 Ultimate for free, would you really have paid full price for it?

[deadrats]

W7 is also bundled with most any newer computer, so not all of those sales are 'voluntary'. I like W7, but I see no reason at present to replace all my Vista installs with it.

exactly, and let's be honest with ourselves, if you don't have any need for DX10/11, is there any reason to "upgrade" your XP installs with Vista or Win 7? and furthermore, considering the revelations of Win 8's release date, does it make any sense spending hundreds of dollars on a "new" OS that will be purposely rendered obsolete in a little over a years time?

[usually_quiet]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Most individuals will need a new OS license for an entirely new computer, even if they build it themselves, because of OEM licensing. Buying a full retail license for an OS only makes sense for those who upgrade frequently and sell their old system in pieces. Unless there's a compelling reason to buy an older OS again for an entirely new system (as was the case with XP and Vista), most will buy the newer OS.

[johns0]

W7 is also bundled with most any newer computer, so not all of those sales are 'voluntary'. I like W7, but I see no reason at present to replace all my Vista installs with it.

I had to replace my vista 64 with win 7 64 so i could learn more about it for service calls.

[edDV]

Doesn't that number include upgrades? I bought 3x at $50 ea.
This first wave of Win7 is mostly consumers. The enterprise market will hit later this year. They are way behind on upgrades.

Maybe MSFT will finally break $31 per share this year (was >$100 in the good old days) but larger gains will go to HP and Dell as hardware is upgraded at the same time.

The kill mode on Win7 beta will drive some more consumer upgrades.

[deadrats]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Most individuals will need a new OS license for an entirely new computer, even if they build it themselves, because of OEM licensing. Buying a full retail license for an OS only makes sense for those who upgrade frequently and sell their old system in pieces. Unless there's a compelling reason to buy an older OS again for an entirely new system (as was the case with XP and Vista), most will buy the newer OS.

that doesn't make any sense at all, if you build a new computer why would you have to buy a new OS license at all, why not just reuse the "old" windows OS you had?

i also don't understand how microsoft could have that many sales when you factor piracy into the equation; i remember microsoft, not too many years ago, releasing a study that claimed that over 90% of all windows installs where warez, in fact i remember the proof they provided to back up their claim was that the total number of xp machines that had downloaded sp1 exceeded to total number of copies of xp they had actually sold, which gave me quite a good chuckle.

considering that i can go to any number of torrent sites and download fully activated copies of Vista and Win 7 (one torrent literally had thousands of seeders and thousands more leechers), when you factor the current state of the world economy, it really begs the question as to who the hell is actually buying this OS.

[edDV]

I seems MS avoided that problem by offering the free beta, then offering upgrades(even from XP) for $49.95 and then hardening the authentication before the business wave.

[Constant Gardener]

Of those 60 million, three copies are in this house - two are student freebies and the third a $10 promo. I have to conclude that Win7 is a bargain.

[usually_quiet]

that doesn't make any sense at all, if you build a new computer why would you have to buy a new OS license at all, why not just reuse the "old" windows OS you had?

i also don't understand how microsoft could have that many sales when you factor piracy into the equation; i remember microsoft, not too many years ago, releasing a study that claimed that over 90% of all windows installs where warez, in fact i remember the proof they provided to back up their claim was that the total number of xp machines that had downloaded sp1 exceeded to total number of copies of xp they had actually sold, which gave me quite a good chuckle.

considering that i can go to any number of torrent sites and download fully activated copies of Vista and Win 7 (one torrent literally had thousands of seeders and thousands more leechers), when you factor the current state of the world economy, it really begs the question as to who the hell is actually buying this OS.

Though it appears that having a valid license may not matter to some, it is important to me and apparently plenty of others.

In my case, the Windows XP software that I already had was an OEM version from Dell with no service packs, and what you are suggesting would not be practical or honest.

An OEM license for my new system cost half as much as a full retail license. I plan to keep my new system for a long time without upgrading the motherboard, and if I sell it or give it away, the OS will go with it. Given the circumstances, buying an OEM license made sense for it as well.

[deadrats]

Of those 60 million, three copies are in this house - two are student freebies and the third a $10 promo. I have to conclude that Win7 is a bargain.

be that as it may, 3 copies for a total of $10 does not account for 60 million copies sold nor 19+ billion in profits in a 3 month period, even if microsoft received $100 for each of those 60 million copies that still only equals 6 billion dollars over the length of the time that Win 7 has been for sale.

[deadrats]

Though it appears that having a valid license may not matter to some, it is important to me and apparently plenty of others.

In my case, the Windows XP software that I already had was an OEM version from Dell with no service packs, and what you are suggesting would not be practical or honest.

honesty? where's the honesty in microsoft forcing OEM's to bundle their latest and greatest regardless of whether or not the customer wants or needs an OS installed? where's the honesty in selling the full editions of each new microsoft OS for upwards of $200, $300 in some cases to retail consumers in the u.s. but selling "student" versions (which are functionally equivalent, byte for byte) for $30 and selling the same full retail versions in countries like china for as little as $10? this is especially outrageous when you consider each copy of windows only costs microsoft about $1 when you factor in the distribution media, packaging and delivery costs.

i remember microsoft claimed that Vista cost them about 100 million in development costs, a figure that is very hard to believe when you consider that the primary development costs are made up of salaries for the programmers and project managers, but let's assume that the figure is accurate, between Vista and Win 7 sales that 100 million dollar investment returned 10's of billions of dollars in profit, which means that for every dollar of expenditure microsoft realized about $200 profit, that's called price gouging.

and lastly, where's the honesty in microsoft trying to force an OS on user that they didn't want or need (Vista), charging through the nose for it, then about a year or so later charging through the nose again for what everyone agrees is basically a service pack, just so less than 18 months later they can fleece their user base again with a new OS in Win 8.

i'm sorry, but i find it very hard to feel sorry for microsoft if they are "victimized" by anyone's "dishonesty".

[ocgw]

really? and exactly what indisputable data did you have prior to Win 7 achieving this sales volume to suggest that it would sell this well?

considering you have acknowledged that Win 7 is basically service pack 3 for Vista and considering Vista has been lambasted by almost everyone, the most logical expectation would have been to assume that people, after being burned by their Vista purchases, would shun Win 7, yet the opposite seems true.

i have a serious question for you, if you had not received your copy of Win 7 Ultimate for free, would you really have paid full price for it?

1. real world experience (something you seem to be lacking) told me Win 7 would sell like hotcakes, Vista SP3
or not, Win 7 is a really nice piece of software

2. I never bought into vista for personal use and I upgraded my entire network over to Win 7 build 7100, after the trial period ran out for the beta I had planned on migrating my entire network over to Win 7 Home Premium and I would have paid the lowest price I could to get legitimate copies

3. I recommend Win 7 for all my HTPC customers for

a. Ease of installation (good for me)
b. Media Center 7 (good for integrating w/ PDVD and MyMovies

btw MS has no way of knowing how many xp machines sp1 was downloaded to, only how many times sp1 has been downloaded, so they can only estimate, I personally downloaded sp1 dozens of times over the years for my own PC (occasional fresh installs) before I bought a 2nd copy w/ sp3

ps you attitude toward paying for software is more reminiscent of a college kids attitiude than that of a highly paid IT professional imho

ocgw

peace

[usually_quiet]

honesty? where's the honesty in microsoft forcing OEM's to bundle their latest and greatest regardless of whether or not the customer wants or needs an OS installed? where's the honesty in selling the full editions of each new microsoft OS for upwards of $200, $300 in some cases to retail consumers in the u.s. but selling "student" versions (which are functionally equivalent, byte for byte) for $30 and selling the same full retail versions in countries like china for as little as $10? this is especially outrageous when you consider each copy of windows only costs microsoft about $1 when you factor in the distribution media, packaging and delivery costs.

i remember microsoft claimed that Vista cost them about 100 million in development costs, a figure that is very hard to believe when you consider that the primary development costs are made up of salaries for the programmers and project managers, but let's assume that the figure is accurate, between Vista and Win 7 sales that 100 million dollar investment returned 10's of billions of dollars in profit, which means that for every dollar of expenditure microsoft realized about $200 profit, that's called price gouging.

and lastly, where's the honesty in microsoft trying to force an OS on user that they didn't want or need (Vista), charging through the nose for it, then about a year or so later charging through the nose again for what everyone agrees is basically a service pack, just so less than 18 months later they can fleece their user base again with a new OS in Win 8.

i'm sorry, but i find it very hard to feel sorry for microsoft if they are "victimized" by anyone's "dishonesty".

I was speaking about my own honesty, not Microsoft's. I agreed to the terms of the license, and either my word is good or it isn't. ...and as far as I am concerned Microsoft kept up their end. I have received bug fixes to Windows XP for 8 years now, at no additional cost. I can't say that about any other piece of software I paid for, and some of it cost more than my Windows XP license.

What Microsoft does with pricing isn't unusual. Look at pharmaceuticals. Get over it.

[deadrats]

btw MS has no way of knowing how many xp machines sp1 was downloaded to, only how many times sp1 has been downloaded, so they can only estimate, I personally downloaded sp1 dozens of times over the years for my own PC (occasional fresh installs) before I bought a 2nd copy w/ sp3

not true, if you recall they scan the pc that is connected to windows update to see what updates are missing so that they can make a recommendation, when they are scanning it they also scan for a unique identifying digital signature, kind of like the way product activation works, it's very easy to calculate a unique string to identify each unique computer that connects for an update.

ps you attitude toward paying for software is more reminiscent of a college kids attitude than that of a highly paid IT professional imho

my "attitude" towards paying for software is a product of having majored in comp sci and realizing that once you have coded an app there is very little additional work involved in making numerous copies of said app, as such it is a complete rip off to charge for any piece of software as if each copy takes the same amount of effort and expenditure to make.

my "attitude" towards paying for software is further shaped by the realization that a) business in general, regardless of industry, doesn't give one flying f*ck about it's customers, we are just cash cows to be milked dry and discarded when we have nothing left to give and b) that the economy is a zero sum game, basically the only way for microsoft to win is if it's customers lose, the only way for microsoft to make 19+ billion in profit within a 3 month stretch is if it's customers lose 19 billion in a 3 month stretch, when you consider the state of the world economies, i personally find it hard to support their success.

but make no mistake, i have the same feelings about most industries, big oil, utilities, the music and movie industry, major sports leagues, they all suck, their billions in profits that reside in the hands of a few are at the expense of the many, it's all in the book i'm writing, a book on economics and how various economic principles correspond to various religious/philosophical principles, a book that will most likely never be published.

and for the record, i never claimed to be a "highly paid IT professional", i'm an out of work exterminator, an exterminator whose eyes have been opened over the past 3 years and has come to see the economy for what it is.

[deadrats]

I was speaking about my own honesty, not Microsoft's. I agreed to the terms of the license, and either my word is good or it isn't. ...and as far as I am concerned Microsoft kept up their end. I have received bug fixes to Windows XP for 8 years now, at no additional cost. I can't say that about any other piece of software I paid for, and some of it cost more than my Windows XP license.

What Microsoft does with pricing isn't unusual. Look at pharmaceuticals. Get over it.

re: pharmaceuticals - simply because there are other companies out their that also f*ck their customers doesn't mean we should excuse one that perhaps f*cks them a bit less. that's like trying to justify a murder by saying "Look at Manson. get over it."

[ocgw]

not true, if you recall they scan the pc that is connected to windows update to see what updates are missing so that they can make a recommendation, when they are scanning it they also scan for a unique identifying digital signature, kind of like the way product activation works, it's very easy to calculate a unique string to identify each unique computer that connects for an update.



my "attitude" towards paying for software is a product of having majored in comp sci and realizing that once you have coded an app there is very little additional work involved in making numerous copies of said app, as such it is a complete rip off to charge for any piece of software as if each copy takes the same amount of effort and expenditure to make.

my "attitude" towards paying for software is further shaped by the realization that a) business in general, regardless of industry, doesn't give one flying f*ck about it's customers, we are just cash cows to be milked dry and discarded when we have nothing left to give and b) that the economy is a zero sum game, basically the only way for microsoft to win is if it's customers lose, the only way for microsoft to make 19+ billion in profit within a 3 month stretch is if it's customers lose 19 billion in a 3 month stretch, when you consider the state of the world economies, i personally find it hard to support their success.

but make no mistake, i have the same feelings about most industries, big oil, utilities, the music and movie industry, major sports leagues, they all suck, their billions in profits that reside in the hands of a few are at the expense of the many, it's all in the book i'm writing, a book on economics and how various economic principles correspond to various religious/philosophical principles, a book that will most likely never be published.

and for the record, i never claimed to be a "highly paid IT professional", i'm an out of work exterminator, an exterminator whose eyes have been opened over the past 3 years and has come to see the economy for what it is.

Do you really think MS is actually individually identifying, tracking and keeping a database on every PC that connects for updates?

omg you are freakin' insane lol

If MS actually did all that bs you just made up you PC would register as a different PC every time you made a hardware change Einstein

ocgw

peace

[AlanHK]

i could understand if each Win 7 license was about $10 and they managed to sell a couple of million copies world wide, but 60 million copies at hundreds of dollars per copy, already?

WOW, just WOW.

That doesn't mention how many copies of Office were sold, which earns a lot more money for MS than Windows.

Anyway, the number of end users who buy retail is trivial. Most "sales" are to OEMs who install them on new PCs, and these cost much less than a retail copy, not "hundreds of dollars".

Also, MS is no doubt exaggerating this figure as much as possible, shifting sales from other periods, etc, etc. So drawing any conclusions from this would be foolish. Microsoft ALWAYS makes announcements like this after launching a new product "MSDOS X is the fastest selling operating system of all time...

So no "Wow"s from me.

[AlanHK]

considering that i can go to any number of torrent sites and download fully activated copies of Vista and Win 7 (one torrent literally had thousands of seeders and thousands more leechers), when you factor the current state of the world economy, it really begs the question as to who the hell is actually buying this OS.

It's almost impossible to buy a new PC that doesn't come with Windows. Home users hardly ever upgrade their OS, many never even install patches. So it really doesn't matter to MS if it's available free to download.

Also no one using a PC for business is going to download a torrent to install warez. (Well, hardly any.) The cost to buy is trivial compared to the cost of support.

[ocgw]

It's almost impossible to buy a new PC that doesn't come with Windows. Home users hardly ever upgrade their OS, many never even install patches. So it really doesn't matter to MS if it's available free to download.

Also no one using a PC for business is going to download a torrent to install warez. (Well, hardly any.) The cost to buy is trivial compared to the cost of support.

true, true, now the ppl that buy 1 copy of windows and use it over and over again to upgrade other ppl's PC's is probably the biggest way MS is losing revenue in the home PC market

imho

ocgw

peace

[JohnnyMalaria]

the only way for microsoft to make 19+ billion in profit within a 3 month stretch is if it's customers lose 19 billion in a 3 month stretch, when you consider the state of the world economies, i personally find it hard to support their success.

Make your mind up - is it $19bn+ revenue or profit?

it's all in the book i'm writing, a book on economics and how various economic principles correspond to various religious/philosophical principles, a book that will most likely never be published.

Rightly so if you don't understand the fundamental difference between profit and revenue.

re: pharmaceuticals - simply because there are other companies out their that also f*ck their customers doesn't mean we should excuse one that perhaps f*cks them a bit less

With 17 years of pharmaceutical product development experience I can state with absolute authority that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll grant you one thing - you are consistent.

[Reelman472]

Deadrats

if its any consolation for ya Bill & his wife just gave 10 billion back to the people.

Reelman

[deadrats]

Do you really think MS is actually individually identifying, tracking and keeping a database on every PC that connects for updates?

omg you are freakin' insane lol

If MS actually did all that bs you just made up you PC would register as a different PC every time you made a hardware change Einstein

of course they do, that's how activation works, i'm surprised that an "IT professional" such as yourself doesn't know this </sarcasm>.

and microsoft admitted that they identify, track and database each unique pc that connects for updates, how do you think they keep track of piracy rates?

how do you think they knew that there were more windows installs than there were copies sold? hell, i can't remember if it was balmer or gates who once said something to the effect of: "we know that people are pirating software, if they have to pirate someone's software we'd rather that it be ours".

and the pc does register as a different pc if you change enough hardware, for instance changing a motherboard and a graphics card will most likely require you to reactivate windows, judging by the computer knowledge level you have repeatedly displayed i'm not all that surprised that you were unaware of this.

[newpath]

For the love of God!! Videohelp.com, kill the "Other" subforum.

[handyguy]

'Sold' is a misnomer, most of it was given away.

[deadrats]

Make your mind up - is it $19bn+ revenue or profit?

you're right, i misspoke, it's 19+ billion in revenue and 6.66 billion in net income, i.e. profit, still a hell of a lot of dough in a 3 month period.

Rightly so if you don't understand the fundamental difference between profit and revenue.

i owned and operated a pest control business for 5 years and in college my electives were in micro and macro economics and business, i would say i have a decent grasp of the basics.

With 17 years of pharmaceutical product development experience I can state with absolute authority that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

which is it, are you a windows "programmer" or in pharmaceutical development, make up your mind.

also, when you see numerous commercials for "medicines" that are supposed to cure or alleviate relatively minor conditions but the "medicines" have a laundry list of side effects yet the pharmaceutical companies still market them, i would say my assessment of the industry as a whole is pretty spot on.

or how they try to get doctors to prescribe the expensive name brand variants instead of the cheaper generics that are just as effective, i'd say the industry as a whole is a bunch of scum bags.