backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by arisch.. on Feb 14 at 4:56 PM

OEMs and consumers will decide which version they want

Microsoft is bringing out its Starter Edition to developed countries for the first time with Windows 7, but it has been around since 2004 when Microsoft released Windows XP Starter Edition for consumers in developing nations.

"People talk about XP Starter Edition in a derogatory manner," said Mike Wickstrand, the Group Product Manager for Windows XP Starter Edition in 2004. "They say it's crippled, or insert your favorite word. You have to look at it like this. We've done the research. We know the unique needs of these people. We've tested instrumented versions of Windows XP Starter Edition that were distributed during the beta. We have incredible data on how these people actually use the PCs. There are factual and logical inconsistencies in the reports I've read that are not backed up by any research at all. They cannot justify the position they've taken. I've spoken to those who came out strong against the product. There is no research."

With Windows XP Starter Edition, Microsoft started to address a glaring problem that had become apparent: low cost computers were starting to become a reality, and could run most programs that people wanted to use, such as word processing, email, and websurfing. However, the cost of the operating system could be as high as 25 percent of the whole computer system.

"When these PCs first hit the shelves, they were designed for people who wanted an inexpensive, mobile computer to browse the Web, do e-mail, instant message and perform other general computing tasks. Computer-makers responded by designing PCs built with lower performing — but also very inexpensive — hardware", said Brad Brooks, Corporate Vice-President for Windows Consumer Product Marketing.

"For example, they typically have much smaller keyboards and screen sizes and lack a DVD or CD drive, and the small size can make tasks like creating presentations, typing documents, or editing photos and video difficult. Typing over a long period of time can also be a little challenging. Finally, the screen size isn’t optimized for the Web, so plan on doing plenty of panning and scrolling".

"We never had a Windows product that was designed for the unique needs of first time users in developing tech markets," said Wickstrand.

With XP Starter, first-time PC users could have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system included setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC.

Microsoft wanted to hang on to these first time users and get them hooked on Windows. They would then be familiar with the Windows OS and continue to choose it in the future over Linux or other low-cost alternatives.

With Windows Vista Starter Edition, computer users could run up to three programs concurrently, with no limit to the number of windows open. It was only available through OEMs to developing nations as well.

Windows 7 Starter Edition will continue in the same vein for OEMs that build low cost small netbook PCs, but Windows 7 Starter Edition will now be available in developed markets for the first time. However, Microsoft would like consumers who are not cost sensitive to go with Windows 7 Home Premium, which Microsoft promises will "let you get the most out of your digital media and easily connect with other PCs".

"Small-notebook PCs run the same Windows that people know and love, but there are certain trade-offs customers make when they buy these devices", said Brooks. "We think purchasers are drawn to these PCs by their small size and affordability, particularly given the current environment", he continued, referring to the global economic recession.

"It’s important to remember that these small-notebook PCs weren’t designed to replace a full-featured notebook or desktop".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why?
By MonkeyPaw on 2/10/2009 7:53:52 AM , Rating: 1
What I don't understand is how MS seems to pitch this as a "Value" version of Windows, like they had to produce a stripped down version in order for it to be economical to produce. An OS isn't like a line of cars, where you have to make a cheap car to sell it for a cheap price. MS has fully developed Windows for the common desktop. It seems to me like multiple versions and "Starter" editions cost them more money, as someone had to go in and make specific limitations/changes to the software so it has fewer/more features. The only way I could see this whole concept as worthwhile is if Starter has a very small install size (to fit on original Eees), and if it runs better on really old hardware. Otherwise, I don't see the benefit of selling a castrated version of your software. All this does is fuel the MS-hating that is already so popular.

Don't get me wrong--I love Win7 on my Eee, but I just can't see why anyone should have less than the full-functioning version of the OS.




RE: Why?
By Indianapolis on 2/10/2009 8:08:32 AM , Rating: 3
Did you read the article? This stripped down version of Windows is Microsoft's attempt to address the problems of providing their product to markets where the typical cost of their OS may be as much or more than most people make in a month. If they were to provide the full version of Windows for a "stripped down" price, then Microsoft would be losing a lot of money in sales, since those low-priced but full-featured versions would surely find their way back home, eating into their sales in the rest of the world.

Seems to me to be a fairly elegant solution and a reasonable compromise. And, realistically, I think most home users can get by with running three programs concurrently. For most, it will be nothing more than a minor inconvenience, while allowing them to be "legal". Believe it or not, there are some people who would rather NOT steal their software if they didn't have to.

And as far as fueling the "MS-hating" as you call it, there's no way around that. Anytime a company (or a country for that matter) is wildly successful, there will be many people who will be jealous and resentful and will find any reason to feel slighted. It's really not worth worrying about, since there's nothing you can do about it.


RE: Why?
By JAB on 2/10/2009 8:39:32 AM , Rating: 1
No this is a spin fail. They need to either make a true optimized version or just come out and be honest that they want a low price version for people that can not afford the more expensive version. The screen res caps tell the lie. There is noting wrong with living on a budget.

Honesty is always the best policy either that or keep quiet.

Yup this will get downgraded by the MS faithful but tunnel vision kills in the end. The MS yes men are their biggest danger you can not get better if you cant admit your problems.


RE: Why?
By pjpizza on 2/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Boomshadow on 2/10/2009 9:41:08 AM , Rating: 3
You have a problem with sentence structure; standard English requires the separation of two independent clauses by either semicolons or stops (such as periods). If you criticize others' grammar, yours should be bulletproof.

As to the topic, the point made was that it's no cheaper to produce Windows Starter Edition; it's actually more expensive, since it requires time and labor for Microsoft's Windows teams to place restrictions on it. This differs from hardware production, where production cost relates proportionally to retail price.

I still maintain Microsoft's entire approach to this situation is wrong. There needs to be one version of Windows 7 at one low price. Margin is not the consumer's problem.


RE: Why?
By StevoLincolnite on 2/10/2009 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As to the topic, the point made was that it's no cheaper to produce Windows Starter Edition; it's actually more expensive, since it requires time and labor for Microsoft's Windows teams to place restrictions on it.


True it would be more expensive, but if they can maintain a high sales rate than that should off-set the high costs involved in creating the software.


RE: Why?
By 67STANG on 2/10/2009 4:48:24 PM , Rating: 3
Since Windows is built in modular code, stripping out features is pretty easy... hence the home, home premium, professional, etc. versions.

The only thing that would cost anything is marketing, branding and promotional related expenses.

It's good alternative in today's market, and as long as it can hop on the net and download uTorrent, I'm sure it won't take long for folks in developing countries to upgrade their basic version...


RE: Why?
By HighWing on 2/10/2009 12:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still maintain Microsoft's entire approach to this situation is wrong. There needs to be one version of Windows 7 at one low price. Margin is not the consumer's problem.


That is all fine and you are entitled to your opinion, but you are forgetting two important factors.

1) business's require more and different options that are most often not needed in a home computer and vice versa.
2) Both home and business users would rather not pay for features they are not going to use.

The best thing for them to do, and I know it's been said before on here, is to make 3 different versions
1) for home users with all the bells and whistles for videos, pictures, web surfing etc.
2) one for business with out all the bells and whistles of the home version, but with more optimized networking support and tools
3) a "lite" for netbooks, optimzed just for e-mail, web, and basic PC usage.

and to top it off allow the user to choose the options of each that are actually installed.

I know that still won't please everyone, but I'm sure that would please most.

Trouble is, MS is out to make money, and having more options, gives the possibility for making more money. And bottom line people, MS is out to make money first, then give the customers what they want second.


RE: Why?
By mholler on 2/10/2009 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
The best thing for them to do, and I know it's been said before on here, is to make 3 different versions
1) for home users with all the bells and whistles for videos, pictures, web surfing etc.
2) one for business with out all the bells and whistles of the home version, but with more optimized networking support and tools
3) a "lite" for netbooks, optimzed just for e-mail, web, and basic PC usage.


Is this not what they've done?

1)Windows Home Premium
2)Windows Enterprise/Ultimate
3)Windows Starter

They did however offer one additional option of Windows Professional which is geared towards small-mid size companies that need additional features not present in Home, but not all of the features included in Enterprise/Ultimate.

I fail to see how offering choices hurts the end user/consumer. I also don't see how it increases the price by any significant amount. Microsoft put in the money and time required to develop all of the features available in the Ultimate version and they would have done so regardless. By charging different prices for different levels of features, it allows access to more consumers of varying needs and means. An individual or business that requires extra features should share in a higher portion of the cost of development.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2009 2:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
If anything it will lower the price. Home Premium is now the cheapest version that will be available. Don't be surprised to see it hover around the same price as OSX.


RE: Why?
By Justin Time on 2/10/2009 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think you might find that Enterprise is only available to customers with Volume License Agreements... i.e. Enterprise Customers.

Retail/OEM 'standard' versions will be Home-Premium, Professional, Ultimate.


RE: Why?
By HighWing on 2/11/2009 10:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
well to answer you in short, no, they have not actually done this.

Their starter edition is not really a "lite" version that is "optimized" for performance and small footprint. It is rather a watered downed restrictive version of the full system.

Also, the business versions still include the bells and whistles of the home version, and not really "optimized" for business use.

In essence as you go up the scale they just add more features rather then customize the OS for that application level.

Finally, and they have not done this since 98, is allow you to choose at install which options/features you actually want installed. Which actually is not a hard thing to do at all. Just have a "default setting" and then a "customize" setting to allow users the choice. They've done it before, why not go back?

So long answer given, no they have not already done what I proposed.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2009 2:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There needs to be one version of Windows 7 at one low price. Margin is not the consumer's problem.
Who are you to dictate what MS should or should not do? Furthermore margin is directly tied to the consumer. It is an entire departments job to figure out what they can charge and what the consumer is willing to spend.

Your entire spiel doesn't even make sense even if what you are saying is true. You want one OS, but you want a cheap price, what company in their right mind would sell their product for less than it is worth/what they can get for it without losing market share. This is not rocket science, this is business 101.


RE: Why?
By Staples on 2/10/2009 9:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
So you would rather that MS sell the same version of Windows you buy to the 3rd world for $5 while you pay 150$ for it? Seems a bit unfair to me.


RE: Why?
By Indianapolis on 2/10/2009 10:02:10 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. This guy who's griping about multiple versions would be the first to gripe about paying %1000 more than in other markets. There's no pleasing everybody.


RE: Why?
By morrig on 2/10/2009 10:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's a bit like any purchase,the extra's cost more.As in M/S case,it's the development cost's.So if you strip-out some of the programming cost,you lower the price,and the resources it takes.Then if you like the O/S,you might,when upgrading go for the full deal.
As M/S is gearing the Win 7 for the expanding Net-Book market,the Starter edition should be perfect,being speedier,more attractive,easier to use,than XP?


RE: Why?
By mcnabney on 2/10/2009 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no. Starter cannot do home networking, so it would be a no-go for Netbooks which routinely use home networking features (like the Home server, networked printer, offloading and backing-up critical data to other PCs at home).

Microsoft's problem is that they charge too much for their OS. They are making money hand over fist now, but critical mass is building against it. There are three 'anchors' to Windows - Office, games, and IE. Firefox and Opera have already proven IE to an optional tool. Office functions are increasingly being workable outside of MS Office in both the home and business. And lastly, Microsoft and the Xbox may help doom PC gaming.
So an extended recession and the transition of PCs from expensive tools to cheap appliances may cause some adjustment. Should the OS eat a quarter or third of the price. Moving to a functional and cheaper Linux platform that provides the same functions would start to be a real option to both IT departments and families alike.


RE: Why?
By murphyslabrat on 2/10/2009 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am thinking very uncharitable thoughts towards you right now. I don't call artificially enforcing minimum productivity a "speedier" experience, I call it "screwing-over the consumer". With XP, most consumers stuck with the aging OS, as it did everything that they needed it to, while running on lower-end hardware. Further, the cost was, initially, half that of Vista Home Basic. In order to get any sales of their new margin-endowed OS, they had to discontinue Windows XP. As if that wasn't enough, Microsoft had to cordon DirectX 10, as well as their new release of Halo, into being Vista-only products.

With Vista, the memory footprint wreaked havoc with stingy OEM's, who still recite good-old-Bill's famous litany. Instead of rectifying this issue, and creating a true "performance-oriented" product, they simply prevent the user from actually using their computer.

I am sure there are larger issues to gripe about, things more worthy of my (ATI) rage (128 Pro), but this incenses me. What really gets the aneurysms going, is that the motivation behind this is Microsoft's outright defiance of consumer opinion! The XP-versus-Vista situation couldn't spell it out any clearer. people want the option of a light-weight experience, and Microsoft's answer is to prevent you from any strenuous activity, akin to an overprotective doctor trying to keep an elderly Gentleman from enjoying his last years.

Thanks for letting me get that out of my system.


RE: Why?
By Fritzr on 2/10/2009 9:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
What you have described is commonly known as a "Business Opportunity". All that is needed is to develop a viable alternate OS and then charge only enough to pay distribution costs and a small profit. Of course this model does not allow R&D/acquisition.

Microsoft is walking a fine line. They want to charge as much as they can without eating into their sales volume. By providing different versions at differing price points they will maintain their near monopoly in the OS market.

Apple could easily reduce their prices and increase their market share, however it does not seem that replacing Microsoft is their goal as long as the profits are in line with their goals.

As with almost any for-profit, the product is irrelevant. The important thing is keeping earnings in line with goals.

If MS provided only one version at a fixed price they lose sales among people who cannot/will not pay that price and lose revenue from sales to people who would pay more to get the bundled features out of the box that were left out of the retail version. Those customers who wanted more, and were willing to pay, would now have to look at the optional accessory packages AND the third party alternatives. Netscape was a viable and popular browser that died only after MS started bundling IE with all versions of Windows.


RE: Why?
By murphyslabrat on 2/11/2009 3:30:22 PM , Rating: 1
I am not asking for a consolidated product line, but one with real differentiation between products. The difference between Windows XP Home and Professional was, primarily, the disabling of some utilities in the former. Presumably, this would result in the Home edition being unusable by businesses. The other notable difference being in the license.

So, here we are, post-Vista. Vista was, on all accounts, a resource hog. So, instead of making a Windows 7 Starter edition, wouldn't it make more sense to rebadge Windows XP + some power-saving features as the Windows 7 Starter? Or at the least, remove some of their "helpful" utilities, instead of attempting to prevent users from noticing just how unusable the Vista-based OS really is?


RE: Why?
By Proteusza on 2/10/2009 11:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'd rather they sell all Windows for $50.

Make Home Basic lack the Media Center functionality, built in games, dvd playback etc, and sell it for low enough to compete in the 3rd world against Linux (which is really what this SKU is for). Sell it, for the same price, in the 1st world. Then, add higher priced SKUs on top, with more features.

It would probably end up with the average price of windows dropping quite severely, but I think Windows is overpriced anyway.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2009 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
This SKU has nothing to do with linux, MS does not compete with a free OS. This SKU is a direct result of software piracy, nothing more.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2009 1:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think you guys are missing one big aspect of MS reasoning here. They cannot merely lower the price of existing Microsoft OS's because of piracy. In the end regardless of what MS says, piracy is the real issue here. MS had the delema of selling windows for the same price as western nations and receiving next to no sales, or to lower the price and have their product sold back to first world countries for a profit. Either way, the developing nation does not benefit.

In this scenario MS can sell a product that is essentially useless in first/second world nations, for a fraction of the price. MS and the developing nation benefits.


RE: Why?
By Uncle on 2/10/2009 4:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
If microsoft believed what they just said, their would be a stripped down version of Office. As they admitted years ago, they fill office programs to suit every ones needs even tho majority of people might use 5% of whats inside each program.


RE: Why?
By tastyratz on 2/10/2009 8:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
As much as people will gripe over this, it IS a sound intelligent business decision (whether you personally would opt for starter edition or not).

Windows standard licensing cost is too high to be an economical choice for low cost machines. That is why these machines frequent linux - you cant beat free when every penny counts. With the surge of netbooks flooding the market this could have resulted in an influx of linux installations.
Most of these are purchased as secondary machines which perform very limited simple functions so people are far more likely to accept the fact that linux is installed instead of panicking on their main machine during a regular complicated task they are unfamiliar with.
That would have been bad news for Microsoft because its the awareness that would boost linux install bases to the sky.

While it would not have overthrown the Microsoft empire overnight it has the potential to steal a reasonable chunk of marketshare.

Then think about the value vs non value version. Nobody in their right mind would buy starter in a retail setting - but in bulk licensing it could ensure windows saturation continues in the netbook market. It also gives Microsoft leverage to pressure larger OEMS like HP to install windows on low cost machines instead of linux as they make licensing costs more of a non issue.

Strip the copy enough and people still have incentive to purchase the full copy in the future. They would technically lose money selling a product under cost, but they use it as a way to make future sales.

Think of this more like a video game system being sold under cost because they bank on you buying the games. If you just never got the system you would never buy the games at any point.


RE: Why?
By smoshe on 2/10/2009 9:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the problem friend.
Microsoft is competing with Linux in the one consumer PC market where Linux has made serious headway. The incarnations of Linux Microsoft is competing with such as Hp's Mini Mi, and Acer's Linux are very functional and compelling, even to non techies. These devices often come with solid state drives, built in cameras, and the list goes on. Personally, I was shocked at what was available in the Acer Aspire 1. But that's not the issue, not really. The issue is: that Micrsoft feels the need to compete with this (and they do, it's in the latest quarterly) by putting out a version of windows that has less? What the hell? The only way this could possibly make any sense as a business move is if Microsoft is simply writing off the Netbook market, or hoping OEM's won't use it. Western consumers will be livid.


RE: Why?
By tastyratz on 2/10/2009 9:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft dominates the pc market, are you saying they shouldn't try to get marketshare for the fastest expanding new segment?

I would LOVE to see linux adoption skyrocket through netbooks...

They are kind of a "gateway drug" if you will.

People get comfortable with linux through the safety of a limited use secondary machine... and all of a sudden they start loading it on their regular machines. That is the part that's bad for microsoft as a business.

This is a catch 22:

If they sold a version of windows for netbooks that retained the same level of functionality as their regular copies people would just buy that one for less money instead. Why wouldn't you?
They need to cripple the cheaper version in relation to the price so they don't hurt their main sales.

Consider the idea that many of these netbook purchasers will eventually buy an upgrade to a full copy of windows and you will see how Microsoft also gained sales there buy putting their foot in the door. People less likely to switch OFF linux on their netbook than they are to switch TO linux from a copy of windows (even if its crippled)


RE: Why?
By rubyxc7 on 2/10/2009 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
So I could ask you, why would you need windows media center on a netbook? What does one really do on a netbook? Browse the internet and office related work (Word, Excel, etc...)
Why would you want to pay for more features that you'll probably never touch on a netbook? I build computers for my family. I go with cheaper but still quality parts. Yet when I try and find an operating system for it, the cheapest I can find is about 20% of the cost of the entire computer. (Not sure if my family would appreciate trying to dump linux on them) I'm a software developer so I actually can use a lot of the extra functionality that comes with and I'm sure pretty much everyone who posts here does too. However, the average joe doesn't have a clue what remote desktop or network sharing or harddrive encryption is. They just want their internet(pr0n) and their office apps. Aside from the limit on concurrently running programs and windows, I think they wouldn't notice one difference between starter and home premium.

As for netbooks, I've worked with a few netbooks and I know quite a few people with netbooks. The problem with linux on them is that the drivers are not optimized for power consumption. Under linux a given netbook would last maybe two hours where as under XP it would last a little over three. I'm all for linux but not from the mobile standpoint. My laptop heats up a lot more and its battery life is cut down by over 30 minutes when using linux. I love it on my desktop where power isn't an issue but until its further optimized theres definitely a space for Microsofts starter editions.


RE: Why?
By waykizool on 2/10/2009 8:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
With the advent of Vista, they came up with the modular install system. It first installs the core (I think that's the starter version) then, depending on the key you give it, it installs the additional features, making it anywhere from basic to ultimate. This was designed from the get go, so the cost of the different versions was integrated into the development cost.


Lawsuit
By toyotabedzrock on 2/11/2009 12:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
I can see it now, HP and Dell shipping systems with starter, and the sales people neglecting to mention the EXTREME limitations. Then come the Class Action Lawsuits like the ones about Aero not being included in Vista Basic.




RE: Lawsuit
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2009 1:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
In case you didn't read...these will only ship with systems like netbooks, which aren't made for normal OS use beyond e-mail and internet access. Pay attention to the entirety of the article.


Business as usual.
By Uncle on 2/11/2009 1:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
You guys have missed the point. Microsoft has proven once and for all that they could have built less resource hog of an OS and we all could have saved some money on memory.Tell the folks lies long enough and they will believe you. All of a sudden the great Gurus have a OS that works fine on 512 megs of ram. Remember the headlines when Vista came out, " Companies pissed off for lack of Vista sales, Ceo's will have to Bullsh*t their way for ill gotten Bonuses". So many businesses hope for the gravy train by getting on Microsofts coattails instead of producing products that are worth buying independently of Microsoft.




By teekblang on 2/12/2009 2:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
Just buy what you need. I will pay 50 US green bucks for stable 64 bit windows 7 especially if it comes with manual and schematic diagram showing how the one and zeroes are interconnected .

They can remove paint, notepad, outlook express etc etc.




Windows 7 needs ONE version
By monkeyman1140 on 2/13/2009 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just have different load levels in the program for home, office, or enterprise use. Oh and have a "custom" install for us network admins that know what we are doing.




...
By arisch on 2/14/2009 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... I had thought the pirated edition was supposed to target the recessionary market?




7 = 6
By DatabaseMX on 2/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: 7 = 6
By mikefarinha on 2/10/2009 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. If you think this should be illegal then I'd never want to live in a government you'd put together.

If you are a consumer you can only purchase Home Premium, Professional, or (if you can find it) Ultimate. (3 choices, actually 2 choices as Ultimate won't be as desirable as it was with Vista since Win7 Pro will have WMC. It will also be in limited quantities.)

If you are a business with a licensing agreement you can only get Win7 Professional or Enterprise.(2 choices)

If you are an OEM you can choose to sell computers with Starter, Home Premium, Professional, or Ultimate.(4 choices)

If you are an OEM in a developing nation you can choose to sell any but Enterprise (5 choices).


RE: 7 = 6
By arisch on 2/14/2009 4:56:43 PM , Rating: 1
It's perfectly legal to put your money where your mouth is and not buy it.


Yeah and....
By Mathos on 2/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah and....
By morrig on 2/10/2009 10:56:18 AM , Rating: 1
I have Celeron,512MB's machine,partitioned-XP SP3 and Win 7 Beta,and the Beta is definitilly faster than XP.With much quicker Start-up,and every thing functions better:So check your system?


RE: Yeah and....
By mikefarinha on 2/10/2009 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
My biggest problem with MS is their current level of greed.


What level of greed is acceptable for MS?

My biggest problem with Apple is their current level of pride.

My biggest problem with Linux is their current level of wrath.

I've heard many times now that the reason for our current economic problems is due to greed. It is such a shallow, unproductive, and silly argument. It is like saying AIDS is increasing because of lust, or that crime is on the rise because of envy.

For a moment imagine that you are the king of Microsoft. What would you do to be less greedy? What unintended implications would your choices have? Would you pay your employees less in order to be less greedy? What would happen when other companies hire your most skilled developers because they can offer them more money? Would you forgo the insane amounts of R&D that Microsoft invests in? Then you wouldn't have things like .net, C#, photosynth, songsmith, silverlight, surface, etc...

What would you do to be less greedy oh king of Microsoft!?


RE: Yeah and....
By Alpha4 on 2/10/2009 11:46:19 AM , Rating: 1
To start with, they can fore-go laying off 7500 employees in lieu of earning unrealisticly high quarterly estimates. If they're still profiting then god forbid they do so just a little bit less and weather the storm.


RE: Yeah and....
By mikefarinha on 2/10/2009 12:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
And what financial data do you base your claims on?


RE: Yeah and....
By Alpha4 on 2/10/2009 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
I base it on some arbitrary report I heard from a forgotten source that is probably unreputable.

Despite that, are you suggesting that microsoft wouldn't lay off employees as a result of a quarterly target miss? I'm not singling them out, mind you. I'm just stating I believe that to be a less-than-honourable action for them to take.


RE: Yeah and....
By mikefarinha on 2/10/2009 1:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
My point is that most people on the outside of Microsoft don't have all the facts. Thus, we can't really make informed judgments on the company... however that doesn't stop most of us from clamoring to yell that their business model is an epic fail or that what they chose to do was wrong headed, mean-spirited, and/or greedy.

What would be the 'honorable' action for them to take? What repercussions would the 'honorable' action cause? Should everyone there just take a pay cut so that their co-workers can keep their jobs?

No doubt we all know that Microsoft has hoards of liquid assets on hand. I've heard it often that if they stopped making money they could support their business for several years. That doesn't mean they are greedy, that means they are smart. Look at what is happening to companies that don't have cash reserves. The go bankrupt and put all of their employees out of a job which in turn affects their business partners and a slew of other interested parties. The forethought of Microsoft to keep a cash reserve doesn't mean they should just blow it to save a few jobs in the short-term. It is beneficial for them to remain in business and as lean, efficient, and relevant as possible.

I think our culture has recently adopted a perverse view of the word 'fair' and I think this line of thinking is a manifestation of the new (or should I say current) thought on that subject.


RE: Yeah and....
By mondo1234 on 2/10/2009 11:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah and they still want to charge about in the $200 range for a retail cd key for the starter edition.


Come on, everybody knows that $200 is a steal for a stripped down OS during a recession.


RE: Yeah and....
By capitaoobvio on 2/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah and....
By omnicronx on 2/10/2009 2:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft has the opportunity to release a good product, but put active effort to cripple it.

That's wrong and imoral.
So let me get this straight, previous versions of windows with only 2 real SKUS in which the normal user has to pay 300+ dollars (XP professional upon release) for software they will not use is ok, but having cheaper versions in which the 90%+ users will be more than happy with for a fraction of the price is immoral?

Get a clue buddy..

quote:
With Apple and Linux , the operating system is always Ultimate.
Well actually... in this case I would have to say ALL versions of linux that sell that have a for pay version are crippled. This includes distros like Redhat and Fedora in which the free version only comes with a stripped down set of software. This is no different than what MS does, as the base functionality of windows is still there, only certain features are not present.


RE: Yeah and....
By Belard on 2/11/2009 5:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
A stripped down version of Linux? That isn't even the same as Windows Starter.

Even a basic Linux Distro like Utunbu has more tools included than Vista or XP. There isn't limitations on Screen display, number of programs that can run, etc.


RE: Yeah and....
By teekblang on 2/12/2009 2:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
Then buy the necessary application. Like notepad/wordpad for $5 (BTW I am using Notepad++), Paint for $5, Windows media player for $5. Or buy all three for $10 or $12. And so on..(i.e 10 app for 35US) That way they save money on their developer - "I" save money and only pay for what I need. My hard earned dollars don't go to waste. Also 3rd party develope will be excited and will get creative at the same time they will be able TO FEED THIER FAMILY. MS will encourage innovation by distributing the wealth to all talented programmer/developer who enjoy creating USEFUL stuff. Fair enough.

End the world domination. It is very selfish. let other poor people make a decent living. And MS, please don't crush the competition and open up a little (not too much if you want to be a little greedy) of your stuff and please adhere to standard like Google chrome and Java.

Thank you


RE: Yeah and....
By teekblang on 2/12/2009 2:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree with US$50 for JUST one windows flavor. So consumer will not waste the time on the "isle" of electronic store wondering and asking himself -Is this product for me?

Just one flavor adhering to standard that can run apache and java for example .


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki