Microsoft ignores the post-PC world and reports $4.97 billion profit on top of $19.90 billion revenue for Q4 2013
Microsoft recently celebrated the start of a new year – at least for those who watch Microsoft. July marks the start of the fiscal year for Microsoft and today they’ve shared their financial results for their fourth quarter of 2013. The big news? The company had a 10 percent increase in revenue for the same quarter the previous year. The Redmond company reported $19.90 billion in revenue for Q4 2013 as they enter their phase as a devices-and-services company.
Apparently we’ve entered a “post-PC” world, but don’t tell Microsoft as they bring in $19.90 billion in revenue, which resulted in net income (profit) of $4.97 billion. The company went on to post diluted earnings at $0.59 per share. It wasn’t all sunshine and daffodils as the Surface RT project lost Microsoft $900 million. Here’s how the main divisions within Microsoft did:
- Windows - $4.411 billion revenue with $1.09 billion profit
- Online Services - $800 million revenue with $372 million loss
- Servers and Tools - $5.502 billion revenue with $2.33 billion profit
- Entertainment and Devices - $1.915 billion revenue with $110 million loss
- Business Division - $7.231 billion revenue with $4.87 billion profit
The format above is the last time you’ll see financial results reported like that. Because of the recent reorganization to a company that focuses on devices and services we’ll see a different structure. For example, devices like the Xbox, Surface and any other hardware makes falls under the leadership of Julie Larson-Green in the Devices and Studios division. It will be interesting to see how the financial structure looks one year from now.
More detailed analysis coming.
Source: Microsoft (opens in new tab)
Windows Central Newsletter
Get the best of Windows Central in your inbox, every day!
I've replaced my laptop with a Surface Pro 128 and a Toshiba DynaDock. The laptop replaced a tower 4 - 5 years ago. Microsoft's Surface Pro is brilliant! My setup has 3 monitors, an external HDD (x2), DVD R/W, wireless mouse and keyboard, and a wired GB network connection. Office 2013, Visio 2013, Project 2013, MapPoint NA 2013, Visual Studio 2012, Lotus 123, MS Works, AutoCAD, PaintShop Pro X5, Photoshop Elements 10, Nikon ViewNX 2, VMware Player, WMware vSphere Client, plus several other programs.
My MS Surface Pro tablet IS! my PC. There is no post-PC!
Yeah, you could argue that tablets cannot run games at some super high resolution like 2K or 4K and at 240fps. But to be honest with you, that argument's asinine. Only the most demanding of gamers even run games at resolutions beyond 1080p - the higher resolution monitors alone will set you back the price of a decent gaming rig (unless you buy it from Monoprice, that is). The point being, for the average PC gamer out there, the moment you hit 1080p60 with the games, and can run them with all the settings turned up to decent values, you've got a tablet good enough to replace your gaming desktop. And based on some of the tech I see coming, and guessing on some of the tech I know has to be in development, we are probably about a couple of years away from that mark.
Then again, if we will at some point get an extremely high speed port (like thunderbolt), we could have one device with a dock which offers more power.
1) Games look better and better, and/or are set in bigger and bigger worlds.
2) The power a graphics chip manufacturer can pack into a tablet-sized chip or SoC will always be less than what they can pack into a dedicated graphics card; ie present-day portable tech will never catch up with present-day dedicated tech. In two years' time tablet tech may equal today's graphics technology in some ways, but it'll still be way worse than graphics technology in two years' time.
So there will always (until there are no more graphics limits to surpass, in 200 years or whatever) be portable tech that lags dedicated tech, and games designed to look best on the best hardware will filter down to look still good on console hardware, okay on game streaming hardware, and not great on tablets.
Back in the 1980s, we were amazed at playing "Snake" typed from 8 pages for a Basic interpreter (you normally got your mum to type it) [O and 0 always causing confusion :) ]
Then saved the game to TAPE!
We watched Star Trek. They had personally communicators (flip the top and talk to anyone, anywhere0
Star Trek was science fiction. Well guess what, IN MY LIFETIME, we all have Star Trek personal communicators.
Point being, within your young persons lifetime - you will see screens with stupid resolution, and processors with stupid speed fit on your wrist, stuck in glasses, heck it might even be half implanted into your body.
It might seem far fetched now, but within 1 decade tablets will run games and look like the Xbox One of tomorrow. I can barely see this "big difference" between Console (Xbox 360) and my PC (660 ti nVidia) that PC fanboys bang on about. Its better yes, but not loads better - just a little bit.
Tablets will eventually be awesome on the graphics front, Moores Law will hold up long enough for that happen easily.
Second, how do you define "PC"? Is the Surface Pro a PC? What about Windows 8 convertibles, hybrids, etc? Of course they are... but they're also tablets.
Apple invented the modern tablet, but Microsoft is reinventing it again (or trying to) with Windows 8, Surface & other hybrids. Before Windows 8, tablets were basically large smartphones will no cellular service. After Windows 8, tablets can now be PCs... and PCs can be tablets.
While you are right that there is a "move towards mobility," you are flat wrong about the PC "dying a slow death." It's not dying at all. It's being reimagined & reinvented.
How's that for a counter argument?
the point is the desktop will never dissapear because mobility of computing isn't necessary for a large percentage of world business and with that, size/form factor is irrelevant.
I hate desktop apps, the design and modern UI make desktop apps extremely clunky. Everything is going touch one way or another, and the legacy desktop won't get us there.
Look, when the content that drives the world is made on the rest of the silly things that pop in and out of existance every decade, then the PC will be dead. Here is a hint, content in any real form will always be created on full on computers, not the end devices.
And dear god lets not go into the PC is dead at home. Anybody that needs to efficiently get real work done needs a full computer. Hey look, it is my 23" photoshop tablet... lets go out for a day while the ARM CPU crunches this one filter for 12 hours.
I personally will always need a computer at home simply because I find using touch screen frustrating at times. I need a physical keyboard to type and I need a large screen to view. On top of that I need some power to do things. That's just for home, I won't even talk about my work. I don't see any of my activities changing in the next two decades from now.
There are sometimes and somethings that a tablet or even laptop are just not the best for.
Also, your numbers don't add up: Windows - $4.411 billion revenue with $1.09 billion profit Online Services - $800 million revenue with $372 million loss Servers and Tools - $5.502 billion revenue with $2.33 billion profit Entertainment and Devices - $1.915 billion revenue with $110 million loss Business Division - $7.231 billion revenue with $4.87 billion profit
The revenue fits ($19,859 billion) but the profit is $7,808 billion? Bu the article says $4.97 billion? And where is the RT loss? Something's not right there...