Subscribe to Windows IT Pro

 

Get Newsletters

  • Get the Latest News
  • Product Updates
  • Helpful Tricks
  • Productivity Tips

Subscribe Now!

July 26, 2010 08:54 AM

Windows 7: 175 Million Copies Sold

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #125662
Rating: (57)

As part of its quarterly and annual financial results released late last week, Microsoft announced that it had sold more than 175 million copies of Windows 7 through the third week of July. That milestone comes less than a month after the company's previous Windows 7 sales announcement, when the company revealed that 150 million units had been sold.

"With 175 million licenses sold to date, Windows 7 is the fastest-selling operating system ever and now runs on over 16 percent of all PCs worldwide," Microsoft COO Peter Klein said in a discussion with financial analysts. That means that Microsoft's new OS has an installed base several times larger than that of Windows' closest competitor, Apple's Mac. And it's only been available in the market for nine months.

According to Microsoft, Windows 7 is now selling at a rate of about 10 units every second. Put another way, Microsoft sells almost 1 million copies of Windows 7 every single day. (The company reported 25 million unit sales in the previous 25 days, for example.)

Many have tried to downplay Windows 7 sales statistics simply because Windows is bundled with new PCs. And since PC sales are exploding, Windows 7 is riding that wave, they say. That may be the wrong way to look at this situation. Rather, PC sales are taking off in part because Windows 7 is so good. According to Net Applications, which tracks OS usage via the web, Windows 7 has achieved 14.4 percent usage share on the web in nine months. It took Windows Vista 22 months to reach that point. (StatCounter reports that Windows 7's global usage share is even higher, at 17.6 percent.)

You need only to look at Microsoft's financial statements to understand the impact of this success, however. The company reported record quarterly revenues of $16 billion for the quarter ending June 30. And over a quarter of those revenues, or $4.55 billion, were attributed to the Windows division. That figure represents $1 billion in growth, year over year. (And one year ago, the software giant reported its first-ever annual sales decline in company history.)

Many had speculated that Apple would earn more revenues than did Microsoft in the previous quarter, based in part on the fact that the company had surpassed Microsoft's market cap earlier in the year. That didn't happen—Microsoft's record $16 billion in revenues outpaced Apple's record $15.7 billion—and Microsoft also earned significantly more profits than did Apple: $5.93 billion for Microsoft versus $3.25 billion for Apple. Microsoft has also wrestled the market-cap mantle back from Apple this month, though few bothered to report on that. (The companies have switched positions a few times over the past two weeks.)

Looking ahead, Microsoft is on track to sell 250 million copies of Windows 7 in its first year on the market and well over 300 million copies of the OS in calendar year 2010.

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • MysterMask
    2 years ago
    Jul 30, 2010

    "PC sales are taking off in part because Windows 7 is so good."

    *LOL*
    (Shills are so comical ..)

  • 1
    2 years ago
    Jul 29, 2010

    "The OEM is a middle-man after-all trying to make a profit."

    I agree, but that does not change the fact that you, as a consumer, are still paying $200 if you upgrade to an ultimate license. That still represents a substantial amount of the cost.

    For as much as we like to compare prices, it is almost impossible to find out what the true cost of a Windows license if when you buy a computer because there is never a way to price a machine and get it without Windows from a major OEM. Those who sell linux do so on a separate line so you can't compare.

    The fact remains, you are guessing at the cost of Ultimate OEM prices when you get it on a new computer. At least we can see how much the upgrade cost is when you move from Home premium to Ulitmate.

    What about the cost of Windows Server licenses. How much do those cost compared to linux servers or even OS X server. The mac mini server with OS X server is a bargain compared to a Windows server machine with the same specs. No seat restrictions.

    The truth is the ONLY area of Microsofts business where you can make an argument that is is inexpensive is for consumer and enterprise desktop OS licenses.



  • O
    2 years ago
    Jul 29, 2010

    "You may want to try using numbers based in reality."

    I am. The numbers I listed are what the OEM pays Microsoft. If they charge $150 for an upgrade, that's 30 to MS, and 120 to them.

    That's why higher-end PCs start with Pro or Ultimate, and low-end PCs start with Home.

    "In fact most estimates place the cost of Win 7 STARTER at $35 for OEMS, which is HIGHER than the cost of XP is for lost cost netbooks."

    That was thoroughly debunked. The netbook price is around 15-25 for a tier 1 OEM. Some Tier 3 OEM with no volume might pay 35, but tier 1s aren't anywhere near that.

    "If I buy an $1,000 computer with Ultimate, its very likely the cost of the OS is 20% of the computer."

    Uh, no. $60 of the computer was Ultimate, unless you paid to upgrade to ultimate -- in which case the OEM kept most of the upgrade fee. And *no* home user *ever* has a need for Ultimate unless they happen to have a massive home network, SAN, or have hardware assisted encryption on their motherboard (mine have TPM modules) etc. Home Premium is going to be sufficient for 99% of users, with business fine for corporations. Given that businesses is a super-set of Home Prem, 99.9% of people never need Ultimate.

    The OEM is a middle-man after-all trying to make a profit.

    There is no PC on the planet where the amount of money to MS exceeds $60. Unless you buy a full retail copy from *their* store. However something like 90% of a Windows purchases are with a new PC, the upgrade market is pretty much non-existent in comparison (tens of millions of units, but relatively nothing).

    "why is it not relevant to look at any given Microsoft product?"

    That's a cheap straw-man rhetorical device. If you equate $300,000 database servers built for thousands of concurrent connections, on the same level as desktop consumer electronics -- you've got some reality distortion problems. SQL Server is very inexpensive for what it does, compared to everyone else.

  • 1
    2 years ago
    Jul 29, 2010

    "Unless you want to argue that tiny little Mac-Mini case, missing a lot of ports, etc, actually costs *more* to manufacture than a mini-tower."

    You are paying for the compact size of the computer. Most people don't want a mini-tower size machine on their desktop. That is part of the attraction of the mac mini. It costs more because it uses laptop parts and has been engineered to be as small and power efficient as possible. To many people, that is worth the extra couple hundred dollars.

    Once again, you are blinded by 4 parts of the computer. The CPU, the RAM, the Graphics card and the Hard Drive. You are not accounting for the rest of the machine. You just see commodity parts, and not HOW they are put together. That is fine for many people, who don't care about the ENTIRE package. But many others do care about the entire package. What about the resale value. You pay more for a Mac, but you can get a lot more when you sell it. There are so many other things like this to consider to determine the VALUE of a computer, and not just its COST.

  • 1
    2 years ago
    Jul 29, 2010

    "With the exception that a $60 copy of Windows Ultimate isn't installed on a $499 computer. It's more like a $30 copy.

    So, on a commodity piece of hardware a whopping 6% goes to Microsoft -- less than *sales tax*. Oh my gosh, a whole 6% for an OS."

    You may want to try using numbers based in reality.

    I just checked Dell's website and the cost from upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is $150, not the $30 difference you claim, and that makes the $60 cost you claim for Windows 7 Ultimate highly suspect.

    In fact most estimates place the cost of Win 7 STARTER at $35 for OEMS, which is HIGHER than the cost of XP is for lost cost netbooks. So once again, Microsoft is making computers MORE expensive than before.

    If I buy an $1,000 computer with Ultimate, its very likely the cost of the OS is 20% of the computer.

    "How in the heck can you lump SQL Server in this? Of course it's a fortune."

    Because those products account for a vast amount of Microsofts sales and profits. If you make the claim that Apple overprices based on a single laptop purchase, why is it not relevant to look at any given Microsoft product?

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

White Papers

Get your Windows 7 deployment off to the right start by implementing PC lockdown. A locked-down environment is easier and cheaper to support since users are less likely to make unnecessary changes to the core system configuration - read more here!

Essential Guides

Is your iSCSI "lossy"? The reality is that most off-the-shelf Ethernet hardware deployed for iSCSI can lose packets, resulting in slow performance or application downtime. Learn how to assess your current iSCSI infrastructure and engineer an advanced iSCSI SAN infrastructure.

Web Seminars

What's the best way to keep your network safe from malware? In this web seminar, security expert Greg Shields suggests an alternative method to the traditional blacklisting approach that is common with anti-virus and anti-malware solutions.

eLearning Series

We bring the experts direct to you to share their real-world perspective and expertise. During each event, three sessions stream in real time, so you can learn, ask questions, and get solutions.
Upcoming event: Getting the Most with Exchange 2010 with Paul Robichaux

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.