Microsoft kills Zune, Windows Live brands; Live ID renamed to Microsoft Account(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Microsoft kills Zune, Windows Live brands; Live ID renamed to Microsoft Account
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2821128/microsoft-kills-zune-windows-live-branding-in-windows-8
19 comments
The various versions of Windows are actually very important. I haven't heard news if they're going to be continuing multiple products in Windows 8.
Windows has a very broad reach. It's on a lot of computers, used in very different ways, and Windows 7 naming is quite easy to understand.
Windows 7 Starter is not sold in stores but rather preloaded on netbooks and low performance devices. This is how Windows 8 on ARM will be.
Windows 7 Home Basic is a version of Windows 7 that is only generally available in emerging markets. It has geographic limitations on activation. I don't think you would find it on the shelf in the US.
Windows 7 Home Premium is what the consumer sees on the shelf in the store, or on their computer from Best Buy. It's Windows for "home".
Windows 7 Professional is for professionals to use on their work computer. Businesses use it. It adds the ability to sign onto a domain, software restrictions, EFS, etc. Home Premium and Professional are the only two you should see on store shelves or preinstalled.
Windows 7 Enterprise is only available if you have an enterprise contract with Microsoft. You buy it through volume licensing.
Windows 7 Ultimate is fairly restricted in its distribution. The only way for a normal user to know about or get Ultimate is an Anytime Upgrade, for a fee. It's Windows 7 Enterprise with individual licensing.
Each serves its purpose, and they're not all easily combined in features or hardware requirements. There should be no confusion amongst the public on which Windows 7 version is meant for them unless whoever does their tech support intentionally tries to confuse them.
Windows has a very broad reach. It's on a lot of computers, used in very different ways, and Windows 7 naming is quite easy to understand.
Windows 7 Starter is not sold in stores but rather preloaded on netbooks and low performance devices. This is how Windows 8 on ARM will be.
Windows 7 Home Basic is a version of Windows 7 that is only generally available in emerging markets. It has geographic limitations on activation. I don't think you would find it on the shelf in the US.
Windows 7 Home Premium is what the consumer sees on the shelf in the store, or on their computer from Best Buy. It's Windows for "home".
Windows 7 Professional is for professionals to use on their work computer. Businesses use it. It adds the ability to sign onto a domain, software restrictions, EFS, etc. Home Premium and Professional are the only two you should see on store shelves or preinstalled.
Windows 7 Enterprise is only available if you have an enterprise contract with Microsoft. You buy it through volume licensing.
Windows 7 Ultimate is fairly restricted in its distribution. The only way for a normal user to know about or get Ultimate is an Anytime Upgrade, for a fee. It's Windows 7 Enterprise with individual licensing.
Each serves its purpose, and they're not all easily combined in features or hardware requirements. There should be no confusion amongst the public on which Windows 7 version is meant for them unless whoever does their tech support intentionally tries to confuse them.
Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise?
If Windows 7 Ultimate is the same thing sa Windows 7 Enterprise? Why the distinction?
Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home".
99% of people (including work people) use their computers for checking their email, surfing the internet, using office, and playing media - this is why other companies (Google, Apple) are kicking ass and stealing MS's "home" customers.
The pervasive MS integration with everything is MS's only defense on the corporate enterprise. Their advantage in the home market is eroding. People just don't need to buy PC's any more.
If Windows 7 Ultimate is the same thing sa Windows 7 Enterprise? Why the distinction?
Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home".
99% of people (including work people) use their computers for checking their email, surfing the internet, using office, and playing media - this is why other companies (Google, Apple) are kicking ass and stealing MS's "home" customers.
The pervasive MS integration with everything is MS's only defense on the corporate enterprise. Their advantage in the home market is eroding. People just don't need to buy PC's any more.
>Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise?
Windows Enterprise is volume licensed. Windows Professional is individually licensed. Enterprise also has BitLocker and UNIX support. Again, I don't see where the confusion should lie for the user. Consumers shouldn't even be aware that Enterprise exists, or that there are differences. No consumer is ever going to even have the chance to purchase Enterprise.
>Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home".
Not true. Windows 95 had a couple editions. The two consumer-facing editions were Windows 95 and Microsoft PLUS! for Windows 95. There were a handful of other versions that were only sold preinstalled on computers. Fun fact, if you bought "Windows 95", you didn't get USB support. Only available in Windows 95b aka Windows 95 OSR2.1
Windows XP had a Starter edition for emerging markets. It had Media Center Edition which featured a new interface and WMC (along with DVR support). Tablet PC edition included touch screen software. There was also 64-bit edition, which may as well have been its own OS, since 64-bit support was not fully realized by all the existing software and drivers.
That fact that you didn't know these other editions existed goes to show you're blowing the whole thing out of the water for Windows 7. The point of their existence is to provide for what you are alluding to as the "other 1%" (which is actually a much, much larger percent and makes Microsoft a huge amount of money). The niche cases and the business requirements are satisfied with the niche Windows products and the business-oriented Windows products.
Apple and Google have no presence in the corporate OS world because they offer nothing to compete. "One size fits all" generally doesn't, and there's money to be made outside of that.
Windows Enterprise is volume licensed. Windows Professional is individually licensed. Enterprise also has BitLocker and UNIX support. Again, I don't see where the confusion should lie for the user. Consumers shouldn't even be aware that Enterprise exists, or that there are differences. No consumer is ever going to even have the chance to purchase Enterprise.
>Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home".
Not true. Windows 95 had a couple editions. The two consumer-facing editions were Windows 95 and Microsoft PLUS! for Windows 95. There were a handful of other versions that were only sold preinstalled on computers. Fun fact, if you bought "Windows 95", you didn't get USB support. Only available in Windows 95b aka Windows 95 OSR2.1
Windows XP had a Starter edition for emerging markets. It had Media Center Edition which featured a new interface and WMC (along with DVR support). Tablet PC edition included touch screen software. There was also 64-bit edition, which may as well have been its own OS, since 64-bit support was not fully realized by all the existing software and drivers.
That fact that you didn't know these other editions existed goes to show you're blowing the whole thing out of the water for Windows 7. The point of their existence is to provide for what you are alluding to as the "other 1%" (which is actually a much, much larger percent and makes Microsoft a huge amount of money). The niche cases and the business requirements are satisfied with the niche Windows products and the business-oriented Windows products.
Apple and Google have no presence in the corporate OS world because they offer nothing to compete. "One size fits all" generally doesn't, and there's money to be made outside of that.
Microsoft makes decisions like this ALL the time, ones that 1) appear ridiculous to the casual observer; 2) turn out to actually be rational if you think very hard about it and have enough background information (which is almost never available to anyone but MS employees); and too often, 3) in the end have unforeseen consequences that make Microsoft end up looking foolish or incompetent.
Every day when I worked at Microsoft another "look how stupid MS is" story would come out, and there would invariably be a large thread on the internal mailing list about it. The first 50 posts would be by people saying "You idiots in division X, this was a stupid idea and anybody could have told you that for the following 6 obvious reasons!" Then the folks from the responsible division would reply to each post to explain why they did what they did. And almost without fail these turned out to be decisions made by smart people who had very defensible reasons for doing what they did.
In the end I think what frustrated me most was that there was nobody at the top, no Steve Jobs, to say, "I get that you've done a lot of detailed analysis on why having 14 editions of Windows is a good idea, but I'm the boss, and this feels wrong, and we're not doing it."
Every day when I worked at Microsoft another "look how stupid MS is" story would come out, and there would invariably be a large thread on the internal mailing list about it. The first 50 posts would be by people saying "You idiots in division X, this was a stupid idea and anybody could have told you that for the following 6 obvious reasons!" Then the folks from the responsible division would reply to each post to explain why they did what they did. And almost without fail these turned out to be decisions made by smart people who had very defensible reasons for doing what they did.
In the end I think what frustrated me most was that there was nobody at the top, no Steve Jobs, to say, "I get that you've done a lot of detailed analysis on why having 14 editions of Windows is a good idea, but I'm the boss, and this feels wrong, and we're not doing it."
Well there is a reason Apple is great at Apple stuff and Microsoft is great at Microsoft stuff. I wouldn't have it any other way.
The true problem is that the media/forums pick up on MS news and run the controversy without actually thinking. It gets page views and upvotes, why stop? MS bashing is the tabloid news of the tech world. Doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time, but damn is it a hot seller.
The true problem is that the media/forums pick up on MS news and run the controversy without actually thinking. It gets page views and upvotes, why stop? MS bashing is the tabloid news of the tech world. Doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time, but damn is it a hot seller.
You're correct that brand proliferation is a Microsoft problem (actually Cisco is a bigger offender here - but they don't sell directly to consumers all that much).
But it's not like they have to be like this. Make the business brands profligate and ensure the consumer brands are simple and to the point, and cut out weak brands (mac.com? me.com? all getting thrown away).
But it's not like they have to be like this. Make the business brands profligate and ensure the consumer brands are simple and to the point, and cut out weak brands (mac.com? me.com? all getting thrown away).
I don't know if you meant to reply to someone else or if you misread what I was saying, but I don't see Microsoft's brands as a particularly troubling subject. I'm glad they're consolidating their Windows Live stuff to a nicer name and format, but I'd say on everything else they market just one option to the consumer and multiples to the business.
It's harder for Microsoft to throw away some brands because they have massive amounts of users who only know the name. Apple hasn't had millions of users on me.com over a decade and a half. Harder to throw out hotmail.com.
It's harder for Microsoft to throw away some brands because they have massive amounts of users who only know the name. Apple hasn't had millions of users on me.com over a decade and a half. Harder to throw out hotmail.com.
What's the disadvantage in giving something like Bitlocker and UNIX to regular professional users? Windows XP Starter Edition and MC edition came after their regular editions had launched. In the case of MC edition, it was launched almost a full two years later.
Market segmentation to this degree is a 1990's model of doing business. The proof is in the pudding. MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
Meanwhile, Apple has taken over corporate phones. More and more phones are dumping their blackberries and moving to iPhones. Fortune 50 companies are moving their email systems to Gmail and Google Apps.
If MS wants to compete around the edges, they certainly can, but they won't be the world's largest computing presence (and they're not anymore).
MS needs to re-introduce people to their products. Why block off BitLocker? Everyone has a right to privacy! Why block off media streaming? If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
This same thing happens with MS Office. What exactly is the difference between Microsoft Home and Office and Microsoft Professional (it's access and publisher - but this is a common google query!)? Why does there have to be this confusion. Why not just give Access away! If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
MS varies dramatically in caring about their whole ecosystem and stack vs. running different product lines. If MS wants to run each product as a separate entity with separate P&L statements, that's their right - but their revenue growth has slowed!
Speciation is dying. To take a different example, look at how hard it is to order a computer off of Dell.com. It's impossible now. What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps". Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user? Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a medium size business user? Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM? It's a complete design-by-committee mess, and a complete eyesore. It's become the used car salesman of computing.
Market segmentation to this degree is a 1990's model of doing business. The proof is in the pudding. MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
Meanwhile, Apple has taken over corporate phones. More and more phones are dumping their blackberries and moving to iPhones. Fortune 50 companies are moving their email systems to Gmail and Google Apps.
If MS wants to compete around the edges, they certainly can, but they won't be the world's largest computing presence (and they're not anymore).
MS needs to re-introduce people to their products. Why block off BitLocker? Everyone has a right to privacy! Why block off media streaming? If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
This same thing happens with MS Office. What exactly is the difference between Microsoft Home and Office and Microsoft Professional (it's access and publisher - but this is a common google query!)? Why does there have to be this confusion. Why not just give Access away! If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
MS varies dramatically in caring about their whole ecosystem and stack vs. running different product lines. If MS wants to run each product as a separate entity with separate P&L statements, that's their right - but their revenue growth has slowed!
Speciation is dying. To take a different example, look at how hard it is to order a computer off of Dell.com. It's impossible now. What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps". Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user? Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a medium size business user? Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM? It's a complete design-by-committee mess, and a complete eyesore. It's become the used car salesman of computing.
>What's the disadvantage in giving something like Bitlocker and UNIX to regular professional users?
The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.
>MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]
>(and they're not anymore)
I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.
>If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
And where are people streaming from? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.
>Why not just give Access away!
You would make a great businessman.
>If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)
>Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user?
Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.
>Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a medium size business user?
Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.
>Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM?
Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me.
Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.
And I don't want to hear you say "why do they even make semi trucks?! Now I can't figure out if I need an 18-wheeler or a scooter!"
[1]https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default....
The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.
>MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]
>(and they're not anymore)
I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.
>If MS could stream easily, people woudn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
And where are people streaming from? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.
>Why not just give Access away!
You would make a great businessman.
>If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)
>Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user?
Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.
>Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small business user vs. a medium size business user?
Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.
>Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM?
Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me.
Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.
And I don't want to hear you say "why do they even make semi trucks?! Now I can't figure out if I need an 18-wheeler or a scooter!"
[1]https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default....
MS's strategy hasn't produced a noticeable return on investment over the past decade. Argue with the business logic all you want, but all logic supports a theory that MS should be split up into various businesses.
The big problem at MS seems to be an unwillingness to cannibalize existing products in favor of new ones. This has led to new products only when its too late. Microsoft had a virtual insurmountable lead in phones, and it took Apple and Google creating revolutionary devices for MS to come up with a decent offering.
I own MS stock, and I have seen it pretty much stagnate. The company had tremendous potential. It is mature in its space, but its ever-looming shadow in its dominant space (windows) has prevented it from nurturing new products.
Most of it's revenue generation comes from products developed in the early 1990's. It's track record over the past 15 years for new products is terrible (with the exception of the Xbox).
The big problem at MS seems to be an unwillingness to cannibalize existing products in favor of new ones. This has led to new products only when its too late. Microsoft had a virtual insurmountable lead in phones, and it took Apple and Google creating revolutionary devices for MS to come up with a decent offering.
I own MS stock, and I have seen it pretty much stagnate. The company had tremendous potential. It is mature in its space, but its ever-looming shadow in its dominant space (windows) has prevented it from nurturing new products.
Most of it's revenue generation comes from products developed in the early 1990's. It's track record over the past 15 years for new products is terrible (with the exception of the Xbox).
If you own MS Stock then you've had dividends, quarter after quarter. That "Stagnating" stock you talk of is as much a reflection of the dividends as it is anything else.
How is it that everyone forgets that Microsoft has continued to be a massively profitable enterprise for the last 10+ years, and continues to dominate in the Desktop OS and Office Productive suite space in the same time period.
Nobody even _tries_ to challenge Microsoft in those two sectors, they are so dominant. Plus, they've seen some good traction in the Game-Console environment as well.
With all that said - I actually agree with you in principle, it would be nice if someone just said "We have two versions of Microsoft Windows, Professional and Home" - and call it a day. The seven versions result lots of angst for small IT managers visiting CDW - this thread, 2 years laters, (and freehunter's _excellent_ description) is the first time I've ever really understood the difference between all the versions. (BTW Freehunter - if you aren't already in it, you've got a great future in product management - great and succinct product descriptions)
How is it that everyone forgets that Microsoft has continued to be a massively profitable enterprise for the last 10+ years, and continues to dominate in the Desktop OS and Office Productive suite space in the same time period.
Nobody even _tries_ to challenge Microsoft in those two sectors, they are so dominant. Plus, they've seen some good traction in the Game-Console environment as well.
With all that said - I actually agree with you in principle, it would be nice if someone just said "We have two versions of Microsoft Windows, Professional and Home" - and call it a day. The seven versions result lots of angst for small IT managers visiting CDW - this thread, 2 years laters, (and freehunter's _excellent_ description) is the first time I've ever really understood the difference between all the versions. (BTW Freehunter - if you aren't already in it, you've got a great future in product management - great and succinct product descriptions)
Thanks for the glowing recommendation. I'm quite happily employed in Information Security where I often have to give reports to people who likely aren't going to understand the exact magnitude of the risk. Communication is huge, and I'm sad to say I do have a patience problem which became evident the longer this thread continued.
>What's the disadvantage in giving something like Bitlocker and UNIX to regular professional users?
>>The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.
I dont know who is doing your purchasing but through volume licensing enterprise pay significantly less per cal than a home user could ever hope of getting. Also enterprise tend to purchase MS support but home users do not.
>MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
>>That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]
While gangbuster growth is not usually sustainable flat earnings are not a sign of maturity they are a sign of stagnation. Without growth (real or expected) dividends are required to keep share holders happy. Also I am not sure its clear cut that dividends in general are a great thing.
>(and they're not anymore)
>>I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.
This only takes into account the desktop market which is quickly becoming less relevant than the mobile market where MS has no dominance and little growth. Even in the desktop market the user experience is shifting away from the OS to the web, again not a dominant area for MS.
>If MS could stream easily, people wouldn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
>>And where are people streaming from? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.
They are streaming mostly from the web not saved content.
>Why not just give Access away!
>>You would make a great businessman.
Is Access really the killer app from Office? I cant see the case. Outlook and Excel are still killer apps but charging for access, or at least not making it part of the most basic bundles like word is did not do MS any favors.
>If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
>>Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)
Agreed here I am not sure what the OP was referring to unless he means the power of the LAMP stack. Had microsoft had a competing offering that was not under such expensive licensing it would have given them a big bost in server licenses.
>Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user?
>>Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.
But this segmentation does not work if everyone can see every deal. You can achieve similar results based on volume discounting or segmentation along less artificial lines. For example as a home user I do not care if the same modle of PC will be guaranteed available for a 3 year life cycle. As a business customer I am willing to pay extra for that.
>Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small
>>business user vs. a medium size business user? Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.
Home PC tend to fall into bleeding edge or cheap but reliability and support are just as important too the two groups. Delivery of service is different but expectations are the same. At the end of the day these are the same components and are used by users at work and at home. The reason consumerization of IT is hitting business hard is because users no longer have a difference in expectations between what they can do at home and what they can do at work.
>Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM?
>>Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me. Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint.
His point on 'What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps"' is completely valid. What the hell do those mean and where do I even begin looking for what i want when these are the initial choice presented to me. To make matters worse I can configure near identical machines under these different lines but get vastly different prices. Now I need to configure my PC several different times and track that pricing to make an intelligent choice? That is insanity.
>>If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.
And Microsofts marketing does a horrible job at making that clear. That is not a fault of the consumer.
>>The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.
I dont know who is doing your purchasing but through volume licensing enterprise pay significantly less per cal than a home user could ever hope of getting. Also enterprise tend to purchase MS support but home users do not.
>MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
>>That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]
While gangbuster growth is not usually sustainable flat earnings are not a sign of maturity they are a sign of stagnation. Without growth (real or expected) dividends are required to keep share holders happy. Also I am not sure its clear cut that dividends in general are a great thing.
>(and they're not anymore)
>>I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.
This only takes into account the desktop market which is quickly becoming less relevant than the mobile market where MS has no dominance and little growth. Even in the desktop market the user experience is shifting away from the OS to the web, again not a dominant area for MS.
>If MS could stream easily, people wouldn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
>>And where are people streaming from? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.
They are streaming mostly from the web not saved content.
>Why not just give Access away!
>>You would make a great businessman.
Is Access really the killer app from Office? I cant see the case. Outlook and Excel are still killer apps but charging for access, or at least not making it part of the most basic bundles like word is did not do MS any favors.
>If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
>>Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)
Agreed here I am not sure what the OP was referring to unless he means the power of the LAMP stack. Had microsoft had a competing offering that was not under such expensive licensing it would have given them a big bost in server licenses.
>Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user?
>>Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.
But this segmentation does not work if everyone can see every deal. You can achieve similar results based on volume discounting or segmentation along less artificial lines. For example as a home user I do not care if the same modle of PC will be guaranteed available for a 3 year life cycle. As a business customer I am willing to pay extra for that.
>Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small
>>business user vs. a medium size business user? Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.
Home PC tend to fall into bleeding edge or cheap but reliability and support are just as important too the two groups. Delivery of service is different but expectations are the same. At the end of the day these are the same components and are used by users at work and at home. The reason consumerization of IT is hitting business hard is because users no longer have a difference in expectations between what they can do at home and what they can do at work.
>Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM?
>>Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me. Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint.
His point on 'What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps"' is completely valid. What the hell do those mean and where do I even begin looking for what i want when these are the initial choice presented to me. To make matters worse I can configure near identical machines under these different lines but get vastly different prices. Now I need to configure my PC several different times and track that pricing to make an intelligent choice? That is insanity.
>>If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.
And Microsofts marketing does a horrible job at making that clear. That is not a fault of the consumer.
>I dont know who is doing your purchasing but through volume licensing enterprise pay significantly less per cal than a home user could ever hope of getting.
True, but what is the cost of one license of Windows? I mean, what is the true cost of goods sold for one copy of Windows? If Microsoft can sign one contract to sell 100 licenses rather than pay to ship discs and sell them in stores individually, the cost substantially goes down and their profits substantially go up. I actually meant to say "Professional" rather than Home Premium, since that is what unexpected was talking about. A mis-type on my part.
>Also I am not sure its clear cut that dividends in general are a great thing.
They are making sackloads of cash, don't need further capital investment that selling stock brings, and are still able to return money to their investors. That's doing good business.
>This only takes into account the desktop market which is quickly becoming less relevant than the mobile market where MS has no dominance and little growth.
People keep saying this, but I'm yet to see a family that doesn't own a laptop or two. I've yet to find a college student without a laptop or without making use of a computer lab (running Windows). I've yet to see any real number of large corporations switching to Macs. We can discuss the future when it gets here, until then it's all wild speculation.
>They are streaming mostly from the web not saved content.
I did say among other places, just indicating that it was possible since it was alluded that it is not.
>Is Access really the killer app from Office?
It doesn't need to be. All it needs is to be needed in some capacity, and bundled with a more expensive package. If you want HBO, you're paying for basic cable as well.
>That is insanity.
Well what's the difference between a Chevy Impala, a Malibu, and a Cruze? I can get the same number of seats, the same size engine, and the same number of doors. Maybe it's the fault of Dell (still not sure how Dell has anything to do with Microsoft's naming, it's a little off topic) for not educating their users better, or maybe it's the fault of their users for being complete morons.
Look at their laptop site:
Inspiron - Everyday Computing (+MacBook)
Z Series - Thin and Powerful (+MacBook Air)
XPS - High Performance (+MacBook Pro)
Alienware - Extreme Gaming (+Mac doesn't compete here)
(+my editorial)
Yeah, they actually tell you the use-case for their various brands. Funny how they do that. No one seems to complain about the differences between the MacBook, the MacBook Pro, or the MacBook Air, though they can all be spec'd close to the same too. Shit, Dell even lets you sort by the exact features you want. You need an SSD and 16GB of RAM? There are check boxes along the side of the screen that say 16GB and Solid State Drive. Click them and your choices are down to 9 configurations between Alienware and XPS. Pick your processor and hard drive size. Magic.
>And Microsofts marketing does a horrible job at making that clear.
Disagree
>That is not a fault of the consumer.
Agree. It's not the fault of the consumer, because the consumer is never going to get confused by it. It's the fault of the tech media and the family tech support for confusing the users. If my grandma knows what version of Windows she's running, it's because I told her. If she knows how many versions she's not running, again it's because I told her. No consumer will look at the shelf and say "Shit there's seven versions, which one will I buy?!" because they will only see two, know they are a home user, and buy that one.
Actually the more likely case is they'll buy a computer with it preloaded and not give two shits about what version they're running.
It's not Microsoft's marketing failure if they're not marketing products you can't buy. Do you know about Windows 7 Enterprise from an advertisement, or is it because Engadget had a scathing editorial on the subject?
True, but what is the cost of one license of Windows? I mean, what is the true cost of goods sold for one copy of Windows? If Microsoft can sign one contract to sell 100 licenses rather than pay to ship discs and sell them in stores individually, the cost substantially goes down and their profits substantially go up. I actually meant to say "Professional" rather than Home Premium, since that is what unexpected was talking about. A mis-type on my part.
>Also I am not sure its clear cut that dividends in general are a great thing.
They are making sackloads of cash, don't need further capital investment that selling stock brings, and are still able to return money to their investors. That's doing good business.
>This only takes into account the desktop market which is quickly becoming less relevant than the mobile market where MS has no dominance and little growth.
People keep saying this, but I'm yet to see a family that doesn't own a laptop or two. I've yet to find a college student without a laptop or without making use of a computer lab (running Windows). I've yet to see any real number of large corporations switching to Macs. We can discuss the future when it gets here, until then it's all wild speculation.
>They are streaming mostly from the web not saved content.
I did say among other places, just indicating that it was possible since it was alluded that it is not.
>Is Access really the killer app from Office?
It doesn't need to be. All it needs is to be needed in some capacity, and bundled with a more expensive package. If you want HBO, you're paying for basic cable as well.
>That is insanity.
Well what's the difference between a Chevy Impala, a Malibu, and a Cruze? I can get the same number of seats, the same size engine, and the same number of doors. Maybe it's the fault of Dell (still not sure how Dell has anything to do with Microsoft's naming, it's a little off topic) for not educating their users better, or maybe it's the fault of their users for being complete morons.
Look at their laptop site:
Inspiron - Everyday Computing (+MacBook)
Z Series - Thin and Powerful (+MacBook Air)
XPS - High Performance (+MacBook Pro)
Alienware - Extreme Gaming (+Mac doesn't compete here)
(+my editorial)
Yeah, they actually tell you the use-case for their various brands. Funny how they do that. No one seems to complain about the differences between the MacBook, the MacBook Pro, or the MacBook Air, though they can all be spec'd close to the same too. Shit, Dell even lets you sort by the exact features you want. You need an SSD and 16GB of RAM? There are check boxes along the side of the screen that say 16GB and Solid State Drive. Click them and your choices are down to 9 configurations between Alienware and XPS. Pick your processor and hard drive size. Magic.
>And Microsofts marketing does a horrible job at making that clear.
Disagree
>That is not a fault of the consumer.
Agree. It's not the fault of the consumer, because the consumer is never going to get confused by it. It's the fault of the tech media and the family tech support for confusing the users. If my grandma knows what version of Windows she's running, it's because I told her. If she knows how many versions she's not running, again it's because I told her. No consumer will look at the shelf and say "Shit there's seven versions, which one will I buy?!" because they will only see two, know they are a home user, and buy that one.
Actually the more likely case is they'll buy a computer with it preloaded and not give two shits about what version they're running.
It's not Microsoft's marketing failure if they're not marketing products you can't buy. Do you know about Windows 7 Enterprise from an advertisement, or is it because Engadget had a scathing editorial on the subject?
Apple also does this. The latest iPod Touch alone has three different models. It's just that they do it in a sane way while Dell is doing whatever they can to scare their customers away.
I can see differentiation based on features - iPhones are differentiated on space.
A user can distinguish between an iPod Touch, a nano, a classic, and an iPhone.
I do a big WTF when I look at the Dell website. It's literally insane. It used to be so easy to configure a computer, and now they've made it incredibly complicated.
A user can distinguish between an iPod Touch, a nano, a classic, and an iPhone.
I do a big WTF when I look at the Dell website. It's literally insane. It used to be so easy to configure a computer, and now they've made it incredibly complicated.
How is it hard? They tell you what the brand is designed around and let you pick options before you pick a brand. Need that 16GB of RAM and an SSD? You can pick that instead of picking a brand.
"Why does it have to be like this?"
So Microsoft can make money off of everyone. Would you want to charge a multi-billion dollar corporation with 12,000 employees the same price for your operating system as you would charge a 50 year old baby boomer who just wants to check email? You want to make as much money as you can from each demographic so you add features to that demographic's branded version and milk them.
The poor pay a little, the rich pay a lot, and everyone ends up with a copy of windows. It's what kept Windows at 80-90% market share. Of course, in the short term it worked great, but in the long term it might begin to backfire as consumers move on to less confusing brands with less hardware options, more quality, less affordability, more prestige. At every meetup I attend, I see macs all over the place with me being the only Windows user. Apple has gained a lot of ground in just 10 years. The user experience, the hardware, and Microsoft's short term decision making.
So Microsoft can make money off of everyone. Would you want to charge a multi-billion dollar corporation with 12,000 employees the same price for your operating system as you would charge a 50 year old baby boomer who just wants to check email? You want to make as much money as you can from each demographic so you add features to that demographic's branded version and milk them.
The poor pay a little, the rich pay a lot, and everyone ends up with a copy of windows. It's what kept Windows at 80-90% market share. Of course, in the short term it worked great, but in the long term it might begin to backfire as consumers move on to less confusing brands with less hardware options, more quality, less affordability, more prestige. At every meetup I attend, I see macs all over the place with me being the only Windows user. Apple has gained a lot of ground in just 10 years. The user experience, the hardware, and Microsoft's short term decision making.
"The various versions of Windows are actually very important."
Bullshit!. I am the average consumer and NOTHING is more important than me and my feelings! If you confuse me and make me feel stupid then I'll just buy one of those really nice Apple Mac computers that anyone who's important has. I heard they don't get viruses. And they're sooo pretty. They'll look much better on my desk. And my friends will be impressed. They make me feel smart and creative. They make me feel good.
Lost sale because Microsoft doesn't understand basic psychology.
Bullshit!. I am the average consumer and NOTHING is more important than me and my feelings! If you confuse me and make me feel stupid then I'll just buy one of those really nice Apple Mac computers that anyone who's important has. I heard they don't get viruses. And they're sooo pretty. They'll look much better on my desk. And my friends will be impressed. They make me feel smart and creative. They make me feel good.
Lost sale because Microsoft doesn't understand basic psychology.
I'd like to see the hypothetical Windows buyer who has a choice in what version they're running. Macs come with OSX installed. Windows laptops come with Home Premium. That's the full extent of it. Consumers might have the option to upgrade to Professional in some cases, that's about it.
Basically people are complaining that Windows is not cool. If that's what you mean, just say it, don't fucking dance around with some "oh they're stupid and don't understand people even though they've sold 200 million Windows 7 licenses in the same time Apple sold 4 million OSX computers" bullshit. Then find me some statistics showing that the cooler technology always wins out.
Basically people are complaining that Windows is not cool. If that's what you mean, just say it, don't fucking dance around with some "oh they're stupid and don't understand people even though they've sold 200 million Windows 7 licenses in the same time Apple sold 4 million OSX computers" bullshit. Then find me some statistics showing that the cooler technology always wins out.
Upgraders: They can't run windows XP forever. There's hundreds of millions of them. Good point, but you're looking in the "now". Think about what's going to happen to all those Windows XP / Vista / 7 users a few years from now. Hundreds of millions of them will be given the choice to upgrade and then they get to chose 1 of 5 licenses.
The cooler tech doesn't win, the less stressful tech built around people, not short term corporate profits wins out. And yes they've sold a lot more Windows 7 licenses than OSX has, but that's thanks to their wonderful monopoly they've had all these years. It is dying out. Windows market share in the US is dropping, especially amoung young people. If everything was fine and dandy in Windows world, MS wouldn't be going through all these extreme make-overs with Office, and Metro, and Windows Phone, and Windows 8. They're fine now, profit wise, but they themselves know that there's trouble up ahead.
Either way, thank Bahamut for Apple and Linux, they've threatened Windows enough to make MS innovate.
The cooler tech doesn't win, the less stressful tech built around people, not short term corporate profits wins out. And yes they've sold a lot more Windows 7 licenses than OSX has, but that's thanks to their wonderful monopoly they've had all these years. It is dying out. Windows market share in the US is dropping, especially amoung young people. If everything was fine and dandy in Windows world, MS wouldn't be going through all these extreme make-overs with Office, and Metro, and Windows Phone, and Windows 8. They're fine now, profit wise, but they themselves know that there's trouble up ahead.
Either way, thank Bahamut for Apple and Linux, they've threatened Windows enough to make MS innovate.
Upgraders are a case where someone may be doing there homework and get confused, yes. Luckily most upgraders have a local techie in the family who can guide them. When it comes to Anytime Upgrade, Microsoft does a pretty good job of directing you to what you should upgrade to and why.
I give all my thanks to the proliferation of laptops in the consumer world. Laptops are junk, all of them, no matter how long the hardware lasts. They cannot be upgraded hardware wise, and the vendor will stop supporting older models for drivers and software updates. Combine that with slowing hardware, and you might as well just buy a new laptop every 2-5 years, solving the upgrade problem.
I don't view tablets as a point where A) anyone could have reliably predicted their explosive growth or B) desktop software will remain dominant. It's not that Windows didn't innovate enough to keep up with tablets, its that people decided smartphones were good enough. It remains to be seen if people keep up on that approach.
The desktop is dying, and it has been for a long time. Technology moves on. Terminals stopped being the in-thing, just as mainframes, UNIX, and DOS. When a formerly dominant technology is gone the competitors didn't kill it, time did. Time will kill everything. Linux is in a state of extreme renovation (though still lagging behind in some areas) and OSX is no spring chicken anymore. Microsoft is the only vendor who seems to be defending their core business from the onslaught of consumerization. Apple seems content to just let the desktop die (MS has had radically different XP, Vista/7, and now Win8 while Apple just has the same decade-old OSX), and if iOS doesn't make some changes to keep up with Android and Windows Phone, everything they have will crumble.
I give all my thanks to the proliferation of laptops in the consumer world. Laptops are junk, all of them, no matter how long the hardware lasts. They cannot be upgraded hardware wise, and the vendor will stop supporting older models for drivers and software updates. Combine that with slowing hardware, and you might as well just buy a new laptop every 2-5 years, solving the upgrade problem.
I don't view tablets as a point where A) anyone could have reliably predicted their explosive growth or B) desktop software will remain dominant. It's not that Windows didn't innovate enough to keep up with tablets, its that people decided smartphones were good enough. It remains to be seen if people keep up on that approach.
The desktop is dying, and it has been for a long time. Technology moves on. Terminals stopped being the in-thing, just as mainframes, UNIX, and DOS. When a formerly dominant technology is gone the competitors didn't kill it, time did. Time will kill everything. Linux is in a state of extreme renovation (though still lagging behind in some areas) and OSX is no spring chicken anymore. Microsoft is the only vendor who seems to be defending their core business from the onslaught of consumerization. Apple seems content to just let the desktop die (MS has had radically different XP, Vista/7, and now Win8 while Apple just has the same decade-old OSX), and if iOS doesn't make some changes to keep up with Android and Windows Phone, everything they have will crumble.
The death of the Zune brand was announced ages ago. "Zune" has been nothing more than the punchline to a joke for years now.
And the failure of the Live brand is, well, not unexpected. It caps off a decade of weird and unfocused branding strategies from the Big M.
And the failure of the Live brand is, well, not unexpected. It caps off a decade of weird and unfocused branding strategies from the Big M.
As a Zune user since the first gen I'm pretty disappointed it didn't take off. I honestly can't imagine having to find another decent portable media player that works so well. Now I just need to keep my Zune HD functional for the rest of time.
This reminds me of the "Windows Live Hotmail" fiasco.
Annoying as all the brand vacillation is, this move looks like it is in the right direction.
Annoying as all the brand vacillation is, this move looks like it is in the right direction.
Finally! Sane naming conventions from Microsoft? Hopefully, no more "Windows Phone 7 series phone" nonsense in the future.
And yet it's not enough to catch Apple. Even Google's products are better integrated now.
Link-bait. Aren't killing anything. This is an opinion article.
Forget DDE, we're on to OLE now. Forget OLE, it's COM. You added a DispInterface to COM? Let's call it ActiveX, even though it has nothing to do with DirectX or any other -X. No, wait, let's put the X on the other end! XBox. Sweet. Windows CE makes too much sense, let's call it Windows Mobile, no wait, Windows Phone (so, no tablet vision?). Let's call it Outlook Express, even though it has no relationship to Outlook whatsoever. No wait, Outlook Express is dead. Oh, actually, it's now Windows Live Mail.
Microsoft should just give up on their perpetual rebranding and do some real work. I still can't put my HID Bluetooth device into park or sniff (low-power) mode because their Bluetooth stack still sucks, but they've managed three or four rebranding efforts since Bluetooth hit the scene a decade ago. All of their rebranding efforts are just snapshots in time. They should just stick with naming things by year (or half decade), since that's really what it boils down to.
Microsoft should just give up on their perpetual rebranding and do some real work. I still can't put my HID Bluetooth device into park or sniff (low-power) mode because their Bluetooth stack still sucks, but they've managed three or four rebranding efforts since Bluetooth hit the scene a decade ago. All of their rebranding efforts are just snapshots in time. They should just stick with naming things by year (or half decade), since that's really what it boils down to.
To be fair these brands were dead long ago.
Disagree and unfair. These brands are alive and well. I use Zune, Contacts and pictures on a daily basis. Please make sure you know the topic before making unfair claims.
Microsoft's services are so fragmented, any attempt to consolidate them is welcomed. It would be nice if they also worked on a consistent UI throughout all their properties. It feels like they outsource divisions to other companies with no UI specifications included.
The only unifying element is the Microsoft name in the URL. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/
And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job.
http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iwork/ https://developer.apple.com/
The only unifying element is the Microsoft name in the URL. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/
And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job.
http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iwork/ https://developer.apple.com/
>"And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job."
I have a theory about Microsoft's web presence and the diversity of presentation styles and plethora of discontinuous information channels associated with it.
My impression is that it is as if Microsoft management is trying to herd cats. And perhaps it is.
Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate model than something drawing some features from academia's "share what you have learned from pursuing your interests" model.
Google has been somewhere between the two - people have had time to pursue their interests but sharing work product has had more management control (though far less management control than Apple).
What I suspect Microsoft is trying to do internally, is to rely on its new design aesthetic to be preferred on its merits rather than implemented by fiat. Not so much because there is a high percentage of employees with fuck you money any longer, but because doing so is consistent with the corporate culture developed at a time when their were.
At least that's my theory.
I have a theory about Microsoft's web presence and the diversity of presentation styles and plethora of discontinuous information channels associated with it.
My impression is that it is as if Microsoft management is trying to herd cats. And perhaps it is.
Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate model than something drawing some features from academia's "share what you have learned from pursuing your interests" model.
Google has been somewhere between the two - people have had time to pursue their interests but sharing work product has had more management control (though far less management control than Apple).
What I suspect Microsoft is trying to do internally, is to rely on its new design aesthetic to be preferred on its merits rather than implemented by fiat. Not so much because there is a high percentage of employees with fuck you money any longer, but because doing so is consistent with the corporate culture developed at a time when their were.
At least that's my theory.
> Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate...
That's not the problem - the solution to that has been known for years - stock options/grants and bonuses tied to corporate performance.
The problem is that Microsoft continued to grow rich by stagnating. The company got so good at milking it's cash cows, everything else had to be tied to those.
Furthermore, there was no vision at the top for over a decade. Ballmer may be many things but visionary is not one that most people would agree with. Vision is what allows you to see the iceberg looming in the distance, or the opening into a golden opportunity if you steer properly.
That's not the problem - the solution to that has been known for years - stock options/grants and bonuses tied to corporate performance.
The problem is that Microsoft continued to grow rich by stagnating. The company got so good at milking it's cash cows, everything else had to be tied to those.
Furthermore, there was no vision at the top for over a decade. Ballmer may be many things but visionary is not one that most people would agree with. Vision is what allows you to see the iceberg looming in the distance, or the opening into a golden opportunity if you steer properly.
The article begins with "Microsoft appears to be killing off ...", which is quite different than the title here on HN ("Microsoft kills...". The article's original title is also "How Microsoft is killing off..." - which is a bit more honest: this is speculation/analysis. It might be correct, but it's not the same as "Look, we got an official statement from MS saying these brands are now dead" - Sad to see title tweaks for sensationalism on HN, of all places :(
I would've gone for a detailed title too, like __ "How Microsoft is killing off the Zune and Windows Live brands in Windows 8; Live ID to be renamed to Microsoft Account" __ but that would be 118 characters(with spaces) well over title limit(80) at Hacker News.
The only one I still think was a missed opportunity is Zune. I have a Windows Phone and love it, but a lot of my friends consider the concept of a Windows Phone "icky". I don't think that Zune was such a failed brand that a Zune Phone couldn't have happened. Of course, I doubt business buyers would like that.
I really love the Zune product (to the point where I'm afraid of being branded a shill whenever I talk about it). Windows Phone is a nice system, but the Zune aspect is what sold me on it versus an iPhone. There's literally nothing that compares, and I'm amazed Apple has fallen so far behind.
Microsoft needs to do some image control to become "cool" again. They've got some amazing products that are right on the bleeding edge (Xbox, Zune/WP7, Windows 8 is kind of out-there and radical for better or worse), but Xbox is the only successfully "cool" brand they have. Because it doesn't have "Windows" attached to it.
If Zune was redefined as a phone (Not Zune Phone, just Zune), it would sell like hotcakes.
Microsoft needs to do some image control to become "cool" again. They've got some amazing products that are right on the bleeding edge (Xbox, Zune/WP7, Windows 8 is kind of out-there and radical for better or worse), but Xbox is the only successfully "cool" brand they have. Because it doesn't have "Windows" attached to it.
If Zune was redefined as a phone (Not Zune Phone, just Zune), it would sell like hotcakes.
I don't think it's an image problem, really. It's a focus problem.
I'd never buy a piece of Microsoft portable tech, because they always end up killing everything they release within a few years.
If they could just stick with something for a while, I might have some confidence, but between PlaysForSure (hah!), Zune, Kin, etc, they give me no REASON to trust them.
I'd never buy a piece of Microsoft portable tech, because they always end up killing everything they release within a few years.
If they could just stick with something for a while, I might have some confidence, but between PlaysForSure (hah!), Zune, Kin, etc, they give me no REASON to trust them.
I really don't think that Microsoft killed Zune, in the way that they killed Kin. They just integrated it into Windows Phone. In many ways they're just going with the flow on that- far fewer people buy dedicated music playing devices now that their smartphones do it.
It’s funny you say that, because what ultimately soured me on buying Apple products was my iPhone 3G being effectively bricked by the 4.0 update, two years after I bought it (and, theoretically, days after some other people bought it from AT&T).
Microsoft may rebrand stuff in weird ways sometimes, but they don’t often kill stuff off prematurely. I’d actually argue the opposite: that they often hang onto stuff for too long.
As to your examples, PlaysForSure was only really killed from the perspective of manufacturers, or if you heavily bought into the MSN Music Store. The Kin was an extenuating circumstance, but no doubt a huge fuckup. Zune may be getting a rebrand, but I’ve heard no reason to believe a Zune player won’t continue to work with Windows 8.
All you’ve really done is name three failures of a company that has hundreds of projects. One could do the same thing for Apple, Google, or almost any other tech company.
Microsoft may rebrand stuff in weird ways sometimes, but they don’t often kill stuff off prematurely. I’d actually argue the opposite: that they often hang onto stuff for too long.
As to your examples, PlaysForSure was only really killed from the perspective of manufacturers, or if you heavily bought into the MSN Music Store. The Kin was an extenuating circumstance, but no doubt a huge fuckup. Zune may be getting a rebrand, but I’ve heard no reason to believe a Zune player won’t continue to work with Windows 8.
All you’ve really done is name three failures of a company that has hundreds of projects. One could do the same thing for Apple, Google, or almost any other tech company.
Zune is still going strong. It's the music app for WP7 (which MS has a lot of money riding on), for Xbox (which MS has a lot of money riding on), and for Windows 8 (which MS has their entire corporation riding on). It's been successful, if not wildly so. I don't think Zune is going anywhere.
I have never owned or seen (IRL) a Zune. What's so great about it? What makes it better than an iPod?
For starters the software doesn't crush your machine as iTunes does to Windows.
Second of all, the physical player doesn't magically get a 'corrupted OS' or 'unhappy folder face' problem once a year - requiring trips to the Genius Bar.
The software does everything iTunes does like recommendations, folder tracking, etc - except you could get 'all you can eat' music for $10 / month.
In general the Zune HD device is just sick. Metro UI, intuitive touchscreen, and most importantly, completely unbreakable.
Second of all, the physical player doesn't magically get a 'corrupted OS' or 'unhappy folder face' problem once a year - requiring trips to the Genius Bar.
The software does everything iTunes does like recommendations, folder tracking, etc - except you could get 'all you can eat' music for $10 / month.
In general the Zune HD device is just sick. Metro UI, intuitive touchscreen, and most importantly, completely unbreakable.
I have to second the completely unbreakable part. I have dropped it whilst biking many times (seriously I'm embarrassed to say like 4 times) and it has only a few minor dings to show for it despite tumbling on asphalt at 10-15 mph. It seems like the thickness of the aluminum bezel coupled with the thinner screen width protects the screen better than the ipod touch's. I also prefer the UI and basically what it came down to when deciding between the two for me was what I wanted: a really good touchsceen mp3 player or a more generally useful device/portable gaming machine. I already have my phone for the latter purpose so I went with the best mp3 player.
I did have mine "break" but I can still use it. Somehow the screen cracked from the inside. Speculation is the battery was overcharged and swelled. I looked it up on the Internet and pretty much every discussion about it was filled with people claiming those with broken screens must be lying or had damaged it somehow. Microsoft doesn't acknowledge a problem.
Oh well. It still works, and I have my WP7 now. The Zune is just for biking.
Oh well. It still works, and I have my WP7 now. The Zune is just for biking.
Adding to the list of everything everyone has mentioned (which I also agree with), a major factor for me is the Zune Pass (and it the main point where I mention Apple is so terribly far behind). $10/mo for (quite nearly) the entire catalog. They have SmartDJ (I think Apple has the Genius Match or something? Similar idea) where you can pick a song and it will play similar songs to it. With the Zune Pass, it will pick songs from the Zune library as well, possibly songs you've never heard. It's great for finding new artists with a similar feel to the bands you love. Years back, this is how I found the Black Keys. Plugged Seven Nation Army into SmartDJ and there was Stack Shot Billy.
If you cancel, you lose access to the songs after 3 days, but each month you get 10 songs without DRM to download and keep forever. At 99c per song, you're basically paying for one album per month and getting the rest of the library for free. And if you're a little more creative, there are ways of making the songs "lose" their DRM.
If you cancel, you lose access to the songs after 3 days, but each month you get 10 songs without DRM to download and keep forever. At 99c per song, you're basically paying for one album per month and getting the rest of the library for free. And if you're a little more creative, there are ways of making the songs "lose" their DRM.
Everyone I know that has had a Zune, really loved it. They praised it. The people who didn't have a Zune talked about it negatively on the basis that it was a Microsoft product and no one in their right mind would invest in a Microsoft product. They usually have no future. Sadly, this stereotype rings truer and truer with each passing year.
Prior to the iPod Touch, I liked Zune's navigation and found it much more intuitive and useful than the wheel that iPods used. The software was also good and it played music just as well as the iPod.
I think the UI/interface for the ZuneHD was much better than the iPod Touch as well, and the software is still better than iTunes (although both are kinda behemoths). The iPod Touch wins on having the App Store though, the Zune just really never competed in that area for me. Now I go with an Android phone, and with Google Music, my ZuneHD hasn't been used in forever.
I think the UI/interface for the ZuneHD was much better than the iPod Touch as well, and the software is still better than iTunes (although both are kinda behemoths). The iPod Touch wins on having the App Store though, the Zune just really never competed in that area for me. Now I go with an Android phone, and with Google Music, my ZuneHD hasn't been used in forever.
For me, it's the seamless integration of both playing and retrieving music. If I'm listening to the Black Keys, I can press their Artist name, load up a list of all their albums, then choose which one I want to stream or immediately download to my device (with a $9.99/month fee, like Spotify etc.)
Last time I used an iPhone they had a complete separation between the music player and the iTunes Store. Never understood why.
Last time I used an iPhone they had a complete separation between the music player and the iTunes Store. Never understood why.
Streaming service and the software. I absolutely love the zune software. It is so much better than iTunes it's a bit ridiculous.
The Zune software is so good, I know many people who use it even though they don't have a Zune, myself included.
Yea, but until Zune works on my mac, there's no way I'd even consider it. Microsoft has to play nice with the other kids in the yards to get my money.
A big reason I hear from many Zune users is that iTunes doesn't play nice on Windows. I know back when I used iTunes (up until 2007), it was horrible. Slow, slow, slow. It would hang the system for over a minute to start up, it would update every couple days and attempt to force-install Quicktime and Safari, and the updates were around a hundred MB every time.
Apple has amazing software developers. There's no reason for iTunes for Windows to suck. A common conspiracy theory is they do it on purpose to show how awful Windows is. I don't know if that's true, but that's how it feels to me.
So for that reason, I'd rather have no iTunes support on my PC and have the easy choice made for me than to break out of the ecosystem to find a worse experience. I almost bought an iPhone until I remembered the desktop software was iTunes.
--edit, I'm sorry this felt like an anti-iTunes rant. I didn't mean it to be that way. What I really meant to say was "Microsoft doesn't play nice with Apple, but Apple doesn't play nice with Microsoft either." Though Microsoft does have a Windows Phone connector for Mac, and like an iPhone, a WP doesn't need Zune software to function.
Apple has amazing software developers. There's no reason for iTunes for Windows to suck. A common conspiracy theory is they do it on purpose to show how awful Windows is. I don't know if that's true, but that's how it feels to me.
So for that reason, I'd rather have no iTunes support on my PC and have the easy choice made for me than to break out of the ecosystem to find a worse experience. I almost bought an iPhone until I remembered the desktop software was iTunes.
--edit, I'm sorry this felt like an anti-iTunes rant. I didn't mean it to be that way. What I really meant to say was "Microsoft doesn't play nice with Apple, but Apple doesn't play nice with Microsoft either." Though Microsoft does have a Windows Phone connector for Mac, and like an iPhone, a WP doesn't need Zune software to function.
Yea, but until Zune works on my mac, there's no way I'd even consider it. Microsoft has to play nice with the other kids in the yards to get my money.
It does. Well, Windows Phone does at least, which is as close as you can get to buying a Zune device now. There's an app called "Windows Phone Connector" in the App Store.
It does. Well, Windows Phone does at least, which is as close as you can get to buying a Zune device now. There's an app called "Windows Phone Connector" in the App Store.
I think the first thing they should do to improve their "cool" factor is to make Zune work on non-Windows platforms. I think the Zune software, hardware, and service are all fantastic but more and more the cool kids aren't using Windows, and in my experience running the Zune software in a VM adds enough friction that it usually isn't worth it.
Yeah, I doubt many people buying macs would get a Windows Phone/Zune instead of the Apple equivalent.
And while all the cool kids are using Linux, I don't really expect Linux support :(
And while all the cool kids are using Linux, I don't really expect Linux support :(
I've got a MBP and a Lumia. The WP7 connector that's available on the Mac App Store allows you to sync your WP7 with iTunes/iPhoto, but doesn't include the Zune player itself, which is so much nicer than iTunes.
I'm glad to see more companies moving away from overly invasive branding. I don't need to see the name of the company in front of everything.
No one would ever say "open Windows Live Photo Gallery". They would say something like "go to Photos" or "open the Photos app" and now this simplified branding will make these things more obvious and easier to find for the average consumer.
No one would ever say "open Windows Live Photo Gallery". They would say something like "go to Photos" or "open the Photos app" and now this simplified branding will make these things more obvious and easier to find for the average consumer.
I'd forgotten about the existence of Zune until this article!
Good to see Microsoft making some changes as regard to these services. They were confusingly named to begin with and the integration of them all into Windows seamlessly is what is going to hold them afloat while they figure out what they are doing on the mobile space.
Every time they rebrand or kill a technology that they rolled out with great fanfare, I become less and less likely to trust them with an investment. (This is true both for consumer stuff and for development stuff ) Product rationalization is good, but there is a real cost when they change direction.
The services are still there right? This is just a name change?
And Visual Basic? Only the name stayed after they replaced the product with .NET.
I have a cousin who works in PR for Microsoft, and he told me that since Ballmer became CEO the headcount in marketing and sales positions has tripled. (This was a few years ago and was just his ballpark estimate.) I can't help but think that rebranding moves like this are a byproduct of the change in management from engineering based leadership to marketing based leadership.
My thoughts exactly. But beyond trust there's also confusion. I'm not much of a Microsoft customer or user but from I've seen it feels like they keep doing this every few years. There used to be MSN which is now somehow rolled into Hotmail and the Live ID thing which also has something to do with Hotmail but I'm not quite sure and so on which is very confusing to me. If I don't get it as someone who is very familiar with a plethora of (not) confusing web services then I fear for the mere mortals out there who receive some sort of notification that Microsoft Service X is now Microsoft Service Y. The other thing I notice is the Applefication of MS branding in some of this. Music, Calendar, Photos? If I were a MS customer I'd be reminded of Apple's offerings and wondering how they compare with names like this. Now that last concern is pure conjecture but I think it could be reasonable to guess that the more their services sound like Apple products the worse it is for them. There has to be another way to simplify the brands. Google does it without sounding like they're trying to be Apple.
Edit: After thinking about what I just said it occurred to me that it's very easy to be a critic and while I still stand behind my statements I think there's a ton of room for me to be very wrong. After all, I don't work at Microsoft and I don't have complete information. They're a multibillion dollar company so they must know something. Meanwhile I'm just some asshole making flip judgements in my pajamas, dreaming of my business being successful one day.
Edit: After thinking about what I just said it occurred to me that it's very easy to be a critic and while I still stand behind my statements I think there's a ton of room for me to be very wrong. After all, I don't work at Microsoft and I don't have complete information. They're a multibillion dollar company so they must know something. Meanwhile I'm just some asshole making flip judgements in my pajamas, dreaming of my business being successful one day.
It's not just that, it's this frenzy they have to rebrand themselves as an 'online' experience/company.
I ask my friends freely and naturally, "Do you have a google account?".
The thought of asking my friends "Do you have a microsoft account, yeah those guys, the ones that deliberately put the web into stagnation for years with their shitty IE5/6 browsers, and killed many cool technology companies through monopoly abuse because they was scared of them, and those guys that continue to try and subvert technology by proxy because they cannot innovate online?"; that thought fills me with dread.
I don't want to ask my friends if they have an account with these guys. Maybe the xbox360 crowd do... shrug
I ask my friends freely and naturally, "Do you have a google account?".
The thought of asking my friends "Do you have a microsoft account, yeah those guys, the ones that deliberately put the web into stagnation for years with their shitty IE5/6 browsers, and killed many cool technology companies through monopoly abuse because they was scared of them, and those guys that continue to try and subvert technology by proxy because they cannot innovate online?"; that thought fills me with dread.
I don't want to ask my friends if they have an account with these guys. Maybe the xbox360 crowd do... shrug
I had a Hotmail account 10 years ago.. did it change to a Live account before.. and now it's a Windows account?.. or wait is it now my MSN Messenger account?... I'm confused.
Microsoft Windows Live Mail Office 365 for Games for Windows Live. Get it right.
I couldn't find anything that looked like that. Are you just making stuff up?
I must admit that I expected Hacker News to be (well) not very much in to hyperbole :(
It's like they have a whole department at Microsoft dedicated to making as many brands out of the words "Windows" and "Live". Finally, I can tell my mom to just open up "Mail", or go to the "Calendar" instead of "Outlook Express" or "Windows Live Mail". Oh I forgot, I got sick of MS's multiple personality disorder and got my family Gmail accounts.