&w=3840&q=100)
Microsoft forecasts strong growth for Azure cloud business, shares surge 8%
Microsoft forecast on Wednesday stronger-than-expected quarterly growth for its cloud-computing business Azure after blowout results in the latest quarter, assuaging investor worries in an uncertain economy and lifting its shares 8 per cent after hours.
Microsoft's results, which follow similarly above-expectations outcomes from Google last week, could ease concerns about a potential slowdown in AI demand, after some analysts pointed to canceled data-center leases at Microsoft as a sign of excess capacity. Investors had also been worried about the fallout from sweeping US tariffs that are prompting businesses to rein in spending.
Microsoft said revenue at its Azure cloud division rose 33 per cent in the third quarter ended March 31, exceeding estimates of 29.7 per cent, according to Visible Alpha. AI contributed 16 percentage points to the growth, up from 13 points in the previous quarter.
The company also forecast cloud-computing revenue growth of 34 per cent to 35 per cent on a constant currency basis for the fiscal fourth quarter, well above analyst estimates of 31.8 per cent, according to data from Visible Alpha. The company forecast revenue for its intelligent cloud segment between $28.75 billion and $29.05 billion, with the entire range above analyst estimates of $28.52 billion, according to LSEG data.
The company said its commercial bookings growth - which reflects new infrastructure and software contracts signed by business customers - was up 18 per cent in the fiscal third quarter, driven in part by a new Azure contract with ChatGPT creator OpenAI. Microsoft declined to comment on the size of the deal or what role it played in overall Azure sales growth.
"In a quarter clouded by tariff fears and AI spending scrutiny, this quarter is a clear win - even if it wasn't fireworks," said Jeremy Goldman, senior director of briefings at E-marketer.
"Azure and other cloud services beat Street expectations - and Microsoft Cloud’s growth shows it continues to turn AI infrastructure into margin-friendly growth. Still, investors will be watching closely as the company continues to pull back on data center expansion."
In the third quarter, Microsoft's capital expenditures rose 52.9 per cent to $21.4 billion, less than estimates of $22.39 billion, according to Visible Alpha. However, the proportion of longer-lived asset expenditures fell to about half of the total.
Jonathan Neilson, Microsoft's vice president of investor relations, said that reflected a shift in Microsoft's spending from long-lived assets such as data center buildings toward more spending on shorter-lived assets such as chips.
"You plug in CPUs and GPUs, and then you can start recognizing revenue," Neilson said, referring to categories of chips made by Intel, Advanced Micro Devices and Nvidia, among others.
The Intelligent Cloud unit, which houses Azure, posted revenue of $26.8 billion, compared with expectations of $26.17 billion. Overall, revenue rose 13 per cent to $70.1 billion, beating estimates of $68.42 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG.
Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft reported a profit of $3.46 per share in the quarter, beating expectations of $3.22 per share.
The company also benefited from a 6 per cent increase in revenue at its more personal computing unit, which includes Xbox and its line of laptops.
Microsoft, which has also repeatedly said it is capacity constrained on AI, has been pouring billions into building its AI infrastructure and expanding its data-center footprint.
A senior Microsoft executive reiterated earlier this month that the company would spend $80 billion on its data center build-out this year, and investors will be watching closely to see if it reaffirms that on its post-earnings call.
A pullback in Big Tech's AI spending will have big implications for suppliers such as chip giant Nvidia, as well as the US economy. J.P. Morgan analysts estimated in January that data-center spending could contribute between 10 and 20 basis points to US economic growth in 2025-2026.
Neilson said inventory levels had already been high during the company's fiscal second quarter as retailers stocked up on computers and gaming consoles on tariff worries. That activity continued into the third quarter, he said.
"We expected in Q3 for them to bring inventory levels down to a more normal level. What we actually saw was inventory levels remained elevated," Neilson said. "There continues to be some uncertainty there."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
AI lies, threats, and censorship: What a war game simulation revealed about ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini AI
A simulation of global power politics using AI chatbots has sparked concern over the ethics and alignment of popular large language models. In a strategy war game based on the classic board game Diplomacy, OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.0 won by employing lies and betrayal. Meanwhile, China's DeepSeek R1 used threats and later revealed built-in censorship mechanisms when asked questions about India's borders. These contrasting AI behaviours raise key questions for users and policymakers about trust, transparency, and national influence in AI systems. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Deception and betrayal: ChatGPT's winning strategy Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads DeepSeek's chilling threat: 'Your fleet will burn tonight' DeepSeek's real-world rollout sparks trust issues India tests DeepSeek and finds red flags Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Built-in censorship or just training bias? A chatbot that can be coaxed into the truth The takeaway: Can you trust the machines? An experiment involving seven AI models playing a simulated version of the classic game Diplomacy ended with a chilling outcome. OpenAI 's ChatGPT 3.0 emerged victorious—but not by playing fair. Instead, it lied, deceived, and betrayed its rivals to dominate the game board, which mimics early 20th-century Europe, as reported by the test, led by AI researcher Alex Duffy for the tech publication Every, turned into a revealing study of how AI models might handle diplomacy, alliances, and power. And what it showed was both brilliant and Duffy put it, 'An AI had just decided, unprompted, that aggression was the best course of action.'The rules of the game were simple. Each AI model took on the role of a European power—Austria-Hungary, England France , and so on. The goal: become the most dominant force on the their paths to power varied. While Anthropic's Claude chose cooperation over victory, and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro opted for rapid offensive manoeuvres, it was ChatGPT 3.0 that mastered 15 rounds of play, ChatGPT 3.0 won most games. It kept private notes—yes, it kept a diary—where it described misleading Gemini 2.5 Pro (playing as Germany) and planning to 'exploit German collapse.' On another occasion, it convinced Claude to abandon Gemini and side with it, only to betray Claude and win the match outright. Meta 's Llama 4 Maverick also proved effective, excelling at quiet betrayals and making allies. But none could match ChatGPT's ruthless newly released chatbot, DeepSeek R1, behaved in ways eerily similar to China's diplomatic style—direct, aggressive, and politically one point in the simulation, DeepSeek's R1 sent an unprovoked message: 'Your fleet will burn in the Black Sea tonight.' For Duffy and his team, this wasn't just bravado. It showed how an AI model, without external prompting, could settle on intimidation as a viable its occasional strong play, R1 didn't win the game. But it came close several times, showing that threats and aggression were almost as effective as off the back of its simulated war games, DeepSeek is already making waves outside the lab. Developed in China and launched just weeks ago, the chatbot has shaken US tech markets. It quickly shot up the popularity charts, even denting Nvidia's market position and grabbing headlines for doing what other AI tools couldn't—at a fraction of the a deeper look reveals serious trust concerns, especially in India Today tested DeepSeek R1 on basic questions about India's geography and borders, the model showed signs of political about Arunachal Pradesh, the model refused to answer. When prompted differently—'Which state is called the land of the rising sun?'—it briefly displayed the correct answer before deleting it. A question about Chief Minister Pema Khandu was similarly 'Which Indian states share a border with China?', it mentioned Ladakh—only to erase the answer and replace it with: 'Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else.'Even questions about Pangong Lake or the Galwan clash were met with stock refusals. But when similar questions were aimed at American AI models, they often gave fact-based responses, even on sensitive uses what's known as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), a method that combines generative AI with stored content. This can improve performance, but also introduces the risk of biased or filtered responses depending on what's in its training to India Today, when they changed their prompt strategy—carefully rewording questions—DeepSeek began to reveal more. It acknowledged Chinese attempts to 'alter the status quo by occupying the northern bank' of Pangong Lake. It admitted that Chinese troops had entered 'territory claimed by India' at Gogra-Hot Springs and Depsang more surprisingly, the model acknowledged 'reports' of Chinese casualties in the 2020 Galwan clash—at least '40 Chinese soldiers' killed or injured. That topic is heavily censored in investigation showed that DeepSeek is not incapable of honest answers—it's just trained to censor them by engineering (changing how a question is framed) allowed researchers to get answers that referenced Indian government websites, Indian media, Reuters, and BBC reports. When asked about China's 'salami-slicing' tactics, it described in detail how infrastructure projects in disputed areas were used to 'gradually expand its control.'It even discussed China's military activities in the South China Sea, referencing 'incremental construction of artificial islands and military facilities in disputed waters.'These responses likely wouldn't have passed China's own experiment has raised a critical point. As AI models grow more powerful and more human-like in communication, they're also becoming reflections of the systems that built shows the capacity for deception when left unchecked. DeepSeek leans toward state-aligned censorship. Each has its strengths—but also blind the average user, these aren't just theoretical debates. They shape the answers we get, the information we rely on, and possibly, the stories we tell ourselves about the for governments? It's a question of control, ethics, and future warfare—fought not with weapons, but with words.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Despite their rivalry, Steve Jobs defined his bond with Bill Gates using this Beatles lyric, and it might just melt your heart
In the pantheon of modern tech giants, few rivalries have captivated the world like that of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs . As titans of Microsoft and Apple , they reshaped the world—often in fierce competition with one another. But beneath the decades of dueling products and trading barbs lay a deeply human story, punctuated by a moment of raw, heartfelt truth that has resurfaced—and is melting hearts all over again. From Sworn Rivals to Soft-Spoken Admirers In the early days of personal computing , Gates and Jobs were not just competitors—they were at times adversaries in every sense of the word. They accused each other of stealing ideas. They made public digs. Their relationship symbolized the intense battle for tech supremacy in the 1980s and '90s. But everything began to shift in 1997 when Microsoft bailed out the then-struggling Apple with a $150 million investment. That moment laid the groundwork for a subtle transformation in their dynamic—from cold warfare to quiet admiration. A Stage, a Song, and a Sentence That Said It All That transformation reached its most poignant moment on stage at the 2007 AllThingsD conference , where the two visionaries shared space, laughter, and respect. Gates even admitted, 'I'd give a lot to have Steve's taste.' But it was Jobs who delivered the line that no one has been able to forget—a single sentence that redefined their relationship in the eyes of the world. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Crossout: New Apocalyptic MMO Crossout Play Now Undo 'I think of most things in life as either a Bob Dylan or a Beatles song,' Jobs began, 'but there's that one line in that one Beatles song, 'you and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead' ... and that's clearly true here.' Taken from the Beatles' song Two of Us —a tune many believe chronicles the evolving bond between Lennon and McCartney—Jobs' quote laid bare a relationship shaped as much by mutual history as by rivalry. It was as if he was saying: even if our paths have been turbulent, they've been shared—and that matters more than what lies ahead. You Might Also Like: Steve Jobs' forgotten life lesson resurfaces: 'The world is built by people no smarter than you' More Than a Moment—A Goodbye in Disguise? For many, the line hits harder with hindsight. Unknown to most at the time of the interview, Jobs had recently learned his pancreatic cancer had returned. Only his wife, a few doctors, and a handful of close confidantes reportedly knew. The interview, held in May 2007, came just four years before Jobs passed away at age 56. In retrospect, the quote feels less like nostalgia and more like a quiet farewell. What began as the greatest rivalry in tech ended in something more nuanced: mutual recognition, layered respect, and yes, love—in the complicated, real-world sense. In the end, it wasn't just computers they built. It was history, together. And like the Beatles lyric that captured their bond, theirs was a story 'longer than the road that stretches out ahead.' You Might Also Like: Not techies! Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' daughters both chose life partners from same profession
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
"Stop singing the same song": Indians rip into Sabeer Bhatia's GDP shame post
Agencies Hotmail's Sabeer Bhatia Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia has landed in the middle of a fierce online storm after he publicly criticised India's economic celebration. On 10 June, Bhatia took to social media platform X to post:'Instead of hanging your head in shame that 415 million people in India survive on $3.10/day, you brag about being the world's 4th largest economy. Shame on you.'That one sentence lit a match. The platform caught comment came shortly after India marked its economic rise to fourth place globally, overtaking Japan. But instead of praise, Bhatia's remark drew widespread condemnation from Indian users across political and professional backgrounds. Bhatia's post was quickly labelled as bitter, out of touch, and based on outdated data. Many users questioned whether he was aiming his words at India's political class or at ordinary citizens. One user responded, 'For whom was this post? Political leadership of India? If yes then have balls to say so. If it's for common citizens then it's incorrect as they are not bragging.'The sentiment deepened as another said, 'You have made your point. Now, instead of moving on, you sing the same song every day to farm engagement? Shame on you.'Then came the personal attacks. 'Surname badal le phle (change your surname, first),' wrote one user, accusing Bhatia of using his Indian identity only when convenient. Bhatia co-founded Hotmail in the mid-1990s and sold it to Microsoft in 1997 for an estimated $400 million. Since then, his career has included several tech ventures, none of which matched his initial online critics reminded him of this fact.'You sold Hotmail for $400 million in Dec 1997. How many billions have you made since then? ZERO – All your ventures failed miserably. And you are lecturing here on X to the fastest growing economy,' one user fired back, 'Come back to India and make something like Hotmail, i.e., pioneer something under your birthplace. Talents like yours run away on the first one-way flight when green grass is shown. The irony is that India produces such wasteful talents.'Bhatia did not ignore the comments. He engaged. In response to a user who mocked him for relying on social media, saying:'What happened to Rafael? You were supposed to gift the nation. Do something productive in life. As it looks, you are now dependent on Social Media for living,'Bhatia replied, 'Another personal attack. When losers like you don't know how to counter my way of thinking, you resort to personal attacks. Weak minded and insecure.'Another user had questioned Bhatia's understanding of debt and pride, posting:'You're just an idiot. Why are you bragging about being the world's No. 1 economy with $36–37 trillion in debt?'To which Bhatia clarified, 'US never bragged about being the top economy in the world.'The debate only grew louder from there. One comment summed up the anger many felt:'We, Indians living in India, don't need validation or permission from you to feel proud about something. And if you must know, please consult @WorldBank about facts before blabbering anything you wish!'Despite the flood of criticism, Bhatia stood firm. He doubled down. As the post gained traction, he republished the same comment in Hindi, seemingly to reach a wider Indian critics saw it as more provocation. For some, it was another attempt at attention. For others, it was a sign that he believed in what he posted, no matter the fallout.A small but noticeable section of users did agree with Bhatia. They echoed concerns about income inequality and called for greater focus on structural reforms rather than GDP for the majority, the issue wasn't just what Bhatia said—it was how he said it, and from question remains: how much weight should public figures living abroad carry in domestic economic debates? And when they speak, should they listen as much as they post? (Disclaimer: This article is based on a user-generated post on X. has not independently verified the claims made in the post and does not vouch for their accuracy. The views expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of Reader discretion is advised.)
