The cost of Windows has made it very hard to build and sell PC's competitively. The big brands get it cheaper and the small stores are forced to pay $90 wholesale for a Windows7 license. As a result, small stores do not sell as many units, and often repair vs replace units. If they made more money selling new units, more new units would be sold. Microsoft needs to lower the cost to all customers.
Well, in that case they have a lot more lowering to do in the OS and Applications area with OS X and iWorks being free.
PCs are already cheap. I think the Windows 8 UI needs to change. The phone UI alienated a lot of people on the desktop.
Businesses still use Windows XP and Windows 7 although Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI) have replaced a lot of physical desktops.
Many home users have discovered the Mac and have paid more for it because it is superior in many ways. It will be hard to get them back.
If you take a close look at a typical $300 Windows Laptop or desktop, it is an absolute disaster. The vendors have so much useless, annoying and crapy trial software installed, it is a frustrating experience for the users who have no idea how to uninstal them. Not to mention the Frankenstein Windows 8 environment and the crapy explorer web browser.
so... just so i am clear- they are not holding a minimum level anymore? so any crap device that can barely run a .dll filled menagerie that will give a user an ugly experience is now ok?
i for one, am glad that there is a companies like apple and lenovo who offer computers that have a high standard for its components so as to not release a $100 laptop that is buggered down in a month providing the a 'great' windows experience.
What you are writing about will kill Windows faster than any other outside factors. It may not effect enterprise much, at first, but it will make the Windows experience so awful it will have a serious effect on sales. And to think, Microsoft is so desperate already that they are considering slaughtering one of the two sacred corporate cows!!
If you cut the cost of windows by 70% how many more units must you sell to break even? Ponder that for a moment.
0.
Window is essentially a tax with no cost associated (The R&D is already expended, there is a few cents for support).
there is some costs with software directly sold to customers, but not in this case, it is the manufacturer that support them.
Dude that's one awesomely simplified view of expenses of a software company. Ship the code and then the next quarter expenses are zero. Lol. That's great.
Great move! Windows will be even more associated with crappy, low end hardware and by making them run Android - what's the point of developing for Windows? Just make IOS and Android versions and be done with it. Goodbye and good riddance, Windows.
Dude that's one awesomely simplified view of expenses of a software company. Ship the code and then the next quarter expenses are zero. Lol. That's great.
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.
Selling software directly to customer has many costs, including distribution, advertisements and such, but selling to EOM is costs fixed.
I think it is not a bad idea, but dropping the min hardware specs is as it will only renew the race to the bottom, making the low end barely capable to run Windows.
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.
Selling software directly to customer has many costs, including distribution, advertisements and such, but selling to EOM is costs fixed.
I think it is not a bad idea, but dropping the min hardware specs is as it will only renew the race to the bottom, making the low end barely capable to run Windows.
Windows being sold to manufacturers is not a tax with zero costs associated. That makes it sound like because it's all software, it's completely free. If you want to know how much it costs to make windows, look at their revenue versus profit.
Reminds me of how people say the iPhone 5s only costs a few more dollars to make then the iPhone 5c. Innovation costs money. Putting the fingerprint tech in the iPhone 5s cost Apple hundreds of millions just to purchase authentec, let alone working it into their operating system and hardware.
This is nothing more than to combat rising sales of Chromebooks. For PC's costing more than $250 or for those upgrading from a previous version of Windows, it's business as usual. This is nothing more than a token gesture.
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.
Well, in that case they have a lot more lowering to do in the OS and Applications area with OS X and iWorks being free.
PCs are already cheap. I think the Windows 8 UI needs to change. The phone UI alienated a lot of people on the desktop.
Businesses still use Windows XP and Windows 7 although Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI) have replaced a lot of physical desktops.
Many home users have discovered the Mac and have paid more for it because it is superior in many ways. It will be hard to get them back.
If you take a close look at a typical $300 Windows Laptop or desktop, it is an absolute disaster. The vendors have so much useless, annoying and crapy trial software installed, it is a frustrating experience for the users who have no idea how to uninstal them. Not to mention the Frankenstein Windows 8 environment and the crapy explorer web browser.
Solution: Buy a Mac and be happy.
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.
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.
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 lion's 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's ad strategy is effectively shut out of the main (Apple's) 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.
Microsoft has the exact same problem once the sale of PC boxes fades as it will, and they don't even have what Google has, a mobile success story of sorts.
"Grandpa, what's Windows?" "Oh my, that was a long time ago. Where did you hear about it?" "Some A.I.'s on the Neural Link." "Oh don't you worry about that. Windows won't hurt us any more."
Great move! Windows will be even more associated with crappy, low end hardware and by making them run Android - what's the point of developing for Windows? Just make IOS and Android versions and be done with it. Goodbye and good riddance, Windows.
Microsoft is frequently fixated by beating a competitor, that they quickly forget who's really eating their marketshare lunch.
"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.
Comments
The cost of Windows has made it very hard to build and sell PC's competitively. The big brands get it cheaper and the small stores are forced to pay $90 wholesale for a Windows7 license. As a result, small stores do not sell as many units, and often repair vs replace units. If they made more money selling new units, more new units would be sold. Microsoft needs to lower the cost to all customers.
Well, in that case they have a lot more lowering to do in the OS and Applications area with OS X and iWorks being free.
PCs are already cheap. I think the Windows 8 UI needs to change. The phone UI alienated a lot of people on the desktop.
Businesses still use Windows XP and Windows 7 although Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI) have replaced a lot of physical desktops.
Many home users have discovered the Mac and have paid more for it because it is superior in many ways. It will be hard to get them back.
If you take a close look at a typical $300 Windows Laptop or desktop, it is an absolute disaster. The vendors have so much useless, annoying and crapy trial software installed, it is a frustrating experience for the users who have no idea how to uninstal them. Not to mention the Frankenstein Windows 8 environment and the crapy explorer web browser.
Solution: Buy a Mac and be happy.
If you cut the cost of windows by 70% how many more units must you sell to break even? Ponder that for a moment.
0.
Window is essentially a tax with no cost associated (The R&D is already expended, there is a few cents for support).
there is some costs with software directly sold to customers, but not in this case, it is the manufacturer that support them.
So MS are saying 'hey we don't give a shit what you install our software on, we trust you know what you're doing'.
Awesomost.
Post.
Ever!
What you are writing about will kill Windows faster than any other outside factors. It may not effect enterprise much, at first, but it will make the Windows experience so awful it will have a serious effect on sales. And to think, Microsoft is so desperate already that they are considering slaughtering one of the two sacred corporate cows!!
Exhausted, the old cow can no longer produce usual quantities ....
Dude that's one awesomely simplified view of expenses of a software company. Ship the code and then the next quarter expenses are zero. Lol. That's great.
Not necessarily.
Great move! Windows will be even more associated with crappy, low end hardware and by making them run Android - what's the point of developing for Windows? Just make IOS and Android versions and be done with it. Goodbye and good riddance, Windows.
I can hear it now: "Android apps running on Windows is key to newfound computer malware/virus infections. Report at 11."
Dude that's one awesomely simplified view of expenses of a software company. Ship the code and then the next quarter expenses are zero. Lol. That's great.
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.
Selling software directly to customer has many costs, including distribution, advertisements and such, but selling to EOM is costs fixed.
I think it is not a bad idea, but dropping the min hardware specs is as it will only renew the race to the bottom, making the low end barely capable to run Windows.
Windows being sold to manufacturers is not a tax with zero costs associated. That makes it sound like because it's all software, it's completely free. If you want to know how much it costs to make windows, look at their revenue versus profit.
Reminds me of how people say the iPhone 5s only costs a few more dollars to make then the iPhone 5c. Innovation costs money. Putting the fingerprint tech in the iPhone 5s cost Apple hundreds of millions just to purchase authentec, let alone working it into their operating system and hardware.
This is nothing more than to combat rising sales of Chromebooks. For PC's costing more than $250 or for those upgrading from a previous version of Windows, it's business as usual. This is nothing more than a token gesture.
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.
Well, in that case they have a lot more lowering to do in the OS and Applications area with OS X and iWorks being free.
PCs are already cheap. I think the Windows 8 UI needs to change. The phone UI alienated a lot of people on the desktop.
Businesses still use Windows XP and Windows 7 although Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI) have replaced a lot of physical desktops.
Many home users have discovered the Mac and have paid more for it because it is superior in many ways. It will be hard to get them back.
If you take a close look at a typical $300 Windows Laptop or desktop, it is an absolute disaster. The vendors have so much useless, annoying and crapy trial software installed, it is a frustrating experience for the users who have no idea how to uninstal them. Not to mention the Frankenstein Windows 8 environment and the crapy explorer web browser.
Solution: Buy a Mac and be happy.
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.
Even if that was what MS paid the user!
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 lion's 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's ad strategy is effectively shut out of the main (Apple's) 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.
Microsoft has the exact same problem once the sale of PC boxes fades as it will, and they don't even have what Google has, a mobile success story of sorts.
"Oh my, that was a long time ago. Where did you hear about it?"
"Some A.I.'s on the Neural Link."
"Oh don't you worry about that. Windows won't hurt us any more."
Microsoft is frequently fixated by beating a competitor, that they quickly forget who's really eating their marketshare lunch.
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.