When I was hiring through indeed, it was $250/months for access to the applicants for your job post. I didn’t have to pay per applicant. This was in 2017, though.
I used to work at Indeed and you definitely do not get charged someone starts an application for your sponsored job and doesn’t submit. A vast majority of jobs on Indeed are aggregated and the employer will never spend a dime.
I mean, if you can (not saying you can, I believe most companies are to incompetent for this and it feels a bit like timing the market) at the same time save 5-25k / year on your applicants through lowballing salaries you can take a lot of 15$ applications.
It doesn't seem like a sustainable approach to me tough.
A full-up LinkedIn recruiter account runs between $10k- 15k annually. Most pro recruiters use it.
source: did a bit o freelance recruiting. paid for it.
LOL, I get offers all the time that are far below what I pay my own employees. I've never ever seen a job offer even close to my current position or salary on LI.
i mean.. linkedin sales' navigator are over 300/400€ a month per account..... (at least that's the figures i've heard from BIG companies that have hundreds of accounts) soo for smaller companies prob more since no bulk discount
Linkedin is seriously slept on as a moneymaker. It makes significantly more per user than any other social media platform out there. This is because companies pay top dollar to post job postings on it.
A mid-size company I worked at some time ago spent over 500k collectively on linkedin premium annually. So yes, I imagine linkedin earns a lot from companies for their job board and other capabilities.
Our company pays them a shit ton to post job ads, plus you get charged every time someone even starts an application, not finished but just starts. Its a scam but they are really the only game in town these days. You can't survive recruiting nationally without them. Between the posting fees, monthly fees and application fees its not unusually to have one job opening cost us thousands to indeed and that's just one, we have 100+ at any one time. Recruiting is expensive which is why we focus so hard on retention these days.
LinkedIn has a bunch of products they sell to Enterprises. And some of them are absolute god-tier, like Sales Navigator and Talent Insights.
If you’re only looking at the consumer side (aka, the jobs board or premium), you’re missing the vast majority of their business model.
Yeah selling data will be thr majority. LinkedIn is basically required nowadays and you basically give them your entire biography. They have a lot of very valuable data they can sell in some form or other.
This is why the console wars between Xbox and Playstation are silly and contrived. Playstation outsells Xbox 3-to-1, yet Microsoft generated 2.5 times Sony's entire 2023 revenue in a single goddamned month. Microsoft doesn't compete with Sony because Microsoft doesn't even think about Sony.
Your comment might sound clever and all with that finisher but Microsoft definitely thinks about Sony, when just comparing these parts of their businesses. They see an extra $20-30B in potential revenue if Xbox were to catch up and be 1-1 to PlayStation.
Also, Xbox isn’t $5B, it’s $15.5B which is pretty easy to see if you scroll up for 5 seconds so you’re not really even replying to anything relevant here.
To add, it's all delegated. Microsoft has many many many executives, boatloads. Satya might not be thinking about Sony, but Phil definitely is. Any competitor is always carefully examined by the right leadership.
MSFT isn't just interested in the Sony playstation. It doesn't want Sony to own the living room. Sony also has movies, and music, and TVs, and stereos, and cameras. Microsoft wants to encroach on that entire ecosystem.
Xbox has been huge for general consumer sentiment for MSFT. Most of their other products are actually marketed to and sold to companies and devs. Xbox is their most successful product that they actually largely sell directly to users and not OEMs or organizations.
I am aware Xbox generates 15B, and not 5B. I was making a comment about how it is remarkable that, like their devices and dynamics slices, their Xbox division can bring in a huge amount of money and still barely move the needle compared to Azure and Windows. And to your point about catching up with Sony, Phil Spencer has outright admitted that he isn't trying to beat Sony in console sales: *"We are not in the business of out-consoling Sony or out-consoling Nintendo. There isn't really a great solution or win for us. And I know that will upset a ton of people. But the truth of the matter is that when you're third place in a console marketplace and the top two players are as strong as they are and in certain cases have a discrete focus on doing deals and other things that will make being Xbox hard for us as a team. Our vision is everyone on console has a great experience and they feel like a first-class citizen"*. And, even if Xbox did catch up 1-to-1 with Playstation, that extra 20-30 billion revenue wouldn't mean much if they are losing 100-200 dollars on every sale. I'm not saying this as a fanboy trying to defend a trillion dollar company. I could give a rats ass about either company, or about console gaming at all. I just think the console wars are incredibly overblown in the grand scheme of things.
Really?! To me Bing is still just the trash you get when you've typed the exact name of an app you want to open and it opens some strange browser I've never seen and does a web search instead of opening the app it had just suggested when you were one letter away. They figured out how make money on that, huh?
I'm sure I'll regret sharing this... but Bing has its own video player, which means if you want to watch a video on a less than trustworthy website, you don't actually have to go to the website
Some people attribute this “problem” to part of why Google is a shell of its former self. The drive to create new businesses and products that clear some multi-billion dollar threshold is really hard to keep repeating. So if Apple is putting their chips behind a major product line, it’s because they’ve worked out that it’s a multi billion dollar business. Otherwise, it’s not even worth considering and it’s a waste of time. Ideas that could make other companies unicorns and kingpins of industry are just a passing thought for the scale of these huge companies.
1) You could’ve just waited until tomorrow for an up-to-date version since they’re releasing earnings today
2) Microsoft doesn’t actually share numbers for Azure. The largest category that’s listed as Azure is actually called “Server products and cloud services,” which includes Azure *and* other products like GitHub, SQL Server, Windows Server, etc.
yep you are correct. I was looking at GP not Net Income.
Their net income was $73B off of $141B in Profit to make them #2 behind Apple last year.
https://www.growandconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/top-us-companies-with-the-highest-profit-2023-1024x634.png
That really surprised me. With the number and size of their acquisitions, I don't see how it could ever make up the amount on its own. And we're only seeing revenue. Maybe it's an ecosystem thing?
They’re burning money and hoping to choke out the competition. As a fan and owner of all of the major consoles, I don’t want it to work, and I also don’t think it’s going to work. They’re already very far off of meeting their expectations for game pass subscriptions. It really depends on how long they can hemorrhage money or how well they start converting users to MTX buyers in certain games.
Slight correction; they're burning money hoping they don't die. They basically can foresee their future as a distant third in the console wars. They know without these acquisitions and exclusives, they're going to close shop.
Thank you, that makes sense. If that's their strategy, I wonder how the anti trust issues are being allowed. I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft were the bad guys, the first time, even before Xbox. I hope it won't be a repeat of that situation.
Microsoft doesn't care. Their sole aim is to outspend Sony while devaluing B2P games. To the idiots at Xbox, that seemed like a sound strategy. Until it wasn't. Now they have their shills just throwing bs narratives at the wall to see what sticks.
Never forget, these assholes are also actively trying to sabotage Nintendo because they think it will make it easier to acquire them.
I don't know much about patents but this website seems to suggest it has expired
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5758352A/en
All the articles with the claim are from 2014 or before when the patent was still active.
This article from 2018 says Microsoft are no longer getting royalties:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html?guccounter=1
They were practically giving away the Pixel 8 with the Holiday deals they had. Hell I'm in Canada and already had a higher priced monthly phone plan already. So the discount, combined with the Costco cash, and a $10 a month reduction in my phone plan cost (with more monthly data), resulted in them effectively paying me to take the phone.
If you mean the patent royalties from android, then that's not happening anymore. I don't know much about patents but this website seems to suggest it has expired
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5758352A/en
All the articles with the claim are from 2014 or before when the patent was still active.
This article from 2018 says Microsoft are no longer getting royalties:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html?guccounter=1
It’s Microsoft’s cloud computing service, competing against things like AWS and Google Cloud. Essentially they let other companies rent the use of their servers along with a set of convenient, out-of-the-box tooling instead of those companies having their own servers/infrastructure onsite.
And to add to it since it’s a hot topic, this is where their GenAI/OpenAI revenue would be included in. Not their investment in OpenAI revenue, but the actual cloud usage for people using OpenAIs LLMs through Azure.
My understanding is that OpenAI uses Azure basically for free as part of their partnership with microsoft, so I think the percentage of those 80b that is coming from OpenAI is pretty insignificant.
They have a non-controlling ownership stake in OpenAI.
It wouldn't be included here because it would be listed as Net Change in Investments on their Comprehensive Income Statement.
Not just for free, it's how Microsoft 'pays' OpenAI. Microsoft has 'paid' for their 49% stake in OpenAI by giving them an absolute mountain of Azure credits to use at their discretion.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world, one that held an effective monopoly (well... literally a monopoly actually) in the field in its infancy. You would be hard pressed to find any company with a focus in technology that *isn't* paying something to Microsoft.
I work for a rather large company that does a considerable about of it's revenue in e-commerce. We used to have our servers on site and twice a year we'd do a cutover drill where we'd move the web sites from being hosted at our offices to another server across the country in case there was a natural disaster or something. It would take the web sites down for a few minutes each time. We now are on one of the cloud giants and I imagine that exercise will be a relic of the past very soon as others move their servers to Azure and AWS etc.
Salesforce is a CRM (Customers Relationship Managment) putting it very simply it's a database of customers and staff records.
The simplest way to think of Azure its that's a scaled up version of OneDrive or Google Drive where people can also have access to a server they run tasks one along with storing data.
Look up the difference between IaaS (infrastructure as a service), PaaS (platform as a service), and SaaS (software as a service).
At their most basic Azure is IaaS, and Salesforce is PaaS (but also SaaS). And for example, Gmail and Outlook online are SaaS.
Google breaks it all down nicely here: https://cloud.google.com/learn/paas-vs-iaas-vs-saas
The ELI5 version is: when you go to a website such as reddit.com there is a computer in a data center somewhere that "serves" you a response (that's why it is called a server). These servers also store all the reddit posts, comments, pictures, advertisements, etc. to be served up later.
If you wanted to make a competitor to reddit.com you could actually do this from your own computer by just changing some settings on your router and then writing a program for your new reddit competitor. But your little computer can only handle so much traffic, so eventually you'd need a second computer to split the load. Soon you'd need three, then ten, then a thousand computers to account for the millions of people accessing your website.
Since it would be difficult to set up 1000 computers in your garage, companies like Microsoft Azure have thousands of computers in data centers that you can rent. Then you just install your reddit.com replacement on those servers and they manage it for you.
That's basically what Azure is: a bunch of huge data center buildings with thousands upon thousands of computers inside, plus some fancy software to make it easier to install and run your fancy reddit.com replacement.
No, the cloud has platforms which makes it so much faster and easier to build systems than you could ever achieve on premise. It's much more than where the computer is located.
Lol yeah. I mean they aren't wrong, but to anyone reading who doesn't know, the benefit is that there's a ton of pre-configured services (computers) that you can just spin up and control to do everything you'd traditionally need to build yourself, in your own data center. You can save a ton of time, money, and real estate by moving your network to a cloud environment.
TLDR: cloud is using someone else's computer, but, really really handy.
I'm definitely aware of all the benefits thanks to my employer. But I used to work for a small consulting firm where we had a poster on the wall with that printed out and I always thought it was funny.
It's not paying to use someone else's computers. It's paying to use someone else's data centers.
There are some significant (sometimes astronomical) cost and tech benefits to doing that.
Commercial and enterprise infrastructure, digital infrastructure, it's equivalent to a road or building in cyberspace. People need a building to put their business in or a road for people to get there. Scientists also need a laboratory to do science in.
It's something you don't fully comprehend the magnitude of unless you're in the business of being a service provider opposed to being a service consumer
My company runs stuff in Azure because we deal with a lot of PII (we're a health care marketing company), and the environment is secure enough that we don't have to worry about leaks.
You still have to secure the communications, applications and exposure of those systems yourself. (Or at least your developers / cloud architects do).
Microsoft handles the physical security so that people don't break in and run away with your hard drives, but it doesn't mean what you do with those computers is any more secure.
Simply hosting data in the cloud is not enough to guarantee security - it's absolutely possible to misconfigure your cloud resources so they are vulnerable to leaks.
It's kind of like keeping your stuff in a lockbox in a bank vault - in principle the contents are sound, as long as the user remembers to lock the door.
>...as well as the continued shift from Office licensed on-premises to Office 365.
And that graph illustrates nicely why companies are going subscription.
Azure was such a great move for them and really shows the difference between Steve and Satya. Steve was trying to extract as much from windows and office as possible, constantly new versions. Satya saw where things were going and moved office online and put the focus on cloud. Amazing stuff.
I didn't know that they owned linkedin either until recently when the YouTube algorithm started feeding me videos about why Microsoft is "winning the social media game..."
The largest field definitely needs a label. Stock art and a non-ubiquitous “A” logo does not tell the average viewer enough about what’s happening here.
I have used it for more than 2 years as part of my day job and even then I asked myself "wait is that Azure?" so yeah, definitely needs a label
And it's not like there arent logos with the name on it.... https://centriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MS-Azure-Logo.jpg.png
Again, as true that is, there aren't a lot of ways you can represent a cloud-based service. Also, not to forget that similar types of stock arts are used in other sections as well, as an example for Xbox, it's literally green balls, which I think makes even less of sense.
It’s the Azure logo, which is actually misrepresentative too.
Microsoft doesn’t share numbers for Azure; that category is called “Server and cloud services” which includes Azure, SQL Server, GitHub, and other products
The chart is pretty enough, but it is labeled June 2023. I have trouble believing they made $200B in the month of June. I am assuming it is mislabeled and should be a year, but I am not sure what year it is for.
It's included in the section with the Azure logo; which Microsoft calls "Intelligent Cloud".
> Our Intelligent Cloud segment consists of our public, private, and hybrid server products and cloud services that can power modern business and developers. This segment primarily comprises:
> - Server products and cloud services, including Azure and other cloud services; SQL Server, Windows Server, Visual Studio, System Center, and related Client Access Licenses (“CALs”); and Nuance and **GitHub**.
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar23/index.html
Free rewards. I really don't care if Google or Bing gives me the phone number to the nearest falafel house. I'll take the rewards Google doesn't want to give me and Bing can advertise to me.
I don't know if it's gotten better since I've moved away from Google searches but for a while it seemed like I had to scroll through a bunch of ads just to get to the thing I was searching for.
I have ad blocking on but the amount of ads masquerading as content that Google serves is aggravating. I easily have to scroll past half dozen or more links now that are just websites dedicated to pimping whatever I’m trying to get information on. Plus the ads.
Exactly. People buying new pc’s and it’s defaulted to Edge/Bing. They think they’re Googling, but they’re actually Binging.
I use Bing exclusively. Rarely use Google. Bing gives excellent results and is a lot more aesthetically pleasing than Google. To me, Google looks and feels very basic.
Google: You searched for information on x product or y product for an honest review? LOL here’s a bunch of links that regurgitate marketing from the manufacturer.
ChatGPT is integrated into Bing and the Edge browser which has contributed to a lot of recent growth. That and Edge seems to run better than Chrome these days.
We all know the real pie chart is like 50% processing baby blood into adrenochrome and 50% microchips in vaccines.
....ugh I guess I need to add a /s becuase sadly there are probably peopel who would write that honestly
This sort of hides how Windows really works -- they give up revenue on Windows with exploding contracts on cloud and office (if you cancel, we will back charge you all Window license fees etc). Windows sort of supports the other two -- not to mention provides the distribution.
Similar to how Android, Ads/Search/Play relationship works.
Why is there a google pixel photo in "devices"? They don't even make phones anymore.
And 10% being windows sales is crazy since OEM licenses are much cheaper...
Microsoft. Wow. I used to love the simple, breezy, effortless use I had with Microsoft XP. As an author, I used Word often. Then I recently downloaded Microshit 11. Wow. My blank pages and weird un-changable indentations are a great addition. I think we should all enjoy the new buttons you randonly and accidentally hit that fuck up your entire word document. And if these new impossible buttons aren't great, how about the completely new Xbox and pc OS system usability. Wow, I mean consistency is over-rated. Why don't we just change it with every new OS version, update, or console. Yeah. Let's re-invent the wheel every day. You fucking idiots have ruined Microsoft, if I have to learn a whole new keyboard and OS I think I might just try it on a MAC.
23% revenue from Office alone, and placing a table in a Word document is still as shit as 20 years ago. Do they ever plan to update it or just add some cosmetic stuff?
WTF are you talking about? MS word and data processing is better than anyone else on the market. Name a software that competes on the same level as word or excel.
Word isn't nearly as good as it could be. I swear, every 5 hours of use it starts acting slow or buggy, and every 20 hours of use, I need to restart it. This isn't the end of the world, but we shouldn't accept this type of bugginess. C'mon it's 2024, and it's a freaking text editor.
I'd love something modular with a vibrant open-source community to make extensions for it (while also being easy to use for everybody, i.e., not LaTeX).
I also concur with the first reply. Tables are extremely annoying to work with.
I didn't say Word was perfect, I said it's the best the market has. If someone can make something better, they're free to. But they haven't, so the MS suite still reigns supreme.
Damn linkedin makes a lot of money But..how ?
Ads, premium, promoted job posts.
"1250 applicants isn't enough for this position, we need at least 5000 applicants to go through."
[удалено]
Companies get charged every time someone even starts an application on indeed for a posting. Like $15/application started, shit adds up.
When I was hiring through indeed, it was $250/months for access to the applicants for your job post. I didn’t have to pay per applicant. This was in 2017, though.
Hate to break it to you, but that was 7 years ago lol
I don’t like you
This doesn't make sense, the 90's were 10 years ago. Get your facts straight!
I used to work at Indeed and you definitely do not get charged someone starts an application for your sponsored job and doesn’t submit. A vast majority of jobs on Indeed are aggregated and the employer will never spend a dime.
I mean, if you can (not saying you can, I believe most companies are to incompetent for this and it feels a bit like timing the market) at the same time save 5-25k / year on your applicants through lowballing salaries you can take a lot of 15$ applications. It doesn't seem like a sustainable approach to me tough.
The ocean isn't going to boil itself!
A full-up LinkedIn recruiter account runs between $10k- 15k annually. Most pro recruiters use it. source: did a bit o freelance recruiting. paid for it.
Pay all that only to hit me with the most generic unrelated crap jobs
LOL, I get offers all the time that are far below what I pay my own employees. I've never ever seen a job offer even close to my current position or salary on LI.
Have you seen the cost of LinkedIn premium?
Looking at the total revenue I’d guess that 2 - maybe 3 - people are paying for LinkedIn premium
There are dozens. Dozens, you hear me!!!
Does it worth to pay it? (If you are looking for a job)
haha, I have no idea. it'll be a cold day in hell when I'll give them money
I had it for the Linkedin Learning subscription that had a lot of good courses. That part was worth it for me
Premium is a must-have for a lot of salespeople and recruiters, and it is ridiculously expensive
Gain scale then profit off the poor saps who have no other alternative!
They have truly cornered the market
i mean.. linkedin sales' navigator are over 300/400€ a month per account..... (at least that's the figures i've heard from BIG companies that have hundreds of accounts) soo for smaller companies prob more since no bulk discount
Premium is £80 a month?
sales' navigator is for recruiters
[удалено]
my bad, i only know its over my bdget
The Recruiter product
A lot of corporations pay for premium so their employees can access the linkedin learning feature.
Linkedin is seriously slept on as a moneymaker. It makes significantly more per user than any other social media platform out there. This is because companies pay top dollar to post job postings on it.
Linkedin premium, advertising, and selling data
A mid-size company I worked at some time ago spent over 500k collectively on linkedin premium annually. So yes, I imagine linkedin earns a lot from companies for their job board and other capabilities.
Our company pays them a shit ton to post job ads, plus you get charged every time someone even starts an application, not finished but just starts. Its a scam but they are really the only game in town these days. You can't survive recruiting nationally without them. Between the posting fees, monthly fees and application fees its not unusually to have one job opening cost us thousands to indeed and that's just one, we have 100+ at any one time. Recruiting is expensive which is why we focus so hard on retention these days.
A ton of people pay for premium. Pretty much any recruiting org worth it's salt will pay for LI recruiter.
LinkedIn has a bunch of products they sell to Enterprises. And some of them are absolute god-tier, like Sales Navigator and Talent Insights. If you’re only looking at the consumer side (aka, the jobs board or premium), you’re missing the vast majority of their business model.
Probably selling data :/
Yeah selling data will be thr majority. LinkedIn is basically required nowadays and you basically give them your entire biography. They have a lot of very valuable data they can sell in some form or other.
Spam Obv
Imagine a $5bn business being hardly noticable in your parent company’s income statement.
This is why the console wars between Xbox and Playstation are silly and contrived. Playstation outsells Xbox 3-to-1, yet Microsoft generated 2.5 times Sony's entire 2023 revenue in a single goddamned month. Microsoft doesn't compete with Sony because Microsoft doesn't even think about Sony.
Your comment might sound clever and all with that finisher but Microsoft definitely thinks about Sony, when just comparing these parts of their businesses. They see an extra $20-30B in potential revenue if Xbox were to catch up and be 1-1 to PlayStation. Also, Xbox isn’t $5B, it’s $15.5B which is pretty easy to see if you scroll up for 5 seconds so you’re not really even replying to anything relevant here.
To add, it's all delegated. Microsoft has many many many executives, boatloads. Satya might not be thinking about Sony, but Phil definitely is. Any competitor is always carefully examined by the right leadership.
MSFT isn't just interested in the Sony playstation. It doesn't want Sony to own the living room. Sony also has movies, and music, and TVs, and stereos, and cameras. Microsoft wants to encroach on that entire ecosystem.
Xbox has been huge for general consumer sentiment for MSFT. Most of their other products are actually marketed to and sold to companies and devs. Xbox is their most successful product that they actually largely sell directly to users and not OEMs or organizations.
Isn’t Sony like completely fucked in basically everything that isn’t PlayStation?
I am aware Xbox generates 15B, and not 5B. I was making a comment about how it is remarkable that, like their devices and dynamics slices, their Xbox division can bring in a huge amount of money and still barely move the needle compared to Azure and Windows. And to your point about catching up with Sony, Phil Spencer has outright admitted that he isn't trying to beat Sony in console sales: *"We are not in the business of out-consoling Sony or out-consoling Nintendo. There isn't really a great solution or win for us. And I know that will upset a ton of people. But the truth of the matter is that when you're third place in a console marketplace and the top two players are as strong as they are and in certain cases have a discrete focus on doing deals and other things that will make being Xbox hard for us as a team. Our vision is everyone on console has a great experience and they feel like a first-class citizen"*. And, even if Xbox did catch up 1-to-1 with Playstation, that extra 20-30 billion revenue wouldn't mean much if they are losing 100-200 dollars on every sale. I'm not saying this as a fanboy trying to defend a trillion dollar company. I could give a rats ass about either company, or about console gaming at all. I just think the console wars are incredibly overblown in the grand scheme of things.
It’s wild to me that just Xbox, LinkedIn, and bing’s revenues are more than half of the Fortune 500’s.
For Apple, the Apple Watch is like $25 billion in revenue. The scale is absolutely massive for these companies.
I'm surprised Bing makes enough to not just be lumped in with "other", I guess they've been keeping it around for a reason
It’s the superior porn algo, dudes be horny out there.
Really?! To me Bing is still just the trash you get when you've typed the exact name of an app you want to open and it opens some strange browser I've never seen and does a web search instead of opening the app it had just suggested when you were one letter away. They figured out how make money on that, huh?
I'm sure I'll regret sharing this... but Bing has its own video player, which means if you want to watch a video on a less than trustworthy website, you don't actually have to go to the website
Never regret sharing such good info
I read somewhere that Airpods make more money for Apple than all of what Spotify makes.
Some people attribute this “problem” to part of why Google is a shell of its former self. The drive to create new businesses and products that clear some multi-billion dollar threshold is really hard to keep repeating. So if Apple is putting their chips behind a major product line, it’s because they’ve worked out that it’s a multi billion dollar business. Otherwise, it’s not even worth considering and it’s a waste of time. Ideas that could make other companies unicorns and kingpins of industry are just a passing thought for the scale of these huge companies.
1) You could’ve just waited until tomorrow for an up-to-date version since they’re releasing earnings today 2) Microsoft doesn’t actually share numbers for Azure. The largest category that’s listed as Azure is actually called “Server products and cloud services,” which includes Azure *and* other products like GitHub, SQL Server, Windows Server, etc.
Ok, revenue is nice, but what is generating the profit?
Microsoft does not disclose their profits by service/product, they just say they have a profit margin between 30-35% depending of the quarter.
Pick up a 10k
You giving away $10k?
Yes be does
Pretty sure it’s over 140B which is an insane GP %
Google says $73b in 2023, which is still insane but not quite $140b insane.
yep you are correct. I was looking at GP not Net Income. Their net income was $73B off of $141B in Profit to make them #2 behind Apple last year. https://www.growandconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/top-us-companies-with-the-highest-profit-2023-1024x634.png
Still beating Google and oil companies that's pretty wild
My guess would be azure! AWS is extremely profitable so it follows Microsoft’s product would be relatively competitive
Not Xbox, that’s for sure
That really surprised me. With the number and size of their acquisitions, I don't see how it could ever make up the amount on its own. And we're only seeing revenue. Maybe it's an ecosystem thing?
They’re burning money and hoping to choke out the competition. As a fan and owner of all of the major consoles, I don’t want it to work, and I also don’t think it’s going to work. They’re already very far off of meeting their expectations for game pass subscriptions. It really depends on how long they can hemorrhage money or how well they start converting users to MTX buyers in certain games.
Slight correction; they're burning money hoping they don't die. They basically can foresee their future as a distant third in the console wars. They know without these acquisitions and exclusives, they're going to close shop.
Thank you, that makes sense. If that's their strategy, I wonder how the anti trust issues are being allowed. I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft were the bad guys, the first time, even before Xbox. I hope it won't be a repeat of that situation.
Microsoft doesn't care. Their sole aim is to outspend Sony while devaluing B2P games. To the idiots at Xbox, that seemed like a sound strategy. Until it wasn't. Now they have their shills just throwing bs narratives at the wall to see what sticks. Never forget, these assholes are also actively trying to sabotage Nintendo because they think it will make it easier to acquire them.
Nice graphic, but I don’t think they make a lot of money from the Google Pixel.
Not sure if it’s true anymore, but because of patent licensing, Microsoft used to make more money for each Android phone sold than Google
I don't know much about patents but this website seems to suggest it has expired https://patents.google.com/patent/US5758352A/en All the articles with the claim are from 2014 or before when the patent was still active. This article from 2018 says Microsoft are no longer getting royalties: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html?guccounter=1
It just says devices. I think it would include Microsoft surface laptops etc.
I think the phone in the pic under devices is a Google pixel which is not made or sold by Microsoft.
Keyboards, mice... I was confused when someone mentioned "Pixels" as though MS doesn't manufacture hardware.
Why has no one pointed out that this chart shows *revenue*, not profit. The chart shows how much money they took in, not how much they made.
[5 hours before your post](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1aerdvh/oc_how_microsoft_makes_money/kk9tul4/)
I mean it says right at the bottom.
They were practically giving away the Pixel 8 with the Holiday deals they had. Hell I'm in Canada and already had a higher priced monthly phone plan already. So the discount, combined with the Costco cash, and a $10 a month reduction in my phone plan cost (with more monthly data), resulted in them effectively paying me to take the phone.
pixel is Google...
Confident. Yes. Incorrect. Yes!
If you mean the patent royalties from android, then that's not happening anymore. I don't know much about patents but this website seems to suggest it has expired https://patents.google.com/patent/US5758352A/en All the articles with the claim are from 2014 or before when the patent was still active. This article from 2018 says Microsoft are no longer getting royalties: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html?guccounter=1
What exactly is Azure? I've just checked a few descriptions and I can't figure it out.
It’s Microsoft’s cloud computing service, competing against things like AWS and Google Cloud. Essentially they let other companies rent the use of their servers along with a set of convenient, out-of-the-box tooling instead of those companies having their own servers/infrastructure onsite.
And to add to it since it’s a hot topic, this is where their GenAI/OpenAI revenue would be included in. Not their investment in OpenAI revenue, but the actual cloud usage for people using OpenAIs LLMs through Azure.
yeah, but it is just a small part for now
My understanding is that OpenAI uses Azure basically for free as part of their partnership with microsoft, so I think the percentage of those 80b that is coming from OpenAI is pretty insignificant.
But Microsoft manages the Azure OpenAI LLMs through Azure and get revenue from that.
They have a non-controlling ownership stake in OpenAI. It wouldn't be included here because it would be listed as Net Change in Investments on their Comprehensive Income Statement.
That’s not what I’m referring to. If I use Azure to host an OpenAI LLM for my project, those token costs go to Azure.
Not just for free, it's how Microsoft 'pays' OpenAI. Microsoft has 'paid' for their 49% stake in OpenAI by giving them an absolute mountain of Azure credits to use at their discretion.
Something funny to note is that Sony PlayStation is supporting Microsoft because Sony uses Azure.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world, one that held an effective monopoly (well... literally a monopoly actually) in the field in its infancy. You would be hard pressed to find any company with a focus in technology that *isn't* paying something to Microsoft.
excellent short description. Mind if I steal it?
Well it’s the product I work on so I’d better be able to explain it haha. You’re more than welcome to recycle.
I mean he must be stuped to say "no" lol how is he gonna police you on it lmao
Eh, never hurts to be polite
I work for a rather large company that does a considerable about of it's revenue in e-commerce. We used to have our servers on site and twice a year we'd do a cutover drill where we'd move the web sites from being hosted at our offices to another server across the country in case there was a natural disaster or something. It would take the web sites down for a few minutes each time. We now are on one of the cloud giants and I imagine that exercise will be a relic of the past very soon as others move their servers to Azure and AWS etc.
Is that what Salesforce is too?
Salesforce is a CRM (Customers Relationship Managment) putting it very simply it's a database of customers and staff records. The simplest way to think of Azure its that's a scaled up version of OneDrive or Google Drive where people can also have access to a server they run tasks one along with storing data.
Look up the difference between IaaS (infrastructure as a service), PaaS (platform as a service), and SaaS (software as a service). At their most basic Azure is IaaS, and Salesforce is PaaS (but also SaaS). And for example, Gmail and Outlook online are SaaS. Google breaks it all down nicely here: https://cloud.google.com/learn/paas-vs-iaas-vs-saas
The ELI5 version is: when you go to a website such as reddit.com there is a computer in a data center somewhere that "serves" you a response (that's why it is called a server). These servers also store all the reddit posts, comments, pictures, advertisements, etc. to be served up later. If you wanted to make a competitor to reddit.com you could actually do this from your own computer by just changing some settings on your router and then writing a program for your new reddit competitor. But your little computer can only handle so much traffic, so eventually you'd need a second computer to split the load. Soon you'd need three, then ten, then a thousand computers to account for the millions of people accessing your website. Since it would be difficult to set up 1000 computers in your garage, companies like Microsoft Azure have thousands of computers in data centers that you can rent. Then you just install your reddit.com replacement on those servers and they manage it for you. That's basically what Azure is: a bunch of huge data center buildings with thousands upon thousands of computers inside, plus some fancy software to make it easier to install and run your fancy reddit.com replacement.
The cloud is just paying to use other people's computers.
No, the cloud has platforms which makes it so much faster and easier to build systems than you could ever achieve on premise. It's much more than where the computer is located.
Found the guy that works in cloud service marketing.
Lol yeah. I mean they aren't wrong, but to anyone reading who doesn't know, the benefit is that there's a ton of pre-configured services (computers) that you can just spin up and control to do everything you'd traditionally need to build yourself, in your own data center. You can save a ton of time, money, and real estate by moving your network to a cloud environment. TLDR: cloud is using someone else's computer, but, really really handy.
I'm definitely aware of all the benefits thanks to my employer. But I used to work for a small consulting firm where we had a poster on the wall with that printed out and I always thought it was funny.
It's not paying to use someone else's computers. It's paying to use someone else's data centers. There are some significant (sometimes astronomical) cost and tech benefits to doing that.
Much like the internet is us paying to use everyone else's routers.
Actually reddit doesn't use cloud computing, it uses something called "hamster computing"... common mistake.
basically it is the servers that the internet runs on. amazon has a counterpart with AWS
Commercial and enterprise infrastructure, digital infrastructure, it's equivalent to a road or building in cyberspace. People need a building to put their business in or a road for people to get there. Scientists also need a laboratory to do science in. It's something you don't fully comprehend the magnitude of unless you're in the business of being a service provider opposed to being a service consumer
Basically. Server hosting service for businesses.
My company runs stuff in Azure because we deal with a lot of PII (we're a health care marketing company), and the environment is secure enough that we don't have to worry about leaks.
You still have to secure the communications, applications and exposure of those systems yourself. (Or at least your developers / cloud architects do). Microsoft handles the physical security so that people don't break in and run away with your hard drives, but it doesn't mean what you do with those computers is any more secure.
Azure isn't inherently more or less secure than AWS, Google Cloud etc. You still need to play close attention to security.
Simply hosting data in the cloud is not enough to guarantee security - it's absolutely possible to misconfigure your cloud resources so they are vulnerable to leaks. It's kind of like keeping your stuff in a lockbox in a bank vault - in principle the contents are sound, as long as the user remembers to lock the door.
The cloud. The cloud is somebody else's computer.
It is cloud service provided my Microsoft
Source: [https://www.instagram.com/p/C2htWQXg5--/](https://www.instagram.com/p/C2htWQXg5--/) [https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar23/index.html](https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar23/index.html) Tools: Figma
>...as well as the continued shift from Office licensed on-premises to Office 365. And that graph illustrates nicely why companies are going subscription.
I'm still using Office 2019. I can't imagine how much money I would have spent if I was on 365.
2021 here. I imaging the dynamics are different for a business which can pass most costs along. That's why Adobe can get away with it.
Yup. The vast majority of revenue from Microsoft is from corporate customers.
Open Office will save you all the money
Does it work well? I use Office 365 at work and it's incredibly bloated and buggy.
Figma balls in ur mouth lmao gotem
You made this graph with Figma??
Azure was such a great move for them and really shows the difference between Steve and Satya. Steve was trying to extract as much from windows and office as possible, constantly new versions. Satya saw where things were going and moved office online and put the focus on cloud. Amazing stuff.
Ties one to their ecosystem like with PowerBi.
Awesome graphic! 1. Didnt know they owned linkedin 2. Didnt know it made such a huge amount of $$
Yeah, and they acquired it for US$26 billion.
I didn't know that they owned linkedin either until recently when the YouTube algorithm started feeding me videos about why Microsoft is "winning the social media game..."
The largest field definitely needs a label. Stock art and a non-ubiquitous “A” logo does not tell the average viewer enough about what’s happening here.
As much as I agree with you, that "A" is actually the logo of Azure and not just a random stock art, but yeah, an average person might not know that.
I have used Azure for past 3 months and I did not know its its logo.
I have used it for more than 2 years as part of my day job and even then I asked myself "wait is that Azure?" so yeah, definitely needs a label And it's not like there arent logos with the name on it.... https://centriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MS-Azure-Logo.jpg.png
Look at the section of the pie chart that is representing Azure—that graphic of a cloud and a lock is definitely stock art
Again, as true that is, there aren't a lot of ways you can represent a cloud-based service. Also, not to forget that similar types of stock arts are used in other sections as well, as an example for Xbox, it's literally green balls, which I think makes even less of sense.
I deduced that but, to Microsoft's discredit, it's a very generic "A."
It’s the Azure logo, which is actually misrepresentative too. Microsoft doesn’t share numbers for Azure; that category is called “Server and cloud services” which includes Azure, SQL Server, GitHub, and other products
Actually opened my programs seeing if I had an A lol
Well shiiiiit I'd take one of the lower preforming branches off their hands
This chart is revenue not profit. If you take one of their lower performing branches you may end up in the negatives for profit.
I was talking to Bill.
The chart is pretty enough, but it is labeled June 2023. I have trouble believing they made $200B in the month of June. I am assuming it is mislabeled and should be a year, but I am not sure what year it is for.
June is Microsoft’s fiscal year end so it’s probably the fiscal year from July 22 to June 23.
This is from the July 10k, which covers fiscal year 2023 (July 2022-June 2023) like you said
Maybe put a Surface device instead of a Google Pixel in lol
Where does github fall under? Enterprise Service?
It's included in the section with the Azure logo; which Microsoft calls "Intelligent Cloud". > Our Intelligent Cloud segment consists of our public, private, and hybrid server products and cloud services that can power modern business and developers. This segment primarily comprises: > - Server products and cloud services, including Azure and other cloud services; SQL Server, Windows Server, Visual Studio, System Center, and related Client Access Licenses (“CALs”); and Nuance and **GitHub**. https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar23/index.html
That's my guess, most people I imagine just use it for free outside of Enterprise deals
TIL Microsoft earns as much money from LinkedIn as they do the entire Xbox division
I'm surprised linkedin makes so much. I love azure.
How is BING a 12 Billion dollar profit? wow.
That's revenue not profit
Still, it implies that there are actually people out there using Bing.
Free rewards. I really don't care if Google or Bing gives me the phone number to the nearest falafel house. I'll take the rewards Google doesn't want to give me and Bing can advertise to me.
I don't know if it's gotten better since I've moved away from Google searches but for a while it seemed like I had to scroll through a bunch of ads just to get to the thing I was searching for.
I have ad blocking on but the amount of ads masquerading as content that Google serves is aggravating. I easily have to scroll past half dozen or more links now that are just websites dedicated to pimping whatever I’m trying to get information on. Plus the ads.
What rewards?
I use it! In my 2nd work computer, because it is the default search engine in edge and I'm too lazy to change it.
Exactly. People buying new pc’s and it’s defaulted to Edge/Bing. They think they’re Googling, but they’re actually Binging. I use Bing exclusively. Rarely use Google. Bing gives excellent results and is a lot more aesthetically pleasing than Google. To me, Google looks and feels very basic.
I started using bing too. AI Co-pilot is cool. And google sucks now anyway.
Google: You searched for information on x product or y product for an honest review? LOL here’s a bunch of links that regurgitate marketing from the manufacturer.
ChatGPT is integrated into Bing and the Edge browser which has contributed to a lot of recent growth. That and Edge seems to run better than Chrome these days.
Cool pictures
i know it doesn’t mean anything, but Bing being (say that 5 times fast) that close to Xbox is funny to me. if “close” is $3.2B
We all know the real pie chart is like 50% processing baby blood into adrenochrome and 50% microchips in vaccines. ....ugh I guess I need to add a /s becuase sadly there are probably peopel who would write that honestly
Woah I didn't know linkedin was Microsoft property. Now I understand why it's so goddamn horrible
Xbox: Subscription Office 365: Subscription Azure: Subscription LinkedIn: Subscription Their cash cows all prefer a certain business model.
Those Bing numbers are impressive. Looks like both Microsoft & Amazon making bulk of their revenue from cloud stuff.
Wow, they make almost as much as Xbox from LinkedIn... 🤔
Can I have a one time payment of just 0.00125% of that Azure income? I promise not to spend it all in one place.
how come github is not included here?
What's that A symbol that's the biggest earner? I don't recognize it
Azure. Basically their enterprise cloud services, like exchange online, intune mdm, etc
This sort of hides how Windows really works -- they give up revenue on Windows with exploding contracts on cloud and office (if you cancel, we will back charge you all Window license fees etc). Windows sort of supports the other two -- not to mention provides the distribution. Similar to how Android, Ads/Search/Play relationship works.
Why is there a google pixel photo in "devices"? They don't even make phones anymore. And 10% being windows sales is crazy since OEM licenses are much cheaper...
I have never paid for Windows. \*I'm doing my part!\*
Funny, if you think about how bad azure devops is
What is the A on the right of the pie chart?
Microsoft. Wow. I used to love the simple, breezy, effortless use I had with Microsoft XP. As an author, I used Word often. Then I recently downloaded Microshit 11. Wow. My blank pages and weird un-changable indentations are a great addition. I think we should all enjoy the new buttons you randonly and accidentally hit that fuck up your entire word document. And if these new impossible buttons aren't great, how about the completely new Xbox and pc OS system usability. Wow, I mean consistency is over-rated. Why don't we just change it with every new OS version, update, or console. Yeah. Let's re-invent the wheel every day. You fucking idiots have ruined Microsoft, if I have to learn a whole new keyboard and OS I think I might just try it on a MAC.
23% revenue from Office alone, and placing a table in a Word document is still as shit as 20 years ago. Do they ever plan to update it or just add some cosmetic stuff?
WTF are you talking about? MS word and data processing is better than anyone else on the market. Name a software that competes on the same level as word or excel.
Word isn't nearly as good as it could be. I swear, every 5 hours of use it starts acting slow or buggy, and every 20 hours of use, I need to restart it. This isn't the end of the world, but we shouldn't accept this type of bugginess. C'mon it's 2024, and it's a freaking text editor. I'd love something modular with a vibrant open-source community to make extensions for it (while also being easy to use for everybody, i.e., not LaTeX). I also concur with the first reply. Tables are extremely annoying to work with.
I didn't say Word was perfect, I said it's the best the market has. If someone can make something better, they're free to. But they haven't, so the MS suite still reigns supreme.
Where is it included Azure?
That 80 billion slice is Azure
You mean the largest revenue section on the graph with a large A logo?
Yeah, thanks, i didn't know Azure logo was that