Microsoft looks like the strongest Big Tech trade for the second half of 2026 because, as of July 6, its share-price decline has collided with still-accelerating cloud and AI fundamentals, creating a rare setup where Microsoft’s business momentum appears stronger than its stock chart.
That is the core argument in Chris Markoch’s MarketBeat analysis republished by Investing.com, and it deserves a closer look from a WindowsForum audience because Microsoft is not just another ticker symbol. It is the operating system vendor, cloud landlord, productivity suite gatekeeper, AI platform distributor, Xbox owner, and enterprise identity broker sitting inside nearly every IT budget. The market is asking whether the company is overspending into an AI bubble; the more interesting question is whether Microsoft has built the one Big Tech model that can survive that spending cycle.
The first half of 2026 was ugly for Microsoft shareholders. According to the Investing.com version of MarketBeat’s report, Microsoft was down roughly 20% as of July 1, after touching a 52-week low of $349.20 on June 24. For a company that spent much of the AI boom being treated as a near-perfect compounder, that kind of drawdown is not just a chart event; it is a narrative break.
The bear case is easy to understand. Microsoft is spending extraordinary sums on data centers, GPUs, memory, networking, power, and long-horizon AI capacity. MarketBeat says the company now plans to spend about $190 billion this calendar year, a figure that turns Microsoft’s AI ambitions into a capital-allocation referendum.
That is the part investors hate: the business is still growing, but the bill is arriving early. The cloud and AI revenue shows up over years. The data-center checks clear now. In a market that has become less forgiving of Big Tech’s capital intensity, Microsoft has moved from “safe AI winner” to “show us the returns.”
Yet that is also why the setup is interesting. Microsoft’s selloff has not been caused by collapsing demand, an existential platform shift, or a broken balance sheet. It has been caused by skepticism over whether the company’s spending curve is outrunning even its unusually strong revenue engine.
Those are not rescue-quarter numbers. They are dominance-quarter numbers. The problem for the stock is that Microsoft has become so large, and so heavily owned, that growth alone is no longer enough to end the debate.
The AI number is even more important. Microsoft said its AI business surpassed a $37 billion annual revenue run rate, up 123% year over year. That figure matters because it pushes the AI story out of demo-land and into the income statement, even if investors still need more detail on margins, durability, and product mix.
The company also returned $10.2 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks during the quarter. That is a reminder that Microsoft’s spending binge is not being financed by desperation. This is not a speculative infrastructure startup hoping usage catches up; it is a cash-generating platform company making an enormous bet from a position of strength.
That ecosystem gives Microsoft something most AI infrastructure stories lack: distribution. A CIO already running Entra ID, Defender, Teams, SharePoint, Windows, Intune, SQL Server, and Azure is not evaluating Microsoft AI as a stranger at the door. Microsoft gets to sell AI into the installed base with the credibility and contractual leverage of an incumbent.
This does not mean every Copilot upsell works. It does not mean every Azure AI workload will be profitable. It does mean Microsoft’s AI strategy is not dependent on a single consumer app or a single chip cycle.
That is why the “best Big Tech trade” argument has some force. Microsoft is exposed to AI infrastructure, AI software, developer workflows, enterprise productivity, cybersecurity, cloud migration, and operating-system integration at the same time. If AI spending continues, Microsoft participates. If customers demand productivity proof, Microsoft has the apps. If enterprises slow experiments and consolidate vendors, Microsoft is often the default consolidation target.
MarketBeat’s report notes that Microsoft has cited more than 20 million paid Copilot seats. That is the kind of adoption figure investors wanted to see after months of concern that cheaper open-source models, internal tools, or “good enough” AI assistants would undercut Microsoft’s pricing power.
But seat count is not the end of the argument. The real test is whether enterprises expand Copilot from early deployments to broad organizational licenses after measuring usage, governance costs, data exposure, and productivity gains. Microsoft’s advantage is that it can bundle, integrate, and improve Copilot inside workflows users already inhabit. Its risk is that customers may discover that AI value varies wildly by role, department, and data readiness.
For WindowsForum readers, this is where the stock story intersects with everyday IT reality. Copilot is not just an investor buzzword; it is becoming a policy, compliance, identity, licensing, endpoint, and training issue. If Microsoft can turn Copilot into a normal line item in enterprise software budgets, the current valuation suddenly looks less demanding. If Copilot remains a selective add-on used heavily by only a subset of workers, the bull case becomes more dependent on Azure infrastructure demand.
That is the unavoidable tradeoff. Microsoft can report excellent revenue growth and still face investor concern if the cash conversion profile deteriorates. The market is not wrong to ask whether AI workloads will produce returns high enough to justify the infrastructure arms race.
The answer depends on utilization, pricing, chip supply, energy costs, model efficiency, and enterprise adoption curves. Those are not small variables. They are the entire economic model.
Still, Microsoft’s position is stronger than many AI names because it can amortize infrastructure across multiple layers of demand. Azure customers need compute. OpenAI-related workloads need compute. GitHub Copilot needs compute. Microsoft 365 Copilot needs compute. Security products increasingly need AI inference. Bing, Windows, and developer tools can all consume the same broad infrastructure base.
The question is not whether Microsoft is spending too much in the abstract. The question is whether any other Big Tech company has a better map for turning AI infrastructure into enterprise software revenue. On that narrower question, Microsoft remains hard to beat.
That matters because Xbox is a reminder that Microsoft is not immune to physical-world constraints. Memory, storage, supply chains, console pricing, and consumer spending all affect the company’s ability to translate strategy into profit. AI data centers have their own version of the same problem, only at a larger scale.
The gaming pressure also complicates Microsoft’s image as an endlessly diversified machine. Diversification protects the company, but it does not make every segment equally healthy. Windows consumer hardware, gaming consoles, and certain device-adjacent businesses remain more cyclical and margin-sensitive than Azure or Microsoft 365.
The layoffs reported by the Associated Press and TechCrunch sharpen that point. Microsoft can be printing extraordinary cloud numbers while still cutting thousands of jobs across Xbox and commercial operations. That is not contradiction; it is the modern Big Tech operating model. Growth areas get capital. Slower or structurally challenged areas get trimmed.
Technical analysis can be overread, especially by investors who want a chart to confirm a story they already like. But in this case, the chart is useful because it shows how much pessimism has already been absorbed. A stock that has fallen nearly 40% from its high does not need perfection to recover; it needs the worst assumptions to stop getting worse.
The $400 level matters because MarketBeat says it has capped rallies since March. A decisive move above that area would not prove the AI investment thesis, but it would suggest investors are willing to re-rate Microsoft after a brutal first half.
That is the tactical part of the story. The strategic part is more important: Microsoft’s fundamentals have not rolled over in the way the share price did. When fundamentals and price diverge, either the market is early in spotting deterioration or it is overcorrecting. Microsoft’s latest official numbers make the second explanation plausible.
For a company with Microsoft’s balance sheet, enterprise distribution, cloud growth, and AI exposure, that multiple is not obviously expensive. It is not cheap in a classic value-stock sense, but Big Tech is rarely offered on classic value terms unless something is very wrong. The argument here is that the market has discounted a lot of AI spending risk without equally crediting the scale of Microsoft’s AI revenue base.
The comparison with Nvidia and Palantir is instructive. Nvidia remains the clearest hardware winner of the AI buildout, but its valuation and cyclicality reflect that. Palantir has become one of the market’s purest software-AI enthusiasm trades, but its multiple carries far less room for disappointment. Microsoft sits between them: less explosive, more diversified, and arguably more institutional.
That middle position is exactly why it may be attractive in the second half. If the market wants AI exposure but starts punishing companies that cannot show cash flow, distribution, or broad enterprise adoption, Microsoft has a better answer than most.
For consumers, the AI PC story has been uneven. For enterprises, it is more consequential. Copilot+ PCs, local AI acceleration, device refresh cycles, Windows 11 migration pressure, endpoint compliance, and hybrid work management all create a new round of decision-making around the Microsoft stack.
The value is not that Windows alone drives Microsoft’s growth. It is that Windows keeps Microsoft present at the edge of enterprise computing. Every time an organization refreshes laptops, revisits endpoint security, evaluates device management, or adjusts identity policy, Microsoft has another route into the budget discussion.
That is why WindowsForum readers should treat the stock debate as more than finance-page chatter. Microsoft’s market valuation influences how aggressively it funds Windows, security, AI integration, gaming, developer platforms, and cloud infrastructure. If investors reward the AI buildout, Microsoft has room to keep pushing the stack. If investors punish it, expect more discipline, more bundling, and more pressure on underperforming product lines.
That is a very different kind of risk. It is execution risk, not relevance risk. Investors are not asking whether Microsoft belongs in the AI economy. They are asking how much it must spend to stay there.
This distinction matters because execution risks can be managed. Microsoft can slow hiring, prioritize data-center regions, optimize model costs, renegotiate supply, push higher-value workloads, and bundle AI into software SKUs. A company that misses a platform shift cannot fix the problem with procurement discipline.
Still, the danger is real. If AI demand slows, if enterprise Copilot expansion disappoints, or if infrastructure costs keep rising faster than revenue quality, the stock could remain trapped. A forward P/E near 23 is attractive only if earnings growth remains durable. If capital intensity permanently lowers cash conversion, the multiple may not be as cheap as it looks.
The case rests on a few connected beliefs. Azure growth remains strong. AI revenue is real enough to matter. Copilot adoption continues to broaden. Capital expenditures peak or at least become easier to model. Xbox and consumer hardware weakness stays contained. And investors regain confidence that Microsoft can convert the AI cycle into software-like returns.
That is a lot to ask, but less than what some other Big Tech stories require. Microsoft does not need to invent a consumer social network, break into enterprise from scratch, or prove that its AI tools have no competition. It needs to keep selling more value into customers that already depend on it.
The irony is that Microsoft’s sheer size, which weighed on the stock in the first half, is also what makes the second-half recovery case plausible. A smaller company spending this aggressively would look reckless. Microsoft spending aggressively looks risky, but strategically coherent.
That is the core argument in Chris Markoch’s MarketBeat analysis republished by Investing.com, and it deserves a closer look from a WindowsForum audience because Microsoft is not just another ticker symbol. It is the operating system vendor, cloud landlord, productivity suite gatekeeper, AI platform distributor, Xbox owner, and enterprise identity broker sitting inside nearly every IT budget. The market is asking whether the company is overspending into an AI bubble; the more interesting question is whether Microsoft has built the one Big Tech model that can survive that spending cycle.
The Market Has Started Pricing Microsoft Like a Problem Story
The first half of 2026 was ugly for Microsoft shareholders. According to the Investing.com version of MarketBeat’s report, Microsoft was down roughly 20% as of July 1, after touching a 52-week low of $349.20 on June 24. For a company that spent much of the AI boom being treated as a near-perfect compounder, that kind of drawdown is not just a chart event; it is a narrative break.The bear case is easy to understand. Microsoft is spending extraordinary sums on data centers, GPUs, memory, networking, power, and long-horizon AI capacity. MarketBeat says the company now plans to spend about $190 billion this calendar year, a figure that turns Microsoft’s AI ambitions into a capital-allocation referendum.
That is the part investors hate: the business is still growing, but the bill is arriving early. The cloud and AI revenue shows up over years. The data-center checks clear now. In a market that has become less forgiving of Big Tech’s capital intensity, Microsoft has moved from “safe AI winner” to “show us the returns.”
Yet that is also why the setup is interesting. Microsoft’s selloff has not been caused by collapsing demand, an existential platform shift, or a broken balance sheet. It has been caused by skepticism over whether the company’s spending curve is outrunning even its unusually strong revenue engine.
The Earnings Report Did Not Behave Like a Breakdown
Microsoft’s fiscal third-quarter 2026 results are the clearest reason the selloff looks less like a business deterioration and more like a valuation reset. In its official investor materials, Microsoft reported revenue of $82.9 billion, up 18% year over year, with diluted earnings per share of $4.27. Microsoft Cloud revenue rose 29% to $54.5 billion, while Azure and other cloud services grew 40%.Those are not rescue-quarter numbers. They are dominance-quarter numbers. The problem for the stock is that Microsoft has become so large, and so heavily owned, that growth alone is no longer enough to end the debate.
The AI number is even more important. Microsoft said its AI business surpassed a $37 billion annual revenue run rate, up 123% year over year. That figure matters because it pushes the AI story out of demo-land and into the income statement, even if investors still need more detail on margins, durability, and product mix.
The company also returned $10.2 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks during the quarter. That is a reminder that Microsoft’s spending binge is not being financed by desperation. This is not a speculative infrastructure startup hoping usage catches up; it is a cash-generating platform company making an enormous bet from a position of strength.
Azure Is Still the Center of the Argument
For IT pros, Azure’s 40% growth is the number that should cut through the market noise. Microsoft’s cloud business is not merely riding generic AI enthusiasm. It is attached to identity, Windows Server migration, Microsoft 365, GitHub, security, database services, analytics, developer tooling, and enterprise procurement habits built over decades.That ecosystem gives Microsoft something most AI infrastructure stories lack: distribution. A CIO already running Entra ID, Defender, Teams, SharePoint, Windows, Intune, SQL Server, and Azure is not evaluating Microsoft AI as a stranger at the door. Microsoft gets to sell AI into the installed base with the credibility and contractual leverage of an incumbent.
This does not mean every Copilot upsell works. It does not mean every Azure AI workload will be profitable. It does mean Microsoft’s AI strategy is not dependent on a single consumer app or a single chip cycle.
That is why the “best Big Tech trade” argument has some force. Microsoft is exposed to AI infrastructure, AI software, developer workflows, enterprise productivity, cybersecurity, cloud migration, and operating-system integration at the same time. If AI spending continues, Microsoft participates. If customers demand productivity proof, Microsoft has the apps. If enterprises slow experiments and consolidate vendors, Microsoft is often the default consolidation target.
Copilot Has Become the Market’s Lie Detector
The most useful thing about Copilot is not the branding. It is that Copilot forces Microsoft to prove whether AI can become a paid, recurring software layer across the enterprise.MarketBeat’s report notes that Microsoft has cited more than 20 million paid Copilot seats. That is the kind of adoption figure investors wanted to see after months of concern that cheaper open-source models, internal tools, or “good enough” AI assistants would undercut Microsoft’s pricing power.
But seat count is not the end of the argument. The real test is whether enterprises expand Copilot from early deployments to broad organizational licenses after measuring usage, governance costs, data exposure, and productivity gains. Microsoft’s advantage is that it can bundle, integrate, and improve Copilot inside workflows users already inhabit. Its risk is that customers may discover that AI value varies wildly by role, department, and data readiness.
For WindowsForum readers, this is where the stock story intersects with everyday IT reality. Copilot is not just an investor buzzword; it is becoming a policy, compliance, identity, licensing, endpoint, and training issue. If Microsoft can turn Copilot into a normal line item in enterprise software budgets, the current valuation suddenly looks less demanding. If Copilot remains a selective add-on used heavily by only a subset of workers, the bull case becomes more dependent on Azure infrastructure demand.
The Capital-Expenditure Problem Is Real, Not Bearish Theater
The bear case deserves respect because Microsoft’s AI buildout is expensive in ways that even the company cannot fully smooth over. MarketBeat cites capital expenditures, including finance leases, of $31.9 billion in the quarter, up 49% year over year. It also points to a 22% decline in free cash flow to $15.8 billion.That is the unavoidable tradeoff. Microsoft can report excellent revenue growth and still face investor concern if the cash conversion profile deteriorates. The market is not wrong to ask whether AI workloads will produce returns high enough to justify the infrastructure arms race.
The answer depends on utilization, pricing, chip supply, energy costs, model efficiency, and enterprise adoption curves. Those are not small variables. They are the entire economic model.
Still, Microsoft’s position is stronger than many AI names because it can amortize infrastructure across multiple layers of demand. Azure customers need compute. OpenAI-related workloads need compute. GitHub Copilot needs compute. Microsoft 365 Copilot needs compute. Security products increasingly need AI inference. Bing, Windows, and developer tools can all consume the same broad infrastructure base.
The question is not whether Microsoft is spending too much in the abstract. The question is whether any other Big Tech company has a better map for turning AI infrastructure into enterprise software revenue. On that narrower question, Microsoft remains hard to beat.
Xbox Is the Warning Label Inside the Bull Case
Microsoft’s gaming division is where the hardware-cost problem becomes visible in a way normal users can understand. MarketBeat notes that Xbox hardware revenue fell 33%, while the broader reporting around Microsoft’s recent layoffs has tied the gaming business to pressure from rising component costs and uneven hardware economics.That matters because Xbox is a reminder that Microsoft is not immune to physical-world constraints. Memory, storage, supply chains, console pricing, and consumer spending all affect the company’s ability to translate strategy into profit. AI data centers have their own version of the same problem, only at a larger scale.
The gaming pressure also complicates Microsoft’s image as an endlessly diversified machine. Diversification protects the company, but it does not make every segment equally healthy. Windows consumer hardware, gaming consoles, and certain device-adjacent businesses remain more cyclical and margin-sensitive than Azure or Microsoft 365.
The layoffs reported by the Associated Press and TechCrunch sharpen that point. Microsoft can be printing extraordinary cloud numbers while still cutting thousands of jobs across Xbox and commercial operations. That is not contradiction; it is the modern Big Tech operating model. Growth areas get capital. Slower or structurally challenged areas get trimmed.
The Stock Chart Is Trying to Catch Up With the Income Statement
MarketBeat’s technical argument is straightforward: Microsoft fell from a 52-week high near $555 in October to $349.20 in late June, a decline of roughly 37%, and then began showing signs of stabilization. The report points to a relative strength index around 47 after an April oversold reading, along with a July 1 jump of about 3% on heavy volume.Technical analysis can be overread, especially by investors who want a chart to confirm a story they already like. But in this case, the chart is useful because it shows how much pessimism has already been absorbed. A stock that has fallen nearly 40% from its high does not need perfection to recover; it needs the worst assumptions to stop getting worse.
The $400 level matters because MarketBeat says it has capped rallies since March. A decisive move above that area would not prove the AI investment thesis, but it would suggest investors are willing to re-rate Microsoft after a brutal first half.
That is the tactical part of the story. The strategic part is more important: Microsoft’s fundamentals have not rolled over in the way the share price did. When fundamentals and price diverge, either the market is early in spotting deterioration or it is overcorrecting. Microsoft’s latest official numbers make the second explanation plausible.
Valuation Has Become Microsoft’s Unexpected Ally
The most unusual part of this Microsoft setup is that valuation has started helping the bull case. MarketBeat cites a forward price-to-earnings ratio around 22.9 times, below Microsoft’s five-year average and well below some of the more aggressively priced AI beneficiaries.For a company with Microsoft’s balance sheet, enterprise distribution, cloud growth, and AI exposure, that multiple is not obviously expensive. It is not cheap in a classic value-stock sense, but Big Tech is rarely offered on classic value terms unless something is very wrong. The argument here is that the market has discounted a lot of AI spending risk without equally crediting the scale of Microsoft’s AI revenue base.
The comparison with Nvidia and Palantir is instructive. Nvidia remains the clearest hardware winner of the AI buildout, but its valuation and cyclicality reflect that. Palantir has become one of the market’s purest software-AI enthusiasm trades, but its multiple carries far less room for disappointment. Microsoft sits between them: less explosive, more diversified, and arguably more institutional.
That middle position is exactly why it may be attractive in the second half. If the market wants AI exposure but starts punishing companies that cannot show cash flow, distribution, or broad enterprise adoption, Microsoft has a better answer than most.
Windows Still Matters More Than Wall Street Admits
Wall Street tends to discuss Microsoft as Azure plus AI plus Office. That is understandable, but incomplete. Windows remains a strategic control point, especially as Microsoft tries to push AI features into the PC, endpoint management, developer workflows, and enterprise security.For consumers, the AI PC story has been uneven. For enterprises, it is more consequential. Copilot+ PCs, local AI acceleration, device refresh cycles, Windows 11 migration pressure, endpoint compliance, and hybrid work management all create a new round of decision-making around the Microsoft stack.
The value is not that Windows alone drives Microsoft’s growth. It is that Windows keeps Microsoft present at the edge of enterprise computing. Every time an organization refreshes laptops, revisits endpoint security, evaluates device management, or adjusts identity policy, Microsoft has another route into the budget discussion.
That is why WindowsForum readers should treat the stock debate as more than finance-page chatter. Microsoft’s market valuation influences how aggressively it funds Windows, security, AI integration, gaming, developer platforms, and cloud infrastructure. If investors reward the AI buildout, Microsoft has room to keep pushing the stack. If investors punish it, expect more discipline, more bundling, and more pressure on underperforming product lines.
The Risk Is Not That Microsoft Missed AI, But That AI Gets Too Expensive
The old Microsoft bear case was that the company would miss the next platform shift. That case looks dead. Microsoft did not miss cloud, and it has not missed AI. If anything, the concern is that Microsoft is leaning into AI so hard that it may compress free cash flow and margins before the returns are fully visible.That is a very different kind of risk. It is execution risk, not relevance risk. Investors are not asking whether Microsoft belongs in the AI economy. They are asking how much it must spend to stay there.
This distinction matters because execution risks can be managed. Microsoft can slow hiring, prioritize data-center regions, optimize model costs, renegotiate supply, push higher-value workloads, and bundle AI into software SKUs. A company that misses a platform shift cannot fix the problem with procurement discipline.
Still, the danger is real. If AI demand slows, if enterprise Copilot expansion disappoints, or if infrastructure costs keep rising faster than revenue quality, the stock could remain trapped. A forward P/E near 23 is attractive only if earnings growth remains durable. If capital intensity permanently lowers cash conversion, the multiple may not be as cheap as it looks.
The Second-Half Trade Is Really a Trust Vote on Microsoft’s Operating Model
Calling Microsoft the best Big Tech trade for H2 2026 is not the same as calling it risk-free. It is a bet that the market has over-penalized the company for spending while underestimating the earnings power of its installed base.The case rests on a few connected beliefs. Azure growth remains strong. AI revenue is real enough to matter. Copilot adoption continues to broaden. Capital expenditures peak or at least become easier to model. Xbox and consumer hardware weakness stays contained. And investors regain confidence that Microsoft can convert the AI cycle into software-like returns.
That is a lot to ask, but less than what some other Big Tech stories require. Microsoft does not need to invent a consumer social network, break into enterprise from scratch, or prove that its AI tools have no competition. It needs to keep selling more value into customers that already depend on it.
The irony is that Microsoft’s sheer size, which weighed on the stock in the first half, is also what makes the second-half recovery case plausible. A smaller company spending this aggressively would look reckless. Microsoft spending aggressively looks risky, but strategically coherent.
The Microsoft Trade Comes Down to Five Concrete Signals
The near-term case for Microsoft is not mystical. It is a checklist of whether the company’s spending starts looking like platform investment rather than margin leakage.- Microsoft’s fiscal third-quarter numbers showed that revenue, earnings, Azure, Microsoft Cloud, and AI revenue were still growing at rates inconsistent with a broken business.
- The stock’s first-half decline created a valuation reset, with MarketBeat pointing to a forward earnings multiple near 23 times after a roughly 20% year-to-date drop as of July 1.
- Copilot’s reported base of more than 20 million paid seats gives Microsoft a credible path to recurring AI software revenue, though expansion and usage quality still need proof.
- Capital expenditures and free cash flow remain the central risk, because AI infrastructure must eventually generate returns that justify the scale of Microsoft’s spending.
- Xbox weakness and recent layoffs show that Microsoft is still exposed to hardware economics, component inflation, and portfolio discipline even while its cloud business accelerates.
- A sustained move above the $400 share-price area would strengthen the recovery narrative, but the deeper test is whether Microsoft can keep Azure and AI growth high without letting cash conversion deteriorate further.
References
- Primary source: investing.com
Published: 2026-07-06T16:04:12.282145
Why Microsoft Looks Like the Best Big Tech Trade for H2 2026 | Investing.com
Market Analysis by covering: Microsoft Corporation. Read 's Market Analysis on Investing.comwww.investing.com - Official source: microsoft.com
FY26 Q3 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoft
FY26 Q3 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoftwww.microsoft.com
- Related coverage: techspot.com
Xbox struggles continue as console sales fall 32% and first-party games underperform | TechSpot
In its second-quarter results for financial year 2026, which ended December 31, 2025, Microsoft wrote that Gaming revenue decreased by $623 million to $5.99 billion, or 9%....www.techspot.com - Related coverage: doolpa.com
Microsoft Q3 FY26: $82.9B Revenue, Azure +40%, AI Hits $37B Run-Rate | Doolpa
Microsoft posted $82.89B Q3 FY26 revenue April 29 2026: Azure +40%, AI run-rate $37B (+123% YoY), capex $31.9B. Shares slipped 3% despite the beat.doolpa.com - Related coverage: constellationr.com
Microsoft Azure revenue up 40% in fiscal Q3 | Constellation Research
Microsoft said its cloud revenue in the fiscal third quarter was up 29% from a year ago and Microsoft Azure revenue surged 40%. The company reported third quarter net income of $31.8 billion, or $4.27 a share, on revenue of $82.9 billion, up 18%. Wall Street was expecting Microsoft to report...www.constellationr.com
- Related coverage: techcrunch.com
Microsoft lays off nearly 5,000 employees across Xbox, commercial sales | TechCrunch
Microsoft cut around 4,800 roles, or 2.1% of its global workforce, on Monday — the latest in a series of layoffs that’s stoking fears of AI replacing jobs. The layoffs will hit Xbox and commercial sales the hardest.techcrunch.com
- Related coverage: themarketcontext.com
Loading…
themarketcontext.com - Related coverage: talkesport.com
Xbox Revenue Down Again in Q3 FY2026: Hardware Drops 33%, Gaming Falls 7%
Xbox hardware revenue fell 33% and gaming dropped 7% in Microsoft's Q3 FY2026 earnings. Total gaming revenue was $5.34 billion as Azure hit 40% growth. Full breakdown here.www.talkesport.com - Related coverage: gamesradar.com
Microsoft reports Xbox hardware revenue down 29%, and 1% growth in content and services like Game Pass blunted by "a decline in first-party content" | GamesRadar+
Don't worry, though, AI is still making the numbers go upwww.gamesradar.com - Related coverage: techradar.com
Microsoft forced to up AI spending by $25 billion to cover hardware price rises — says it 'remains confident in the return on these investments' | TechRadar
Microsoft capex is being hit by rising priceswww.techradar.com - Related coverage: elpais.com
