Stacking Vista Licenses Too High
 Joe Wilcox
Microsoft's claim of 20 million Vista licenses sold simply doesn't add up when trying to assess who realistically bought them in the time frame—"in the opening month"—stated in today's press release. |
Further, the press release claims that "Windows Vista made a splash in its debut."
What kind of Kool-Aid are they drinking up there in Redmond? Who spiked the Windows Vista-logo soda cans?
"Clearly there haven't been 20 million PCs sold worldwide since Jan. 30, and we're really only talking about February," said Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis.
License sales are good public relations fodder, but they're real world merits stop there. By every reasonable measure—PCs and retail boxed sales—Microsoft's numbers don't add up with the 20 million figure in one month.
The company used the 20 million in-one-month figure compared to 17 million Windows XP licenses in two-and-a-half months to bolster its Vista gangbusters sales claim.
Just like vulnerability alerts aren't a good measure of Vista security, number of licenses sold is no way to reckon the operating system's sales success.
The number's meaning collapses for three simple reasons:
- Microsoft's sales period for the license sales is significantly longer than 30 days—more like four months.
- License sales into the channel do not correspond to actual Vista PC sales out of the channel.
- The numbers don't match up with real world PC sales volumes.
By my accounting, Vista is actually off to a slower start than Windows XP, using real world comparisons.
The numbers reflect more than first month sales. Contrary to Microsoft's boasting, the real sales period for Vista sales is actually longer than Windows XP. Windows XP PCs purchased from Oct. 26, 2006 to March 15, 2007 were eligible for a free or substantially low-cost Vista upgrade. Microsoft includes these upgrades in the 20 million figure. People buying PCs during the holidays had some expectation of a Vista upgrade.
Since Microsoft set up a Windows XP comparison, the door is open for another. Microsoft launched Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001, or about five years to the day before Vista "Express Upgrade" program. Microsoft issued its first XP sales blow out press release on Nov. 11, 2001, touting 7 million licenses sold in the first two weeks of availability. That worked out to "200 percent higher than sales of Windows 98 in the first month of its availability," according to the press release.
Microsoft issued the 17 million sold PR on Jan. 7, 2001, about two-and-half months after XP's official launch.
The October dates are fair comparisons. Windows XP was available for holiday sales from Oct. 25, 2001. From Oct. 26, 2006, holiday PC buyers were assured of free or super low-cost Vista upgrades.
By that reckoning—if number of licenses is to be the measure of success—Vista is off to a substantially slower start than Windows XP. Microsoft made its 20 million license claim almost two months after the 17 million XP announcement, in a comparable time frame. The XP announcement came about two-an-a-half months from launch date, while Vista's sales assessment is about a four-month period.
Microsoft deferred $1.1 billion from its fiscal second quarter to third quarter on account of the licenses sold through the Express Upgrade program.
A license sold isn't a license a sold. Microsoft counts licenses sold to OEMs in the 20 million number, but the number of actual Vista PCs sold is likely much lower.
Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies, described the licenses as "sales in" to the channel that don't necessarily reflect actual purchase and use by consumers. Stock sitting on store shelves, whether in boxes or on PCs, accounts for a fair number of those licenses.
The number could be significantly higher than normal. Except for some direct sales, "almost no one was building Windows XP PCs after Dec. 15," Baker said. PC manufacturers and retailers made a concerted effort to clear out Windows XP stock and replenish it with Windows Vista. The phenomenon created a vacuum for Windows Vista licenses to fill.
"In the short term, sales in—even if replenishment is better than stuffing—is a poor proxy for sales out," Kay said.
The phenomenon would tend to skew higher the number of Vista licenses going into the channel, but not necessarily correspond to an increase in PCs coming out of the channel.
Related is a debatable sales in/sales out interpretation of Microsoft's XP-Vista comparisons. A few years back, Microsoft changed its accounting to recognize license sales going into the channel rather than coming out. That would suggest the XP numbers represent sales moving out of the channel, while Vista license numbers would be going in.
A Microsoft PR spokesperson confirmed that the Vista numbers are for sales in, as Kay stated. But she asserted the XP numbers are also sales in. However, that's not at all how the press release reads: "17 million licenses of Windows XP were sold by computer manufacturers on new personal computers."
I asked Paul DeGroot, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, and he had similar recollection about the sales-in change. If the XP number is in fact sales out, the Vista comparison collapses, because the 17 million number wouldn't represent unsold licenses. The faulty comparison, if indeed flawed, would be another indicator that Vista is off to a weak start.
Analyst PC sales figures don't jive with Microsoft license numbers. Microsoft's 20 million figure only makes sense when factoring in the longer time period—from Oct. 26 rather than Jan. 30—and the sales-in/sales-out situation.
Since the beginning of the year, Baker estimated only 3 million PCs have been sold in the United States.
"It's hard to see where you get to that [20 million] number in the first month of sales," he said. Similarly, Vista retail box sales are modest, at best.
Gartner and IDC forecasts show no significant uptake in PC sales because of Vista. Considering that 80 percent of Windows client revenue comes from OEM sales, the PC will be the major channel for Windows Vista.
In November, Kay predicted that OEMs would ship 21 million Vista licenses during first half 2007. Kay has no plans to revise his estimates, which indicates something about what he thinks Microsoft's 20 million number really means.
Kay estimates that, conservatively, worldwide, 17 million consumer or very small business PCs were eligible for free or discounted Vista upgrades during fourth quarter 2006.
The Express Upgrade program "would bump the numbers up quite a bit, because Microsoft would be realizing those licenses during the first month of Vista sales," DeGroot said.
Similarly, the channel fill of Vista licenses to replace XP stock and Microsoft's sales-in reckoning would account for much of the remaining number. But all the analysts said there is no indication that Vista license sales in is leading to a corresponding increase of PC sales going out of the channel.
"With all the channel issues and overlapping with tech guarantees, it'll take a longer period to establish just how successful Vista actually is," Kay said.
Even if Microsoft could somehow justify the 20 million number, DeGroot would dismiss its significance as a measure of Vista's success.
"It's kind of meaningless to say they sold a lot more," he asserted. "The run rate for PCs in 2001 was 120 million." The run rate is 220 million now, he said.
By the measure of run rate, "One could argue [Microsoft] sold more XP in 2006 than 2002," DeGroot said. "It would look like XP is on this incredible sales curve as well."
Related Posts:
- Vista Launch Sales Falter at Retail, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 15, 2007
- Channel Cleaned House for Vista, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 9, 2007
- Who's Buying Which Vista?, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 3, 2007
- The Ultimate Question Answered, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 30, 2007
- Microsoft's Ultimate Disadvantage, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 28, 2007
- Early Vista Sales Don't Tell the Whole Story, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 12, 2007
- Yet Another View of Vista Adoption, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 28, 2006
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.
Comments (226)
Joe Wilcox
You are so ANTI microsoft it is not funny !!!
When you are presented with facts that YOU do not agree with they are "WRONG" !
And yet when someone from NPD "says" something that matches what you "think" they are RIGHT !!!
How about you get off the "ANTI MICROSOFT" band wagon and actually be "Microsoft Watch" hey ??
It seems to me that you will ask anyone their "opinion" on FACTS, and take more notice of that instead !!
I you cannot be "objective" on this site, why did you start here in the first place ??
It is widely known that you have a bias against Microsoft, so is this how you wanted to get at them by being editor of "Microsoft Watch" so you can rubbish Microsoft whenever you feel like it !
When micorsoft requires to be rubbished fine...but you will not let go of Windows Vista at all. Article after article, you are pandering to your own bias and to others.
This De Groot guy that you kept quoting ... he had no information on Vista .... it was only "He said" all the time.
Hard facts are one thing ... opinions based on nothing at all are another, give it up Joe, and stop this constant rubbishing of Windows Vista.
Posted by Neil | March 26, 2007 7:32 PM
Mr Joe Wilcox, I'm sorry but I have to agree with what the previous comment said about this site.
It's one thing to criticize Microsoft with constructive criticism and another one completely different to just bash and rant about Vista.
At the end of the day no constructive thoughts other than some negative thinking towards Microsoft and Windows Vista comes out of your blog.
And that's why I'm unsubscribing from your RSS feed.
Watching Microsoft is different than being it's Big Brother.
This site has become the latter.
Posted by Richard | March 26, 2007 7:50 PM
Can we really expect Microsoft to not include sales to OEM's, Distributors and channel partners in their total sales numbers? As business is all about buzz, 99.9% of companies would have done the exact same thing. Sure, Vista will take a service pack or two (and upgraded hardware) to really catch on, but once this takes place Windows XP will be Vista's Windows 98!
Posted by Spencer Ferguson | March 26, 2007 8:10 PM
Very BAD and USELESS post, totally filled with NEGATIVE feelings!!!
Posted by DD | March 26, 2007 8:59 PM
Dude Layoff
if u don't want to belive, don't. if we should not belive MSFT why should we belive u?
Posted by Biju | March 26, 2007 10:15 PM
Let's see, Microsoft provides facts and data to back their claims up -- your rant contains nothing but your negative feelings towards Microsoft. It's very sad, but eWeek has become nothing more than an anti-Microsoft rag led by people such as yourself who throw away facts for your made-up fiction.
Posted by Robert Stinnett | March 26, 2007 10:32 PM
Folks, I don't see what's so "biased" about this particular post. Recall that Microsoft stated publicly that Vista would provide an incredible sales boost to PC manufacturers, and that Vista would be the fastest selling OS in their history. Here's a quote from Ballmer, cited by the Seattle PI's Todd Bishop: "We think in the next three months we'll probably sell five times as many copies of Windows Vista as we ever did [Windows 95] in the equivalent period of time. ... We'll probably go double what we did with Windows XP. And while some of that is the increase in the size of the installed base, a lot of that is the enthusiasm that we've had a chance to see and feel during this beta period. ... [T]he opportunity that we see to drive the technology industry, to drive PC sales, to drive new value from the consumer market to the business market is huge."
(See http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/111773.asp?source=rss)
Sure enough, this press release appears to confirm that, indeed, Vista is flying off the shelves at 20m in the first month, double the rate of XP. But anybody who's spend time talking to enterprises (as I do), canvassing consumers or walking the floors of retail stores is probably going to scratch their heads a bit, as Joe has.
As an analyst, I expect that vendors will challenge me on my predictions; is turnabout somehow unfair play? As it happens, I think Joe is probably on to something.
Whenever you are measuring something over succeeding periods, you should always attempt to keep the methdology you use the same in each period. So, Joe's questions are perfectly proper: did Microsoft "stuff the channel" (the sales-in/sales-out question)? Did they count coupons granted prior to January 30? Are the numbers normalized to the size of the installed base? These aren't "biased" questions at all. In fact, they are designed to WEED OUT bias -- and I mean that in the statistical sense. They are all intended to ask an important question: is Microsoft, in effect, "cooking" the numbers to make them appear as if, indeed, they're meeting their own lofty expectations? If the way Microsoft counted Vista sales differed materially from the way they counted XPs, then it is indeed absolutely right to point that out. That is the very opposite of "bad reporting", it seems to me.
Looking at this a slightly different way: recall that Microsoft predicted that Vista would be on 400 million desktops in less than 2 years, contrasted against XP's track record of 210 million desktops in three years. (Go ahead and Google that if you want to... it's easy to document that claim.) Doing the math -- that equates to an *average* 16.7m licenses of Vista sold per month versus 5.8m for XP. Now, this doesn't account for "front-loading" at the beginning of the launch period, but even if it did, all you need to do is divide 16.7 by 5.8 and realize that anything less than 2.8x the sales rate of XP is probably going to cause MSFT to miss that 400m forecast. So, merely 2x the level of XP sales is a *disappointment* relative to expectations *Microsoft* set a year ago.
Nobody who reads these press releases should take them at face value. Of *course* Microsoff is going to present the best figures it can; that's marketing 101. But it's not the job of the press, or of analysts, to simply parrot press releases or echo what they've heard. Asking questions is what reporters do.
Neil et al -- what do you want? Happy news about Microsoft all the time? Glowing carbon copies of press releases? It seems those are the only things that will keep you happy -- and even then, you'd accuse Joe of faking it. Get a life!
Posted by Andrew Jaquith | March 26, 2007 10:35 PM
And that folks is how to gloss over things when the facts have been presented and the person writing the story (and like minded people) do not wish to pay attention to them.
The Yankee Group is one of the people that Joe Wilcox loves to quote from, so what do you expect when Joe Wilcox is criticized.... up comes Andrew Jacquith to the rescue, saying he doesn't see what so biased about this article.
I think he needs it transcribed into "brail" so that he can see.
And how does he finish his piece off simple "Get a life!" I would be happpier with my life I did not have to see people confronted with such biased statements as Joe Wilcox makes mate !
Posted by Neil | March 26, 2007 10:57 PM
Further
Try reading the heading Andrew !
"Stacking Vista Licenses Too High"
This says that microsoft is putting the figures higher than what they actually are.
Surely you know what "Stacking" means Andrew, because I am sure everyone else does !
If this article is not biased .... nothing is !!
Posted by Neil | March 26, 2007 11:07 PM
You're trying too hard to validate your funky "MSFT missed the corporate upgrade cycle" theory.
Your rambling post implies that Microsoft violates Sarbanes Oxley.
In any case, Microsoft's press release states:
"In the first month of Windows Vista's general availability, sales exceeded 20 million licenses, more than doubling the initial pace of sales for its predecessor, Windows XP."
The 20 million includes OEM sales, retail sales, upgrades and Vista Express Upgrades between January 30 and February 28. That is 30 days.
This number is inline with expected annual PC sales.
Here's a rough epectation for monthly Vista Sales in 2007.
# Month Sales
-----------------------
1. jan - 0
2. feb - 20,000,000
3. mar - 20,000,000
4. apr - 20,000,000
5. may - 15,000,000
6. jun - 10,000,000
7. jul - 10,000,000
8. aug - 20,000,000
9. sep - 20,000,000
10. oct - 30,000,000
11. nov - 40,000,000
12. dec - 50,000,000
-----------------------
total - 255,000,000
Posted by Gary Russo | March 26, 2007 11:30 PM
Heck, guys,
You're TOO emotional about this. Neil says Joe is biased, Yankee is biased, ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS ARE BIASED.
What about AP? Gartner. The AP Vista story stabs the dagger in those numbers, same as the blogger here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_vista_sales
Let's end the debate. Take Microsoft's word and test it. Someone answer if there was 20m PCs sold in Feb? Did they or didn't they sell that many PCs? Cuz if they didn't how can 20m licenses be right?
Posted by Brick | March 26, 2007 11:39 PM
Brick
No ... not everyone's biased ...of course not !
As far Gartner is concerned they were the main people who "predicted" that Windows Vista would not be be ready for the November / January release are were proved wrong.
And this is what gets at me about all these "predictions" they are just not reliable !
And yet a lot of people put a lot of faith into believing them, and when the same company puts out yet another "prediction" they believe them yet again.
Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong, and the times they get it wrong are quite quickly forgotten about and it is on to the next "prediction".
These "predictions" are just what they seem to be... guesses !! That's all !
Gartner makes them, NPD makes them, etc. and yet nobody says "BOO" if the predictions turn out wrong.
Well I am saying STOP MAKING PREDICTIONS !!
And wait till the event happens will ya !
The company that they are predicting about has a shadow of doubt thrown onto them, and rather than the onus being on the predictors, it is firmly on the event itself ... in this case Microsoft Vista.
I don't care about microsoft persay, I just feel that Joe Wilcox is after microsoft and is using these people so as downgrade ms in the eyes of the computer public.
It is well known that Joe Wilcox is not been happy with microsoft for some time, and I feel that he does not give MS a fair enough go, yes I'm an aussie and we believe in giving people a chance.
I gave Joe Wilcox a chance months ago and he has returned to his former way of being biased against MS and that's not right, always there must be someone to say waht is right and what is wrong, and Joe is wrong, and I am sure that he himself knows that.
Posted by Neil | March 27, 2007 12:27 AM
Joe, you need to drink some of your own cool-aid. Your seriousness can sometimes be downright depressing. Microsoft makes mistakes for sure, just like any other business out there. But why is it that you go out of your way to rip at them every chance you get? Maybe I'll send you an iPod filled with Britney Spears to ease your pain.
Posted by JohnCz | March 27, 2007 12:48 AM
I seem to be missing something here. One of the arguments here is that the figure is wrong because 20 million PCs werent sold to justify the 20 million license number. Are we not counting upgrades and copies bought at a store? I have 2 vista licences, both were purchased for my existing machines.
Posted by Darlene | March 27, 2007 1:33 AM
Actually, this is an excellent post that aligns with any analysis I have so far seen; particularly any which didn't just project Microsoft's black art with stats onto paper. There are too many sheep-like journalists that will buy any figures that come their way.
Posted by Roy Schestowitz | March 27, 2007 7:07 AM
I smelled a rat, too, when the sales figures were announced yesterday. Thanks for gettin' right to it and clearing it up!
Re: The clusterf%#k of initial shill posters in this post -- just more circling the wagons for a company with fewer and fewer customers going west and one who has bought far too many tents, pick axes and gold pans on its "gold rush-mentality" credit card.
We are all witnessing the decline and fall of the Evil Empire. Couldn't happen soon enuf for me!
Posted by microstiff | March 27, 2007 8:41 AM
Your call sign should be "micro brain" you idiot Microsoft cannot lie to the stock exchange it is illegal, not even MS is that stupid !
The figures are real therefore all the "doom" sayers were wrong regarding Windows Vista sales.
Oh ! and by the way the "microbrain" enuf is actually spelt "enough".
Posted by Neil | March 27, 2007 8:54 AM
fyi: for Neil MacMicrosoft
spelt: A form of wheat that suited the damp climate of Britain
Now that we are past the requisite ad hominem attack, it is time to identify my bias before proceeding.
I am predominatly anti-Microsoft after having endured their predatory pricing practices in an enterprise environment for years. This was not always the case as I, in fact, drove the adoption of several MS products in our enterprise. After nearly a decade of 'getting the facts', my original pro-MS bias has been eroded to a sad shadow of its former glory and I find myself with a much more jaded perspective on what they do right and what they do wrong. My personal feeling is that the Vista numbers are wrong.
'This De Groot' guy that you belittle in your first post was identified as being an analyst at 'Directions on Microsoft'. I have several of their publications on my desk - all mailed to me by Microsoft -with at least one co-authored by Mr De Groot. This leads me to believe that Paul De Groot's credentials have essentially been validated by Microsoft itself and it is non-trivial for him to comment on Microsoft sales numbers.
One could argue that short of Ballmer smacking his head and saying 'my god, we really screwed this one', no level of independent analysts remarks are going to mitigate your MS-philia. Conversely, my feeling is that this article does indeed highlight compelling questions that MS needs to answer.
Posted by George Kapotto | March 27, 2007 9:32 AM
And then you guys say that we GNU/Linux users are passionate, that we a "Cult". Just watch yourselves, you're attacking everyone who happens to disagree with you.
Vista Doom? Bah, people are going to buy it even if it's the most terrible OS out there. Luckily, it seems to be one of the better releases of Windows lately (hey, it's way better than what XP was when launched!).
MS beefed up some numbers? Who cares? They still have 90+% of the market share! What? You mean that it's wrong to lie to the press and consumers? Well, it's not the first time: Remember about "Plug and play"? Remember all the "Longhorn" overhype?
C'mon, they're just behaving like they always did.
Posted by Iván Vodopiviz | March 27, 2007 9:40 AM
"but they're real world merits stop there" => "but their real world merits stop there"
Sorry if it's already been pointed out above.
Posted by Alex Forster | March 27, 2007 10:01 AM
This, from Neil: "Your call sign should be "micro brain" you idiot Microsoft cannot lie to the stock exchange it is illegal, not even MS is that stupid !
The figures are real therefore all the "doom" sayers were wrong regarding Windows Vista sales.
Oh ! and by the way the "microbrain" enuf is actually spelt "enough"."
We, in the debate club, would tremble inside from the glee of knowing we had just struck "Point-well-taken-Paydirt" when hearing your kind of response.
It's clear you are one of the "wagon circlers" and a "person of the lie" - Scott Peck - and that retirement isn't settling well with you. Go drive a school bus, Neil. Get back in touch with the world!
Posted by microstiff | March 27, 2007 10:38 AM
George Bernard Shaw once said, "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
It is sad that the illiterate piggies littering this blog with their droppings can't seem to do anything other than sling mud at the author. Refuting Joe's article on its merits would nice to see for a change, but it's clear that some would rather just accuse him of bias. Why burden yourself with logic or facts when you can just trash the messenger?
Oink, oink.
Posted by Andrew Jaquith | March 27, 2007 10:46 AM
I just bought a new laptop...but I had to change from Vista Business to XP Pro because the key software I was going to use (from a major software house) would not run under Vista according to the vendor's user forums.
So why would I want to even buy an upgrade later...hmmmmmm
Oh well....maybe I'll skip the Vista release...
Posted by Dan Anderson | March 27, 2007 12:25 PM
I purchased 20 copies of the various flavors of Vista. I'm a small OEM/Repair shop. I've allready sold 25% of that and will be reordering soon. Those figures seem solid. If your the Top Dog: Florida Gators, Microsoft, etc, EVERYBODY takes cheap shots. Bottom line, Tommorow and next week Microsoft and the Gators will be Number 1.
Posted by Rick | March 27, 2007 12:54 PM
I think your net conclusion - that the numbers are misleading - is accurate. But you could have said that in one or two paragraphs and moved on. Instead, you beat it literally to death. As a result, you come off as being engaged in some juvenile "I told you so", or worse "Yeah, it's not succeeding". Is MSFT Watch just a platform for what appears to be your generally negative view of the company? If so, shouldn't that be clearer, especially given the previous editorial history of this site? Anyone reporting on MSFT needs to find the appropriate balance between reporting the good and the bad. From what I can see, you invariably lean towards the latter. In fact, if I see anything complimentary, I know a "but" is coming before I finish the post.
Posted by Paul | March 27, 2007 1:06 PM
Vista was available as free upgrade on PCs sold from November last year. So technically even if Microsoft started selling Vista in Jan/Feb lot of people still got it.
I think numbers are right, only word that's need change is
Search and replace "Sale/Sold" with "given away"
GP
Posted by GP | March 27, 2007 1:06 PM
If this is a personal comment or blog, I don't care!
But if this is published on eweek, I have to say that what you said is totally nonesense, not a factual.
Giving my personal account, I bought 3 licenses of home premium Vista to upgrade my 3 PCs...
Posted by Plain Guy | March 27, 2007 1:11 PM
Joe needs to find something interesting to write about. This doesn't stir any controversy and makes him look like a writer for the National Inquirer.
What's next Joe? Writing about how Britney is out of rehab and not confident on upgrading from XP to Vista?
This column used to be good when it was just Mary Jo Foley. It's become sensationist trash and I'm killing off the feed in my RSS reader.
Posted by WildSignals | March 27, 2007 1:14 PM
Joe,
These people seem petrified that you would make fun of the "great god Microsoft". I for one plan to stay with Macintosh OS-X and avoid all the Virus, Instability Spyware, Trojans, and Application Problems. I treat it like a drug problem ... Just say NO to VISTA.
Posted by Doug | March 27, 2007 1:14 PM
Rick you seem to be backing Joe on this.
"I purchased 20 copies of the various flavors of Vista. I'm a small OEM/Repair shop. I've allready sold 25% of that and will be reordering soon."
So you have 20 copies which Microsoft must have labeled as sold by now, but you've only sold one fourth.
To quote Joe on it:
"A license sold isn't a license a sold. Microsoft counts licenses sold to OEMs in the 20 million number, but the number of actual Vista PCs sold is likely much lower.
Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies, described the licenses as "sales in" to the channel that don't necessarily reflect actual purchase and use by consumers. Stock sitting on store shelves, whether in boxes or on PCs, accounts for a fair number of those licenses. "
You're living evidence to the fact that Joe is right on this point.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 27, 2007 1:22 PM
Yep, as a reseller I bought some OEM copies of WinXP that included those Vista "upgrade" coupons. I tossed them in the trash where they belong. If Microsoft wants they can follow the Waste Management truck to the landfill and fish them back out. (how ironic that Gates has a financial stake in Waste Management)
Posted by LPBBear | March 27, 2007 1:26 PM
Gerardo you seem to have one problem understanding this sales in vs sales out thing too.
If Microsoft sells an OEM 200,000 copies, don't you think that Microsoft gets to put 200,000 times the cost of the licenses in their bank account?
Who cares who bought the licenses, where they are, will they be used, etc. It's all the same to Microsoft. Revenue.
To turn this around, how about open source software like Linux. They quote number of downloads all the time (think Firefox).
Well, I only have one Linux PC at home but I'd bet I've downloaded one distro or the other about 30 times. I've rebuilt my PC 3-4 times and downloaded Firefox each time.
Difference is Microsoft has the dollars in the bank.
Posted by Rick Kuhn | March 27, 2007 1:42 PM
I am definately dropping this feed! The ONLY thing I see in Joe's articles are statements like "would tend to skew higher" and "don't necessarily reflect actual purchase". Give me a break. Give me some real statistics from actual Vendors, or move on! This has gotten silly.
But my favorite statement is this: "Even if Microsoft could somehow justify the 20 million number, DeGroot would dismiss its significance as a measure of Vista's success." So, in other words, even if MS is right, they are still wrong! In a word...unbelievable.
Posted by rstepr | March 27, 2007 1:55 PM
I wonder why Microsoft is not reporting how many copies of Vista it has validated? That would be a very good measure of actual usage. If a company purchases 20 computers with Vista and downgrades to XP should that count as a Vista sale? Home users don't have any choice with Vista? Right now I am recommending my friends purchase business systems with XP installed to avoid Vista
Posted by Fred Flint | March 27, 2007 2:06 PM
Look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias
Everyone here is operating from bias. It is what we are based on. If we don't like what's presented, we have the ability to do our own testing. That is freedom. Since you are allowed to comment, you are free to express your bias. It would be nice if it could be kept clean and factual but, this is a free society. Most of the bias presented here seems to be for mud. Thanks for your work on this Joe. Some agree, some don't but everyone is thinking about it non the less.
Posted by icetnet | March 27, 2007 2:41 PM
I agree with all the other comments this is just some childish rant against MS.
Posted by Palermo | March 27, 2007 2:50 PM
Good lord you people--the incredible "Neil" in particular--are a lot of semi-literate, puling wretches.
So MSFT is engaging in a bit of selective accounting and this guy calls them out on it. That makes them no better or worse than Enron or GW Bush, and look how well they've done for us. It's hardly bias, anyway; and if it is, stop your infernal whining and explain yourselves.
By the way, the crux of the argument is that, even if MSFT had sold 20M, which they probably haven't, they haven't done so in one calendar month. And for you idiots carping that a "license is just a license," not in a marketing campaign, it isn't, and MSFT is in the business of marketing; and marketing is perception; and skewed statistics make misleading impressions; and misleading impressions try to move markets that won't move honestly and of their own accord.
Wise up.
Posted by Hey I Smell Funny | March 27, 2007 3:29 PM
Joe,
Thanks for the facts. Sad to see so many M$ shills and fanboys disregard the facts you presented and become so emotional. M$ is going spin Vista sales the best it can for 2 reasons. First the stock price of M$. 2. if OEM's ever get the idea that there is more folks who want a computer without the M$ Vista tax on it, we will see real competition in the marketplace. Something that can only be good for everyone. I started using M$ back in the days of Dos 3.21, and have up to now. But with the DRM and WGA so well entrenched in the new Vista, an another expensive upgrade cycle with Vienna right around the corner, its time to just say no to M$. Mac is not a choice for me either, as M$ invested 150 million back when they were in trouble and ownes 25% of Apple. I will go with dual booting XP and Linux for now. SimplyMepis or PCLinuxOS has been the easiest linux distros to learn. And as far as when M$ stops supporting XP, their updates are mostly bad anyway. One is better off with 3rd party software to protect a windows system anyway. Vista is the Operating System that only the RIAA and the MPAA would love.
Posted by Chips B. Malroy | March 27, 2007 3:48 PM
Just simple negativity - nothing constructive for the last couple of months. Why don't you try to contribute something for a change? Deleting this crap including the blog from my favorites list. Over and out ...
Posted by Winklereed | March 27, 2007 3:57 PM
I am sure glad to see that NPD knows more about the Microsoft accounting books than they do, maybe NPD should call the SEC and inform them of their findings? Oh...wait a minute...NPD didn' find anything (not even their assess in a bag)! They are simply speculating, maybe even guessing. It really shows their professionality doesn't it?
Morons, a license is a license PLAIN AND SIMPLE! If one acquires a license by any means other than stealing, MS can claim that as a license sold! THEY ARE MS'S LICENSES YOU DO KNOW THAT DON'T YOU?
Posted by B | March 27, 2007 4:13 PM
I am sure glad to see that NPD knows more about the Microsoft accounting books than they do, maybe NPD should call the SEC and inform them of their findings? Oh...wait a minute...NPD didn' find anything (not even their assess in a bag)! They are simply speculating, maybe even guessing. It really shows their professionality doesn't it?
Morons, a license is a license PLAIN AND SIMPLE! If one acquires a license by any means other than stealing, MS can claim that as a license sold! THEY ARE MS'S LICENSES YOU DO KNOW THAT DON'T YOU?
Posted by B | March 27, 2007 4:14 PM
If Microsoft mated with Unix you get MSUX
Posted by opensource | March 27, 2007 4:18 PM
Without checking any of the facts I would say it's a given that there is some credibility to your argument here. The main reason is that ANY PR release is going to skew numbers in their favor. And we're talking about Microsoft here. 'Nuff said.
Personally I bought myself and my wife new computers back in December for the express purpose of getting new PCs that weren't running Vista. Hopefully by the time we feel the need to upgrade there will be enough software - Adobe CS4? - running on Ubuntu that I can switch over.
Posted by polyGeek | March 27, 2007 4:22 PM
You Microshaft weenies need to bite it. You're all a bunch of loser. Vista blows and no one is buying it. Macs share will be 10 or 20% of the market in a couple of years and Microsoft stock will crumble. Go Joe for fighting the good cause!!!
Posted by tim | March 27, 2007 4:41 PM
Operating system software can be upgraded on any PC. Why in the world are you trying to equate their license sales to sales of PCs? What kind of journalism is this? Looks like Micriosoft bashing again to me.
Posted by Lex | March 27, 2007 4:42 PM
I knew it!! Microsoft really should be taken to court over this. This is deliberately deceptive and they should be punished.
Here's my recommendation to everyone. Go out and buy a Mac. No problems iwth spyware or phishing, easy to use, innovative like you've never seen before, and top notch hardware built in the US of A. If we all do this Apple will be king again. No more lock in software and proprietary stuff and things like that. Go go go.
Posted by marin | March 27, 2007 4:48 PM
Wilcox, you're a complete r-tard. 20 mil accounts for new OEM installs, BUT also upgrades, and advance licenses. How did u get this job??
Posted by Wilcox you're a retard | March 27, 2007 4:48 PM
Face it, Microsoft fanboys. Vista is a COMPLETE AND UTTER FLOP. Nobody is buying that piece of crap.
Those in the know are waiting for OS X Leopard anyway.
Posted by df | March 27, 2007 4:54 PM
So what's the beef Joe. Why does it matter to you what the Vista sales figures are?
Oh --- I get it. You're a Microsoft-Bill Gates hater. You need to find another way to relieve your Hate-Microsoft anxiety attacks. Linux might give you a good outlet. Kick the penquin around for a while. It'll make you feel better.
Posted by Roger Carlyle | March 27, 2007 5:06 PM
I see a lot of mention about whether or not there were, in fact, 20 million licenses sold. Let's just assume that they are. When were they sold? Were they sold in the month of february? Or were they sold from the period Joe describes, Oct 26th - Feb 28th?
Here is my biased OPINION (so everyone knows):
It seems to me that 20M licenses in the month of Feb is highly unlikely, but 20M since Oct. 26th a little more realistic. If that is true, then what we are seeing is that Vista is in fact selling slower than XP did. I'm not saying either is, but I would like to see this investigated a little further.
And now on to my RANT:
I had the chance to use Vista, and personally, I didn't find anything wrong with it, except all the goddamn security that I really find unnecessary (why do i have to be reminded 5 times that i am executing a file?) For my parents, great, maybe its easier to use.
I have also had the opportunity to use mac OS X, and I have to tell you, as far as innovation is concerned, Mac is far superior. Vista just copies everything in mac os x. I'm sure we will see the same thing with Leapord, where windows vista +1 will copy them again. The really frustrating part of all this is that most of the world either doesn't know about this, or doesn't care. I for one, value innovation. At the same time, I have to commend Microsoft for its extraordinary marketing, regardless of how much I hate them for being worthless innovators.
Posted by xtian | March 27, 2007 5:07 PM
@ Fred Flint - Good call on the Windows Vista validation. To compare objectively we would need the figures for Windows XP from 2001 as well.
For those that say a "License is a license" I have to disagree. If it's the case that the totals don't jive with actual Vista Validations and that they are indeed from the licenses being sold to PC vendors to make up the drought of XP software then that means that Vista sales are fundamentally unsustainable. In any case, I doubt Microsoft's marketing will significantly sway sales and time will eventually tell.
Posted by deep thoughts | March 27, 2007 5:13 PM
No one cares about this. When is Leopard coming out? Let the Windoze losers waste their money supporting the man. The rest of us choosers will go with Mac. Hey it's okay to be elitist if you are elite
Posted by deckard | March 27, 2007 5:18 PM
Here's a comparison that's really, truely meaningful.
Remember the 95 release? Remember making sure your order was pre-booked well in advaned with outfits like Office Depot? Seen anyone lining up to buy Vista? Preorder Vista? heck, MS had to practically blanketing the streets with vouchers for Vista just to get people to take them.
Remember the excitement over 95? Vista will be remembed for the DISAPPOINTMENT.
Posted by Xepol | March 27, 2007 5:18 PM
Rick Kuhn, I'm quite aware of the sales in sales out.
"Who cares who bought the licenses, where they are, will they be used, etc. It's all the same to Microsoft. Revenue."
This must be the most narrow minded selfish post I've seen in quite some time. First of all I'm sure the OEMs care. It's their money in the Microsoft account and not in their pockets. If they don't sell it they don't get their investment back.
Secondly if the OEMs don't sell they go out of business. I'm sure Microsoft will worry about that. If you're an OEM and you see another OEM go out of business for this reason, you'd consider selling other things. Maybe services around open source products. Microsoft will worry about that too.
Above that we have developers. If Microsoft sells you the "lets all develop for Vista" and Vista doesn't sell. Err sorry. Leave the OEM shop. Then who's running Vista that will be using your developed software???
Finally if developers don't develop applications for Vista. Why would I as a final user buy it? To run not yet developed apps? To bail out an OEM who bought one too many Vista boxes?
So it might be all the same for Microsoft's bank account. The money is there one way or the other. But I doubt it is the same for Microsoft itself. Above that it isn't the same for me and other users and developers.
The shills here have to stop seeing Microsoft as the end to their means. It is us the end users who should be benefited from this. I appreciate Joe's time to point things out. I see his job and that of other reporters and journalists to do this in the benefit of their readers (that would be us) and not the product they write about.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 27, 2007 5:26 PM
I highly doubt that Microsoft sold 20million licenses. i have a friend who works at MS, and he told me the supervisors were discussing the awful sales volume of Vista licenses. SO its obvious this whole spin on the amount of licenses they have sold, is to calm their shareholders.
Posted by Kenzo@yashima.jp | March 27, 2007 5:27 PM
Maybe Joe has a bias. He's a reporter - whatever. For MSFT to announce a 20 mill sales number is one thing - we can choose to believe it or not. What MSFT should do is clarify where those licenses went. Into the channel, into the upgrades, Enterprise, off the shelf retail. To tell me it went on 20 million PC's would likely make me wonder too. Instead of 'get-the facts' maybe they should 'State-the facts'. I for one could really care less how many they actually sold as I no longer drink the MSFT Koolaid.
Posted by Jim | March 27, 2007 5:27 PM
Where is the bias in this article? Call me blind, but I can't see it.
If Microsoft want to compare Vista sales figures with XP sales figures, then surely they should use the same method of counting them.
The article exposes the bias in Microsoft's sales comparison.
Posted by John | March 27, 2007 5:35 PM
Good Idea - -I think I agree with what he has to say- - -- - > 20 million liscences -
-- > Nothing aginst MS but - -this is a nice hook to pull more people toward Vista - - My neighbour's got vista . .why not me! emotion is one thing the whole Advertising / Marketing industry banks upon . .. but we could to analysis:::-->
As all of us know that Vista will not loadup on any PC - - a person paying up for an Upgrade or new install of Vista is also forced to beefup hardware.
I think we could have a better way of checking the authenticity by :
1)Check if there is a Hardware sales increase trend for that and the subsequent months. RAM, Display Card and may more things.
2) 20 million liscences multiplied by the cost of each - -- this should have reflected in the companies revenue -- this needs to be checked.
Well and rest will show up a year later . .. . in the actual success . .One thing I am sure about is that Tech Support Job market for Vista and the mong awaited Long Horn Server system is already heating up - -- more issues more calls more jobs . .. - -- -One heck 'ova money spinning machine MS is! Good for all of us! hehe!
Regards,
Sid!
Posted by Sidharth Kapoor | March 27, 2007 5:36 PM
Well, I bought a "Vista Capable" Compaq Presario in February, and fired off my application for HP's free Vista upgrade for qualified buyers almost immediately. So, I actually do have Vista sitting unopened and uninstalled on my shelf. The problem's not the Vista DVD, so much, as HP's own upgrade prep disk that comes with. Got it? The upgrade is two disks, one from M$ and one from HP. The last thing I'me interested in is running an HP utility that refuses to document itself. Bottom line: I was forced to kludge a fix to get loose from some HP bloatware (in particular, Vongo), but also demo copies of M$ Office and other stuff that we find unnecessary on this notebook (I use OpenOffice.org, The Gimp and ImgBurn instead, to name a few sterling standins) -- there is no way I'm going to run HP's upgrade utility until I know what it's environmental impact is, and because of that, no way I actually install Vista when Windows XP, suitably trimmed to size, is running just fine, thank you.
Posted by grikdog | March 27, 2007 5:55 PM
Face it, Apple fanboys. Vista is a huge success. Nobody is buying your OSX crap.
Those in the know already have Vista.
Posted by Lynn | March 27, 2007 6:06 PM
@deckard
You are no longer the elite. Vista is more secure and stable than OSX. Sorry loser.
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Posted by Lynn | March 27, 2007 6:15 PM
From today's news wires, another Microsoft sales tidbit:
"March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, expects sales of handsets with its Windows Mobile programs to double for a third straight year as more customers buy phones with advanced features.
The software maker expects 20 million Windows Mobile handsets to be sold in the year ending June 30, Senior Vice President Pieter Knook said in an interview at the CTIA Wireless conference in Orlando, Florida. Knook said he expects that to ``roughly'' double the following year as well."
Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=MSFT:US&sid=aaInGhORu0sk
Posted by TomT | March 27, 2007 7:20 PM
Lynn, somebody is buying OSX, although its not me or you as far as I can tell. Mac is expected to double in size partly because of the release of Vista. Probably the only sold out computers you will find in the stores right now are Mac ones. For me they are still too expensive, and OSX is still basically a Darwin Nix. Linux is a free better option, as I don't have to buy Mac hardware, or a new powerful pc to run Vista.
Also Lynn, Symantec makes antivirus software for M$ Windows and not Linux or Mac. They have a vested interest in dishing Mac or Linux sercurity. I can't say about the Mac, but Linux is the most secure OS out there, with not one Virus in the wild as compared to the hundred thousand plus for Windows. Exploits and viruses are 2 different things. Exploits are also counted by Symantec for all the programs that Mac and Linux run besides the OS itself, which (in the case of Linux) the OS itself with its user accounts is already protecting the users from.
Posted by Chips B. Malroy | March 27, 2007 7:23 PM
What's up with all the vehemently pro Msft comments (free Msft blogger notebooks at work?). The comment defending channel-stuffing as real sales is especially ludicrous. Those pumped/dumped units eventually get returned back to Msft for credit (typically by the next quarter) -- the shell game can only go on for so long.
Look, anyone with half a brain cell who has walked passed stacks and stacks of Vista collecting dust in Costco and elsewhere knows that Vista ain't lighting the world on fire. Retail is important as a barometer, if not financially. Of course Msft marketing is going to tout Vista as an unqualified success no matter what happens. However here they've gone so far overboard that they've really shot their credibility in the foot, and triggered articles such as these that point out an obvious and extreme case of fudged numbers.
Posted by JS | March 27, 2007 7:41 PM
Yes Lynn,
Vista is such a huge success that I don't know anyone who's running it. They're all sticking to XP. Also, I heard you suck donkey balls.
Posted by Todd | March 27, 2007 7:43 PM
I think Joe may have a point here. The 20 million sounds too high, and if so, then this sounds suspiciously like a "pump & dump" scheme. Did I not see something in the news recently that senior MS executives sold off a bunch of stock recently ? Maybe before the truth came out about weak Vista sales ? Someone should turn this file over to the SEC. We as customers & stockholders have for far too long suffered at the hands of companies who exaggerate their sales numbers.
Posted by Brian | March 27, 2007 7:56 PM
In addition to that Brian, I think Billy Gates is supposed to dump a large block of shares to help fund the Foundation soon. I smell sell short as a real possiblity.
Posted by Chips B. Malroy | March 27, 2007 8:04 PM
Nothing stirs the soul more than controversy and Microsoft stock hasn't moved all that much, has it?
My Masters Thesis was originally on Microsoft and I had to stop and switch to a different study and topic, because what I had learned was making me physically ill. Honest! It had to do with their financial reporting/stock situation and lots of retirement programs were going to take it in the shorts bigtime. This was pre-Enron.
You also might want to look at the job boards recently. Microsoft flushed the job system for new bodies and existing folks are bailing out as fast as they can off a sinking ship.
Meanwhile, Apple stock improves along with their 9-trick pony, innovation and class act.
We the people are not the enemy of Microsoft. It is its own enemy. And yes, the SEC should investigate claims and the existing leadership should quit/resign/reorganize. Apple needs the competition! MS Vista is selling Mac OS X like hotcakes!
Posted by Robert Pritchett | March 27, 2007 10:35 PM
Heh - some very amusing stuff here. So I guess it's time for me to toss some gasoline onto the fire:
1) Figures don't lie but liars can figure. No, I wouldn't trust Microsoft's numbers - hell I don't trust anyone's numbers.
2) Most people do NOT upgrade the operating system. I know people who are still using Windows 95 (we are), after all if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
3) Why would I want to make my home network any more complicated than it already is? I have 4 new laptops here that came with Vista upgrade coupons, which we decided not to use (all of our software works with XP, and I don't have time at present to see if it works with Vista). We also have a laptop running Win95, one running OS9, and one running Win98. For desktops we have 1 running Win95, 1 running Win98, and three running XP. All the equipment is hooked up, and working, though I'm going to donate a bunch of it to Goodwill soon.
4) Linux/Solaris/BSD is not useful as a desktop/laptop operating system. At least not yet. Unless you go Mac, and to do that we'd have to dump a lot of good software (of course there's always Boot Camp). Another consideration is that we have all the above equipment for FIVE people. 6 of the units are less than a year old, and four of them are less than two months old. I'm not buying more hardware.
Is the writer correct, and did Microsoft fudge the figures? I suspect he is. Companies routinely state things in the best possible light.
Are the Microsoft fans right, that the numbers aren't as bad as they were portrayed? I suspect that they are - after all Microsoft doesn't want the SEC after them - and the SEC watches large companies closely when they are undergoing a change in controls (Bill Gates is getting ready to retire).
And as Johnny Torch says - FLAME ON!
Posted by Wayne | March 27, 2007 10:38 PM
why should anyone believe anything that Microsoft says - they have a long history of promoting their operating systems to the world as the biggest and best. So everyone jumps on board and buys it only to soon discover the flaws, incompatabilities, and crashes. So MS issues a patch and then another and another and another - until you have software system that looks like a quilt put together by a blind, three fingered monkey. The only thing they ever did that worked right the first time was DOS - and they didn't even invent it. The people up at Redmond learned everything they know from one person - PT Barnum - "there's a sucker born every minute"
Am I a bit biased against Microsoft - after 20 plus year of dealing with their crap - you bet -
Posted by sulla11 | March 28, 2007 1:05 AM
Most licensed versions would be purchased by business effectivly beta testing vista in the workplace. Not many people are installing vista on their personal PC, if it's not broken why fix it. Working in IT everyday I recommend people buying a new PC to get it with XP installed and purchase the upgrade copy of Vista for use at a later date. There are too many associated issues with Vista, and I'm not into creating headaches for myself....basically there isn't enough info out yet on Vista fixes and workarounds for both software and hardware. People who don't know better have purchased a laptop/pc with 512mb ram with Vista pre-installed and finding they already have to upgrade their hardware...pool souls.
Posted by tombo | March 28, 2007 1:11 AM
I'm unclear on how not being overwhelmed by Vista makes one a Microsoft hater. I didn't realize carte-blanche brand loyalty was required.
Bill Gates has recently been cited as saying Vista was good enough to "run life support machines". Windows NT was likewise cited as being good enough to earn C4 security status. The C4 status was revoked - what - 11 days later?
I am, and have long been, primarily a Unix developer. I won't work someplace that won't let me use Windows for my desktop. I've early adopted every Windows so far - I still have my 3.1, 3.11, WfW and 95 floppies, my 98 RC1, 98, NT 3.5, 2000 and XP/XPSP1/XPSP2/XP64 CDs. I still have my ME coaster.
But I'm not adopting Vista. The driver issues are, understandably, significantly more complex than were 98 or 2000 to XP - XP had the advantage of being along the lines of a 98/2000 hybrid so there was some basis for pre-existing familiarity with the concepts involved.
The few benefits of Vista - DX10, whose benefits seems to require expensive hardware upgrades to realize which, in and of themselves, seem capable of providing equal benefits with Vista - and security.
My XP installation is more than satisfactorily secured using a 3rd party solution that cost me a fraction of the *upgrade* to Vista. And the Vista solution isn't much of a solution - the bulk of Vista's new security depends on either new-version-obfuscation or delegation.
To return to the article, it doesn't attack Microsoft.
There is nothing illegal or shady about Microsoft citing figures of licenses sold into channel - its perfectly normal. But if someone in accounting hasn't made a mistake, tehy have definitely erred in the figures they pulled for their XP comparison since those figures (a) did not include pre-sales, (b) were out-of-channel figures - figures for consumer uptake.
Remember: MS gets its money when the hardware vendors and stores purchase licenses. That's sale into channel, so that is the figure of primary interest to shareholders. I don't see anything in the article implying that Microsoft switching to using this more common practice was in any way nefarious - it simply invalidates the comparison.
Or put another way - *Microsoft* has sold into distribution more licenses of Vista in the first month, including pre-sales, than resellers shipped of XP, not including pre-sales, in the first 2 months.
It's a lot less fancy when you put it that way. But its still noteworthy because of how successful XP was in finally drawing customers to upgrade where ME and 2000 had failed.
Microsoft have allegedly put a 2 year deadline on the next Windows OS. I, personally and cynically, consider Vista to be ME 2007. XP64 will last me until then.
I know quite a few people who've (inadvertantly) bought Vista but - as an earlier post commented - I don't know anyone who's running it voluntarily.
Posted by Oliver Smith | March 28, 2007 3:37 AM
no comment.
Posted by microsoft ping pong | March 28, 2007 4:00 AM
All you MS fanboys need to get back to work...coffee break's over:
Major astroturfing campaign here!
Posted by fro_daddy | March 28, 2007 5:11 AM
I believe Joe has done a good job of pointing out a few important points in his Blog entry. One of the most important points is it is wise to be somewhat skeptical of the numbers presented by vendors, by the media or by analysts. We need to be very clear on what's been counted, how it's been counted, what's been included and what, if anything, has been excluded from the count.
Vendors, such as Microsoft, are always trying to present an image of success and momentum using shipment information. These statements must be supportable (at least one perspective.) Those watching the industry know that shipments of system software, such as operating system software, are only indirectly related to the shipments of computers. Here are a few reasons for that difference.
- Some shipments of new software are installed on previously installed systems. So, there's no new computer to count.
- Some shipments of software are replaced by older software when new systems are installed at a medium or large organization. This can happen when an organization has a requirement to stay with older software for compatibility with some key application or tool. The new software may, by the way, be re-installed when the support processes catch up with the vendor's new technology. In this case, there was a new computer shipped but, older software ended up on it.
- Companies may purchase a copies of software that will be installed later and may not match up with any given computer shipment. This is often seen when a company builds its own special-purpose systems.
- Some computers have multiple operating systems installed, each used to support a specific application or series of applications, and the end user selects one during the system boot process. In this case, more than one computer was shipped and multiple operating systems were installed.
- Virtual machine software, such as that from Microsoft or VMware, allows more than one operating system to run on a single computer. So the computer shipments may end up supporting several operating systems.
In the past, I was the leader of a research team at a major IT research firm. My team focused on tracking operating system shipments, revenues and technology. The factors I've mentioned always made our job challenging.
Posted by Dan K | March 28, 2007 8:57 AM
Great article.
It's obvious: only a company with a sales shortfall would feel the need to lie about its' sales.
Posted by Eric Layne | March 28, 2007 9:59 AM
It's been said that Microsoft spent over 5 BILLION dollars developing their latest release of the Windows operating system, named Vista.
Based on the preponderance of pro-MSFT posts here, a good portion of that 5 billion dollars appears to have gone towards funding fake grassroots Microsoft shill posters on Internet messageboards. I'm sure the shareholders are pleased.
Posted by saltydogmn | March 28, 2007 4:26 PM
I don't buy M$ numbers at all. Gates has lied in different interviews, Balllmer has lied, and the press is repoting nothing but frustration and a mediocre stab at trying to be as good as a Mac. Lynn... wake up! Do you want to "cancel or allow" that Vista is a failure? More stable and secure than OSX? HAHAHAHAHA...LMAO!!!! I run NO virus software on 5 macs 24/7. I have NO PROBLEMS!!! Vista still has virus software, still is being hacked to crap, and still can't even do the most basic of things without having "cancel or allow" BS! Giv eme a break! WHY DO YOU SUPPORT LOSERS LIKE BALLMER AND GATES? They are NOT INNOVATIVE!!! They're simply supporting a market of IT personal which is really NOT needed. Have you never seen the internal emails from Jim Alchin? Do some research and get your facts right. Anyone I know who bought Vista has had nothing but a headache. People who have switched to Macs sing nothing but it's praises and wonder why they didn't switch sooner! For more on M$ history just read aout the Roman Empire. The kingdom is crumbling and people are fed up with M$ BS!
Posted by Ian Graham | March 28, 2007 11:48 PM
Most of you people are either complete idiots or have never worked in the "Real" world.
Microsoft's number do appear to be in-line. The problem most of you have is that you have no understanding of the ways Microsoft licenses software.
-Retail (purchase through best-buy, etc...)
-OEM (Dell, HP, IBM)
-Corporate (your company buys direct)
-Subscription (MSDN, Action Pack, etc...)
If you were able to see how many licenses were sold to each segment, i'm pretty sure the number line up.
If i sell 5,000,000 licenses to dell, but dell does not sell them to the consumer, I STILL SOLD 5,000,000 LICENSES... Its now Dell's problem what to do with them...
The numbers might actually be low...
Posted by IT Consultant | March 29, 2007 7:46 AM
On thing to note,
I think a lot of you are confusing "LICENSES SOLD" with "PEOPLE USING"...
If i have a corporate subscription with MS and I pay my annual fees, I get the licenses. Now if I use them or not, is a completly different story...
Posted by IT Consultant | March 29, 2007 7:51 AM
IT Consultant
Well said !!
I totally agree.
Posted by Neil | March 29, 2007 9:01 AM
IT consultant, you hit square on the point. Although the numbers might be good for Wall Street as a developer I'm more interested in the number of people using it. It is a more representative number of my potential market if I want to use the new Vista features.
I'm sure I'm on the same list with ATI and NVidia as well as Kingston and others. If we really had 20 million installed Vistas then it would be a great boom for all of us, developers and hardware manufacturers. If people keep their old PC or corporations buy Vista and use their downgrade rights to install XP then things are not that great.
Like I told Neil. This isn't an OS turf war. In the end what matters most is what business venture makes me more money. So I have to make the hard questions Joe is making. So while these numbers might be technically correct from an accounting perspective they are functionally incorrect from a developers/hardware point of view. In other words 20 million sales do not convert to 20 million users wanting to use my Vista ready software or hardware. And that in the end is what I do care about.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 1:36 PM
IT Consultant nailed it. They are obviously counting software assurance customers as well here. We've got our licenses already, it sure doesn't mean we're using them though.
Posted by Tom | March 29, 2007 4:34 PM
I DON'T NEED STUPID VISTA
Posted by truebego | March 29, 2007 4:52 PM
Higher Ed Microsoft licenses are almost universally under Microsoft's Campus Agreement, which is analogous to the software assurance program.
If they're counting those as Vista sales, you can safely reduce the number by 2,000,000 because almost nobody in higher ed is moving to Vista on a large scale before Summer 2008.
We're actively downgrading newly purchased hardware to XP, so I assume many others are as well.
If you want a realistic view of Vista uptake, check out http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp which shows Vista tracking at 1.2% of site visitors in February. This means it's overtaken Windows 98, but not Win 2K. That'll be a fun one to watch over the next few months.
Posted by Michael | March 29, 2007 5:40 PM
I am a long time Microsoft defender but that ended when they started pushing out WGA spyware as urgent security updates. It ended when they began to infringe on people's fair use rights and nickle and dime us under the laughable guise of trying to stop piracy (which we all know WGA/ activation does not do.)
My defense ended when I received my first beta copy of the monstrosity known as Vista. An OS that costs a fortune, comes in more flavors than ice cream, requires high-end hardware, runs slower than XP, makes activation a burden with no benefit, takes the user yet one more step further away from the hardware, is still a PIA to peer-to-peer network, makes users less productive, etc., etc., etc. It's so bad that I made all my purchases early to guarantee delivery with XP. Yes, we got the express upgrade licenses but they will not be used.
Microsoft has become so arrogant, greedy and out of touch with its customers and their needs that they no longer deserve my support.
Although it may not happen right away, Microsoft is poised for a very big fall. Given the cost, productivity loss and learning curve associated with moving to Vista and Office 07, now is the perfect time to investigate alternatives (like Linux and Macs) and I would be shocked if many users and organizations large and small aren't doing just that.
When I read the sales press release and related articles I laughed. Vista is no hit. It's a disaster like New Coke. However, Microsoft has the advantage of being a monopoly and so they are going to shove it right down people's throats and so the numbers will look good for a while until people get so fed up the abandon Windows all together.
If the large PC makers gave people a choice between XP and Vista we'd know the real scope of this debacle.
Microsoft forgot what and how they became successful. They are killing their own golden goose.
Posted by TheBigOldDog | March 29, 2007 8:00 PM
"In a research note issued to investors, Morgan Stanley analyst Kathryn Huberty advised readers that Apple was the healthiest PC vendor during the first two months of the new year, seeing virtually no damage to its rapid growth compared to Windows-using rivals. But while virtually every vendor of Windows PCs depended on the Vista-related sales surge in February to make up for a lackluster first month, Apple continued its march forward seemingly untouched by Vista's presence: the number of Macs shipped to the same business and retail buyers grew by 71 percent year-over-year in January and a nearly identical 72 percent in February"-
No way do I believe MS's numbers. People are waking up and tired of the M$ BullSheet. Again, as I said before, Gates is lying constantly in interviews ("The Mac is being broken into everyday" ... give me a break! What an a$$!)and Ballmer is walking out on interviews when being too pressed about the success of Apple, etc. Roman empire is crumbling and they know it. Slowly but surely. Or they're delusional like Bush.
Posted by Ian Graham | March 30, 2007 12:13 AM
The sales figure for the past months and forecasts until December are optimistic. Here is a more realistic table:
Month (million Vista) (million Linux)
2 3 0
3 3 0
4 3 0
5 3 0.01
6 3 0.02
8 2 0.1
9 2 0.2
10 2 0.5
11 1 0.8
12 0.5 1.5
========================================
My assumptions are based on two expectations:
(a) Dell is in trouble, and because many people
don't care about the engine, but functionality,
Dell will be able to sell Linux boxes. Only those
who require Windows will go for Vista.
(b) By July, the hardware vendors (nVidia, ATI, Creative) will conclude that Vista specs cannot be implemented and will give up.
Looks ridiculous, but let us wait and see.
Posted by Mario Miyojim | March 30, 2007 12:15 AM
The numbers are meaningless. MEANINGLESS. Microsoft can shove Vista down enough people's throats to make the numbers look good. You have to look at usage, retail sales and what tech writers are saying to get a sense of Vista's success.
This transition period is an opportunity for competitors for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. Whether they take advantage remains to be seen.
If Microsoft wakes up there's still time to fix not only the technical issues but the "nickel and dime" business strategy they are pursuing. Assuming the worst in your customers, to the point where you feel the need to spy on them, is never a good idea.
Mac zealots are funny. Nobody wastes their time exploiting macs for the same reason few make hardware or software for it. There just isn't a large enough installed base to make it worth the effort. They just aren't an interesting target...yet...
Posted by TheBigOldDog | March 30, 2007 8:16 AM
TheBigOldDog said:
"Mac zealots are funny. Nobody wastes their time exploiting macs for the same reason few make hardware or software for it. There just isn't a large enough installed base to make it worth the effort. They just aren't an interesting target...yet..."
And they never will be big enough to interest the virus makers, same goes for Linux !
Mario I hope you put your tongue in your cheek when you wrote that, ... they wish :)
Posted by Neil | March 30, 2007 8:39 AM
"Express" Upgrades May Be BIG Part of the Numbers!
I ordered an "Express" upgrade from Dell for a customer's "Vista Certified" machine that shipped in November, on February 20. It still hasn't shipped, suggesting the demand for Vista in that form is very high. It may be that folks who ordered PCs in the fall ordered the upgrades which they are entitled to; the time window for ordering was limited as I recall. It still remains to be seen how many PCs will be successfully updated!
So the "run rate" will also include PCs sold in previous months, adding greatly to the possibility that the 20 million is not an exaggeration.
Having said that: Wilcox should be fired. He's just an agitator, not a journalist.
Posted by Patrick C. | March 30, 2007 10:07 AM
"Mac zealots are funny. Nobody wastes their time exploiting macs for the same reason few make hardware or software for it. There just isn't a large enough installed base to make it worth the effort. They just aren't an interesting target...yet..."
Wow... that's alot of bull. There's MILLIONS of us Mac users. Linux as well. Can you not just admit Microcrap can not build a half decent OS and are just supporting a whole IT industry? Put it this way... I like to drive my car... NOT be a mechanic on the side of the road. Again, Mac users are growing fast and even after January's "Month of Apple Bugs", OSX has not been broken into. A university professor in the States even offered a MacMini up for grabs if, in the 2 week time period, someone could break into it. No one did. Today in the news... yet another serious Vista flaw and virus... enjoy your lemons!
Posted by Ian Graham | March 30, 2007 10:48 AM
suggesting the demand for Vista in that form is very high"
Actually, no. According to Dell the reason for the delay was the drivers weren't ready and their app which helps automate the installation process was not ready. Google it and you'll find the stories.
As long as we continue to defend them they will continue to get worse and worse and abuse us more and more. I am fed up. I'm done defending them and rationalizing their actions when they don't deserve it.
Treat your customers like criminals, assume the worst in them, and this is what you get:
Dell Promises Pre-Installed Linux Thanks to requests by its customers, Dell will offer Linux pre-installed on its PCs and laptops.
Posted by TheBigOldDog | March 30, 2007 10:49 AM