|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:00:55 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is
>> (or could be) their largest source of revenue.
>
> IIRC, Windows and Office are (respectively) their #1 and #2 earners.
> Everything else pales in comparison. Their most successful products
> outside of these two make nowhere near as much money for them.
>
> Of course, that was a few years ago, and things could have changed.
Possibly. I know MOM is frightfully expensive (at least in large
implementations) and at least when I was working with AD in a large
environment, we were told it was absolutely necessary in spite of the 7-
figure price tag.
>>> Think Windows Vista is bad now? Imagine how bad things would be 10
>>> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.
>>
>> Depends on how they structure the business. If the apps fed into the
>> OS development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it
>> could be self-reinforcing.
>
> Yeah, but they wouldn't get paid for the OS, only for the Apps, so
> there's the temptation to focus on the apps and not the OS.
Depends on how the revenue was structured and fed back. The part of my
company I work for, we are a cost center - we get almost all of our
funding from the product teams.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |