or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft to reportedly cut Windows pricing by 70% as Apple, Google eat PC marketshare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft to reportedly cut Windows pricing by 70% as Apple, Google eat PC marketshare - Page 2

post #41 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post

"The move would allow the Windows maker to tap into Google's immense share of the mobile device market"

Not necessarily.

Even if it did give them a large part of Androids immense share of the mobile device market the missing element there is 'the mobile device 'internet usage' market. Low cost junk playing Angry Birds and texting isn't going to help much.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #42 of 122

Windows has been over priced since windows Vista.  It is about time.  Maybe Microsoft is finally getting it.  Apple gives it's operating system away with any new mac and all upgrades are free.  Maybe Microsoft is getting the hint.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #43 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

As I see it though, Googles problem exactly is what you say (my input in brackets) . .... "why? Because they (Google) already make the lion's share of (their) advertisement dollars on the desktop."

The 'desktop' and it's earning potential for Google's business model is only on the web, html, port 80 and all that good stuff. Meanwhile, Apple with the lions share of internet mobile traffic by a massive majority, bypass the web entirely other than for Safari usage and even then without Flash. Almost everything else uses the internet without traditional web browsing. That's what Apple's mobile Apps are all about. That is the paradigm shift Steve initiated and no one saw coming ( remember Apple being laughed at for dropping Flash and starting their own iOS ad system for app developers) . Google are effectively shut out of the mobile market. Of course they have a gazillion Android bits of junk out there but no one uses them on the internet it would seem from all the data.

Except you're forgetting that Google owns admob and that's still used by many developers for in app advertisements. BTW the iPhone was originally meant to run web apps, SJ had to be convinced to allow apps to be written for the OS and installed directly onto the device.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 122

The answer is 0 if the market you are selling to has not been addressed yet by Microsoft.  I would guess that this is the same price Microsoft is getting for Android on ARM.  This move is actually the first real breath of air back into the Wintel partnership which used to own technology, but missed the shift to mobile due to arrogance rather than good business sense.  Marginal costs on software are always zero.  This does not mean that replacement costs are zero, but given a business environment where someone else is already offering a replacement for your simplest systems at the $200 price point, then you have nothing to lose except percieved value of the higher priced Windows.  For this strategy to work, Intel will have to have a $30 system on a chip solution to match Microsoft's less expensive software.  The problem over the long term for the higher priced Windows is not trivial.  It is not without precedent. The server version of Windows is an order of magnitude more expensive then the individual software licenses.  

post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Windows has been over priced since windows Vista.  It is about time.  Maybe Microsoft is finally getting it.  Apple gives it's operating system away with any new mac and all upgrades are free.  Maybe Microsoft is getting the hint.
Yeah because Apple makes macs and they're certainly not free. Different business models. Honestly, MS should be less concerned about Windows everywhere (which is what Windows 8 was all about), and more concerned about being a great services company. I think it's a mistake for MS to try and be both vertical and horizontal at the same time. Forget about hardware, just make your services best in class and available on all platforms.
post #46 of 122
Years of selling to a captive market, without admitting to yourself that you're selling to a captive market or understanding what that means, is what's killing Windows and Microsoft. Only when viable competition came along did they realize that they've lost (or never had) the capability to build a true, world-class OS. One that customers CHOOSE to buy not HAVE TO buy. How Microsoft will rescue Windows is a monumental, probably impossible task, because their whole OS engineering, design, and marketing staff never had to develop the ability to discern what does and doesn't appeal to the customer. Exhibit A on that: Windows 8.

Monopoly is like heroin, it might make you feel good at first use but it'll kill you in the end.
post #47 of 122

This article is not very informative.  What is the Google PC share?

post #48 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Years of selling to a captive market, without admitting to yourself that you're selling to a captive market or understanding what that means, is what's killing Windows and Microsoft. Only when viable competition came along did they realize that they've lost (or never had) the capability to build a true, world-class OS. One that customers CHOOSE to buy not HAVE TO buy. How Microsoft will rescue Windows is a monumental, probably impossible task, because their whole OS engineering, design, and marketing staff never had to develop the ability to discern what does and doesn't appeal to the customer. Exhibit A on that: Windows 8.

Monopoly is like heroin, it might make you feel good at first use but it'll kill you in the end.

I think it is Steve Jobs that saw a lot of PC users really don't need a bloated PC that can run everything and very powerful.  Google follows Apple closely.  They understand where Jobs is leading Apple to. So Google develop an OS that mostly just run a browser. 

post #49 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

 

That sounds familiar...

 

Wasn't Linux making its way into the PC market when netbooks first came out? Didn't Microsoft re-release Windows XP and drop the price to push back Linux?

 

A Chromebook is nothing more than a repurposed netbook that's even more limiting in its capabilities. They'll die faster than netbooks did. There's no reason for Google to develop a desktop OS, why? Because they already make the lion's share of advertisement dollars on the desktop.

 

Microsoft needs to drop "Windows Everywhere" and follow Apple's playbook, write a separate OS that works for mobile.

"Microsoft needs to drop "Windows Everywhere" and follow Apple's playbook, write a separate OS that works for mobile."

 

I agree, and the sad thing is they already had that with Windows Phone.  All they had to do was take a page out of Apple's playbook and have Windows Phone OS for smartphones and tablets and leave Windows 8 (without Metro UI) for traditional PC's.  They wouldn't have as much backlash as they do now.

post #50 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

"Microsoft needs to drop "Windows Everywhere" and follow Apple's playbook, write a separate OS that works for mobile."

I agree, and the sad thing is they already had that with Windows Phone.  All they had to do was take a page out of Apple's playbook and have Windows Phone OS for smartphones and tablets and leave Windows 8 (without Metro UI) for traditional PC's.  They wouldn't have as much backlash as they do now.

What was Windows CE then?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #51 of 122

MS has always been focused on enterprise. Many people bought Windows PCs for their home because they were already familiar with it from using them at work. With Apple targeting the consumer so successfully, MS didn't want to miss the opportunity for a slice of that market, but they are just not consumer friendly.

 

MS should stay focused on enterprise like Oracle does. They could certainly make a lot of IT departments happy if they cut the price of Windows 7 Professional in half.

 

I recently built a custom computer for a new member of our office. I installed Win 7 Pro which is a pretty decent OS so long as the end user doesn't have to do a lot of interaction at the OS level. By this, I mean, once you are in your application window everything goes fairly smoothly.

 

Windows itself is just not as polished as OS X. One example of Windows clunkiness is searching. It is slow and often doesn't find stuff that is actually there. OS X has awesome searching capabilities. Another example I ran into which demonstrates the lack of polish was loading fonts. From the OTE font folio there are read me files in the folders. If you select all then right click to install the fonts it generates an error because the read me file is not a font. Conversely on OS X if you do the same thing it just ignores the read me file because it knows it is not a font. That is the elegance of OS X.

 

Redmond really needs to fix their copy machines.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #52 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

A Chromebook is nothing more than a repurposed netbook that's even more limiting in its capabilities. They'll die faster than netbooks did. There's no reason for Google to develop a desktop OS, why? Because they already make the lion's share of advertisement dollars on the desktop.

Criticising Chromebooks for being 'limited netbooks' is like criticising tablets or feature phones for being 'limited smartphones' - it misses the point of the devices. They're targeted specifically at the people who neither need nor want extra capabilities - the people for whom a phone is just a phone, and a desktop is just a means to check your email and write documents. And because they're designed to do so much less, they tend to do a very good job of it.

 

Just because you see a laptop or a mobile device as being more than just a browser or a word processor or a telephone doesn't mean that everyone does.

post #53 of 122

Extremely bad news for Microsoft, considering licensing with how they make a bulk of their profits. How will MS make up for this? Volume? Hardware? Doesn't look like they've gotten much traction there. 

post #54 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post
 


And that is why (and I know people who want Microsoft to fail would rather not see this) building $499 PC's with no crapware and Windows 7 is what Microsoft should encourage.  Most big vendors do not do that, it is either Windows 8, crapware loaded or weak.   But paying Microsoft $90 wholesale for Windows 7 makes it turn into a $599 PC that sells less. 

 

Sure, Apple is better, for sure in software, often in hardware.  I admit that.  But a properly setup quad core 8gb/1TB Windows 7 machine with passwords and non-admin user accounts is not bad.  Microsoft has a unnatural want to sell Windows 8 when they make just as much or more on Windows 7.   This is when the PR/marketing department has more weight then the accounting department. 

 

Microsoft has to sell Windows 8.  I think Microsoft has redesigned applications like office amongst others in the spirit of the Windows 8 Metro UI.  I guess the idea is to have the same UI on desktops, Tablets and Phones.  That makes it more difficult for MS to change all these user interfaces if they wanted to.  I think the Office interface is slow and confusing.  Office still rules but it is being challenged.  This could be deadly for Microsoft.

post #55 of 122

Apple's not involved in this story.  This story is about sub $250 systems, and about Google borrowing a page from the 1990s MS playbook:

In 1994 Microsoft used its profitability in other areas (OS) to kill Netscape.

In 2014 Google used its profitability in other areas (search) to kill Microsoft.

Schadenfreud-licious.

 

Why it's not about Apple: Apple doesn't give away iOS and OSX for free to gain incremental marketshare in a low-cost segment: the most recent iOS and OSX versions have been free because they have included features to tightly integrate the data-sharing for a common userid, thus ensuring we will continue to buy Apple hardware (iphones, iPads, macs).  As others have noted, Apple's core profitability is in hardware; the money-making machine of iTunes and other software/services have much lower margins.

I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #56 of 122

(reply to Slurpy) : Not really ...

 

 

 

 

Very interesting graph, which explains many things ....

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #57 of 122

Silly Microsoft.  When will they learn that you get what you pay for?  I'll stick with Apple, thankyouverymuch!

post #58 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 
A Chromebook is nothing more than a repurposed netbook that's even more limiting in its capabilities. They'll die faster than netbooks did. There's no reason for Google to develop a desktop OS, why? Because they already make the lion's share of advertisement dollars on the desktop.
Criticising Chromebooks for being 'limited netbooks' is like criticising tablets or feature phones for being 'limited smartphones' - it misses the point of the devices. They're targeted specifically at the people who neither need nor want
 extra capabilities - the people for
 whom a phone is just a phone, and a desktop is just a means to check your email and write documents. And because they're designed to do so much less, they tend to do a very good job of it.


Just because you see a laptop or a mobile device as being more than just a browser or a word processor or a telephone doesn't mean that everyone does.
You make a great case for getting into the flip phone and netbook market. Not sure it's a wise business move however. Ask Nokia and Acer.
Edited by snova - 2/22/14 at 9:53am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #59 of 122
So can someone explain how lowering the OEM license fee by 70% will help sell stuff that apparently few people actually want as it is?

Also, the bloat ware that comes installed on most if not all PCs is one of the main reasons why PCs have been relatively cheap. The bloat ware helps subsidizes the price so don't expect to see it disappear any time soon
post #60 of 122
This is called desperation. I think the layoffs will start within the next year.
post #61 of 122
Windows's PCs are getting a full scale attack on all price levels

$1,000 market (Macs rule)
$300 - $999 market (Tablets)
$199 - $299 market (Tablets, Smartphones, Chromebooks)

Microsoft is getting hammered!
post #62 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

MS has always been focused on enterprise. Many people bought Windows PCs for their home because they were already familiar with it from using them at work. With Apple targeting the consumer so successfully, MS didn't want to miss the opportunity for a slice of that market, but they are just not consumer friendly.

 

MS should stay focused on enterprise like Oracle does. They could certainly make a lot of IT departments happy if they cut the price of Windows 7 Professional in half.

 

I recently built a custom computer for a new member of our office. I installed Win 7 Pro which is a pretty decent OS so long as the end user doesn't have to do a lot of interaction at the OS level. By this, I mean, once you are in your application window everything goes fairly smoothly.

 

Windows itself is just not as polished as OS X. One example of Windows clunkiness is searching. It is slow and often doesn't find stuff that is actually there. OS X has awesome searching capabilities. Another example I ran into which demonstrates the lack of polish was loading fonts. From the OTE font folio there are read me files in the folders. If you select all then right click to install the fonts it generates an error because the read me file is not a font. Conversely on OS X if you do the same thing it just ignores the read me file because it knows it is not a font. That is the elegance of OS X.

 

Redmond really needs to fix their copy machines.

 

If you do IT stuff, you probably know much better than me that the license cost of Windows is a small fraction of the cost of running Windows -- the support and training costs dwarf the cost of the OS, so:

1. It would not be useful for MSFT to drop the price -- the (relative) savings to enterprise consumers would be miniscule.

2. Unfortunately, even improving the OS is not a clear win, because "improving" often means "changing", and the customers tend to not like change (in particular, because it adds to the (re)training costs.

post #63 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukefrench View Post

The marginal cost of the additional copies is almost 0 for microsoft, because those costs are supported by the hardware manufacturer. Now you need to repay the investments  in R&D and such, but that is another story. What microsoft do here is reducing his profits and its future R&D possibilities.

In 2013, after Windows 8 had been finished, Microsoft made $78b in revenue and net income of $22b so their net margin is far from 100% once their software reaches deployment. They have over 100,000 employees. They don't just fire them and then hire them back when they need to put out a new version of Windows. There are ongoing marketing costs to let people know that Windows exists and expenses to bribe retail staff to convince customers to buy a Microsoft product instead of a knowingly superior product. They have stores to run too. The Windows division alone had $10b in operating expenses in 2013 out of $19b revenue.

With the product price threshold of $250, this move shouldn't affect their current revenue much as they have insignificant marketshare at the low end anyway. This is a desperate move to gain marketshare in lower-end products. It also shows they don't know what the problem is with Windows. For Microsoft to win, they don't need Android to fail, they just need to do a better job. They don't know how to do a better job in mobile.

It actually starts with hardware, no doubt why they tried their move with Nokia. When you look at the distribution of hardware units, it's massively dominated by Samsung and Apple. Microsoft isn't a hardware company, Nokia was a low quality hardware company. They need multiple leading mobile hardware manufacturers to push Windows as the default or at least premium OS. It's not appealing for manufacturers to do this now in mobile though because they already lost the apps race. Like what happened with Windows on the desktop years ago, it was the combination of the hardware price, the software compatibility and existing userbase. When retailers were asked about Mac support, we heard the phrases 'everybody uses Windows', 'Macs are overpriced', 'there's more software on Windows'. This perception kept building to give Microsoft 90% marketshare. They were too late in mobile and this has now happened with iOS and Android. What about Windows mobile support, well it's the same answers: 'everybody uses iOS and Android', 'Windows mobile products are overpriced vs Android products', 'there's more software on iOS and Android'. They'll try to fix the 2nd one, Android app compatibility might fix the 3rd and with those fixed, it will take time to fix the 1st but they have a mountain to climb and they are at the bottom.

The biggest problem they have is that the solutions to their problems only benefit them. In order for their partners to adopt their software, there has to be a benefit for them too. With Windows, the benefit was having a platform a lot of manufacturers used and a lot of developers supported. The manufacturers already have that. They need to offer something Android doesn't rather than the same things it already does. They can do this to an extent with exclusive software that is compelling. Office isn't compelling enough but exclusive games from their Windows/XBox partners might help. I don't really think that they will be able to offer anything that would be more compelling to hardware manufacturers at this point.
post #64 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Werner View Post
Also, the bloat ware that comes installed on most if not all PCs is one of the main reasons why PCs have been relatively cheap.

And this is where Microsoft is losing mindshare, even in the cheap PC segment. No matter how cheap a PC you can buy, it's no use if you can't use it! I've experienced so many occasions where I've finally convinced cheapskates to pay up and get something a bit more expensive and in the end getting thanked since their computer works so much better than what they've been used to.

 

Why Microsoft would even want to *allow* installation of Windows on a machine infested with crapware is beyond me. That, and the inclusion of ads in Windows 8 apps, is really telling. It's about volume over quality.

 

Consider SJ on the netbook: "We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that".

 

This move will only hurt the Windows brand.

post #65 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Graves View Post

The title gives a very different idea than the article. "Microsoft to reportedly cut Windows pricing by 70%..." gives a different vision than "Microsoft will slash Windows licensing fees by 70 percent for low-cost hardware manufacturers". As a PC builder I have a lot of interest in one of those. The other, I have none.

Problem is with that scheme is  "Microsoft will slash Windows licensing feesby 70 percent for low-cost hardware manufacturers", not end users that would like to buy one off the shelves.  To us it is still $200.00 for a current copy of windows.  It does the end user no good.  Microsoft is a dead company walking, and especially if they allow droid apps to run on there phones.  With Apple and Gurgle giving OSX and Crome away for free Microsoft is being hit from both sides in the consumer market.

post #66 of 122
In 2007 Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on the iPhone, during an on-stage interview at the CEO Forum with USA Today’s David Lieberman:

There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It’s a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I’d prefer to have our software in 60 percent or 70 percent or 80 percent of them, than I would to have 2 percent or 3 percent, which is what Apple might get.

Great to see Microsoft still believes in this approach. We are gonna fight market share losses with lower price. Ok. Keep on trucking.
Edited by snova - 2/22/14 at 10:35am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #67 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


What was Windows CE then?

 

Wasn't that a competitor to the original Palm OS?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #68 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Wasn't that a competitor to the original Palm OS?

Yes and it was a OS specifically designed for mobile. Making a separate OS isn't something new nor foreign to MS as the OP seemingly suggests.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #69 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post
 

The underlying problem is Moore's law is dying rapidly.  Back in 2002 Intel lost the ability to ramp up frequency with each new process node.  We have been stuck at 2.5 Ghz since 2002 and nothing anyone has done has changed this.  

Actually current core i5's and 7's and Xeons all have processors that run above 3Ghz some up to 3.9Ghz.  Intel slowed down the Megahertz Race on its own to focus on power consumption.  The current plan they have in place is that for every 100 Megahertz rise they reduce power consumption by 1%.  They are doing just that with the only processes in the world that can produce 10 nanometer wafers. And there working on 4nm and 2nm currently. As for there mobile processors, the Bay Trail currently runs at 2 to 3 Gigahertz.

post #70 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


You make a great case for getting into the flip phone and netbook market. Not sure it's a wise business move however. Ask Nokia and Acer.

If the average computer user doesn't do much more than browse the web and compose the occasional text document, then google's chrome strategy would seem spot on. Google seems to be trying to turn chrome from just a browser into a more general application platform that can satisfy the computing needs of the most users. Why else would they be pushing chrome apps (http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps)? Think about the ad possibilities if Google can get the majority of people to spend most of their computer time in chrome.

post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

With the product price threshold of $250, this move shouldn't affect their current revenue much as they have insignificant marketshare at the low end anyway. This is a desperate move to gain marketshare in lower-end products.

Marvin,

 

While I agree on the short term assessment,  lets entertain Microsoft's strategy from a long term point of view.  

 

Lets pretend for a moment that by lowering the price to 30% of current price, they are able to increase the number of cheap PC's by over 3.33x. This would yield the same revenue they are getting now on those computers.  For this new pricing strategy to be worthwhile, lets say they need to grow unit sales by 4x from current levels. 

 

First off,  I'm not sure its realistic to expect to grow their low end market by 4x.  However, lets say they do.  What does this accomplish from an overall PC market point of view?  Are they going to increase overall PC unit market cap? If they pull off a miracle and do, what's the effect to the overall bottom line?

 

I recall people were asking what iPad sales were going to do to the cannibalization of Mac sales.  While the iPad to Mac relationship is a bit unclear to me, I think  cheap PC to higher end PC are more directly related.   If low end PC's units take off and start shipping 4x+ fold, no doubt this will affect Microsoft's margins on higher end PC.  

 

Just what is Microsoft's strategy for increasing overall revenue?  This seems like robbing Peter (high end) to pay Paul (low end)  approach because the PC market is capped.  I mean, how many laptops does one person need?  Hope there is some genius market analysist at Microsoft who has an idea how this gonna pay out long term and not just make things even worse at and accelerated rate.  

 

Seems like a brilliant race to the bottom to me.


Edited by snova - 2/22/14 at 11:18am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #72 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


You make a great case for getting into the flip phone and netbook market. Not sure it's a wise business move however. Ask Nokia and Acer.

If the average computer user doesn't do much more than browse the web and compose the occasional text document, then google's chrome strategy would seem spot on. Google seems to be trying to turn chrome from just a browser into a more general application platform that can satisfy the computing needs of the most users. Why else would they be pushing chrome apps (http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps)? Think about the ad possibilities if Google can get the majority of people to spend most of their computer time in chrome.

Google has nothing to lose. All they have to do is make sure ad revenue covers their development costs of Chrome OS.  Its the guys that make these Chromebooks that are taking all the risk and bleeding money, like Acer.   We have gone from selling $4000 computers to $200 computers for the past few decades. What has this done for margins and fortunes of the HW OEM and where is all this going? Cheap Netbooks, Chromebooks  and Cheap PCs in general are not a good business move for the HW guys. Many of which realized this and if they have any hint of survival skills are running for the exits.   All the greats of days past, Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, where are they now? What's gonna cause them to reverse the trend? Even cheaper Chromebooks or Windows PCs?   Just who is gonna be left to makes these cheap Chromebooks when most of these guys fold up and leave? Will Chrome OS survive is no one is left to make the HW?


Edited by snova - 2/22/14 at 11:33am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #73 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Honestly, MS should be less concerned about Windows everywhere (which is what Windows 8 was all about), and more concerned about being a great services company. I think it's a mistake for MS to try and be both vertical and horizontal at the same time. Forget about hardware, just make your services best in class and available on all platforms.

 

I tend to agree.  Services means more than just providing good software tho.  Customer service is part of that too.

 

On the rare occasion I have an issue with a MS product and need to call them, it's likely the worst thing I'm going to have to do all week.  I called them a couple of times over the years with product issues and it's been horrible. Customer service is one of the big reasons I think people like Apple.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post
 

Problem is with that scheme is  "Microsoft will slash Windows licensing feesby 70 percent for low-cost hardware manufacturers", not end users that would like to buy one off the shelves.  To us it is still $200.00 for a current copy of windows.  It does the end user no good. 

 

I agree.  It's very irritating.  Sell me Windows for $50 and I'll never leave.

post #74 of 122
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

I have been repeating my self on several websites, but the underlying problem is not just Apple making a better product.  The underlying problem is Moore's law is dying rapidly.  Back in 2002 Intel lost the ability to ramp up frequency with each new process node.  We have been stuck at 2.5 Ghz since 2002 and nothing anyone has done has changed this. 

 

That’s totally wrong.

post #75 of 122
But they'll continue to gouge consumers on upgrade prices and full licenses. I'm still on Vista because of their pricing.
post #76 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Graves View Post
 

I agree.  It's very irritating.  Sell me Windows for $50 and I'll never leave.

You would leave based on cost of Windows upgrades? How much will it cost you to leave? The math would be interesting from a breakdown point of view.  Factor in the cost of buying a new computer and all the apps you have bought vs OS upgrade cost. I suspect you will just stay with out of date version of Windows, Office and any other apps you have bought. $200 is nothing. It would cost you more to leave. Staying with old out of date software costs you nothing.  I also suspect that if Windows or Office upgrades were leaps and bounds better than older versions you would upgrade regardless of price. Which from my experience is not the case and why people stick with Windows XP and old MS Office.

 

Leaving for me had nothing to do with price. It was about giving me something leaps and bounds better user experience; regardless of cost. THIS POINT IS KEY and why lowering the price, IMHO, will do nothing to reverse the downward Windows market trend.  Its not that Windows is too expense, its that there are products out that that give a more desirable and better experience; regardless of price and why people pay the extra money to abandon ship and start over go to a completely new platform. Cost of new HW, Apps and all.

 

Chasing Chromebooks to the bottom based on price is just a bad business move. It won't generate new customers. It will just drive existing customers from more expensive PCs to cheaper and cheaper PCs.  People who buy Chromebooks don't need Windows Apps and therefore are not Microsoft customers anyways. 


Edited by snova - 2/22/14 at 12:12pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #77 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 
If you do IT stuff, you probably know much better than me that the license cost of Windows is a small fraction of the cost of running Windows -- the support and training costs dwarf the cost of the OS, so:

1. It would not be useful for MSFT to drop the price -- the (relative) savings to enterprise consumers would be miniscule.

2. Unfortunately, even improving the OS is not a clear win, because "improving" often means "changing", and the customers tend to not like change (in particular, because it adds to the (re)training costs.

You are probably right. I don't work in IT. Gauging from our totally useless IT department, I assumed that IT people in general don't want to do anything. All the PCs are old and slow and the IT guys never respond to requests. If you ask for a new PC, they find one that is not being used and replace yours, more than likely, with one that is worse than what you had before. They provide no training or support. That is why I built the PC for our new hire. Otherwise, she would have gotten some hand me down piece of crap with XP on it. Any time they have an issue with servers or CRM they call in an expert consultant. Even if MS gave them a corporate license for Win 7, they probably wouldn't use it because it would mean they would have to install it and that they can't be bothered with.

 

Of course all the IT guys have monster computers with dual monitors. Fortunately they have no say in what our department does.


Edited by mstone - 2/22/14 at 12:35pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 
  Its not that Windows is too expense, its that there are products out that that give a more desirable and better experience; regardless of price and why people pay the extra money to abandon ship and start over go to a completely new platform. Cost of new HW, Apps and all.

You have to be a total computer expert and an invaluable asset to the organization to be allowed to overrule the IT department by bringing in Macs and hooking them up to a Windows-centric network.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

You make a great case for getting into the flip phone and netbook market. Not sure it's a wise business move however. Ask Nokia and Acer.

Putting Windows on a netbook is going to result in a device that's incredibly slow and painful to use, that isn't a specialized device in the same way that a Chromebook is, and that has huge licensing / patent costs relative to the actual price of the product. It's like sticking OS X on an iPhone - inappropriate, unnecessary, and detrimental.

 

As for flip phones, there actually is a market for low-end stuff - you only have to look at the groups Samsung targets with their cheapest phones to see that. The mistake they're making is to try and use Android at the lowest level - the legal and financial overheads that result make it much harder to profit.

 

If they came out with a device that's designed from the ground up to fulfill the needs of a specialist market (namely, the people that just want a phone), they'd do a lot better. Apple understand this -it's what they do and why they're so successful. 

post #80 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

You have to be a total computer expert and an invaluable asset to the organization to be allowed to overrule the IT department by bringing in Macs and hooking them up to a Windows-centric network.

Well, not in my place. If you bring a Mac that you paid yourself and dedicate to your work, I'll support it. No sweat. If you keep complaining about poor performance when you browse youtube and gossip on Facebook, I'll ignore you. Simple as that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft to reportedly cut Windows pricing by 70% as Apple, Google eat PC marketshare