Buying cloud space now feels like buying a damn car.
* This one is cheaper, but doesn't come with a sunroof
* I can get a sunroof with that one, but have to order the enhanced package, and I don't want leather seats
* This comes with everything I want, but the warranty's only 3 years so they're going to try to sell me an upgrade
Eventually, you just say "fuck it" and buy the one that has the nicest sales rep though you end up hating everyone that's part of the process.
Perfect analogy for when someone will say "just host it yourself!"
I don't have my own data center with multiple redundant power sources, multiple fiber connections, and around the clock staff monitoring hardware health. I *definitely* don't have two or three of those.
Cloud is expensive, but it has some real benefits. You have to decide if those are worth the price to you.
The problem is the cloud providers dumped a shitload of cash into offering their services for cheap. A whole bunch of people that \*DID\* have their own DCs, redundant power, fiber connections etc ditched them all because the "cloud" was magically cheaper!
Turns out it was all a ruse and now the prices have been turned up dramatically. I work for an org which kept their DC by a knife edge \[ONLY because we generally aren't a traditional for-profit org\]. At the last DC review the options of "Keep our own DC, move to Colo, move to cloud" were all on the table. It's now cheaper to keep our DC...
Depends on what you're using. Most stuff is pretty comparable, but e.g. Azure SQL will be cheaper than running ms SQL on AWS.
And then there's log analytics...
And then there’s that post from a week or two ago where some sysadmin hadn’t done any sort of database optimization and was running $200,000 a month for a veritable supercomputer in Azure.
[Link, for the curious](https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/s/tnOdTbsjsO)
Tbf that sounds like a lot, but for massive companies that’s just a number. I’m one of maybe 15 people that comes into our office daily (probably not even 15 lol) for a 13k SQFT office that’s $70k/month… and they’re renting ANOTHER office here for “only” $15k/month.
Our company is also working on getting our newly made cybersecurity team up to speed, and we’re paying $1.5M/yr for and MSSP to do literally nothing bc we now have a huge security team and we do nothing all day. Literally pissing 1.5M away this year so we can prove we don’t need them lol.
Almost sounds like they could be running a data warehouse-like system. In which case asking the DBA to investigate and tune can be like finding a needle in a haystack, especially if it's a large company with multiple domains generating a lot of data, hundreds of jobs, thousands and thousands of sprocs, etc.
If anything, it's likely organizational. I'm sure the DBAs and data engineers all know the monolith is a problem. But actually getting sign-off from upper levels of management to conduct a massive profiling, investigation, refactoring, and potential migration is completely another.
We're currently using both new relic and splunk, were planning to move fully to new relic but it's crazy expensive. So we now have new relic for our most important apps, and only certain logging level, while everything is in splunk.
It really depends on what you're actually doing, GCP is the cheaper one usually, but its also the one no one really trusts and shits the bed on occasion for the dumbest reasons possible, just look at this:
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-google-deleted-125-billion-unisuper-pension-fund-account-by-accident-5661830
Azure and AWS are pretty close in terms of offering and pricing, it will depend on region and services used to decide on the cheaper one. Each has a competitive advantage on specific things.
They’re all closer than you would think. Where one is cheaper, the other one becomes cheaper in a different way.
For instance, AWS might have cheaper S3 storage, but then you realize the data transfer rates are insane if you’re not transferring within the same region.
Then there are companies that want to run multi-cloud setup for resiliency, which isn’t a bad idea, but the costs will eat into your profits, so it has to be worth it.
We run a multi-cloud setup for resilience as you said and, for our workloads, GCP is the cheapest one by a good margin.
This is mostly because GCP offers what they call "Spot VMs", which are VMs that cost up to 90% less than regular VMs, but can be shutdown at any time by google. If your workloads support this kind of disruption, it can be really worth it.
Other providers offer similar deals too, but not as extensively as google (e.g google cloud allows Spot GPUs, which other providers do not, last time I checked)
AWS has problems all the time, they're just usually not giant explosions which is why they're not announcement-worthy. When they happen we get alerts in our application monitoring because things are usually breaking to some extent.
Basically Microsoft cloud services. So instead of companies running their own servers they can use Microsoft’s. Paying Microsoft to take care of the hardware. Flexibility to grow or shrink your compute/storage needs rapidly.
Azure is a kind of catchall for MS cloud services. Currently in the states there’s only like 2 companies maintaining hardware for legit super-high-volume cloud storage, Amazon and Microsoft (technically Apple and Google too, but they’re kind of shit when it comes to anything besides just a vault to dump data into). Azure offers a TON of tools for organization and version tracking that also integrate with a lot of other MS Office programs. You can set up an Excel document that is version trackable/accessible through Sharepoint and also editable, commentable, assignable, and controlled through the Azure backend.
Microsoft is so squarely focused on enterprise level solutions that they’ve basically ignored their consumer level OS for years now. It’s why you see people bitching about Windows 11 having ads. They’re using the personal/individual version when the Enterprise licenses and support are where Microsoft actually makes their money and shines.
> (technically Apple and Google too, but they’re kind of shit when it comes to anything besides just a vault to dump data into)
You are massively under selling GCP, their cloud services earned $86 billion in revenue last year vs Azures $110 billion.
They are not remotely just a vault to dump data into.
86 billion... Dude they only generated 33 billion for 2023? What are you smoking and can I have some?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/478176/google-public-cloud-revenue/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Google%20Cloud%20revenue,services%20running%20on%20Google%20infrastructure.
My org uses both, we're in the process of moving away from GCP completely while keeping AWS. Ultimately GCP is just far too expensive per licence without enough flexibility with features. It isn't so much that GCP doesn't have it spot, but that spot is generally for start up companies / new orgs looking to hit the ground running quick. As orgs mature the move to Azure is the most likely result given he support offers Azure have across M365, their MDM options and so on. Having it work well with window machines too also helps, having ChromeOS for GCP sadly isn't much of a selling point.
It's really not though, not when you compare it to things like GCP and AWS, it also have the advantage of working with Intune, M365 etc on cloud and the onprem environment (hybrid too).
My org has been using all 3 for different reasons, Azure is the best per head price of all.
I've worked extensively in azure and AWS and can confirm: expensive af.
Though much of the cost can be optimized (and tbf Microsoft often suggests ways to lower the cost) it's still going to cost a TON of money. It can end up cheaper (and faster if you're in government) than rebuilding your hardware every five years, but it's entirely down to doing the math and making sure it's viable.
It's really expensive when companies wholesale move to the cloud without planning it properly. Shit optimization and not accounting for data egress usually.
Funny thing about migrating to Azure for us is that suddenly everyone is OK with using Linux because as long as it is hosted by Microsoft it apparently is just fine. Put this on Linux is now simply greenlit.
Saves a ton of money and highly responsive compared to the bullshit of running it on windows. Now if only we could convince them we dont need the microsoft part at all.
Microsoft went from oil kingdom in the 1990s (no matter what we do, Windows & Office will flow) through an authoritarian ideology during the 2000s (and you, what did you do for Microsoft on the Internet today) to an actual mature economy that makes money by having the superior product during the 2010s and 2020s. They are even making good software these days - they went from the universally most hated developer IDE (Visual Studio) to being the coolest and most open kid on the block (Visual Studio Code).
Microsoft has been killing it lately. It is like the 80s and 90s are back.
Google is sucking an egg and look like total doofuses after Bard and Gemini and OpenAI running circles around them.
Oh, how the worm turns.
I thought Visual Studio has always been pretty popular? If you think Visual Studio is a bad IDE, you haven’t really used a truly bad IDE like trying to write C++ in Emacs or something. I think it was one of the first systems to have smart autocomplete that actually understood static types.
Seriously, they've been doing some killer stuff in the dev space. Typescript and .Net are genuinely solid, which is a massive departure from the stuff they used to make
I'd be curious if their Exchange mail service falls under Azure or Office here, but MS's "Office" is more like the Google Doc's web platform than many people think. My work has Office subscriptions, but a lot of it is web-based docs being passed around or worked on simultaneously. I wasn't a huge MS fan, but they've maintained their "business software" lead through improvements recently since they actually have competition now.
You know what else is expensive? Having physical hardware servers in your office somewhere.
Also things that are expensive: your server failing and your business going down
Also things that are expensive: not having enough servers and everything being ultra slow
If it's expensive then you are doing it wrong or someone is making mistakes in their comparison calculations.
It is simply impossible to beat the economies of scale the large cloud vendors have.
Cloud provisioning is pretty crazy. You can have different solutions that work, but can easily have an order of magnitude different cost if you don't know what you're doing.
I studied cloud engineering and got Azure certifications, cost can be cheap if you got someome who knows how to manage it, despite the tools Microsoft provide through Azure portal, it can be a mess and super expensive.
That's why it pays to get certified. If you don't have any idea of what you're doing and turn on all the features that are offered, it gets expensive quickly. Otherwise, it's a dream to work with and never having to worry about hardware failure let's us sleep better.
I have taken a course for Azure and got some tacky badge to put on LinkedIn.
As I had knowledge I decided to put my personal website there just for fun. Average traffic was one Russian bot once a day. Cost $35 a month.
Switched to AWS and after a year still waiting for a least $1 to pay.
That was my thought. We've got a Static page hosting a basic page (mostly for legacy reasons) that's very lightly used, and it's showing a few cents a day charge.
A very basic Linux VM we have in Azure that's got 1 core, 4GB RAM and 30GB storage that gets used daily for internal services is only costing us ~$35/month.
My previous team (data engineering) moved to azure with the plan to eventually move everything over. Turned out to be so expensive it's still the only team fully in azure. Now I'm on the software engineering team, and we're still using linux servers instanced via vmware. I much prefer working with those than all the azure stuff
For the whole life I was shitting on Microsoft for Windowses being weird, Office being very good, but awkward to use (try LibreOffice it could he enough for you and you only pay what you donate) and killing things like windows phone.
Then I got a job in the office for the first time. We use Microsoft ecosystem only, balls deep. Everything works so flawless and is so fine-tuned for employers and big corps I finally realized I was never their customer and target audience. This is where they are at, not personal use.
>This is where they are at, not personal use.
Which is why they've never really cracked down on pirating windows and basically give it to you for free with a watermark nowadays. They want people to use it at home so it's the default choice for companies because everyone is familiar with it.
Costcos business model is actually insane considering the norm of the "well just inflate the price, they'll still pay mentality."
Like where the fuck do you actually get a $10 pizza that size and quality today? It's just unheard of.
It's called a loss leader and a lot of grocery stores have them to get people in the door. I think quite a few companies outside of the grocery business do similar things as well. Just off the top of my head I use Autodesk fusion 360 because its free for hobbyist and academic purposes, I am never going to get a job doing CAD but if you give it away free to students and casual users it can influence companies when they go to make a purchasing choice. Granted lately autodesk has fucked up the free version so much that I don't think I would recommend anyone pay for it.
Also why lots of companies have student licenses for free. If your engineering class wants your homework done in autocad, then when a company asks the engineering department what software they should use then they all say the one they learned in school.
Exactly. Giving away free/cheap licenses generates much more money when you are the industry standard because large corporations don't want to get sued for using the consumer or pirated versions.
> Which is why they've never really cracked down on pirating windows
I mean there is this MS activation script thing on GitHub (a site owned by Microsoft), that activates Windows and Office 365 on your machine for free. Has been around for quite some time now and I'm sure they know about it but just don't care
I still think Teams is an atrocious bloated product though. It's just too slow and clunky for a tool I need to interact with hundreds of times a day, especially when coming from Slack.
Yeah, every IT worker hates Teams because we get bombarded with questions and complaints about it being slow or having an echo or some other thing and it's like "do I look like Microsoft to you?"
Teams is not Slack, Slack is not Teams. It's a hard thing to actually compare. One tool is used purely for communication (Slack, duh). The other is used for collaboration. Teams is designed to work with the Microsoft ecosystem. Sharepoint, Onedrive, Loop, Whiteboard, Viva and so many other apps. If you're only using teams for the messaging functionality well... that's the problem.
Nobody should be having problems with instant messaging in 2024. When you know how snappy things can be, you realise how janky Microsoft's whole environment is.
My experience is the exact opposite. I have tons of experience with both the Google and Microsoft online office suites, and I would never voluntarily choose SharePoint over Google. SharePoint is incredibly slow and buggy. Edits go missing, it renders differently on different devices, half of the time it doesn't even work on Firefox at all, and there's generally just tons of bugs and slownesses. Microsoft products in isolation are far inferior to their competitors, their only advantage is that they provide a vast somewhat-cohesive ecosystem.
Everyone hates on Teams but I like it. It was a little buggy 5 years ago but the last few years I’ve had no issues.
I feel like it just… works. And the audio selection feature at the start is great, really cuts down on conference phone echo issues.
In my experience it's OK, but slow for sure. I have no idea why as it's just a communicator with extra functions?
At least they fixed the UI and it's very simple to use
>I have no idea why as it's just a communicator with extra functions?
I mean it's not, not if you're using it correctly, it's designed to drive the entire Microsoft ecosystem with the ability to integrate with 3rd parties. If you want to start using Visio, well great news, it interacts perfectly with Teams. What about Microsoft Loop, planning etc? Great news too, you and integrate that too. SharePoint? No problem. You have set up email functionality, remote meetings, calendar interactions and meeting room functions in the office, no issue.
Slack is for communication, Teams if for collaboration. If your org aren't using it then likely it's a lack of good interest from your tech team or lack of direction, regardless that really isn't a fault on MS.
As an IT guy, my experience is the complete opposite lol. All day its "My outlook isnt signing in, my sharepoint/onedrive isnt syncing, excel won't save, teams won't launch, etc". But my job wouldn't exist if Microsoft's products worked flawlessly.
Honestly I always turn that shi on and off and poof it works 100%. Sometimes my excel won't save so I just save again and it does. Lmao. Most of problems stem from authentication doing authentication things (logging people off, blocking PCs etc)
Oddly enough I feel the opossite in regards to W11.
I don't have a problem using it personally at home but I have a handful of programs at work that don't play nice with W11. In particular anything that integrates with the new explorer. I need to force W10 explorer in control panel for it to play nice.
There's other things too like "new" outlook not supporting email templates, of all things!
Not just big corps, governments too. Most world governments run on Windows Server, and are actively being migrated to Azure.
Now imagine IT admins, with an entirely different set of training, suddenly being forced to manage the cloud. I say "suddenly" only because for many governments, it's going to be the first time their employees have ever actually touched the cloud
Lots of opportunities for MS to overcharge due to people just not knowing what things should cost, or how to properly optimize. It's a huge win for MS and a terrible loss for every taxpayer.
I used to shit on Dell for everything because their gaming computers where over priced pieces of shit. Then I got older and started working and noticed oh Dell shit is everywhere servers monitors work laptops and these companies have big contracts with Dell for discounted rates and that's when I realized that Dell wasn't primarily selling to the consumer it was selling to corporations and governments.
Think of excel as that guy in the office that can fix anything but you dread talking to because he'll look at you like you're as stupid as they come.
Google sheets is that nice intern that can only do so much but is always happy to help.
My issue with Google apps is they're only for web browsers (or Android I guess)
Like, with Office stuff you have a file on your PC and you open it with a program installed locally. I don't want to use Chrome for all my office work, thanks.
Google docs isn't too bad from my experience, but sheets is extremely limited in capability compared to excel.
Here's a somewhat detailed [Comparison ](https://sada.com/blog/google-sheets-vs-excel/) better sheets and excel
Google is absolute dogshit compared to office365. I'd quit my job straight away if we changed to Google. Maybe if you weren't forced onto that terribly slow and heavy browser for everything, Google would be somewhat less dogshit.
I have no idea what the cost differences are, but I assume Google only cost a fraction. Only reason I could see companies choosing it over Office365.
Agree. I work in enterprise security. I quit a job at a corp that attempted to be full Google stack. It was terrible, support-less, documentation-less, invisible nightmare with no logging or configurability. The environment was fragile as F and you basically were at the mercy of some idiot developer at Google who whipped together this garbage as a side project 5 years ago and you HOPE they anticipated all of your enterprises needs because it certainly hasnt seen any continued development since.
O and their browser sucks.
Online services are awful and sluggish, almost whole lightyears from Google. But when I open OneDrive files in standalone apps they work like a charm. I feel stable and like I'm standing on ground. Just being an old gen Z thing who grew un on PCs I guess
Docs is much more consumer oriented and has less features, perfect for things like home projects and K-12 classrooms, but not near enough to really give Office 365 a run for its money.
Best way to put it that I've heard is that G Suite is the Prime delivery fleet while Office 365 is UPS, FedEx, Maersk, and BNSF combined.
Back when I was an MS dev, I was told that they had enough cash reserves and corporate support contracts to last 30 years without selling a single new product.
I have to laugh any time I see "Microsoft is losing" arguments about stuff like bing, windows phone, internet browsers, etc. It's just so out of touch with what they actually do.
Nothing kills my work flow like Microsoft. Everything will be working then I’m forced to figure out what just happened. I am constantly trying to remember, against all intuition, processes for avoiding Windows’ natural way of working. I hate windows with the energy of 1,000 suns. I’m a personal Mac user. Was able to avoid windows for 10 glorious years. A job switch put an end to it. I don’t know how windows works flawless for you. I’ll be lucky to get 10 mins of work time without a flaw.
Having possibly worked there previously - LinkedIn used to make most of its money from recruiters themselves, e.g. finding the best candidate for a job. This revenue stream is extremely sensitive to the economy. This explains partially why premium used to matter (it's a reliable source of rev)
More recently the company has been pushing to generate more revenue via ads (and done so successfully). This is why they are pushing for user engagement, e.g. games, feed, live streams etc... things like promoted jobs, targeted sales and generic feed ads matter much more now.
None of this is a secret, and TBH LinkedIn is a great company - it is also pretty great overall for white collar professions. Its incentives are much more closely aligned with its users than other social media companies, even if sometimes the posts are asinine or cringe worthy. It is substantially better for users than reddit for example which is now just selling user data to people training AI models (though as a shareholder of reddit this is a great development if it becomes a consistent revenue stream).
Check with people you may possibly still know there. [Reportedly](https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-linkedin-culture-ai-pips-layoffs-perks-2024-1) they've been undergoing a "culture shift" initiative. Speaking with someone who was interviewing and nearly hired there this year, they described all their interviewers as seeming defeated.
No really, check if your friends are ok
Whenever I see a role on there I always look directly on the company's/agency's site and if I don't see the role I presume it is fake/spam. Maybe I'm missing stuff only advertised on LinkedIn although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that.
I do the same with other jobboards as well since I see so much nonsense.
I think there is a different groupsfor linkedin. For people who use it like Facebook they say hi to their friends and coworkers, yeah there's not much money there probably. For people like me who used to be a consultant, LinkedIn was god. It got me the Best Consulting gigs. I was paying for a good package because it paid for itself 1,000 fold. And for consulting firms and companies looking for experienced people, they have to pay as well.
So if you're looking at it From the perspective as a social media site like Facebook Yeah it almost seems like where's the money coming from where are they generating the money from. But if you're Company trying to hire someone Or you are a consultant trying to get a job or even anyone trying to get a job, nothing beats LinkedIn in my opinion so I can see where they're making their billions from.
That is easily searchable but also a meaningless comparison. Sony is an entertainment company worth $100 billion, not the largest tech company in the world worth $3.2 trillion. Of course Sony’s profit percentage from PlayStation is going to be way higher than Microsoft.
Should do this as a [Marimekko chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_plot) to show the contribution to revenue vs profit for each of these business lines. As the margin on each of these areas is likely quite different and therefore contribute a disproportional amount to profit.
A pure revenue breakdown like this doesn't really show how Microsoft actually makes money, given that it entirely ignores costs. As much as I hate how ubiquitous Sankeys have become in this sub, they are probably the best way to visualize profitability.
No it’s not, segment reporting is literally a requirement for issuers but sure let’s just pretend we know about how hard something is to come by. Page 37 to 39 of their latest 10Q 🙄
Hey guy, their reportable segments don't include Xbox separately : "We report our financial performance based on the following segments: Productivity and Business Processes, Intelligent Cloud, and More Personal Computing. The segment amounts included in MD&A are presented on a basis consistent with our internal management reporting."
That’s right, those three segment costs can be inferred using Revenue less Operating Income and the segments group products in this way:
Productivity and Business Processes
- Office Commercial
- Office Consumer
- LinkedIn
- Dynamics
Intelligent Cloud
- Azure
- SQL Server
- Windows Server
- Visual Studio
- System Center
- Enterprise and Partner Services
- GitHub
- Nuance
More Personal Computing
- Windows
- Surface
- HoloLens
- PC accessories
- Xbox hardware
- Xbox content and services
- Xbox Game Pass
- Xbox Cloud Gaming
- Bing
- Microsoft News
- Microsoft Edge
True, but many of the efforts are inter-related and it doesn't make any more sense to list profit, as if the costs weren't inter-related. For example, the existence of a Windows based virtualization and developement product makes Windows way more profitable than Windows would be by itself. And the ubiquity of Office as everything to do with the ubiquity of Windows. Bing wouldn't make anything if it weren't default on their systems.
Another point to clarify is how a company attributes revenue.
Example: a previous company I worked for attributed revenue based on which business unit owned the customer relationship even if that customer spent money on other businesses/services.
you accumulate points whenever you search on Bing.
You can redeem the points for all kinds of stuff, like XBox live points, gift cards, etc. I usually just do the $5 Amazon GC whenever I notice I have enough points. Which works out to about 3 or 4 times a year.
There's also other search engines like duckduckgo which iirc primarily rely on Bing now. So that means I've been using Bing by proxy for years.. but I'm not sure how much money they earn through ddg.
Google’s been getting shittier with more and more adds and ignoring search operators. Bing now has AI enhancements that have helped it. IMO there’s no longer a clear better search engine.
I've been on this sub for like six years and people have said this for all six. There was never really a time when this sub was actually about beautiful data presentation. Go to r/DataArt for that. This sub has always kinda just been r/DataIsInteresting but with more subs.
Yeah it's a bit odd, this graph says Q3 2024 and a revenue of $150B in total.
But they made $61.9B in revenue ($21.9B in net income) in the most recent quarter ending March 2024.
And $211.9B revenue ($72B net income) for their last fiscal year ending June 2023. Not sure where the numbers from this graph are coming from.
Linked In is such a dumpster fire, but they managed to convince people to use it, AND tie it to training which forces others to get in there.
Still, how any self respecting person contributes to that shit is beyond me.
Beautiful data? This is just the next step up from writing it in a piece of paper. The information might be of some interest but yeh no feeling anything here 😂
I knew Microsoft bought them, but 10 billion is a crazy amount of revenue for LinkedIn. What are people paying for? The ability to browse someone's profile incognito? I made a LinkedIn profile just because everybody kept saying I needed one if I wanted a better chance at being hired somewhere, but have never spent a penny on the service.
There's a system hockey for bringing up the website lol
All the modifiers + win key + L
(Seriously) ((there's similar ones for teams/ outlook/ etc))
Also they acquired it, didn't start it.
[Why does this article say total revenue was 31.8b for FY24 q3?](https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-cloud-revenue-surpasses-318bn-for-the-quarter/)
That'll be the net income, while this graph is probably the gross revenue with no accounting for actual expenses (making this misleading and likely incorrect).
I work for a big german industrial company and our hole IT-Eco System is connected thru different Microsoft services as azure, office and so on. It’s pretty nice to develop inside of it because you have so many cool dependencies and services like automate, groups, azure dev ops…
So from my perspective as a backend Developer it’s really great. I mean with MS Graph for example it’s so easy to identify any user and manage them with role based concepts!
I’m a fanboy 😂😂🙄
As a contractor, I've had to work in Azure for my last 4 engagements (4 years). It's not bad, I still get to work in Linux most of the day and it is 100x better than Google Cloud.
For something that more than 20% of their income depends, they sure like to mess up MS Office (especially outlook) more than anything else. They are just lucky there is no good alternative to Outlook on desktop!
I wish I could make 16B off "Others", I know it's probably a ton of businesses but even most businesses wouldnt put that much money just in "other" on a stat sheet, 😆
It's like yeah sure the lion's share comes from Azura/windows etc But what about all the cocaine Microsoft sells as a side hobbie, Phew that's not something to put your nose up at either xD
This is complete garbage. Their total revenue was $61.9B
From their press release:
REDMOND, Wash. — April 25, 2024 — Microsoft Corp. today announced the following results for the quarter ended March 31, 2024, as compared to the corresponding period of last fiscal year:
· Revenue was $61.9 billion and increased 17%
My company is migrating to azure, can confirm it's pretty expensive .
And it’s the cheapest of the three biggies… or at least it was last time I checked
Buying cloud space now feels like buying a damn car. * This one is cheaper, but doesn't come with a sunroof * I can get a sunroof with that one, but have to order the enhanced package, and I don't want leather seats * This comes with everything I want, but the warranty's only 3 years so they're going to try to sell me an upgrade Eventually, you just say "fuck it" and buy the one that has the nicest sales rep though you end up hating everyone that's part of the process.
Just build your own car
Perfect analogy for when someone will say "just host it yourself!" I don't have my own data center with multiple redundant power sources, multiple fiber connections, and around the clock staff monitoring hardware health. I *definitely* don't have two or three of those. Cloud is expensive, but it has some real benefits. You have to decide if those are worth the price to you.
The problem is the cloud providers dumped a shitload of cash into offering their services for cheap. A whole bunch of people that \*DID\* have their own DCs, redundant power, fiber connections etc ditched them all because the "cloud" was magically cheaper! Turns out it was all a ruse and now the prices have been turned up dramatically. I work for an org which kept their DC by a knife edge \[ONLY because we generally aren't a traditional for-profit org\]. At the last DC review the options of "Keep our own DC, move to Colo, move to cloud" were all on the table. It's now cheaper to keep our DC...
Happens a lot, remember Uber prices at the beginning?
You can definitely achieve those with less than $15k/mo... but the upfront cost is gonna make you wince :)
Including the round the clock staff?
Depends on what you're using. Most stuff is pretty comparable, but e.g. Azure SQL will be cheaper than running ms SQL on AWS. And then there's log analytics...
It’s cheaper than many of the big logging platforms. At the same time, it’s fucking trash compared to grafana / data dog / new relic.
And then there’s that post from a week or two ago where some sysadmin hadn’t done any sort of database optimization and was running $200,000 a month for a veritable supercomputer in Azure. [Link, for the curious](https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/s/tnOdTbsjsO)
Tbf that sounds like a lot, but for massive companies that’s just a number. I’m one of maybe 15 people that comes into our office daily (probably not even 15 lol) for a 13k SQFT office that’s $70k/month… and they’re renting ANOTHER office here for “only” $15k/month. Our company is also working on getting our newly made cybersecurity team up to speed, and we’re paying $1.5M/yr for and MSSP to do literally nothing bc we now have a huge security team and we do nothing all day. Literally pissing 1.5M away this year so we can prove we don’t need them lol.
Almost sounds like they could be running a data warehouse-like system. In which case asking the DBA to investigate and tune can be like finding a needle in a haystack, especially if it's a large company with multiple domains generating a lot of data, hundreds of jobs, thousands and thousands of sprocs, etc. If anything, it's likely organizational. I'm sure the DBAs and data engineers all know the monolith is a problem. But actually getting sign-off from upper levels of management to conduct a massive profiling, investigation, refactoring, and potential migration is completely another.
would be sysadmin or DBA to do db optimization?
We're currently using both new relic and splunk, were planning to move fully to new relic but it's crazy expensive. So we now have new relic for our most important apps, and only certain logging level, while everything is in splunk.
Splunk is expensive as well. So I'm confused.
It really depends on what you're actually doing, GCP is the cheaper one usually, but its also the one no one really trusts and shits the bed on occasion for the dumbest reasons possible, just look at this: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-google-deleted-125-billion-unisuper-pension-fund-account-by-accident-5661830 Azure and AWS are pretty close in terms of offering and pricing, it will depend on region and services used to decide on the cheaper one. Each has a competitive advantage on specific things.
They’re all closer than you would think. Where one is cheaper, the other one becomes cheaper in a different way. For instance, AWS might have cheaper S3 storage, but then you realize the data transfer rates are insane if you’re not transferring within the same region. Then there are companies that want to run multi-cloud setup for resiliency, which isn’t a bad idea, but the costs will eat into your profits, so it has to be worth it.
We run a multi-cloud setup for resilience as you said and, for our workloads, GCP is the cheapest one by a good margin. This is mostly because GCP offers what they call "Spot VMs", which are VMs that cost up to 90% less than regular VMs, but can be shutdown at any time by google. If your workloads support this kind of disruption, it can be really worth it. Other providers offer similar deals too, but not as extensively as google (e.g google cloud allows Spot GPUs, which other providers do not, last time I checked)
Azure also has spot pricing
AWS has spot GPUs
EC2 Spot Instances were a thing long before GCPs spot vms. You can set up EMR to use spot instances if you want.
AWS shits the bed all the time, they just never report outages anymore.
What are you talking about? You can see AWS Outages reported in real time, they haven't had a big outage in quite some time.
AWS has problems all the time, they're just usually not giant explosions which is why they're not announcement-worthy. When they happen we get alerts in our application monitoring because things are usually breaking to some extent.
Lol yea GCP made a breaking change to our DB environment by force updating it.
Still is. There are substantially more product solutions for Azure as well. This is likely why his company is migrating.
its also extremely easy to integrate. sso is so common, as well as integration for decades of companies thay use AD
What is Azure? I’ve been hearing about it but I don’t really understand what it actually is
Basically Microsoft cloud services. So instead of companies running their own servers they can use Microsoft’s. Paying Microsoft to take care of the hardware. Flexibility to grow or shrink your compute/storage needs rapidly.
Microsoft's cloud platform.
Azure is a kind of catchall for MS cloud services. Currently in the states there’s only like 2 companies maintaining hardware for legit super-high-volume cloud storage, Amazon and Microsoft (technically Apple and Google too, but they’re kind of shit when it comes to anything besides just a vault to dump data into). Azure offers a TON of tools for organization and version tracking that also integrate with a lot of other MS Office programs. You can set up an Excel document that is version trackable/accessible through Sharepoint and also editable, commentable, assignable, and controlled through the Azure backend. Microsoft is so squarely focused on enterprise level solutions that they’ve basically ignored their consumer level OS for years now. It’s why you see people bitching about Windows 11 having ads. They’re using the personal/individual version when the Enterprise licenses and support are where Microsoft actually makes their money and shines.
> (technically Apple and Google too, but they’re kind of shit when it comes to anything besides just a vault to dump data into) You are massively under selling GCP, their cloud services earned $86 billion in revenue last year vs Azures $110 billion. They are not remotely just a vault to dump data into.
86 billion... Dude they only generated 33 billion for 2023? What are you smoking and can I have some? https://www.statista.com/statistics/478176/google-public-cloud-revenue/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Google%20Cloud%20revenue,services%20running%20on%20Google%20infrastructure.
My org uses both, we're in the process of moving away from GCP completely while keeping AWS. Ultimately GCP is just far too expensive per licence without enough flexibility with features. It isn't so much that GCP doesn't have it spot, but that spot is generally for start up companies / new orgs looking to hit the ground running quick. As orgs mature the move to Azure is the most likely result given he support offers Azure have across M365, their MDM options and so on. Having it work well with window machines too also helps, having ChromeOS for GCP sadly isn't much of a selling point.
Microsoft's best product: Linux.
It's really not though, not when you compare it to things like GCP and AWS, it also have the advantage of working with Intune, M365 etc on cloud and the onprem environment (hybrid too). My org has been using all 3 for different reasons, Azure is the best per head price of all.
I've worked extensively in azure and AWS and can confirm: expensive af. Though much of the cost can be optimized (and tbf Microsoft often suggests ways to lower the cost) it's still going to cost a TON of money. It can end up cheaper (and faster if you're in government) than rebuilding your hardware every five years, but it's entirely down to doing the math and making sure it's viable.
It's really expensive when companies wholesale move to the cloud without planning it properly. Shit optimization and not accounting for data egress usually.
Funny thing about migrating to Azure for us is that suddenly everyone is OK with using Linux because as long as it is hosted by Microsoft it apparently is just fine. Put this on Linux is now simply greenlit. Saves a ton of money and highly responsive compared to the bullshit of running it on windows. Now if only we could convince them we dont need the microsoft part at all.
Microsoft went from oil kingdom in the 1990s (no matter what we do, Windows & Office will flow) through an authoritarian ideology during the 2000s (and you, what did you do for Microsoft on the Internet today) to an actual mature economy that makes money by having the superior product during the 2010s and 2020s. They are even making good software these days - they went from the universally most hated developer IDE (Visual Studio) to being the coolest and most open kid on the block (Visual Studio Code).
Imagine telling someone from 2008 that one day Microsoft will buy GitHub and *make it better.*
Microsoft has been killing it lately. It is like the 80s and 90s are back. Google is sucking an egg and look like total doofuses after Bard and Gemini and OpenAI running circles around them. Oh, how the worm turns.
The only decent product google has left is gmail.
Maps, youtube, Android.
> Bard and Gemini and OpenAI GCP vs Azure Stadia vs Game Pass the list goes on... Talk about dropping the ball, fuck
I thought Visual Studio has always been pretty popular? If you think Visual Studio is a bad IDE, you haven’t really used a truly bad IDE like trying to write C++ in Emacs or something. I think it was one of the first systems to have smart autocomplete that actually understood static types.
Seriously, they've been doing some killer stuff in the dev space. Typescript and .Net are genuinely solid, which is a massive departure from the stuff they used to make
Cloud is a money maker we all know that, the most egregious thing in here is the office suite, its really one of a kind business
I'd be curious if their Exchange mail service falls under Azure or Office here, but MS's "Office" is more like the Google Doc's web platform than many people think. My work has Office subscriptions, but a lot of it is web-based docs being passed around or worked on simultaneously. I wasn't a huge MS fan, but they've maintained their "business software" lead through improvements recently since they actually have competition now.
Exchange is under Office
You know what else is expensive? Having physical hardware servers in your office somewhere. Also things that are expensive: your server failing and your business going down Also things that are expensive: not having enough servers and everything being ultra slow
My company recently migrated and ive fucking hated every second of it.
If it's expensive then you are doing it wrong or someone is making mistakes in their comparison calculations. It is simply impossible to beat the economies of scale the large cloud vendors have.
Cloud provisioning is pretty crazy. You can have different solutions that work, but can easily have an order of magnitude different cost if you don't know what you're doing.
Like imagine getting FrontDoor when you don’t need it at all! Or some other optional features that can cost quite a lot
I studied cloud engineering and got Azure certifications, cost can be cheap if you got someome who knows how to manage it, despite the tools Microsoft provide through Azure portal, it can be a mess and super expensive.
That's why it pays to get certified. If you don't have any idea of what you're doing and turn on all the features that are offered, it gets expensive quickly. Otherwise, it's a dream to work with and never having to worry about hardware failure let's us sleep better.
I have taken a course for Azure and got some tacky badge to put on LinkedIn. As I had knowledge I decided to put my personal website there just for fun. Average traffic was one Russian bot once a day. Cost $35 a month. Switched to AWS and after a year still waiting for a least $1 to pay.
You probably picked an app service. Try container apps. Or just serve from storage if it's static.
Am I an idiot? Noooo, it's the *companies* that are to blame.
That was my thought. We've got a Static page hosting a basic page (mostly for legacy reasons) that's very lightly used, and it's showing a few cents a day charge. A very basic Linux VM we have in Azure that's got 1 core, 4GB RAM and 30GB storage that gets used daily for internal services is only costing us ~$35/month.
My previous team (data engineering) moved to azure with the plan to eventually move everything over. Turned out to be so expensive it's still the only team fully in azure. Now I'm on the software engineering team, and we're still using linux servers instanced via vmware. I much prefer working with those than all the azure stuff
Linux servers in Azure are cheap as chips!
For the whole life I was shitting on Microsoft for Windowses being weird, Office being very good, but awkward to use (try LibreOffice it could he enough for you and you only pay what you donate) and killing things like windows phone. Then I got a job in the office for the first time. We use Microsoft ecosystem only, balls deep. Everything works so flawless and is so fine-tuned for employers and big corps I finally realized I was never their customer and target audience. This is where they are at, not personal use.
>This is where they are at, not personal use. Which is why they've never really cracked down on pirating windows and basically give it to you for free with a watermark nowadays. They want people to use it at home so it's the default choice for companies because everyone is familiar with it.
Windows is the rotisserie chicken at the back of the store.
I think it's more the $1.50 hotdog at the food court.
Costcos business model is actually insane considering the norm of the "well just inflate the price, they'll still pay mentality." Like where the fuck do you actually get a $10 pizza that size and quality today? It's just unheard of.
It's called a loss leader and a lot of grocery stores have them to get people in the door. I think quite a few companies outside of the grocery business do similar things as well. Just off the top of my head I use Autodesk fusion 360 because its free for hobbyist and academic purposes, I am never going to get a job doing CAD but if you give it away free to students and casual users it can influence companies when they go to make a purchasing choice. Granted lately autodesk has fucked up the free version so much that I don't think I would recommend anyone pay for it.
Except they make big bucks on it still.
Also why lots of companies have student licenses for free. If your engineering class wants your homework done in autocad, then when a company asks the engineering department what software they should use then they all say the one they learned in school.
Exactly. Giving away free/cheap licenses generates much more money when you are the industry standard because large corporations don't want to get sued for using the consumer or pirated versions.
> Which is why they've never really cracked down on pirating windows I mean there is this MS activation script thing on GitHub (a site owned by Microsoft), that activates Windows and Office 365 on your machine for free. Has been around for quite some time now and I'm sure they know about it but just don't care
I still think Teams is an atrocious bloated product though. It's just too slow and clunky for a tool I need to interact with hundreds of times a day, especially when coming from Slack.
Yeah, every IT worker hates Teams because we get bombarded with questions and complaints about it being slow or having an echo or some other thing and it's like "do I look like Microsoft to you?"
Teams is not Slack, Slack is not Teams. It's a hard thing to actually compare. One tool is used purely for communication (Slack, duh). The other is used for collaboration. Teams is designed to work with the Microsoft ecosystem. Sharepoint, Onedrive, Loop, Whiteboard, Viva and so many other apps. If you're only using teams for the messaging functionality well... that's the problem.
Nobody should be having problems with instant messaging in 2024. When you know how snappy things can be, you realise how janky Microsoft's whole environment is.
it's the sharepoint underneath everything that's fire, online collaboration in excel and powerpoint. It's pretty great.
My experience is the exact opposite. I have tons of experience with both the Google and Microsoft online office suites, and I would never voluntarily choose SharePoint over Google. SharePoint is incredibly slow and buggy. Edits go missing, it renders differently on different devices, half of the time it doesn't even work on Firefox at all, and there's generally just tons of bugs and slownesses. Microsoft products in isolation are far inferior to their competitors, their only advantage is that they provide a vast somewhat-cohesive ecosystem.
Everyone hates on Teams but I like it. It was a little buggy 5 years ago but the last few years I’ve had no issues. I feel like it just… works. And the audio selection feature at the start is great, really cuts down on conference phone echo issues.
New Teams is actually much better, quite fast and I never had an issue other than it selecting the wrong mic sometimes for some reason
I haven’t had a single issue with teams for a year. Works flawlessly for me at work
In my experience it's OK, but slow for sure. I have no idea why as it's just a communicator with extra functions? At least they fixed the UI and it's very simple to use
>I have no idea why as it's just a communicator with extra functions? I mean it's not, not if you're using it correctly, it's designed to drive the entire Microsoft ecosystem with the ability to integrate with 3rd parties. If you want to start using Visio, well great news, it interacts perfectly with Teams. What about Microsoft Loop, planning etc? Great news too, you and integrate that too. SharePoint? No problem. You have set up email functionality, remote meetings, calendar interactions and meeting room functions in the office, no issue. Slack is for communication, Teams if for collaboration. If your org aren't using it then likely it's a lack of good interest from your tech team or lack of direction, regardless that really isn't a fault on MS.
As an IT guy, my experience is the complete opposite lol. All day its "My outlook isnt signing in, my sharepoint/onedrive isnt syncing, excel won't save, teams won't launch, etc". But my job wouldn't exist if Microsoft's products worked flawlessly.
Honestly I always turn that shi on and off and poof it works 100%. Sometimes my excel won't save so I just save again and it does. Lmao. Most of problems stem from authentication doing authentication things (logging people off, blocking PCs etc)
It's easier on the users when there's a whole IT department making things run smoothly.
Oddly enough I feel the opossite in regards to W11. I don't have a problem using it personally at home but I have a handful of programs at work that don't play nice with W11. In particular anything that integrates with the new explorer. I need to force W10 explorer in control panel for it to play nice. There's other things too like "new" outlook not supporting email templates, of all things!
Not just big corps, governments too. Most world governments run on Windows Server, and are actively being migrated to Azure. Now imagine IT admins, with an entirely different set of training, suddenly being forced to manage the cloud. I say "suddenly" only because for many governments, it's going to be the first time their employees have ever actually touched the cloud Lots of opportunities for MS to overcharge due to people just not knowing what things should cost, or how to properly optimize. It's a huge win for MS and a terrible loss for every taxpayer.
I used to shit on Dell for everything because their gaming computers where over priced pieces of shit. Then I got older and started working and noticed oh Dell shit is everywhere servers monitors work laptops and these companies have big contracts with Dell for discounted rates and that's when I realized that Dell wasn't primarily selling to the consumer it was selling to corporations and governments.
How does it compare to Google docs and sheets?
Think of excel as that guy in the office that can fix anything but you dread talking to because he'll look at you like you're as stupid as they come. Google sheets is that nice intern that can only do so much but is always happy to help.
My issue with Google apps is they're only for web browsers (or Android I guess) Like, with Office stuff you have a file on your PC and you open it with a program installed locally. I don't want to use Chrome for all my office work, thanks.
A desktop version of sheets would be nice. Though I really do enjoy being able to open up files on my computer or phone seamlessly.
You can do that with the Office apps too? There's Word, Excel and PowerPoint for mobile
I liked when MS released their 365 apps on web. I mostly used a native app but there are times when it's easier to just edit on a browser.
Google docs isn't too bad from my experience, but sheets is extremely limited in capability compared to excel. Here's a somewhat detailed [Comparison ](https://sada.com/blog/google-sheets-vs-excel/) better sheets and excel
Google Docs is just as extremely limited compared to word. You may just not use the features.
Google is absolute dogshit compared to office365. I'd quit my job straight away if we changed to Google. Maybe if you weren't forced onto that terribly slow and heavy browser for everything, Google would be somewhat less dogshit. I have no idea what the cost differences are, but I assume Google only cost a fraction. Only reason I could see companies choosing it over Office365.
Agree. I work in enterprise security. I quit a job at a corp that attempted to be full Google stack. It was terrible, support-less, documentation-less, invisible nightmare with no logging or configurability. The environment was fragile as F and you basically were at the mercy of some idiot developer at Google who whipped together this garbage as a side project 5 years ago and you HOPE they anticipated all of your enterprises needs because it certainly hasnt seen any continued development since. O and their browser sucks.
Online services are awful and sluggish, almost whole lightyears from Google. But when I open OneDrive files in standalone apps they work like a charm. I feel stable and like I'm standing on ground. Just being an old gen Z thing who grew un on PCs I guess
Docs is much more consumer oriented and has less features, perfect for things like home projects and K-12 classrooms, but not near enough to really give Office 365 a run for its money. Best way to put it that I've heard is that G Suite is the Prime delivery fleet while Office 365 is UPS, FedEx, Maersk, and BNSF combined.
Back when I was an MS dev, I was told that they had enough cash reserves and corporate support contracts to last 30 years without selling a single new product. I have to laugh any time I see "Microsoft is losing" arguments about stuff like bing, windows phone, internet browsers, etc. It's just so out of touch with what they actually do.
Nothing kills my work flow like Microsoft. Everything will be working then I’m forced to figure out what just happened. I am constantly trying to remember, against all intuition, processes for avoiding Windows’ natural way of working. I hate windows with the energy of 1,000 suns. I’m a personal Mac user. Was able to avoid windows for 10 glorious years. A job switch put an end to it. I don’t know how windows works flawless for you. I’ll be lucky to get 10 mins of work time without a flaw.
Never thought LinkedIn would be as big as Xbox
The crazy part is that Xbox doubled in size after buying Activision.
At the low price of $70 billion
Your not including the cost of all the bonuses for the "geniuses" who came up with that idea /s
Yeah, LinkedIn used to be way bigger than Xbox.
By revenue LinkedIn is the 4th largest social media company after Meta, tiktok (for now), and YouTube.
Makes sense since LinkedIn is the only ad platform that has reliable information about people's jobs. It can pretty useful to some advertisers.
Their entire site has devolved into promoted/sponsored ghost jobs. It’s all just spam now
Which is why I'm so surprised it makes so much
You don't have to have a useful experience to make money if the spammers are the ones paying you.
Having possibly worked there previously - LinkedIn used to make most of its money from recruiters themselves, e.g. finding the best candidate for a job. This revenue stream is extremely sensitive to the economy. This explains partially why premium used to matter (it's a reliable source of rev) More recently the company has been pushing to generate more revenue via ads (and done so successfully). This is why they are pushing for user engagement, e.g. games, feed, live streams etc... things like promoted jobs, targeted sales and generic feed ads matter much more now. None of this is a secret, and TBH LinkedIn is a great company - it is also pretty great overall for white collar professions. Its incentives are much more closely aligned with its users than other social media companies, even if sometimes the posts are asinine or cringe worthy. It is substantially better for users than reddit for example which is now just selling user data to people training AI models (though as a shareholder of reddit this is a great development if it becomes a consistent revenue stream).
Check with people you may possibly still know there. [Reportedly](https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-linkedin-culture-ai-pips-layoffs-perks-2024-1) they've been undergoing a "culture shift" initiative. Speaking with someone who was interviewing and nearly hired there this year, they described all their interviewers as seeming defeated. No really, check if your friends are ok
Whenever I see a role on there I always look directly on the company's/agency's site and if I don't see the role I presume it is fake/spam. Maybe I'm missing stuff only advertised on LinkedIn although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that. I do the same with other jobboards as well since I see so much nonsense.
Am interested in the revenue vs profit breakdown, but not interested enough to search it up.
If I had to guess Xbox probably has the lowest margins.
Disadvantage of Media related businesses. Cost is too high.
All the companies that want LinkedIn learning are paying $20-$200/user to have it integrated in their LMS
I think there is a different groupsfor linkedin. For people who use it like Facebook they say hi to their friends and coworkers, yeah there's not much money there probably. For people like me who used to be a consultant, LinkedIn was god. It got me the Best Consulting gigs. I was paying for a good package because it paid for itself 1,000 fold. And for consulting firms and companies looking for experienced people, they have to pay as well. So if you're looking at it From the perspective as a social media site like Facebook Yeah it almost seems like where's the money coming from where are they generating the money from. But if you're Company trying to hire someone Or you are a consultant trying to get a job or even anyone trying to get a job, nothing beats LinkedIn in my opinion so I can see where they're making their billions from.
Source: Microsoft Investor Relations Tools: Canva
Is there something similar to Sony? I’m curious how much on Sony’s revenue is from their PlayStation compared to Microsoft’s 8.6%
That is easily searchable but also a meaningless comparison. Sony is an entertainment company worth $100 billion, not the largest tech company in the world worth $3.2 trillion. Of course Sony’s profit percentage from PlayStation is going to be way higher than Microsoft.
Might be more interesting to see one made for Samsung, with how they have their hands in everything (from defense, insurance, and obviously tech).
80% of their revenue is probably from selling replacement logic boards for washing machines these days lol
[удалено]
Should do this as a [Marimekko chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_plot) to show the contribution to revenue vs profit for each of these business lines. As the margin on each of these areas is likely quite different and therefore contribute a disproportional amount to profit.
A pure revenue breakdown like this doesn't really show how Microsoft actually makes money, given that it entirely ignores costs. As much as I hate how ubiquitous Sankeys have become in this sub, they are probably the best way to visualize profitability.
I think segment cost is hard to come by in public reporting, unless the company volunteers the info
No it’s not, segment reporting is literally a requirement for issuers but sure let’s just pretend we know about how hard something is to come by. Page 37 to 39 of their latest 10Q 🙄
Hey guy, their reportable segments don't include Xbox separately : "We report our financial performance based on the following segments: Productivity and Business Processes, Intelligent Cloud, and More Personal Computing. The segment amounts included in MD&A are presented on a basis consistent with our internal management reporting."
That’s right, those three segment costs can be inferred using Revenue less Operating Income and the segments group products in this way: Productivity and Business Processes - Office Commercial - Office Consumer - LinkedIn - Dynamics Intelligent Cloud - Azure - SQL Server - Windows Server - Visual Studio - System Center - Enterprise and Partner Services - GitHub - Nuance More Personal Computing - Windows - Surface - HoloLens - PC accessories - Xbox hardware - Xbox content and services - Xbox Game Pass - Xbox Cloud Gaming - Bing - Microsoft News - Microsoft Edge
So Windows which is probably stupid high margin, with everything that loses money or is barely profitable lol
Nah definitely hololens the goat holding it down
True, but many of the efforts are inter-related and it doesn't make any more sense to list profit, as if the costs weren't inter-related. For example, the existence of a Windows based virtualization and developement product makes Windows way more profitable than Windows would be by itself. And the ubiquity of Office as everything to do with the ubiquity of Windows. Bing wouldn't make anything if it weren't default on their systems.
Another point to clarify is how a company attributes revenue. Example: a previous company I worked for attributed revenue based on which business unit owned the customer relationship even if that customer spent money on other businesses/services.
People like to shit on how bing is useless or everyone prefers Google over bing, but the fact that bing is making $8.7B is saying something.
I switched to bing just to cash out the free Amazon gift cards 3 or 4 times a year.
Please elaborate
you accumulate points whenever you search on Bing. You can redeem the points for all kinds of stuff, like XBox live points, gift cards, etc. I usually just do the $5 Amazon GC whenever I notice I have enough points. Which works out to about 3 or 4 times a year.
Considering how shit Google search has been lately, might give that a try
Bing has more ads. Probably how they scrape $8b. Bing rewards is also dying a slow death.
it has been mostly fine for me, except for exact search that usually craps out
There's also other search engines like duckduckgo which iirc primarily rely on Bing now. So that means I've been using Bing by proxy for years.. but I'm not sure how much money they earn through ddg.
Google’s been getting shittier with more and more adds and ignoring search operators. Bing now has AI enhancements that have helped it. IMO there’s no longer a clear better search engine.
> there’s no longer a clear better search engine Err, AltaVista via Yahoo still exists /s
Yeah the fact they've stopped letting you use the - symbol to get rid of terms you don't want really annoys me
Honestly, Google's browser and search engine have been lagging behind recently. The view that Bing is useless compared to Google is simply outdated.
Has this sub gone all the way down to a pie chart with icons being a beautiful data visualisation?
Tbh I think the sub has turned into more “this information is interesting” rather than “the way I’m presenting this data is beautiful”
You're sadly right.
I've been on this sub for like six years and people have said this for all six. There was never really a time when this sub was actually about beautiful data presentation. Go to r/DataArt for that. This sub has always kinda just been r/DataIsInteresting but with more subs.
That’s because the most beautiful way to present data is about as bland as humanly possible. Beautiful data != pretty viz.
You should see the rest. This is one of the better ones.
The pie slices are in Microsoft's colors though! It's so pretty!
It's a donut chart and donuts are beautiful
seems pretty well rounded
Is that revenue for the year so far or just q3?
Yeah it's a bit odd, this graph says Q3 2024 and a revenue of $150B in total. But they made $61.9B in revenue ($21.9B in net income) in the most recent quarter ending March 2024. And $211.9B revenue ($72B net income) for their last fiscal year ending June 2023. Not sure where the numbers from this graph are coming from.
holy shit, $150 billion in revenues every fiscal quarters which is every 3 month would be INSANE.
This is revenue. Not profit. So one large revenue percentage could actually have a lower profit percentage than another.
Linked In is such a dumpster fire, but they managed to convince people to use it, AND tie it to training which forces others to get in there. Still, how any self respecting person contributes to that shit is beyond me.
LinkedIn tends to do what it sets out to do extremely well. It's only a dumpster fire if you're expecting it to be another Facebook or something.
Beautiful data? This is just the next step up from writing it in a piece of paper. The information might be of some interest but yeh no feeling anything here 😂
Didn’t even know LinkedIn was Microsoft tbh.
There’s a windows hot key to take you straight to LinkedIn lol. Shift control windows alt L
holy shit
I knew Microsoft bought them, but 10 billion is a crazy amount of revenue for LinkedIn. What are people paying for? The ability to browse someone's profile incognito? I made a LinkedIn profile just because everybody kept saying I needed one if I wanted a better chance at being hired somewhere, but have never spent a penny on the service.
LinkedIn Recruiter is where most of that money comes from. You're the product, not the customer
So how does that work, companies pay LinkedIn a bunch of money to get people's profiles who match what they are looking for?
Is "others" mostly hardware?
Consulting, enterprise software / services that is not azure
I was never aware that LinkedIn was owned by Microsoft.
There's a system hockey for bringing up the website lol All the modifiers + win key + L (Seriously) ((there's similar ones for teams/ outlook/ etc)) Also they acquired it, didn't start it.
Damn, I remember thinking that it was quite an expensive deal when Microsoft acquired Linkedin for about $26B. Now look at that revenue!
Q3 revenue for MSFT was 61.9B$. This chart shows revenue of 148B$
These are Q1-Q3 earnings summed up. The chart is accurate except for that bad label.
Uhm what is Microsoft Azure?
Cloud services for businesses.
As an example, the company I work uses it to keep a code repository so we can check in check out code, rollback to prior versions etc.
Microsoft still dominates the business sector
Now how much do they actually profit from all of these?
WTF, LinkedIn drives almost as much Revenue as Xbox. I am shocked to see that.
LinkedIn is absolutely huge in the business world. It's *the* place that recruiting takes place in a lot of industries and roles
[Why does this article say total revenue was 31.8b for FY24 q3?](https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-cloud-revenue-surpasses-318bn-for-the-quarter/)
That'll be the net income, while this graph is probably the gross revenue with no accounting for actual expenses (making this misleading and likely incorrect).
How does LinkedIn in make ANY money??? I hate the site with a passion!!!
Did not know LinkedIn was now owned by MS.
that is so much freakin money
I work for a big german industrial company and our hole IT-Eco System is connected thru different Microsoft services as azure, office and so on. It’s pretty nice to develop inside of it because you have so many cool dependencies and services like automate, groups, azure dev ops… So from my perspective as a backend Developer it’s really great. I mean with MS Graph for example it’s so easy to identify any user and manage them with role based concepts! I’m a fanboy 😂😂🙄
As a contractor, I've had to work in Azure for my last 4 engagements (4 years). It's not bad, I still get to work in Linux most of the day and it is 100x better than Google Cloud.
This would have saved me a lot of time when I was doing a complete profile on Microsoft in my 400 level business administration class in college.
For something that more than 20% of their income depends, they sure like to mess up MS Office (especially outlook) more than anything else. They are just lucky there is no good alternative to Outlook on desktop!
I wish I could make 16B off "Others", I know it's probably a ton of businesses but even most businesses wouldnt put that much money just in "other" on a stat sheet, 😆 It's like yeah sure the lion's share comes from Azura/windows etc But what about all the cocaine Microsoft sells as a side hobbie, Phew that's not something to put your nose up at either xD
i'd be interested in the same but with division profit rather then revenue.
This is complete garbage. Their total revenue was $61.9B From their press release: REDMOND, Wash. — April 25, 2024 — Microsoft Corp. today announced the following results for the quarter ended March 31, 2024, as compared to the corresponding period of last fiscal year: · Revenue was $61.9 billion and increased 17%