CNN Money: Microsoft is a Dying Consumer Brand(money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
CNN Money: Microsoft is a Dying Consumer Brand
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/27/technology/microsoft_pdc/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2
154 comments
"since everyone - including Microsoft - knows that a ubiquitous Web means fewer sales of Windows and Office"
I would think that the real problem is Microsoft's unwillingness to become something completely new, something other than Windows and Office. Apple was a computer company, then it became a cell phone company, a music company, a lot of other things.
Microsoft now sort of reminds me of Sun circa 1999: yes, they would sort of like to innovate and do something new, and they make the occasional try at it, but right now they have an insanely profitable product, so the easiest thing to do is to just keep milking it.
I would think that the real problem is Microsoft's unwillingness to become something completely new, something other than Windows and Office. Apple was a computer company, then it became a cell phone company, a music company, a lot of other things.
Microsoft now sort of reminds me of Sun circa 1999: yes, they would sort of like to innovate and do something new, and they make the occasional try at it, but right now they have an insanely profitable product, so the easiest thing to do is to just keep milking it.
"I would think that the real problem is Microsoft's unwillingness to become something completely new, something other than Windows and Office."
Inability, perhaps. Unwillingness? You're out of your mind.
Microsoft has had their fingers in smartphones, music players, search engines, touch computing, web mail, [you name it] for YEARS. And they are not just dabbling... they have poured billions into these areas, trying to come up with something that gains traction.
Microsoft doesn't make "the occasional try" at innovation, they are a veritable firehose of attempts to innovate. Microsoft Research is HUGE (and well respected within the research/academic community) and as I mentioned above they spend billions every year trying to develop new products and break into new markets.
The fact that Microsoft's efforts in this area have been largely unsuccessful over the past decade doesn't mean they aren't trying or aren't willing.
Inability, perhaps. Unwillingness? You're out of your mind.
Microsoft has had their fingers in smartphones, music players, search engines, touch computing, web mail, [you name it] for YEARS. And they are not just dabbling... they have poured billions into these areas, trying to come up with something that gains traction.
Microsoft doesn't make "the occasional try" at innovation, they are a veritable firehose of attempts to innovate. Microsoft Research is HUGE (and well respected within the research/academic community) and as I mentioned above they spend billions every year trying to develop new products and break into new markets.
The fact that Microsoft's efforts in this area have been largely unsuccessful over the past decade doesn't mean they aren't trying or aren't willing.
I agree with you, but I fear that the internal politics with Microsoft have been absolutely stifling!
Let's take smartphones for instance - look at the Kin. From all reports, killed b/c of politics, in favor of Windows 7. Why not have both and see what the market decides?
The Courier. Killed - who knows why? Most likely politics.
Microsoft has so many innovative ideas that we see in Research - but we never see them in products! It always feels like the right hand is slapping the left hand. Competing fiefdoms are fighting over resources, over pub, and over power.
Microsoft needs to empower it's best leaders to make a product, from start to completion - much like Jobs does with Apple. At the end of the day, the buck stops with Jobs, and his vision goes. What happens at Microsoft? You have 100 PM's working on one project. You work diligently. Your design is "design by committee" but hey, it looks like it's going well.
Then some jealous VP of some other division has a beer with Ballmer expressing some concerns and the project gets killed. This needs to stop. There was no reason that the Kin/Courier should have been killed. If it flops, let it flop. If you don't take chances, you'll never grow.
Microsoft right now is afraid of its own shadow.
Let's take smartphones for instance - look at the Kin. From all reports, killed b/c of politics, in favor of Windows 7. Why not have both and see what the market decides?
The Courier. Killed - who knows why? Most likely politics.
Microsoft has so many innovative ideas that we see in Research - but we never see them in products! It always feels like the right hand is slapping the left hand. Competing fiefdoms are fighting over resources, over pub, and over power.
Microsoft needs to empower it's best leaders to make a product, from start to completion - much like Jobs does with Apple. At the end of the day, the buck stops with Jobs, and his vision goes. What happens at Microsoft? You have 100 PM's working on one project. You work diligently. Your design is "design by committee" but hey, it looks like it's going well.
Then some jealous VP of some other division has a beer with Ballmer expressing some concerns and the project gets killed. This needs to stop. There was no reason that the Kin/Courier should have been killed. If it flops, let it flop. If you don't take chances, you'll never grow.
Microsoft right now is afraid of its own shadow.
I really, really wish they would have productized the Courier. I kept waiting with bated breath... and then, like usual, Microsoft ultimately finished quickly and with little fanfare.
> Why not have both and see what the market decides?
Kin was killed after six weeks, the market decided it was crap and only a couple were sold. Actually not so much that the Kin itself is bad, but carriers weren't enthusiastic enough, and Microsoft had marketing problems for a product that would battle WP7 6 months later.
Kin was killed after six weeks, the market decided it was crap and only a couple were sold. Actually not so much that the Kin itself is bad, but carriers weren't enthusiastic enough, and Microsoft had marketing problems for a product that would battle WP7 6 months later.
you're right - it was killed after 6 weeks, but if you read the post-mortems/insider "scoops", it seems as if the Sidekick team wasn't allowed to make the product that they wanted to make. Features were getting pulled, changed, and strip-mined.
You illustrate another problem - I don't know why MS would view it as "battling" WP7 6 months later: 1) 6 months is a LIFETIME for a phone. The Pre went from amazing, potential company-saver phone to dud in less than that. 2) At the end of the day, all the money goes back to Microsoft. Why is that a battle? Internally it's a battle for mindshare - but MS needs to realize that they're both on the same team. Apple is happy cannibalizing its iPod sales for iPod Touches/iPhones.
3) If Microsoft wants to grow, several products are going to overlap. There seems to be a convergence towards "the one true device". A year from now, MS is going to start worrying if mobile phone sales are creeping into their netbook sales - they already worry that Office 365 sales are going to creep into Office licensing
You illustrate another problem - I don't know why MS would view it as "battling" WP7 6 months later: 1) 6 months is a LIFETIME for a phone. The Pre went from amazing, potential company-saver phone to dud in less than that. 2) At the end of the day, all the money goes back to Microsoft. Why is that a battle? Internally it's a battle for mindshare - but MS needs to realize that they're both on the same team. Apple is happy cannibalizing its iPod sales for iPod Touches/iPhones.
3) If Microsoft wants to grow, several products are going to overlap. There seems to be a convergence towards "the one true device". A year from now, MS is going to start worrying if mobile phone sales are creeping into their netbook sales - they already worry that Office 365 sales are going to creep into Office licensing
Since I no longer work there I can say that the insider "scoop" was that main reason it was killed wasn't because Microsoft didn't allow the team to make the right product it was because the carriers interfered too much. The price point was completely wrong for the device that actually came out, but Verizon mandated the price regardless of what the actual target was. By the time everybody had gotten together no one knew what the target market or feature set was.
Xbox was their last big success in entering a new market. That's just under a decade ago.
The problem is that they have a sucky innovation model. They find something that's already successful, throw money at making a slightly better version (or whatever they can convince themselves is a slightly better version).
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked when they copied the Macintosh to make Windows. It worked when they copied Netscape to make IE. It worked when they copied Playstation to make Xbox. It stopped working when they copied iPod to make Zune, and continued to not work when they copied Google to make Bing.
Why it's stopped working? Either (a) a run of bad luck or (b) folks have learned to preempt Microsoft's move or (c) the really good people don't work for Microsoft any more.
The problem is that they have a sucky innovation model. They find something that's already successful, throw money at making a slightly better version (or whatever they can convince themselves is a slightly better version).
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked when they copied the Macintosh to make Windows. It worked when they copied Netscape to make IE. It worked when they copied Playstation to make Xbox. It stopped working when they copied iPod to make Zune, and continued to not work when they copied Google to make Bing.
Why it's stopped working? Either (a) a run of bad luck or (b) folks have learned to preempt Microsoft's move or (c) the really good people don't work for Microsoft any more.
Their last big success? It was launched 10 years ago, last year was the first time the XBox division made a profit and it's still years and years away from recouping the investment made in it.
If that's a success I really don't want to see one of their failures.
If that's a success I really don't want to see one of their failures.
I'm not familiar with the detailed financials, but the Xbox has at least captured a substantial market share, which is more than I can say for any of their subsequent major pushes into new market segments.
I'm actually surprised if the xbox hasn't been profitable. It can't have been that costly to develop (get a fancy graphics chip and stick it in a box), they've sold a helluva lot of them, and they only update it once every five years, and they're making a crapload of money on the games too (don't forget they own Bungie) so I would have thought it would be a bit of a cash cow. But maybe they need to sell the consoles at a loss.
I'm actually surprised if the xbox hasn't been profitable. It can't have been that costly to develop (get a fancy graphics chip and stick it in a box), they've sold a helluva lot of them, and they only update it once every five years, and they're making a crapload of money on the games too (don't forget they own Bungie) so I would have thought it would be a bit of a cash cow. But maybe they need to sell the consoles at a loss.
The XBox line over the decade has cost them a fortune.
Until relatively recently when manufacturing costs dropped Microsoft were selling the hardware at a significant loss which means that you have to sell a certain number of games just to break even. This isn't an uncommon model for consoles (the Wii was an exception being profitable as a console from day one) but it was pretty extreme for Microsoft who were basically making an aggressive play for market share and damn the expense.
Up to 2005 the XBox gaming division (including hardware and games sales) had lost $4 billion (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-softwa...) on a total investment of over $20 billion and it continued to lose money up to 2009 including a cost of $1 billion for replacing bricked XBox360's in 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/xbox-360-warranty-extende...). All in all I'd estimate up to 2009 total losses up to or even in excess of $6 billion.
In 2009 it finally posted it's first profit - $165 million, though it's probably worth noting that as a percentage of the $6 billion it had lost to that point this is basically nothing.
They have a total installed user base of 41 million consoles (360s) world wide. This puts it slightly ahead of the PS3 (38 million) - though it should be noted that the PS3 launched a year later and is currently selling faster - but way behind the Wii (79 million) and the PS2 (over 140 million). It's likely that by the start of 2011 once Christmas is out of the way they'll be last place in terms of installed user base - not a great reward for all that money spent.
(If these numbers don't feel representative of what you see it's worth noting that the XBox is far stronger in the US than in Europe and Japan).
On the positive side Kinnect is apparently priced so that it will be profitable from day one, they do have a decent installed user base for new games sales and live subscriptions, and console production costs are now a lot lower than they were which means that the next three or four years (the likely remaining life of the console) will all be profitable, however it would seem unlikely that they'll be able to bring the total investment to break even for the life of the XBox range.
Maybe we have different definitions but for me that's not only not a success, but it's not far off being a disaster, particularly given that this isn't a tale of a couple of years of growth at the expense of profit, but a decade long tale.
Until relatively recently when manufacturing costs dropped Microsoft were selling the hardware at a significant loss which means that you have to sell a certain number of games just to break even. This isn't an uncommon model for consoles (the Wii was an exception being profitable as a console from day one) but it was pretty extreme for Microsoft who were basically making an aggressive play for market share and damn the expense.
Up to 2005 the XBox gaming division (including hardware and games sales) had lost $4 billion (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-softwa...) on a total investment of over $20 billion and it continued to lose money up to 2009 including a cost of $1 billion for replacing bricked XBox360's in 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/xbox-360-warranty-extende...). All in all I'd estimate up to 2009 total losses up to or even in excess of $6 billion.
In 2009 it finally posted it's first profit - $165 million, though it's probably worth noting that as a percentage of the $6 billion it had lost to that point this is basically nothing.
They have a total installed user base of 41 million consoles (360s) world wide. This puts it slightly ahead of the PS3 (38 million) - though it should be noted that the PS3 launched a year later and is currently selling faster - but way behind the Wii (79 million) and the PS2 (over 140 million). It's likely that by the start of 2011 once Christmas is out of the way they'll be last place in terms of installed user base - not a great reward for all that money spent.
(If these numbers don't feel representative of what you see it's worth noting that the XBox is far stronger in the US than in Europe and Japan).
On the positive side Kinnect is apparently priced so that it will be profitable from day one, they do have a decent installed user base for new games sales and live subscriptions, and console production costs are now a lot lower than they were which means that the next three or four years (the likely remaining life of the console) will all be profitable, however it would seem unlikely that they'll be able to bring the total investment to break even for the life of the XBox range.
Maybe we have different definitions but for me that's not only not a success, but it's not far off being a disaster, particularly given that this isn't a tale of a couple of years of growth at the expense of profit, but a decade long tale.
The 360 has recently started making a profit, why? Because they released the 360 making a loss, and dropped the price rather quickly. They then dropped the price even more. And even more.
IIRC they've always made money off of the special edition elite consoles, they've been making a profit off of the elite as a whole for a while now, however these represent a small amount of their sales compared to the big sales of the arcade consoles they had.
PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.
However, both have been ridiculous profit makers for their parent companies as the entire devision makes wheelbarrow loads of cash from selling games for ridiculous prices (again something Sony fucked up with by getting greedy in the beginning, although Xbox eventually followed).
IIRC they've always made money off of the special edition elite consoles, they've been making a profit off of the elite as a whole for a while now, however these represent a small amount of their sales compared to the big sales of the arcade consoles they had.
PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.
However, both have been ridiculous profit makers for their parent companies as the entire devision makes wheelbarrow loads of cash from selling games for ridiculous prices (again something Sony fucked up with by getting greedy in the beginning, although Xbox eventually followed).
> both have been ridiculous profit makers for their parent companies as the entire devision
Sorry, this is completely untrue for the XBox which has haemorrhaged cash for it's entire life as a division, not just on hardware sales. I've linked to the figures in my post above.
The PS3 is in a similar position - it moved into profit on the hardware sales earlier this year and total losses are estimated at around $3 billion to date. I can't find any figures on the whole division profitability (other than that it is profitable) to know how likely it is to recoup this, though there are statements that they do expect it to make money over it's full life (though I suspect it will be questionable how much for an investment of that size).
If you're wondering how this can be possible, the console subsidies at launch were of the order of $250 - $300 per console. That's a lot of money to make up off of game sales and live subscriptions (remember you're making it off the profit on each game - maybe $10 - $20, not the revenue of $50).
> PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.
In terms of global (not US) market share the PS3 will pass the XBox360 shortly which isn't great news for the 360 given that it launched a year earlier so had a head start. Given that Microsoft's sales figures are based on shipped to retailers and Sony's are on sold to consumer's it's possible that the PS3 is already in the hands of more people (rather than sat on shop shelves). In the US the figures are better (18 million vs. 12 million) which might explain why you think it's doing well but that picture isn't reflected in Japan (1 million vs. 5 million) or Europe.
But if you're wondering where the next generation of consoles are, these figures should make it clear - they're nowhere. Both companies need to eek out the life of the current consoles for financial reasons before looking at further significant investment.
Indeed it may be the case that the XBox360/PS3 generation of consoles will prove to be a one off in terms of the level of investment made given the difficulty in recouping it, and that future consoles will be based on smaller, cheaper increments in power and functionality.
Just to be clear, I'm not knocking MS for the sake of it (I actually really like the look of Kinnect and give them great credit for the innovation) but the economics of consoles aren't quite what some people seem to think they are.
Sorry, this is completely untrue for the XBox which has haemorrhaged cash for it's entire life as a division, not just on hardware sales. I've linked to the figures in my post above.
The PS3 is in a similar position - it moved into profit on the hardware sales earlier this year and total losses are estimated at around $3 billion to date. I can't find any figures on the whole division profitability (other than that it is profitable) to know how likely it is to recoup this, though there are statements that they do expect it to make money over it's full life (though I suspect it will be questionable how much for an investment of that size).
If you're wondering how this can be possible, the console subsidies at launch were of the order of $250 - $300 per console. That's a lot of money to make up off of game sales and live subscriptions (remember you're making it off the profit on each game - maybe $10 - $20, not the revenue of $50).
> PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.
In terms of global (not US) market share the PS3 will pass the XBox360 shortly which isn't great news for the 360 given that it launched a year earlier so had a head start. Given that Microsoft's sales figures are based on shipped to retailers and Sony's are on sold to consumer's it's possible that the PS3 is already in the hands of more people (rather than sat on shop shelves). In the US the figures are better (18 million vs. 12 million) which might explain why you think it's doing well but that picture isn't reflected in Japan (1 million vs. 5 million) or Europe.
But if you're wondering where the next generation of consoles are, these figures should make it clear - they're nowhere. Both companies need to eek out the life of the current consoles for financial reasons before looking at further significant investment.
Indeed it may be the case that the XBox360/PS3 generation of consoles will prove to be a one off in terms of the level of investment made given the difficulty in recouping it, and that future consoles will be based on smaller, cheaper increments in power and functionality.
Just to be clear, I'm not knocking MS for the sake of it (I actually really like the look of Kinnect and give them great credit for the innovation) but the economics of consoles aren't quite what some people seem to think they are.
[deleted]
One way to look at this failure to innovate is to see plain old leadership ignorance: Microsoft, despite all of their efforts and hired brainpower, just hasn't been able to connect these dots. The GP sees this failure as something else: continued unwillingness, by the corporate leadership, to seriously support these innovation efforts. I agree.
If you disagree and think that Microsoft's leadership is willing to change and has just not been able to, then their leadership must be phenomenally incompetent. Just ask yourself, what's their cohesive product strategy? Where's their commitment to excellence? How many of these research projects are designed to build on the strengths of Microsoft's offerings or fix their weaknesses? Why aren't these research projects winnowed down into economically viable and marketable products and services? What's the corporate vision?
A simpler explanation is that the leadership of Microsoft is afraid of anything that competes with their two cash cows: Windows and Office. If this explanation is correct, then any product or service that Microsoft makes (or participates in) will be sufficiently hobbled in order to keep Windows and Office at the forefront of their offerings. It's their "strategy tax." Mobile devices and web services both compete with Windows and Office, in some way, so the company has done relatively little to advance in these two areas.
It doesn't matter which way you look at it, though: spending billions and having little success to show for it isn't a merit badge, it's a mark of failure.
If you disagree and think that Microsoft's leadership is willing to change and has just not been able to, then their leadership must be phenomenally incompetent. Just ask yourself, what's their cohesive product strategy? Where's their commitment to excellence? How many of these research projects are designed to build on the strengths of Microsoft's offerings or fix their weaknesses? Why aren't these research projects winnowed down into economically viable and marketable products and services? What's the corporate vision?
A simpler explanation is that the leadership of Microsoft is afraid of anything that competes with their two cash cows: Windows and Office. If this explanation is correct, then any product or service that Microsoft makes (or participates in) will be sufficiently hobbled in order to keep Windows and Office at the forefront of their offerings. It's their "strategy tax." Mobile devices and web services both compete with Windows and Office, in some way, so the company has done relatively little to advance in these two areas.
It doesn't matter which way you look at it, though: spending billions and having little success to show for it isn't a merit badge, it's a mark of failure.
"The fact that Microsoft's efforts in this area have been largely unsuccessful over the past decade doesn't mean they aren't trying or aren't willing."
Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.
Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.
I'm all for trying a lot of different things, but there's a point where a company needs to step back and look at why all their tries fail.
Microsoft is rich enough to be able to pour billions of dollars and millions of engineer-hours into a project without seriously committing to it (Kin).
Throwing crap against a wall and hoping it sticks, even if you spend billions, isn't innovation, that's flailing.
Throwing crap against a wall and hoping it sticks, even if you spend billions, isn't innovation, that's flailing.
Ubiquitous web means fewer end-user sales of Windows and Office. End-users don't buy Windows, it just happens to come with their computer.
End-user sales of Office may well decline, but if there were a good online version, Microsoft could sell two versions. A cloud-based, subscription version for smaller businesses, hosted by Microsoft. The second version would be a for larger corporations that want to host their own.
For a large corporation, licensing could then be simplified to some fashion of a site-license; the cost of upgrading ALL computers would be simplified.
Note that I'm NOT suggesting that Microsoft give up on a fat client for office, just that there's room for Microsoft needs to pivot if they wanted to, but that's easier said than done.
End-user sales of Office may well decline, but if there were a good online version, Microsoft could sell two versions. A cloud-based, subscription version for smaller businesses, hosted by Microsoft. The second version would be a for larger corporations that want to host their own.
For a large corporation, licensing could then be simplified to some fashion of a site-license; the cost of upgrading ALL computers would be simplified.
Note that I'm NOT suggesting that Microsoft give up on a fat client for office, just that there's room for Microsoft needs to pivot if they wanted to, but that's easier said than done.
It seems very unlikely that they will be able to depend upon Windows and Office as their primary revenue stream for very much longer, so their survival depends upon being able to go into new territory. They've done this to some extent with games, but have been struggling to compete with mobile.
They can fall back on development tools and expand to other platforms if all else fails.
Though that might not happen before they've spent too much of their reserves (and don't have enough coming in) to do it.
Though that might not happen before they've spent too much of their reserves (and don't have enough coming in) to do it.
Maybe then Oracle will buy Microsoft in 2020 for their legacy integration.
This is an excellent point and to add to it I want to point out that Microsoft exacerbates this problem by not hiring the best web people to build their products.
They believe that they can put a bunch of smart people in a room and they'll come up with stuff people want to use, and this has largely been self fulfilling because of the dominance of Microsoft in the computing space.
Now that dominance is fading away, you are seeing the problem with the strategy. When Microsoft wanted to come up with a web Development framework for Web Developers they came up with .NET (built by a bunch of smart people for web developers), but it was a top notch web developer ... DHH who came up with Ruby on Rails. I remember using Rails for the first time and going "wow ... this just solves all the problems I have as a web developer" ... .NET never gave me that feeling, but to be fair ... it was a nice change from ASP spaghetti code days.
Why isn't Microsoft hiring the best Javascripters, CSS, html5, and backend web developers it can get its hands on? This is something that Google did like crazy when it started growing, and it has allowed them build badass web products like Google Maps, Google Calendar, Gmail etc ... while Microsoft is stuck playing catch up.
Even in releasing new versions of IE you can see this problem rear its head. Instead of listening to Web developers who actually determine the direction the web moves in, the IE team tries to come up with new bullshit web standards and with no buy in from digerati, it fails.
Microsoft is no longer calling the shots, and by the time they realize this, it might be too late ... which is a shame, when you think of all the good that would come from Google having some serious competition.
They believe that they can put a bunch of smart people in a room and they'll come up with stuff people want to use, and this has largely been self fulfilling because of the dominance of Microsoft in the computing space.
Now that dominance is fading away, you are seeing the problem with the strategy. When Microsoft wanted to come up with a web Development framework for Web Developers they came up with .NET (built by a bunch of smart people for web developers), but it was a top notch web developer ... DHH who came up with Ruby on Rails. I remember using Rails for the first time and going "wow ... this just solves all the problems I have as a web developer" ... .NET never gave me that feeling, but to be fair ... it was a nice change from ASP spaghetti code days.
Why isn't Microsoft hiring the best Javascripters, CSS, html5, and backend web developers it can get its hands on? This is something that Google did like crazy when it started growing, and it has allowed them build badass web products like Google Maps, Google Calendar, Gmail etc ... while Microsoft is stuck playing catch up.
Even in releasing new versions of IE you can see this problem rear its head. Instead of listening to Web developers who actually determine the direction the web moves in, the IE team tries to come up with new bullshit web standards and with no buy in from digerati, it fails.
Microsoft is no longer calling the shots, and by the time they realize this, it might be too late ... which is a shame, when you think of all the good that would come from Google having some serious competition.
This I think is a delusional myth. I fully expect MS has some of the best web devs out there. But even if MS has 100 of the top 500 web devs, there are still 400 web devs thta don't work at MS. And there are a million+ web devs after that. While you might argue that more innovation per capita, comes from the top web devs, it's still likely that the next innovation will come from someone you've never heard of.
This is why most people in the tech field at the top of the game aren't afraid of their past-rivals, but more afraid of the guy in the garage they've never heard of. Odds are more likely that this is where the big innovation is going to come from.
This is why most people in the tech field at the top of the game aren't afraid of their past-rivals, but more afraid of the guy in the garage they've never heard of. Odds are more likely that this is where the big innovation is going to come from.
> Microsoft exacerbates this problem by not hiring the best web people to build their products.
There is a problem here: the best web people will not work with MS tools and that's exactly what MS management will demand.
> Why isn't Microsoft hiring the best Javascripters, CSS, html5
They can't even ship a browser with proper HTML5 support. How do you expect them to be able to hire the best Javascripters, CSSers and HTMLers on the market? They lack the tools to distinguish between them and the low-end of the spectrum.
There is a problem here: the best web people will not work with MS tools and that's exactly what MS management will demand.
> Why isn't Microsoft hiring the best Javascripters, CSS, html5
They can't even ship a browser with proper HTML5 support. How do you expect them to be able to hire the best Javascripters, CSSers and HTMLers on the market? They lack the tools to distinguish between them and the low-end of the spectrum.
They're also scared of phones. Check out their Phone 7 commercials.
They appear to be catering to people who think people with phones are douchebags who walk around staring at their screen all day.
I'm not sure how well this marketing strategy will work, because I am one of those douchebags, but it doesn't make me want to get one.
They appear to be catering to people who think people with phones are douchebags who walk around staring at their screen all day.
I'm not sure how well this marketing strategy will work, because I am one of those douchebags, but it doesn't make me want to get one.
I haven't seen the commercials, but I did follow the launch event. One thing was said so often and was so... odd... I had to go back and write it down:
"We've focused in on how real people want to use their phones when they're on the go -- we want you to get in, out, and back to life as fast as humanly possible."
First of all, some of the animations on some of their apps have a bit of time to them and don't really fit in with that mantra. But more importantly, I'm not sure what market they are heading for and what they want to say. Do they want their apps to be immersive or lightweight? Do they want people to enjoy their phone or try to use it as little as possible?
In the end the message to me makes their phones sound non-engaging. Not the greatest selling point in my opinion. Imagine the iPhone commercial where they run through 5 apps in 30 seconds. The Windows Phone 7 equivalent would be a 5-second commercial with someone quickly hitting two buttons and saying "Done. Glad that's over.". Interesting marketing strategy.
"We've focused in on how real people want to use their phones when they're on the go -- we want you to get in, out, and back to life as fast as humanly possible."
First of all, some of the animations on some of their apps have a bit of time to them and don't really fit in with that mantra. But more importantly, I'm not sure what market they are heading for and what they want to say. Do they want their apps to be immersive or lightweight? Do they want people to enjoy their phone or try to use it as little as possible?
In the end the message to me makes their phones sound non-engaging. Not the greatest selling point in my opinion. Imagine the iPhone commercial where they run through 5 apps in 30 seconds. The Windows Phone 7 equivalent would be a 5-second commercial with someone quickly hitting two buttons and saying "Done. Glad that's over.". Interesting marketing strategy.
In fact, Windows 7 had a whole series of commercials based around that concept: the "seven second demos" - http://barnes89.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/windows-7-seven-sec...
By all accounts, they were remarkably successful.
By all accounts, they were remarkably successful.
It really is a strange market niche to aim for... People who don't want to use a smartphone but want to own a smartphone... Is it even there at all?
I know people who don't like phones and they buy the minimum phone necessary to suit the need... A £30 handset on a top up based tariff.
I don't know people who will spend a lot of money on a phone they intend to use as little as possible.
I know people who don't like phones and they buy the minimum phone necessary to suit the need... A £30 handset on a top up based tariff.
I don't know people who will spend a lot of money on a phone they intend to use as little as possible.
"People who don't want to use a smartphone but want to own a smartphone"
I think that sums up a lot of the Blackberry owners I know. Company mandates a smartphone, but employees want to use it as little as possible.
I think that sums up a lot of the Blackberry owners I know. Company mandates a smartphone, but employees want to use it as little as possible.
That was exactly what I thought about those commercials: "If you are the type who doesn't want a powerful smart phone, Windows Phone 7 is for you."
Then again, it will be interesting to see if that resonates with a less technical market segment.
Then again, it will be interesting to see if that resonates with a less technical market segment.
As a data point, I recently saw one of these with my girlfriend who is not super technical but not out of the loop either. The concept of rescuing us from our mobile screens resonated with her, but she was almost mad at the end to discover it wasn't a commercial for something involving real human interaction, but rather yet-another-mobile-screen-device. I wonder if they will end up angering both sides of the douchebags who spend all day looking at their phones debate.
> The concept of rescuing us from our mobile screens resonated with her, but she was almost mad at the end to discover it wasn't a commercial for something involving real human interaction
Dentyne got this right.
Dentyne got this right.
What I got from it: "It sucks so bad you won't want to use it"
The message I got from the ad is that Windows Phone 7 would allow you to see if you had any updates on the homescreen itself, obviating the need for fiddling with the phone for a long time to access the same information.
That is the fundamental and sad misunderstanding of this ad.
People don't fiddle with their phones while walking because the phones are hard to use. They fiddle because the phone is fun and addicting.
There's no desire for a phone that lets you get in and out quickly. On the contrary. If they could come up with a phone that lets you be online all the time without walking into things, they'd have a huge winner.
People don't fiddle with their phones while walking because the phones are hard to use. They fiddle because the phone is fun and addicting.
There's no desire for a phone that lets you get in and out quickly. On the contrary. If they could come up with a phone that lets you be online all the time without walking into things, they'd have a huge winner.
For some reason I find myself reminded of the whole RIM Playbook "coping with family" faux pas. It is almost as if WP7 were being promoted on the basis of selecting a phone based on wanting to avoid something: in the WP7 case, avoiding using the phone, in the Playbook case, avoiding your family. Both show a disconnect with reality and neither bode particularly well for the companies involved.
Disclaimer: I am saying this without holding the actual device and without seeing a video.
Everyone, seems to think that we will be able to see updates on the home screen itself, which I don't think will work.
For example email: What will I see on the homescreen? who sent the email, when it was sent? will I see a brief message on the screen? How much information will I see in a tiny box/slice/tile. I don't think I will be able to see a lot of it.
Twitter: I think, I will be able to see the last tweet. A little helpful.
Facebook updates: I think it would work same as twitter.
The user has to launch an app to get the complete information. I think its bad if MS tries to make the phone into a taskbar notification system.
Everyone, seems to think that we will be able to see updates on the home screen itself, which I don't think will work.
For example email: What will I see on the homescreen? who sent the email, when it was sent? will I see a brief message on the screen? How much information will I see in a tiny box/slice/tile. I don't think I will be able to see a lot of it.
Twitter: I think, I will be able to see the last tweet. A little helpful.
Facebook updates: I think it would work same as twitter.
The user has to launch an app to get the complete information. I think its bad if MS tries to make the phone into a taskbar notification system.
Agree. The fact the xBox gaming console has the power of a supercomputer, as evident from its fans and overheating problems, but doesn't even have a simple webbrowser is all the evidence we need.
MS has never understood or indeed wanted the www to happen.
They were able to hold back www development for 5 years+ with their IE6 shenanigans, but the cats out of the bag now.
MS has never understood or indeed wanted the www to happen.
They were able to hold back www development for 5 years+ with their IE6 shenanigans, but the cats out of the bag now.
Really?
The XBox uses the web in the best way possible for a games console - on-line gaming. Maybe it's just me but I find a console a rubbish browsing platform - I've got browsers on my PS3, PSP and Wii and never use them. It is possible that Microsoft just don't have a browser in the 360 because it's not a great place to put a browser.
Microsoft own Hotmail, they've ported Office on-line, XBox supports on-line gaming, they make what is still the most popular single browser (which is under very active development), they produce web servers and a massive range of developer tools for the web from Visual Studio to Silverlight, they're working their arse off to get back into the mobile web market.
If they're not into the web they're doing their best to hide it with their actions and investments. They were, by their own admission, slow to get to it but I don't think that's a valid criticism now.
Now they're just all over the place but that's different to being anti.
The XBox uses the web in the best way possible for a games console - on-line gaming. Maybe it's just me but I find a console a rubbish browsing platform - I've got browsers on my PS3, PSP and Wii and never use them. It is possible that Microsoft just don't have a browser in the 360 because it's not a great place to put a browser.
Microsoft own Hotmail, they've ported Office on-line, XBox supports on-line gaming, they make what is still the most popular single browser (which is under very active development), they produce web servers and a massive range of developer tools for the web from Visual Studio to Silverlight, they're working their arse off to get back into the mobile web market.
If they're not into the web they're doing their best to hide it with their actions and investments. They were, by their own admission, slow to get to it but I don't think that's a valid criticism now.
Now they're just all over the place but that's different to being anti.
The Internet is not the web. Native games with Internet multiplayer aren't the web, they are the Internet.
I don't know a single person using the online Office versions, because, well, they don't compare to the desktop ones.
Yesterday, I saw a graph showing Hotmail losing about 10% market share, mostly to Gmail.
Their new Xbox website broke every existing link on the domain.
Mocrosoft does not get the web, even if they might get the internet.
I don't know a single person using the online Office versions, because, well, they don't compare to the desktop ones.
Yesterday, I saw a graph showing Hotmail losing about 10% market share, mostly to Gmail.
Their new Xbox website broke every existing link on the domain.
Mocrosoft does not get the web, even if they might get the internet.
The sites built for marketing Microsoft products are often outsourced. So the fact that the new Xbox website was broken in any regard is the fault of a poor marketing manager and not a poor Microsoft developer.
If a software company doesn't build its own software, then there are other, larger problems here.
(Yes, websites are software).
(Yes, websites are software).
No, you outsource or buy where it's appropriate. They should no more build every Microsoft website than any other firm should write their own word processor.
FWIW, I disagree.
When MS announced support for facebook on the xBox, I thought "hmm why not just give users a browser". Then they announced twitter integration... "Umm how about just stuff a browser on there".
It's farcical. But OTOH, it fits right with MS's plan - they detest the www. It's open. It's free. It's not a walled garden they can monetize.
Last time I heard the web division at MS still makes a huge loss. Which leads me to believe they're not in it to make money. They're in it to mess it up, stifle progress, and keep people buying their installable software. They did an absolutely fantastic job of that for 5 years or so.
When MS announced support for facebook on the xBox, I thought "hmm why not just give users a browser". Then they announced twitter integration... "Umm how about just stuff a browser on there".
It's farcical. But OTOH, it fits right with MS's plan - they detest the www. It's open. It's free. It's not a walled garden they can monetize.
Last time I heard the web division at MS still makes a huge loss. Which leads me to believe they're not in it to make money. They're in it to mess it up, stifle progress, and keep people buying their installable software. They did an absolutely fantastic job of that for 5 years or so.
Have you used the PS3 browser? Or worse, the Wii browser?
One has to navigating the web with a joystick (have you tried it? It's fifth circle of hell terrible), the other has you suffering from cramps in 10 minutes flat.
If you've used the browsers, you know just astronomically bad those ideas are. A browser doesn't not belong on a joystick-driven device, it's slow to use and frustrating as hell. So why would MS put a browser on the Xbox?
And how exactly would a browser on the Xbox decrease their lock-in?
One has to navigating the web with a joystick (have you tried it? It's fifth circle of hell terrible), the other has you suffering from cramps in 10 minutes flat.
If you've used the browsers, you know just astronomically bad those ideas are. A browser doesn't not belong on a joystick-driven device, it's slow to use and frustrating as hell. So why would MS put a browser on the Xbox?
And how exactly would a browser on the Xbox decrease their lock-in?
USB keyboard. Many people use the wii to browse.
Even if you eliminate the typing difficulties (and they are quite severe) of the platform, you still haven't replaced the mouse. On the PS3 it's tedious maneuvering of a pointer with a joystick (second order control system == frustration), on the Wii it's an arm-killing posture that is also aggravatingly imprecise.
But taking all of that out of the equation - assuming that magically the Wii and the PS3 are both capable of interacting with USB mice and keyboards... how many people do you know who have an (extension cord required) USB connection to a keyboard and mouse combo on their couch? I can count these people on one hand. In fact I can count them on 3 fingers, and all are pretty hardcore tech geeks to boot.
But taking all of that out of the equation - assuming that magically the Wii and the PS3 are both capable of interacting with USB mice and keyboards... how many people do you know who have an (extension cord required) USB connection to a keyboard and mouse combo on their couch? I can count these people on one hand. In fact I can count them on 3 fingers, and all are pretty hardcore tech geeks to boot.
FWIW, the PS3 does support mice and keyboards. Works decently in the web browser.
An Xbox 360 has a 3.2GHz Xenon (three cores) and 512Mbs of ram [1]. Saying that it has the power of a supercomputer is a bit of a stretch (by about three orders of magnitude, #500 on the top500 list has five thousand cores [2]).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
[2] http://www.top500.org
* edit: formatting
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
[2] http://www.top500.org
* edit: formatting
You don't find it absolutely bizarre that it doesn't even have a web browser? Even when a tiny DSi has a very capable browser, smart phones have browsers. And a big gaming console from a supposed software company doesn't even have a web browser?
I guess it's a little strange that they haven't tried to put IE on the Xbox--but I'm glad they haven't. The whole reason I have a game console is to have an appliance that is dedicated to video games. I have plenty of other devices that provide a superior browsing experience.
I agree with you - I wouldn't use a webbrowser on a games console. But the population disagrees - they do :/
I'm an avid gamer and own both the PS3 and Xbox. I've used the PS3 browser, it's an unmitigated disaster of poor functionality and even poorer usability.
The Wii browser, having used that also, is pretty much the same, plus muscle pain.
I know a lot of gamers and have yet to meet a single person who uses the browsers with any sort of regularity. In fact, the only instances where people use browsers on consoles nowadays are when the game brings it up by itself (DLC purchases, news updates, etc), and even then it's always more painful to use than a native menu would've been.
You need to cite your sources, because from where I stand - which is that of an avid gamer heavily involved in the gaming community, I simply do not see any significant usage of console browsers at all.
> "Even when a tiny DSi has a very capable browser, smart phones have browsers. And a big gaming console from a supposed software company doesn't even have a web browser?"
The major obstacle with browsers is not platform hardware, it's usability. Smartphones and the DSi have browsers because the web is (as we discovered with the iPhone) very easy to navigate with a touch device, particularly a finger-driven touch device.
It is significantly less awesome when it's driven with a joystick. In fact, the experience is downright terrible. Implementing a browser on a console with joystick (or Wiimote) controls is a waste of time and energy, and can only serve to tarnish your brand as your users struggle with why the hell you implemented such a dumb thing.
The Wii browser, having used that also, is pretty much the same, plus muscle pain.
I know a lot of gamers and have yet to meet a single person who uses the browsers with any sort of regularity. In fact, the only instances where people use browsers on consoles nowadays are when the game brings it up by itself (DLC purchases, news updates, etc), and even then it's always more painful to use than a native menu would've been.
You need to cite your sources, because from where I stand - which is that of an avid gamer heavily involved in the gaming community, I simply do not see any significant usage of console browsers at all.
> "Even when a tiny DSi has a very capable browser, smart phones have browsers. And a big gaming console from a supposed software company doesn't even have a web browser?"
The major obstacle with browsers is not platform hardware, it's usability. Smartphones and the DSi have browsers because the web is (as we discovered with the iPhone) very easy to navigate with a touch device, particularly a finger-driven touch device.
It is significantly less awesome when it's driven with a joystick. In fact, the experience is downright terrible. Implementing a browser on a console with joystick (or Wiimote) controls is a waste of time and energy, and can only serve to tarnish your brand as your users struggle with why the hell you implemented such a dumb thing.
I'm sorry, but source? Stats? Anything other than anecdote to back that up?
I tried to find some information, but the best I could do was from an article written in 2009 (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ps3%E2%80%99s-web-browser-usage...):
"The PS3's browser has a 0.04 share of the 'internet market', a miniscule proportion when compared to, say, the PC's 88.7 percent majority, yet it's a figure which sits comfortably ahead of the Wii's 0.01 percent."
Granted, those numbers are horribly out of date, but it would seem to indicate that the population (at large) does agree.
I tried to find some information, but the best I could do was from an article written in 2009 (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ps3%E2%80%99s-web-browser-usage...):
"The PS3's browser has a 0.04 share of the 'internet market', a miniscule proportion when compared to, say, the PC's 88.7 percent majority, yet it's a figure which sits comfortably ahead of the Wii's 0.01 percent."
Granted, those numbers are horribly out of date, but it would seem to indicate that the population (at large) does agree.
I agree with the rest of your point entirely.
You forgot to count the GPU. A modern GPU can pump numbers much faster than the fastest general-purpose CPU.
It certainly doesn't have the power of a modern supercomputer, but it surpasses everything on Wikipedia's supercomputer timeline until about halfway down (using the admittedly poor comparison of GHz - GFLOPS). From that point of view, I think "power of a supercomputer" is fairly reasonable.
The bizarre lack of spell-check in IE has always been my personal indicator for when Microsoft stops holding onto the past and fighting the web.
What's particularly vexing to me is that Microsoft seems to have given up on giving developers the best experience, as well. Why would anyone want to develop a web app targeted for IE 7.5, especially given that the market share of this new IE version will be squat for awhile, perhaps always. Will WP8 bring about a new custom flavor of IE? Will there be an upgrade, mid-cycle?
In the same vein: A lot of criticism has been leveled at the new WP7 ads, but I haven't seen much coverage from the developers' perspective. Is Microsoft implying that WP7 customers aren't going to spend much time on their phones? Again, why develop for or port to the WP7 platform if Microsoft's ad strategy is based on the idea that the customer won't actually use the device that often or for very long.
Perhaps it's hubris or just ignorance on their part, but making things harder or more confusing for developers isn't going to bring in the profit for third-party developers or Microsoft.
In the same vein: A lot of criticism has been leveled at the new WP7 ads, but I haven't seen much coverage from the developers' perspective. Is Microsoft implying that WP7 customers aren't going to spend much time on their phones? Again, why develop for or port to the WP7 platform if Microsoft's ad strategy is based on the idea that the customer won't actually use the device that often or for very long.
Perhaps it's hubris or just ignorance on their part, but making things harder or more confusing for developers isn't going to bring in the profit for third-party developers or Microsoft.
Moreover, their version of "the cloud" is taking multiple bad photos of your family sitting on a couch and magically turning it into a photo where everyone is smiling. Every time I see that commercial, I just have this look of utter confusion thinking about who produced that idiotic ad. I mean the tech behind it is cool, but what the hell does it mean "to the cloud!"???
IE is actually not so bad at the web. At least not for the end user (argument about stifling development and innovation aside). As a user of IE, I actually have a better experience with IE than I do with Chrome w/ the sole exception being performance. I'm sure there are sites that don't work on IE, but honestly the only ones I've ever seen are those posted here on HN :-)
With that said, everything I've heard from people in MS (and some who work on IE) is that this is the first time in MS's history where their goal is to actually make IE the best web browsers against the standards. They are targeting to be able to legitimately say that the best platform for HTML5 apps is IE. Only time will tell on that.
But I do think it is naive to think a phone will fail because it is based on the worlds most popular web browsing engine. Any more than a phone might fail because it has no physical keyboard, no 3G support, no Flash, and no native apps.
With that said, everything I've heard from people in MS (and some who work on IE) is that this is the first time in MS's history where their goal is to actually make IE the best web browsers against the standards. They are targeting to be able to legitimately say that the best platform for HTML5 apps is IE. Only time will tell on that.
But I do think it is naive to think a phone will fail because it is based on the worlds most popular web browsing engine. Any more than a phone might fail because it has no physical keyboard, no 3G support, no Flash, and no native apps.
> As a user of IE, I actually have a better experience with IE than I do with Chrome --
Guess how much extra work it has required from the web developers.
> -- it is based on the worlds most popular web browsing engine
The fact that IE ships with every Windows PC makes it the most used browser, definitely, but not "most popular web browsing engine". Browser engines are used by browsers (or developers), not by end-users, and by that definition I would call WebKit the most popular engine.
Guess how much extra work it has required from the web developers.
> -- it is based on the worlds most popular web browsing engine
The fact that IE ships with every Windows PC makes it the most used browser, definitely, but not "most popular web browsing engine". Browser engines are used by browsers (or developers), not by end-users, and by that definition I would call WebKit the most popular engine.
Any chance you could expand on what makes you prefer the experience of using IE over Chrome?
With Chrome I occassionally run into problems. For example, there was a time when I couldn't get my Amazon cart to work with Chrome. I popped open IE and it just worked. My bank used to not work with Chrome, but now does. I recently had a site where the links in the sidebar weren't clickable, but I know I had clicked them before. Went to IE and it worked.
Printing is also really hit or miss. Weird font sizes, or sometimes blank areas. Not browsing proper, but still worth mentioning.
Admittedly this doesn't happen often, but enough for me to notice.
Printing is also really hit or miss. Weird font sizes, or sometimes blank areas. Not browsing proper, but still worth mentioning.
Admittedly this doesn't happen often, but enough for me to notice.
I've never had those problems that you mention with Chrome or Firefox. On the other hand, I've had a lot of fun cleaning up Vundo and other malware due to the use of IE.
[deleted]
What is so great about HTML5 and JS for me, the user? That you can get my location? That you can have video (just like Flash, except slower)? Or is it that you can store stuff on my machine?
HTML5 is one more step in the direction of web pages pretending to be applications.
Reading about "the web" on HN is like reading the story of Icarus. HN'ers are so enchanted by web apps that they forget they can only fly on the web thanks to native software. They would like to replace everything with a browser.
Reading about "the web" on HN is like reading the story of Icarus. HN'ers are so enchanted by web apps that they forget they can only fly on the web thanks to native software. They would like to replace everything with a browser.
> That you can have video (just like Flash, except slower)?
Actually HTML5 is faster, and Flash is slower [for me]. So video on the web is a big deal with HTML5.
> HTML5 is one more step in the direction of web pages pretending to be applications.
No, it is one more step in the direction of web pages becoming applications. You can't possibly tell me that Gmail isn't a full application! It's much faster and more responsive than any desktop mail client I've ever seen: searching mail takes < 1 second vs 1-2 minutes in Outlook. It's better in every way. And it's on the web.
Why are you opposed to web applications?
Actually HTML5 is faster, and Flash is slower [for me]. So video on the web is a big deal with HTML5.
> HTML5 is one more step in the direction of web pages pretending to be applications.
No, it is one more step in the direction of web pages becoming applications. You can't possibly tell me that Gmail isn't a full application! It's much faster and more responsive than any desktop mail client I've ever seen: searching mail takes < 1 second vs 1-2 minutes in Outlook. It's better in every way. And it's on the web.
Why are you opposed to web applications?
Personally, I just find web applications extremely painful to develop (on all the frameworks/dev environments I've tried, not just Microsoft ones). Desktop development is a lot more fun, but web apps are where the jobs are these days, unfortunately.
Actually all those things are great for the user. As for HN'ers it probably means they can do more things for people at lower cost, since business ideas realized as web apps are less tied to silo-like platforms.
Do you have an actual argument about why web applications are inferior to native applications? You're just stating a lot of things ("HTML5 is one more step in the direction of web pages pretending to be applications.", we "would like to replace everything with a browser") without really explaining why they're bad.
If nothing else, the new semantic article/header/nav etc. tags will make it easier for search engines to deliver good results to users.
I stopped reading the article after they wrote that the browser is almost more important than the OS, and then in the next paragraph said that Windows Phone 7 shows promise.
The browser IS deeply important. When people think about what devices they get, how they browse is one of the most critical things they decide on. Remember, we aren't talking just computers: we are talking about smart phones and tablets too.
And as to Windows Phone 7, although a recent ChangeWave survey of potential smartphone buyers pegged interest in a Microsoft phone at 1%, the reviews have been pretty positive:
ars technica: "Microsoft doesn't often get version one releases right, but this time, it has got the release very right indeed. Windows Phone 7 looks great, works well, and is a treat to use."
Engadget: "With terrific Zune and Xbox Live integration, a fast and smart method of getting around the OS, great Office and email experiences, and a genuinely beautiful and useful user interface, Microsoft has definitely laid the foundation for the next several years of its mobile play. Now it's time to get the upper floors finished."
Unfortunately for Microsoft, though, the data shows that they are going to have a major uphill battle with the Windows Phone 7, a battle which they have dedicated half a billion dollars in marketing toward.
And as to Windows Phone 7, although a recent ChangeWave survey of potential smartphone buyers pegged interest in a Microsoft phone at 1%, the reviews have been pretty positive:
ars technica: "Microsoft doesn't often get version one releases right, but this time, it has got the release very right indeed. Windows Phone 7 looks great, works well, and is a treat to use."
Engadget: "With terrific Zune and Xbox Live integration, a fast and smart method of getting around the OS, great Office and email experiences, and a genuinely beautiful and useful user interface, Microsoft has definitely laid the foundation for the next several years of its mobile play. Now it's time to get the upper floors finished."
Unfortunately for Microsoft, though, the data shows that they are going to have a major uphill battle with the Windows Phone 7, a battle which they have dedicated half a billion dollars in marketing toward.
I access twitter through a browser on my netbook that runs Linux, on my wife's notebook that runs MacOS or on a PC running Windows (unlikely - I'd never type my password on one).
The OS is a "computer driver". The browser is the API.
The OS is a "computer driver". The browser is the API.
I'm more inclined to think the phone will fail for the same reasons the Zune did, too little too late. But then the media player market was much broader and more saturated in 2006 than the smartphone market is now so maybe it won't play out in the same way...
The worst mistake they could make is to kill it the way they killed the Zune. They're never going to launch a day one, version one product which will displace the iPhone or Android, it's going to take time and investment.
The real target should be that they've got 25%+ market share in three years time. That should be what they're aiming for rather than a success this year.
People replace phones every 12 - 24 months and that's rapid even in tech (most people don't replace laptops that often). Every expired contract is a new potential customer for Microsoft and that churn means that no-one can take their position for granted so it's realistic for MS to make solid inroads over time.
The real target should be that they've got 25%+ market share in three years time. That should be what they're aiming for rather than a success this year.
People replace phones every 12 - 24 months and that's rapid even in tech (most people don't replace laptops that often). Every expired contract is a new potential customer for Microsoft and that churn means that no-one can take their position for granted so it's realistic for MS to make solid inroads over time.
They didn't kill the Zune. WP7 is basically a superset of Zune - same service for music/video, same client software, (evolution/derivative of the) same UI. There're rumored to be phoneless WP7s in the works too.
Fair enough, kill was probably the wrong word but they seemed to lose interest in the Zune as it's own entity.
But it was actually a pretty good and if they'd stuck at it I get the impression it could have done better than it did. Perhaps it will revive with WP7 (though I see the software is still under development which is good).
But it was actually a pretty good and if they'd stuck at it I get the impression it could have done better than it did. Perhaps it will revive with WP7 (though I see the software is still under development which is good).
As pointed out the Zune lives on but I think it'd be difficult to argue it really made a substantive splash in the market despite arguably being a superior device as well as having the (imho) very strong Zune Pass subscription service. We're four years in and I can count on one hand how many people I've known that owned a Zune. There are parallels with WP7 launch but the stakes are much higher this time around because the relevance of the desktop is waning for general consumer use and Microsoft needs something to replace it. WP7 is an inflection point, if it fails I think you'll see Microsoft go roughly down the same path IBM has as far as consumer relevance (unless perhaps they turn Xbox Live into a OnLive-esque games as service thing, which they are in a better position than Sony or Nintendo to do).
you can't have a modern Web experience using only Microsoft products
How soon we forget! There would be no AJAX today had Microsoft not introduced XMLHttpRequest to make Outlook Web Access work...
How soon we forget! There would be no AJAX today had Microsoft not introduced XMLHttpRequest to make Outlook Web Access work...
Yeah, that was ~ 1 decade ago. I'm fully aware that you could have a modern web experience with Microsoft way back 10 years ago. But 10 years ago isn't today. Today is today, and Microsoft no longer provides a modern web experience.
AJAX isn't modern anymore. Don't you see that the AJAX innovation was a game changer, but that the game has moved on since then?
AJAX isn't modern anymore. Don't you see that the AJAX innovation was a game changer, but that the game has moved on since then?
<i>There would be no AJAX today had Microsoft</i>
I was loading AJAX data into hidden <frame>s in Navigator 4 using a JSON-like hack in 1998. It worked just fine.
I was loading AJAX data into hidden <frame>s in Navigator 4 using a JSON-like hack in 1998. It worked just fine.
And where would we be if AOL hadn't given us all unlimited dial-up access for a low monthly price?
As one of the largest software developers on the planet, MS has access to more cool stuff than anyone can imagine. With all that cash, I'm sure it comes across they're radar all the time -- and they do make purchases and investments.
The problem is the minute they implement new technology it gets some committee-driven marketing name that's so completely disconnected from what it does that it takes million$ to explain what should be obvious from the name.
Examples: IIS, COM, COM+, Visual Studio, .Net, BizTalk, SharePoint, MultiPoint, Windows Live, SilverLight, Zune, Bing, and now the latest -- Windows Phone 7 (dyslexic a fully name).
The problem is the minute they implement new technology it gets some committee-driven marketing name that's so completely disconnected from what it does that it takes million$ to explain what should be obvious from the name.
Examples: IIS, COM, COM+, Visual Studio, .Net, BizTalk, SharePoint, MultiPoint, Windows Live, SilverLight, Zune, Bing, and now the latest -- Windows Phone 7 (dyslexic a fully name).
IIS: internet information Services. It IS services for internet information.
COM: component object model. It IS an object model for components.
Sharepoint: a shared point for sharing information.
BizTalk: communication between enterprise (buisness) software.
Doesn't seem like disconnected marketing names to me. Zune, Bing, Silverlight, yeah point taken. Still not much more disconnected than "iPod", "yahoo" or "flash".
COM: component object model. It IS an object model for components.
Sharepoint: a shared point for sharing information.
BizTalk: communication between enterprise (buisness) software.
Doesn't seem like disconnected marketing names to me. Zune, Bing, Silverlight, yeah point taken. Still not much more disconnected than "iPod", "yahoo" or "flash".
Their old names were great.
Word, Office, Windows, Outlook - all great names.
Word, Office, Windows, Outlook - all great names.
"Microsoft's attempts to build a social network through Windows Live have failed to gain traction. It has no real answer to Facebook. "
I take issue with this. Pretty much no one has a 'real' answer to Facebook. In fact, Microsoft didn't even really try. And whatever they did try, they actually gave up on. As I remember, when explaining the Facebook integration into the newest Windows Live "nobody wants another facebook".
It would simply be absurd to expect MS to "fight" FB. Waste of time and money like the rest of the activities that the article seems to be criticizing.
I take issue with this. Pretty much no one has a 'real' answer to Facebook. In fact, Microsoft didn't even really try. And whatever they did try, they actually gave up on. As I remember, when explaining the Facebook integration into the newest Windows Live "nobody wants another facebook".
It would simply be absurd to expect MS to "fight" FB. Waste of time and money like the rest of the activities that the article seems to be criticizing.
There is something interesting here though. I investigate computer crime and 18 months ago forensic submissions would be looking for "Windows Live/Messenger Chat". Now it is looking for "Facebook Chat".
It took about 3 months for the switch to really take note, and the forensic tools took all of about a month to catch up.
Facebook had some serious market penetration very very quickly with that product.
So in a way; it is not so much MS failing as Facebook attempts to build a chat app succeeded.
It took about 3 months for the switch to really take note, and the forensic tools took all of about a month to catch up.
Facebook had some serious market penetration very very quickly with that product.
So in a way; it is not so much MS failing as Facebook attempts to build a chat app succeeded.
Microsoft's "answer" to Facebook so far looks to me like they're trying to integrate with it, wherever they can make it make sense --- the most prominent sign of which was the recent Bing "social search" announcement. (This on top of their earlier investment and advertising deal.)
Unfortunately for them, it's been less of a splash than they were hoping for. Weekend before last, I heard the author of "The Facebook Effect" (good book, BTW) say that Facebook had had three major announcements in the two weeks before that: Skype integration, the new groups machinery, and some third thing he couldn't remember. The third thing he couldn't remember was Bing social search.
Unfortunately for them, it's been less of a splash than they were hoping for. Weekend before last, I heard the author of "The Facebook Effect" (good book, BTW) say that Facebook had had three major announcements in the two weeks before that: Skype integration, the new groups machinery, and some third thing he couldn't remember. The third thing he couldn't remember was Bing social search.
You could make the exact same arguments about Google, yet here's Bing, 10 years late to the party.
Also, was Microsoft ever a big consumer brand? Windows comes pre-installed for more people and Office and XBox are brands by themselves. They didn't try to market it as a consumer brand, except for things like keyboards, mice and headsets.
Since Bill Gates left his posts, Microsoft is being run by bean counters and has no real tech leader to lean on; not one with enough power to tell the bean counters -Balmer- to back off -- that was Bill Gates, and he was good at it.
As long as that continues, there will be issues.
As long as that continues, there will be issues.
Saying "Microsoft is a Dying Consumer Brand" is somewhat analogous to saying "Mitsubishi is a Dying Consumer Brand."
Though the structures are different, consumer products are only a part of their portfolio. Both have successful industrial lines, and both have flagship consumer lines that often draw flack. Importantly, both own highly successful consumer brands e.g Xbox and Nikon, respectively.
What the article misses is that Microsoft has an asset that it's competitors often don't: trust. Because of their B2B orientation, being trustworthy is a necessary strategy...that's not to say they don't make mistakes, but by and large they support they support their customers well beyond the typical three year upgrade cycle companies such as Apple enforce. Companies like Google and Facebook change their products in ways that are in conflict with the user's interests even more regularly.
Though the structures are different, consumer products are only a part of their portfolio. Both have successful industrial lines, and both have flagship consumer lines that often draw flack. Importantly, both own highly successful consumer brands e.g Xbox and Nikon, respectively.
What the article misses is that Microsoft has an asset that it's competitors often don't: trust. Because of their B2B orientation, being trustworthy is a necessary strategy...that's not to say they don't make mistakes, but by and large they support they support their customers well beyond the typical three year upgrade cycle companies such as Apple enforce. Companies like Google and Facebook change their products in ways that are in conflict with the user's interests even more regularly.
What the article misses is that Microsoft has an asset that it's competitors often don't: trust.
What technical person trusts Microsoft? I don't mean to be flippant, but the reputation they have among technical people that I know is that their stuff is poorly designed, insecure, and buggy.
Disclaimer: I got fed up with their poorly designed and buggy software in the late 90s, and have had Linux as my primary development platform ever since.
What technical person trusts Microsoft? I don't mean to be flippant, but the reputation they have among technical people that I know is that their stuff is poorly designed, insecure, and buggy.
Disclaimer: I got fed up with their poorly designed and buggy software in the late 90s, and have had Linux as my primary development platform ever since.
XP, for example, has some level of support into 2014, so from a business perspective one can trust that they'll provide support for quite some time, that is something you won't get from Apple. How this has any bearing on a discussion of Microsoft's consumer relevance I am not sure.
I've been thinking about that lately. Consider the companies that the article compares them to in the consumer market: Google, Facebook, and Apple.
Google and Facebook identify individuals, track personal details of their lives to a degree beyond what most individuals can imagine, and then generate revenue by using those personal details. Apple on the other hand, as a hardware company generates revenue through planned obsolescence (and Apple is moving more and more toward consumer data collection as a major source of revenue).
For each of them one might argue that there is a misalignment between the revenue model and important long term interests of consumer. The problem for consumer oriented companies is that the easiest source of increased profits is simply raising the price of your products (reduced operating expenses are bounded by zero, increasing market share in mature markets is expensive, and creating new markets is very high risk).
Conversely, to a large degree, Microsoft makes products and provide services which contribute to their business customer's bottom line. This puts them in an entirely different position in relation to the consumer market, because their sales increase as with the economic expansion of their customers (a unique advantage of B2B sales over consumer sales).
Unlike Chrome, Microsoft doesn't send every keystroke in the IE address bar back to a server to be analyzed with the intent of targeting their customer. When you register your copy of Office, you're not encouraged to list your children with their ages and to post pictures of them on the web. And you can load up your copy of Office 97 in a Win95 virtual machine on a new Windows 7 system. Their B2B revenue model requirement that Microsoft align its interests with the long term interests of its customers carries over to their consumer markets.
I see Microsoft in the unique position to differentiate itself as "the company which protects consumer privacy." The requirements are not all that difficult, some changes to Bing, a realignment of Internet Explorer toward user anonymity, and proper positioning of WinPhone7. What's more, all these are things which are in the interest of many of their B2B customers and none would have meaningful negative impact on Microsoft's bottom line.
Google and Facebook identify individuals, track personal details of their lives to a degree beyond what most individuals can imagine, and then generate revenue by using those personal details. Apple on the other hand, as a hardware company generates revenue through planned obsolescence (and Apple is moving more and more toward consumer data collection as a major source of revenue).
For each of them one might argue that there is a misalignment between the revenue model and important long term interests of consumer. The problem for consumer oriented companies is that the easiest source of increased profits is simply raising the price of your products (reduced operating expenses are bounded by zero, increasing market share in mature markets is expensive, and creating new markets is very high risk).
Conversely, to a large degree, Microsoft makes products and provide services which contribute to their business customer's bottom line. This puts them in an entirely different position in relation to the consumer market, because their sales increase as with the economic expansion of their customers (a unique advantage of B2B sales over consumer sales).
Unlike Chrome, Microsoft doesn't send every keystroke in the IE address bar back to a server to be analyzed with the intent of targeting their customer. When you register your copy of Office, you're not encouraged to list your children with their ages and to post pictures of them on the web. And you can load up your copy of Office 97 in a Win95 virtual machine on a new Windows 7 system. Their B2B revenue model requirement that Microsoft align its interests with the long term interests of its customers carries over to their consumer markets.
I see Microsoft in the unique position to differentiate itself as "the company which protects consumer privacy." The requirements are not all that difficult, some changes to Bing, a realignment of Internet Explorer toward user anonymity, and proper positioning of WinPhone7. What's more, all these are things which are in the interest of many of their B2B customers and none would have meaningful negative impact on Microsoft's bottom line.
Right. The article was about consumer products but you've identified the major differentiator between MS and the others. MS never gets developer buy-in and then hangs you out to dry. You can still build and support OLE controls TWO DECADES later. You can invest development time in MS and they won't deprecate Java (voluntarily) or Wave on you.
[deleted]
You are correct in that it's not all of Microsoft that is dying, but Microsoft is losing in many markets. It's dropped below 5% in the global smartphone market, and many leading companies have shied away from Windows 7 on tablets. The mobile market is what's booming and Microsoft has no dog in the hunt. Compare the stock price increases over 10 years of the leaders in mobile to Microsoft:
- Apple up 2000%
- Google up almost 400% (6 years: they went public late 2004)
- Microsoft down almost 20%.
Yes, Microsoft owns the business market and will for the foreseeable future, although other companies, such as Apple, are making inroads, growing 57% this year (this only equates to a total 3-odd% but it is still an impact - Remember when Firefox was only 2%?)
I agree with you that to say "Microsoft is dying overall" is overplaying it, but to not see that Microsoft is missing it in many other arenas that may eventually impact their business line is equally incorrect.
Yes, Microsoft owns the business market and will for the foreseeable future, although other companies, such as Apple, are making inroads, growing 57% this year (this only equates to a total 3-odd% but it is still an impact - Remember when Firefox was only 2%?)
I agree with you that to say "Microsoft is dying overall" is overplaying it, but to not see that Microsoft is missing it in many other arenas that may eventually impact their business line is equally incorrect.
[deleted]
The author of the Gervais Principle blog posts did a nice job of comparing Apple's marketing culture (we have the best stuff, come get it) against Microsoft's sales culture (personalized, i.e. Windows 7 was my idea). Thinking about it though, Microsoft has completely failed to connect with any customer persona despite their baffling product segmentation, other than personal vs professional which Apple is soon copying. Okay Microsoft, Windows 7 contains an everyman's idea, I'm genuinely interested, what is it? Not going to say? Vapid and inauthentic. Okay Microsoft, you're going to hack my attention with puppies and irrestibably cute things? Great PR stunt, but you failed to make any kind of impression about the quality of your goods. Now we get these ridiculous Windows Mobile 7 commercials.. once again, trying to sell to you at an individual level by appealing to your phone addiction problem. Decreased ease of use is a benefit? Well, I want the phone designed by someone who wants to use a well designed phone, not by someone who has to have a differentiated design for marketing reasons. Sell me that.
I hope Microsoft keeps doing exactly what they're doing. Microsoft's bad reputation is very much deserved. The web, and the world, is going to be a lot better off without this company.
Windows, MS Office, and Internet Explorer are examples of what happens when Microsoft wins markets. They let their products languish, make no improvements whatsoever in decade, while repainting the exterior and reselling it over and over again. Consumers have wised up, businesses are just slower to recognize when they're getting the raw end of a deal.
Windows, MS Office, and Internet Explorer are examples of what happens when Microsoft wins markets. They let their products languish, make no improvements whatsoever in decade, while repainting the exterior and reselling it over and over again. Consumers have wised up, businesses are just slower to recognize when they're getting the raw end of a deal.
Microsoft can afford to fail many times before succeeding. It beat Lotus Notes, Borland C Compilers, Playstation, people continue to pay for Windows even though Linux is free. You don't measure what's going to happen in the future by taking a tiny slice of the present and projecting forwards.
> people continue to pay for Windows even though Linux is free
99% of that is only because Windows is available in stores and Linux typically is not. I think this will all change in about a month when Chrome OS comes out and is preinstalled on cheap computers in stores like Best Buy, Futureshop, or wherever people buy computers these days.
Most consumers no longer care that they are running a specific OS; they want to type documents, read email, watch videos, look at pictures and use Wikipedia. And Chrome OS will satisfy that perfectly. If stores decide to stock Chrome OS devices, I bet you'll see a huge rise in consumer "desktop Linux" usage.
99% of that is only because Windows is available in stores and Linux typically is not. I think this will all change in about a month when Chrome OS comes out and is preinstalled on cheap computers in stores like Best Buy, Futureshop, or wherever people buy computers these days.
Most consumers no longer care that they are running a specific OS; they want to type documents, read email, watch videos, look at pictures and use Wikipedia. And Chrome OS will satisfy that perfectly. If stores decide to stock Chrome OS devices, I bet you'll see a huge rise in consumer "desktop Linux" usage.
Consumers nevered cared about a specific OS. They've always just wanted a set of applications. The problem is that Chrome only answers one class of apps that people must have... web browser.
But it lacks Office (Open Office and Google Docs are not replacements for most people). Lacks a decent gaming ecosystem -- does it even have the Sims? And is missing a lot of applications that users use along the long tail... such as CS5 and iTunes.
Chrome is a non-player IMO. I think a low cost Mac and the evolution of the iPad is a LOT scarier (by an order of magnitude) to Microsoft.
But it lacks Office (Open Office and Google Docs are not replacements for most people). Lacks a decent gaming ecosystem -- does it even have the Sims? And is missing a lot of applications that users use along the long tail... such as CS5 and iTunes.
Chrome is a non-player IMO. I think a low cost Mac and the evolution of the iPad is a LOT scarier (by an order of magnitude) to Microsoft.
> But it lacks Office
Chrome OS will open Office files using Office Live, online. That seems like an excellent solution to me, and given that the service is provided by Microsoft I assume it works well with Microsoft documents.
> Lacks a decent gaming ecosystem -- does it even have the Sims? And is missing a lot of applications that users use along the long tail... such as CS5 and iTunes.
That is not the target market for Chrome OS. Google has said many times that Chrome OS should not be your primary operating system; if you buy a machine with Chrome OS you should use it as a portable, small machine to quickly access the web with. There's still a place for full-blown operating systems outside of Chrome OS.
The vast majority of users don't run CS5.
> Chrome is a non-player IMO.
Chrome hasn't hit the market yet. I think it's a big mistake to take something that Google is developing and say, "nah, won't work" before release.
Chrome OS will open Office files using Office Live, online. That seems like an excellent solution to me, and given that the service is provided by Microsoft I assume it works well with Microsoft documents.
> Lacks a decent gaming ecosystem -- does it even have the Sims? And is missing a lot of applications that users use along the long tail... such as CS5 and iTunes.
That is not the target market for Chrome OS. Google has said many times that Chrome OS should not be your primary operating system; if you buy a machine with Chrome OS you should use it as a portable, small machine to quickly access the web with. There's still a place for full-blown operating systems outside of Chrome OS.
The vast majority of users don't run CS5.
> Chrome is a non-player IMO.
Chrome hasn't hit the market yet. I think it's a big mistake to take something that Google is developing and say, "nah, won't work" before release.
Chrome hasn't hit the market, but plenty of us have used it extensively.
If Chrome's target market is the secondary web browsing machine then its competition is iPad, and eventually Windows tablets (running on Oak Trail). I think it may do decently, but it's not a real PC compete.
Regarding Office apps, opening in Office Live is fine if your competition is iPad. Although Office Live is missing a lot of features, at least today, to make it a real Office replacement.
If Chrome's target market is the secondary web browsing machine then its competition is iPad, and eventually Windows tablets (running on Oak Trail). I think it may do decently, but it's not a real PC compete.
Regarding Office apps, opening in Office Live is fine if your competition is iPad. Although Office Live is missing a lot of features, at least today, to make it a real Office replacement.
> I think a low cost Mac and the evolution of the iPad is a LOT scarier (by an order of magnitude) to Microsoft.
Considering the cheapest Mac you can buy is the $700 mini and you still have to buy a keyboard and screen, I don't think MS is too worried that. Apple is much more interested in margins than market share when it comes to PCs.
On the other hand, the $500 iPad is definitely something that should be keeping Ballmer up at night...
Considering the cheapest Mac you can buy is the $700 mini and you still have to buy a keyboard and screen, I don't think MS is too worried that. Apple is much more interested in margins than market share when it comes to PCs.
On the other hand, the $500 iPad is definitely something that should be keeping Ballmer up at night...
In my experience, the first thing consumers ask once they turn on the computer is "Where's Word?" I think how well Chrome OS machines answer this question will make or break them.
Chrome OS defaults to opening Office files with Office Live, whch is a pretty good answer I think.
Any word processor that can't round-trip Word files without messing up formatting (and specifically headers/footers, track changes, and text boxes) is not going to succeed for people who collaborate with others in Word.
I've tried every online word processor and many Linux ones, and they all fail at retaining this moderate-level formatting.
I've tried every online word processor and many Linux ones, and they all fail at retaining this moderate-level formatting.
[deleted]
I can appreciate your optimism but I don't think that's how its going to play out. I think you are so technical that you have lost touch with the everyman user.
I get the impression that Microsoft themselves are downplaying the `Microsoft' brand, in favour of market/product-specific brands: Windows, Office, Bing, XBox, etc.
[deleted]
I tend top agree...xbox excepted. I think Microsoft has worked very hard to get their platforms and tools into the enterprise space....and it has largely worked for them and been very successful. Has this been at the expense of a "consumer story"...maybe.
With that said, they can still be a very successful and growth oriented company but in the B2B/Enterprise space.
With that said, they can still be a very successful and growth oriented company but in the B2B/Enterprise space.
MS has some of the best engineering team in the world.
But MS does not have leadership with courage. That is the problem.
But MS does not have leadership with courage. That is the problem.
This article is overblown at best. Microsoft's core operating system and office suites remain absolutely dominant even if competitors are rising.
While Nintendo Wii certainly moves more units than the xbox, the xbox remains a successful competitive system with interesting innovations that largely focused on a different segment than the Wii did. While Microsoft is way behind in the phone segment, it is a bit premature to declare Windows Phone 7 a failure in the consumer market.
What this is showing is not so much that Microsoft is dying but that because other competitors are rising it is no longer the absolutely dominating force it used to be. This in itself is significant, but a far cry from dying.
While Nintendo Wii certainly moves more units than the xbox, the xbox remains a successful competitive system with interesting innovations that largely focused on a different segment than the Wii did. While Microsoft is way behind in the phone segment, it is a bit premature to declare Windows Phone 7 a failure in the consumer market.
What this is showing is not so much that Microsoft is dying but that because other competitors are rising it is no longer the absolutely dominating force it used to be. This in itself is significant, but a far cry from dying.
This article is overblown at best. Microsoft's core operating system and office suites remain absolutely dominant even if competitors are rising.
Yes but are these business licenses or consumer sales? Go to any college campus and see how many Windows laptops you see students using. Microsoft sales are going to businesses (who are entrenched in MS solutions) and people who "have always used Windows" (i.e. older folks who don't want to change).
Their brand is tarnished. I don't see them recovering from this easily.
Yes but are these business licenses or consumer sales? Go to any college campus and see how many Windows laptops you see students using. Microsoft sales are going to businesses (who are entrenched in MS solutions) and people who "have always used Windows" (i.e. older folks who don't want to change).
Their brand is tarnished. I don't see them recovering from this easily.
Its both business and consumer sales. Around 90% of the market share.
The large amounts of apple machines in colleges is probably more an indication of students wanting to be fashionably correct, than it is microsofts brand being tarnished in the general population.
The large amounts of apple machines in colleges is probably more an indication of students wanting to be fashionably correct, than it is microsofts brand being tarnished in the general population.
I would actually argue that Microsoft has actually become a more consumer-oriented company over time. Xbox was only released 9 years ago and the Zune was only released 4 years ago. Prior to that, what was Microsoft's consumer focus? Their primary products, Windows and Office, have traditionally focused on selling to businesses (OEMs, VARs, etc). The majority of consumers do not go out and purchase Windows directly -- it is included on their computer.
The place where I start to get leery is when Microsoft take a product like Live Messenger, which had finally become a near-perfect product, and bloat it into a dreadful "social media" whizbang media applet interface aeroplane control panel. I later found out (after copious reinstallations and attempts at finding an earlier version at oldversions.com) that there's a tiny icon, of which the chance to find is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Higgs boson - that restores the bloated piece of crap to a an actual IM-only client.
Of course, Microsoft also made the effort of cramming in more awful toolbars (that can't be removed) and replacing all the emoticons with a new suite of something even worse than what you would expect to find in a ten-year-old version of ICQ.
This may sound silly, but all chat clients on- and offline have dreadful emoticons; emoticons are meant to disambiguate and diffuse in favour of the sender and represent their mood and tone. That is their purpose. It really makes interaction with friends and acquaintances much easier and joyous. There's a limit to how you can stand out from other IM clients, and this is perhaps the biggest yard stick.
Live Messenger had the best (the only good) set of emoticons, and now Windows have thrown it all away while bloating the client even more.
I am fine with them throwing billions at something that may or may not work, but why the hell are they destroying their biggest brand products in this futile attempt to becoming relevant and cool?
I shudder at the thought at what Windows 8 will be like. Will they implement Clippy in the terminal to compete with Mac OS?
Of course, Microsoft also made the effort of cramming in more awful toolbars (that can't be removed) and replacing all the emoticons with a new suite of something even worse than what you would expect to find in a ten-year-old version of ICQ.
This may sound silly, but all chat clients on- and offline have dreadful emoticons; emoticons are meant to disambiguate and diffuse in favour of the sender and represent their mood and tone. That is their purpose. It really makes interaction with friends and acquaintances much easier and joyous. There's a limit to how you can stand out from other IM clients, and this is perhaps the biggest yard stick.
Live Messenger had the best (the only good) set of emoticons, and now Windows have thrown it all away while bloating the client even more.
I am fine with them throwing billions at something that may or may not work, but why the hell are they destroying their biggest brand products in this futile attempt to becoming relevant and cool?
I shudder at the thought at what Windows 8 will be like. Will they implement Clippy in the terminal to compete with Mac OS?
CNN nails it again. Next up: Year of the Linux Desktop.
The desktop is irrelevant. Linux is, most probably, the most popular OS at your home. You can't buy a modern TV, blu-ray player, DVR, wireless router, smartphone or e-book reader without buying a Linux machine.
Actually, Apple is the one taking the consumer market. 1 in every 5 retail computer sales is a Mac. Best Buy's CEO recently said that 50% of their laptop sales have been cannibalized by the iPad - a 6 month old product. Apple is the #1 technology company on the planet by market cap and recently attained the 3rd place in computers by market share. Their stock price has grown over 2000% in 10 years.
Apple is the one poised to take over in the consumer market ... although the consumer market will be less and less about computers in the future.
Apple is the one poised to take over in the consumer market ... although the consumer market will be less and less about computers in the future.
OH GOD NO !
I'd rather have Microsoft's monopoly endure than have it replaced by Apple domination. Perhaps they make better software, but they're also much better at being evil.
I'd rather have Microsoft's monopoly endure than have it replaced by Apple domination. Perhaps they make better software, but they're also much better at being evil.
Now is that any way to talk about your soon to be computer overlords? ;)
I don't agree that Apple is evil, just rigid. They are very strict about what they allow for the sake of a good user experience (and to avoid a black eye on their account).
And with them being the #1 tech company on the planet, there have to be a large number of people who really like their products. Actually, in recent surveys they were - The number 1 sought after phone OS of those ready to buy smartphones (at 38% just one point above android) - The number 1 in overall customer service (86) by a fair margin (9 points) - The number 1 in smart phone satisfaction (800 vs next in line 791).
I don't agree that Apple is evil, just rigid. They are very strict about what they allow for the sake of a good user experience (and to avoid a black eye on their account).
And with them being the #1 tech company on the planet, there have to be a large number of people who really like their products. Actually, in recent surveys they were - The number 1 sought after phone OS of those ready to buy smartphones (at 38% just one point above android) - The number 1 in overall customer service (86) by a fair margin (9 points) - The number 1 in smart phone satisfaction (800 vs next in line 791).
They are strict indeed :
"We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone," (Steve Jobs, quoted on the Wikipedia page about the AppStore)
Even though you bought the thing (and it's not exactly cheap), you cannot put it to all the legal uses you'd like to. There is someone else deciding for you that some things do not make for "a good user experience", and, as seen in the quote above, they enforce their own moral standards about it.
I find that evil. Of course, that's just my opinion, but who knows which other things they may feel they have a "moral responsibility" to keep off their platforms ?
"We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone," (Steve Jobs, quoted on the Wikipedia page about the AppStore)
Even though you bought the thing (and it's not exactly cheap), you cannot put it to all the legal uses you'd like to. There is someone else deciding for you that some things do not make for "a good user experience", and, as seen in the quote above, they enforce their own moral standards about it.
I find that evil. Of course, that's just my opinion, but who knows which other things they may feel they have a "moral responsibility" to keep off their platforms ?
They mean porn apps. You can get all the porn you want. The browser is wide open.
>«They mean porn apps»
That's not what Jobs said. And besides, it doesn't change the problem : what counts as a "porn app" ? Is an app that allows you to download, among thousands of E-Books, the kama sutra, (one of the cases discussed on the wikipedia page) a "porn app" ?
That's not what Jobs said. And besides, it doesn't change the problem : what counts as a "porn app" ? Is an app that allows you to download, among thousands of E-Books, the kama sutra, (one of the cases discussed on the wikipedia page) a "porn app" ?
Maybe not evil but definitely closed. Watch out for that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Was Microsoft ever such a big brand?
Google is, Apple is, Dell is, but with Microsoft it is more like many Brands: Windows, XBox, Zune.. I think the main things that people immediately associate with the actual word "Microsoft" might be mice and keyboards.
But, (at least in my perception) they are slowly beginning to address the problem of decreasing user numbers. See their marketing at "Colbert Report" and, recently, the How I Met Your Mother episode "Subway Wars", that was full of Bing and Windows product placement. Again, not promoting the Brand "Microsoft" directly, but rather its products. The shiny logo stands for Windows, while in Apple's case the logo refers to a whole company.
Google is, Apple is, Dell is, but with Microsoft it is more like many Brands: Windows, XBox, Zune.. I think the main things that people immediately associate with the actual word "Microsoft" might be mice and keyboards.
But, (at least in my perception) they are slowly beginning to address the problem of decreasing user numbers. See their marketing at "Colbert Report" and, recently, the How I Met Your Mother episode "Subway Wars", that was full of Bing and Windows product placement. Again, not promoting the Brand "Microsoft" directly, but rather its products. The shiny logo stands for Windows, while in Apple's case the logo refers to a whole company.
> Was Microsoft ever such a big brand?
umm ... yeah. they kinda were a big deal. There was a time where PC's used to be called 'Wintel' (Windows/Intel) machines because pretty much every PC made had Windows on it.
> I think the main things that people immediately associate with the actual word "Microsoft" might be mice and keyboards.
Wishful thinking ... although I think eventually this will happen. Between Microsoft Windows/Office/Exchange/Bing/Exchange/.NET/SQL Server ... Microsoft is still a big brand ... they're just a big brand going down the toilet.
umm ... yeah. they kinda were a big deal. There was a time where PC's used to be called 'Wintel' (Windows/Intel) machines because pretty much every PC made had Windows on it.
> I think the main things that people immediately associate with the actual word "Microsoft" might be mice and keyboards.
Wishful thinking ... although I think eventually this will happen. Between Microsoft Windows/Office/Exchange/Bing/Exchange/.NET/SQL Server ... Microsoft is still a big brand ... they're just a big brand going down the toilet.
I don't know about down the toilet, but they are definitely settling in the bowl.
As of October 2009, Microsoft Windows had a desktop market share of 91% (and that figure is probably still about 88% today).
Office makes that look a little weak with a market share of about 95%.
You are kidding that people think of them as a mouse and keyboard company aren't you?
Dell, one of your listed brands, by contrast have a market share of about 11.5%.
Office makes that look a little weak with a market share of about 95%.
You are kidding that people think of them as a mouse and keyboard company aren't you?
Dell, one of your listed brands, by contrast have a market share of about 11.5%.
[deleted]
I think a better way to put it is this:
When you hear "XPS" your mind doesn't immediately go to the Dell laptop (probably).
When you hear "Microsoft" though, "Windows", "Office", "Xbox", all the jazz, immediately go through your head.
When you hear "XPS" your mind doesn't immediately go to the Dell laptop (probably).
When you hear "Microsoft" though, "Windows", "Office", "Xbox", all the jazz, immediately go through your head.
I don't know how young you are, but I'm guessing under 20.
There was a time when IBM was synonymous with computing. That gave way to Microsoft. During the late 80s and all of the 90s, Microsoft WAS the computer.
There was a time when IBM was synonymous with computing. That gave way to Microsoft. During the late 80s and all of the 90s, Microsoft WAS the computer.
I'm much older than that (but English is not my mother language..) and I remember it was called an IBM-PC (with DOS or Windows). Not a Microsoft-Box or anything. I'm just saying: Windows is the bigger brand name than Microsoft. That does not mean I ignore how huge, wealthy and influential the Microsoft empire once was and still is.
Why IBM, Cisco, Intel are not rolling out smart phones?
Same reason they aren't building cars or aeroplanes.
Why IBM, Cisco, Intel are not building smart phones AND cars or aeroplanes?
[deleted]
The article inadvertently hints at the reason why Microsoft is failing. It mentions all of the markets where they lost to competitors. Perhaps they lost in all of these markets because they didn't focus on dominating a single market like the competitors that they lost to did.
Apple: Mobile Devices
Nintendo: Platform Gaming
Facebook: Social Networking
Google: Search
...
Apple: Mobile Devices
Nintendo: Platform Gaming
Facebook: Social Networking
Google: Search
...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Their logic in locking users to Windows-based experiences is old, tired, and not going to work anymore. People like the Web. And right now, you can't have a modern Web experience using only Microsoft products: no HTML5, slow JavaScript and a terrible, terrible browser experience.
If Microsoft wants to become relevant again, they must give their users the best experience on the Web they can.
Also, note that Windows Phone 7 ships with a modified IE7: what garbage is this? The phone will fail because it will suck at the Web.