John,
Thanks for the kind words.
Although everything Microsoft does has to pass legal scrutiny, there is nothing improper or even unusual about such accrual accounting practices. In fact, NOT doing so could present problems as far as "generally accepted accounting principles" are concerned, for it would be more of a distortion of income not to accrue in this fashion. Of course, the specific timeframes for recognizing the income and costs are, within reason, at management's discretion. But the government gets its money eventually, either directly or through jobs and the juicy capital gains that Microsoft has a habit of endowing.
The subscription plan has the primary purpose of making Microsoft part of the overhead, like electricity, phone bills, etc., and so less a decision point in purchasing. Again, since this is common practice for enterprise-level software [a "legacy" from IBM], it does not constitute any salient that Janet can grab onto.
So, it comes down primarily to basic business decision-making regarding customer desires, constancy of cash flows and stock buy-back considerations, with consideration for antitrust being less important.
IMHO
Best regards,
Arno |
