Thursday, April 19, 2012

Microsoft's Windows sales pick up, but gaming softens


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Microsoft's sales growth for Xbox and Kinect slowed sharply last quarter, but other sectors like Windows helped the company post earnings that beat analysts' estimates.
Microsoft (MSFTFortune 500) pulled in earnings of 60 cents per share on sales of $17.4 billion for its fiscal third quarter, which ended March 31. Earnings dropped a penny per share from the same quarter last year, while sales also slipped.


But Microsoft noted that the decline was because of a $461 million tax benefit the company received last year. Without that one-time gain, earnings per share rose 7% over the year.
Most of Microsoft's businesses posted solid sales growth compared with last year: 14% for the server and tools division; 9% for the business sector, which includes Office; 6% for online services; and 4% for Windows.
Microsoft investor relations director Lisa Nelson called out the Windows sales, which grew to $4.6 billion, as an especially bright spot.
"We saw great demand from enterprises this quarter," Nelson told CNNMoney in an interview.
Microsoft's chief financial officer, Peter Klein, also stressed that on a post-earnings conference call with analysts. Part of the business sector boost was an improved PC sales market overall, he said.
But two recent products helped Microsoft's business division "actually slightly outgrow" the general PC growth, he said: Office 2010 and the brand-new Windows 8 operating system.
"Our product portfolio is stronger than it's ever been," Klein said.
But the gaming business, which has recently been a strong point for Microsoft, weakened compared to last year. Sales in that division fell 16%, to $1.6 billion.

Greenpeace hangs banner from Amazon building in protest of the cloud


The environmentalist group Greenpeace has leveled its latest protests against Seattle-based tech giants Amazon and Microsoft.
The organization alleges that the companies’ remote data services, often referred to as clouds, utilize dangerous and unsustainable energy sources.



“It turns out the companies that give us the cloud keep all that data in huge warehouses called data centers, and those use lots of electricity, much of which comes from dirty, dangerous energy like coal and nuclear power,” Greenpeace’s Casey Harrell said.
The group is trying to pressure Apple, Amazon and Microsoft to use renewable energy to power their facilities— following the lead of companies like Facebook and Google.
As part of the protest, Greenpeace unveiled a huge banner Thursday on a building adjacent to Amazon’s South Lake Union campus.
The banner is shaped like Apple’s iCloud icon and asks “Amazon, Microsoft how clean is your cloud?”
Greenpeace also produced a parody commercial depicting Microsoft’s Cloud as a coal plant in the sky.


Facebook-Instagram deal highlights Zuckerberg's hacker spirit



(CNN) -- If reports Wednesday are to be believed, one of the tech industry's biggest deals in recent history was hammered out almost exclusively by two 20-somethings over the course of what amounts to a long weekend.
On April 8, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg let the company's board of directors know he was about to spend $1 billion on hot photo start-up Instagram -- just hours before the deal was done,according to the Wall Street Journal.
The deal was nailed down, unnamed sources told the Journal, in only three days. Meetings between Zuckerberg, 27, and Instagram head Kevin Systrom, 28, that took place at Zuckerberg's multi-million-dollar Palo Alto, California, home.
It's a move that shows Zuckerberg displaying the hacker spirit that helped him launch a social-media juggernaut in his college dorm room. And that's a spirit that doesn't always jibe with the image of CEO of a corporation expected to be valued at up to $100 billion when it makes its first public stock offering in the next few weeks.
"On balance, I'm not sure it's the best way to do business," said Ali Velshi, CNN's chief business correspondent. "But Mark Zuckerberg has defied all rules."
The moxie suggested in the report comes at an interesting time for Facebook and Zuckerberg, who also reportedly whittled down Systrom's initial asking price of $2 billion.
On the brink of offering up Facebook, with its hundreds of millions of users, to stockholders, even Zuckerberg's controlling interest in the company (a 57% share of voting rights, according to reports) could soon need to be checked by the types of lawyers, bean-counters and other business types whose jobs involve looking out for a company's bottom line.
"This paints a complex picture of its CEO as at once confident and bold, and also nervous and panicky -- details that will be scrutinized come Facebook's imminent IPO," Kit Eaton wrote on Fast Company's website.
Velshi, who over the course of his career covered the "tech bubble" of the late 1990s, said the whirlwind purchase may, in fact, be a last hurrah of sorts for Zuckerberg.
"It actually happens more than we think. And it's not a bad thing, particularly in non-public companies, Velshi said. "But, in public companies, boards are important -- they are supposed to protect shareholder interests, and they are supposed to bring perspective and experience that a kid CEO may not have."
The Facebook board did vote to approve the deal, according to the Journal. But at that point, it was largely an endorsement more than a decision. The board, one source said, "was told, not consulted."
In the fast-moving world of Web tech, being nimble is almost a prerequisite for survival. Fail to adapt and someone else will pass you by.
Instagram, a mobile app which lets users enhance their photos with a raft of pre-created filters, was reportedly on the verge of nailing down a new round of private investments worth $50 million. Could that have made Zuckerberg overpay for a company with 13 employees and no revenue to date?
Maybe, says Velshi.
"Creativity, innovation and deal-making are different strengths; rarely does one person possess all of them," he said. "That Zuckerberg felt strongly that he wanted Instragram may not have made him the best person to do the deal -- that's why we have real estate agents, or talent agents."
For what it's worth, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg was aware of the negotiations all along, although she didn't personally take part. And, for Facebook, making a profit directly from Instagram may have been less important than locking up its user data and taking a rapidly growing competitor, now with more than 40 million users, off of the playing field.
Regardless of where the future takes Facebook -- whether life as a publicly traded commodity is more about stuffy board meetings than spur-of-the moment handshake deals -- Wednesday's report provided at least one more glimpse at the hoodie-wearing, authority-flouting CEO whose origin story has literally become the stuff of Hollywood storytelling.

Google and Oracle battle over the future of Android


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A landmark court battle between Google and Oracle has begun -- and its result will shape the future of the Android ecosystem fueling most of the world's smartphones.

Silicon Valley's power players are always in the throes of nasty patent fights against each other, but this one is especially potent. Oracle claims that Google's Android violates two patents plus several copyrights that Oracle holds on its Java software, a ubiquitous programming language powering everything from phones to websites.
Companies building on top of Java's mobile platform typically pay to license it. Google used an elaborate workaround and essentially built its own version of a key system to avoid those licensing fees and restrictions.
Oracle cried foul and hauled Google off to court -- a move some expected from the moment it agreed to buy Sun.
"During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle," James Gosling, one of Java's original architects, wrote on his blog the day the lawsuit was announced.
After 20 months of prep work and a blizzard of court documents, the trial between the two tech titans kicked off Monday in San Francisco.
Google insists its approach to building Android -- now the most popular smartphone platform in the world -- did not infringe either Java's rules or Oracle's patents, and it thinks Oracle's copyright claims are a sham. It called Oracle's arguments "a classic attempt to improperly assert copyright over an idea rather than expression."
But Oracle thinks it's got a smoking gun: An e-mail sent from Google engineer Tim Lindholm to Android chief Andy Rubin just days before Oracle filed its suit. Warned in advance by Oracle that it believed Google was infringing its patents, Google asked Lindholm to investigate its options.
He didn't like any of them.
"What we've actually been asked to do [by CEO Larry Page and co-founder Sergey Brin] is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Lindholm wrote. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."
If its lawsuit is successful, Oracle could force Google to pay it tens of millions of dollars in retroactive licensing fees and potentially hundreds of millions more in the future.
But this isn't simply a damages case. Oracle already makes plenty of money. Adding to its stash would be a nice perk, but it's not the main motive for its legal crusade.
Oracle is picking a fight with Google because it feels that Android is threatening the Java platform it got as part of its blockbuster $7.4 billion Sun purchase. Android may be an off-shoot of Java, but its interface and functionality is unique. Code written for Java is not inherently compatible with Android -- and as Android grows, its version of Java threatens to become the dominant one. Oracle doesn't want to kill Android, but it wants to force Google to play by its rules and make Android compatible with the rest of Java.
That would be extremely difficult for Google and the Android community. Each of the nearly 500,000 Android apps out there would have to be rewritten or tweaked. But for Oracle, it would be a coup. Developers would be able to write apps around Java's programming interfaces that would also run seamlessly on Android devices. "That would transcend whatever Google ultimately could pay Oracle," says Florian Mueller, a private intellectual property analyst and consultant. New technologies like HTML5 are already making Java less important on the Web. Oracle wants to make sure it doesn't lose the rapidly growing mobile market as well. Whatever the outcome, don't expect a big decision any time soon. With so much at stake, experts like Mueller think that this case will get stuck in the courts for years. The two sides -- neither known for backing away from a fight -- will most likely battle and appeal their way straight up to the Supreme Court.