Topic: MS Admits Vista Failure

[[ISC]Phaser]

Actions speak louder than PR......

WITH TWO OVERLAPPING events, Microsoft admitted what we have been saying all along, Vista, aka Windows Me Two (Me II), is a joke that no one wants. It did two unprecedented things this week that frankly stunned us.

Dell announced that it would be offering XP again on home PCs. The second that Vista came out, Microsoft makes it very hard for you to sell anything other than Me II. It can't do this on the business side because it would be laughed out the door, but for the walking sheep class, well, you take what you are shovelled.

This is classic abusive monopoly behaviour, Microsoft wrote the modern book on it. It pulled all the major OEMs in by twisting their arms with the usual methods, and they again all fell into line. Never before has anyone backpedalled on this, to do so would earn you the wrath of Microsoft.

But Dell just did. This means that Me II sales are at least as bad as we think, the software and driver situation is just as miserable, and Dell had no choice but to buck the trend. If anyone thinks this is an act of atonement for foisting such a steaming pile on us, think again, it doesn't care about the consumer.

What happened is, the OEMs revolted in the background and forced Microsoft's hand. This is a big neon sign above Me II saying 'FAILURE'. Blink blink blink. OK, Me II won't fail, Microsoft has OEMs whipped and threatened into a corner, it will sell, but you can almost hear the defectors marching toward Linux. This is a watershed.

The other equally monumental Me II failure? Gates in China launching a $3 version of bundled XP. Why is this not altruism? Well, it goes back to piracy and how it helped enforce the MS monopoly. If you can easily pirate Windows, Linux has no price advantage, they both cost zero.

With Me II, Microsoft made it very hard to pirate. It is do-able, you can use the BIOS hack and probably a host of others, but the point is, it raised the bar enough so lots of people have to buy it. Want to bet that in a country with $100 average monthly salary, people aren't going to shell out $299 for Me II Broken Edition?

What did MS do? It dropped the price about 100x or so. I can't say this is unprecedented, when it made Office 2003 hard to pirate it had to backpedal with the student edition for about $150. This time though, things are much more desperate.

If you fit Microsoft's somewhat convoluted definition of poor, it still wants to lock you in, you might get rich enough to afford the full-priced stuff someday. It is at a dangerous crossroads, if its software bumps up the price of a computer by 100 per cent, people might look to alternatives.

That means no Me II DRM infection lock in, no mass migration to the newer Office obfuscated and patented file formats, and worse yet, people might utter the W word. Yes, you guessed it, 'why'. People might ask why it is sticking with the MS lock in, and at that point, it is in deep trouble.

So, it did the unthinkable, and dropped the price. I won't bother to hunt down all the exec quotes saying how people can't afford clean water would be overjoyed to sell kidneys to upgrade to the new version of Office, but they are out there. This was a sacred cow, and it is now hamburger backed up against the wall.

These two actions by Microsoft are proof of what I suggested three years ago. Microsoft has lost its ability to twist arms, and now it is going to die. It can't compete on level ground, so is left with backpedalling and discounts of almost 100 times.

What we are seeing is an unprecedented shift of power. It is also an unprecedented admission of failure. And the funniest part about the moves made? They are the wrong things to do. Microsoft is in deep trouble.

Trying to put together an OS that has all the best of the MAC, Linux and XP in it just didn't work. Right now Vista-poo holds about 3% of the share in the OS market and that's only because it's shipped with a new PC.

[Rod ONeal]

Hi [ISC]Phaser,
If you were to take windows away from everyone the pc would move out of the home (We have 5, 3 desktops and 2 laptops, in our house) and back into the office. I'm not ready to stretch this as far as you are. The average person loves Windows. It is solely responsible for PCs to have become as common as TVs. Everyone just likes to take shots at #1.

This whole problem with Vista, IMO, is the avg. Windows consumer never asked for it and doesn't want it. The real windows customer, the computer manufacturers, only want what helps them sell more PCs. Vista clearly doesn't do that. People aren't saying, "I have to get rid of my current computer and go out and buy a new one with Vista on it." Remember Windows '95? "Everyone" wanted it. I was selling computers at the time and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Now, they are saying quite the opposite. They're a bit smarter than M$ gives them credit for and want their PCs resources back. If I have a PC with a gig of ram I want to be able to use a gig of ram, or damn near as much of it as possible, not 1/2 a gig. I've seen responsible reports of Vista using over 400megs of ram at idle. NOBODY wants that! All people asked for, in a conceptual way, is a SECURE Windows. If Vista came out with the security enhancements, it is supposed to have, and was more efficient (used LESS resources) everyone would want it. This is where M$ blew it big time.

In NZ, where I am now, Dell never (or if they did it was very brief and I missed it) stopped offering XP as an option on their PCs. They realised that nobody wanted it. We just bought a new laptop and bought an Asus because we wanted a good quality laptop with retailer support, with XP on it.

This is a major blow to M$, no doubt, and will/is costing them more money than we know. I have to believe that they're too smart though to let it hurt their market penetration. I'm curious to see what they do next.

PS People are also very tired of M$ purposely making there current system obsolete.
   

[FPF-DieHard]

Yet MS is rsaking in the dough, not time to seel your stock yet.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31803/118/

[Nemesis]

This thread should really be in Ten Forward, Engineering, Quark's - Rules of Acquisition or Hot and Spicey not here.

Yet MS is rsaking in the dough, not time to seel your stock yet.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31803/118/

I have to question how real Microsofts "boost" in profits is as it includes $1.7 billion dollars in XP sales from last quarter that included a coupon for Vista.  The gain in profits is much more modest if you push that $1.7 billion back to last quarter where it belongs. 

[Slider]

I've been in this industry a long time, and ive heard the same debate in all of its incarnations
Windows vs Dos Menu
Windows 95 vs OS2
Windows 95 vs Windows 98
Windows 98SE....welll you ge the picture
In the end people buy what works...is cheap or comes preinstalled on their pc...given the way the Hardware prices have dropped can you blame MS for raising its prices... After all 1200 bucks is 1200 bucks, wheter most of it goes to one company or another.

Dell is now offering Ubuntu as an option and I applaude them for it. The way to really stick it to MS is not to buy their stuff however 90% of us run a MS OS.

I think rule of thumb is that you wait for the first service pack or one year whichever comes first before you go to a new OS. I was standing in a store yesterday and I head someone say they wanted Vista..the reply was why?, to which the response was well thats whats defines a new PC...XP is now the old OS. Weird.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I've played with Vista for awhile now, aside from some annoying things like DRM (which can be circumvented) it's a very stable OS. Nothing like ME.

[Javora]

To He|| with $100 off the price of Vista.  I don't think Microsoft is admitting defeat yet, I think that will come when WinXP has DirectX 10 support.  As a Gaming OS Vista is a dud and should have never been released as it is.

[Dash Jones]

Hi [ISC]Phaser,
If you were to take windows away from everyone the pc would move out of the home (We have 5, 3 desktops and 2 laptops, in our house) and back into the office. I'm not ready to stretch this as far as you are. The average person loves Windows. It is solely responsible for PCs to have become as common as TVs. Everyone just likes to take shots at #1.

This whole problem with Vista, IMO, is the avg. Windows consumer never asked for it and doesn't want it. The real windows customer, the computer manufacturers, only want what helps them sell more PCs. Vista clearly doesn't do that. People aren't saying, "I have to get rid of my current computer and go out and buy a new one with Vista on it." Remember Windows '95? "Everyone" wanted it. I was selling computers at the time and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Now, they are saying quite the opposite. They're a bit smarter than M$ gives them credit for and want their PCs resources back. If I have a PC with a gig of ram I want to be able to use a gig of ram, or damn near as much of it as possible, not 1/2 a gig. I've seen responsible reports of Vista using over 400megs of ram at idle. NOBODY wants that! All people asked for, in a conceptual way, is a SECURE Windows. If Vista came out with the security enhancements, it is supposed to have, and was more efficient (used LESS resources) everyone would want it. This is where M$ blew it big time.

In NZ, where I am now, Dell never (or if they did it was very brief and I missed it) stopped offering XP as an option on their PCs. They realised that nobody wanted it. We just bought a new laptop and bought an Asus because we wanted a good quality laptop with retailer support, with XP on it.

This is a major blow to M$, no doubt, and will/is costing them more money than we know. I have to believe that they're too smart though to let it hurt their market penetration. I'm curious to see what they do next.

PS People are also very tired of M$ purposely making there current system obsolete.
   

I disagree with the first portion.  Before MS windows came out, especially before win95, Mac was actually making huge headways due to it's ease of use OS.  Basically it had a windows before "windows" along with the mouse and everything else.  I'd expect that instead we'd have seen a different evolution of Mac's OS into a different creature than it is now, and it would probably be the reigning champ of the casual computer users (due to a huge influx of contributions they were making back in the early 90s which got youngsters influenced by Macs early).  You'd have hardcore PC users still which would use older type OS or more complex OS's, and Macintosh players...and perhaps even have room for other OS type innovations from others.

[Just plain old Punisher]

To He|| with $100 off the price of Vista.  I don't think Microsoft is admitting defeat yet, I think that will come when WinXP has DirectX 10 support.  As a Gaming OS Vista is a dud and should have never been released as it is.

Hell you could have said the same thing about XP. A lot of games didn't work with it when it was released.

Stuff that worked fine on 98/ME didn't run on XP.

XP won't ever get DX 10 support. Just not gonna happen.

[Javora]

Hell you could have said the same thing about XP. A lot of games didn't work with it when it was released.

Stuff that worked fine on 98/ME didn't run on XP.

XP won't ever get DX 10 support. Just not gonna happen.

Which is why I don't think that Microsoft is admitting defeat yet...   

[Nemesis]

To He|| with $100 off the price of Vista.  I don't think Microsoft is admitting defeat yet, I think that will come when WinXP has DirectX 10 support.  As a Gaming OS Vista is a dud and should have never been released as it is.

Hell you could have said the same thing about XP. A lot of games didn't work with it when it was released.

Stuff that worked fine on 98/ME didn't run on XP.

XP won't ever get DX 10 support. Just not gonna happen.

Link

Link 2

[Electric Eye]

The other equally monumental Me II failure? Gates in China launching a $3 version of bundled XP. Why is this not altruism? Well, it goes back to piracy and how it helped enforce the MS monopoly. If you can easily pirate Windows, Linux has no price advantage, they both cost zero.

your find really brought back memories of my time spent in Mexico. home Depot sells the same brand name tools in their Mexican based stores for less than what we get charged here in the U.S.

These corporations suck, as they only want to make the highest profit margin and have no scruples about how they go about doing it.

The sad part is, H.D., like G.M. raising the price of a car or truck by 1k a year, are bufueing their own people. So who are those same rich dudrounds to spout about corruption and dirty deeds elsewhere in the world while they tell everyone their sh*te does not stink and they are so honest and fair?

 

Kudos for Dell, but as he really screwed up Austin and Round Rock, I'm still hoping the Chinese eat Dell up for lunch. It is very possible as Lenovo bought out the IBM sector of P/C manufacturing, and Lenovo was already number 3 in the world before the acquisition.

Wal-Fart (No surprise there as most stuff in the store is made in china and elsewhere except the U.S.) is supposedly ramping up their P/C dept. in the electronics area and will carry Lenovo products as well as others. Wal-Fart's vision is to eat up some of the lost business put upon them by Fry's and Best Buy.

They already have started with the DVD movies, in case you have not noticed, they are not only in the electronics area but also at the front door walkway when you walk in, and at plan-o-grams by the cash registers. So yes, I can see Wal-Fart making a dent in the competition since they can buy in much more bulk quantity than Fry's and Best Buy even dreamed of.

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

Microsoft is a Gigantotherm, a theory posited by advocates of cold blooded dinosaurs.   Why change into a warm blooded dinosaur when they were too big to matter?

Waiting for the  K-T event.

 

[jualdeaux]

I still believe that MS played an integral part in the extremely rapid advancement in computer hardware, and PC games for that matter. By being the only OS out there for the IBM clones, it set the "standard" that all the varied hardware manufacturers and software designers had to design to. and by being an open design where anyone can design hardware and software for, it encouraged competition between manufacturers and other software houses. This in turn spurred innovation. let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Imagine that things had developed differently. There are 10 competing major operating systems out there and they all have their own way of working. If I wanted to create a startup and design games or a new technology for video cards, I would have to make it run with 10 different ways of doing things. That would add a ton of costs and increase the complexity to a point where it would make the card so expensive that no one would be able to afford it. If that could even be made. or, I could limit the compatibility to just a couple OSes but that would limit the market that I am making it for. neither option would be very attractive to businesses. Just look at the differences in the different Linux flavours out there.

Apple went the other route and it costs them dearly. They went the closed hardware route where you had to buy the hardware that only they made. with the exception of peripherals. this led to a stagnation and monopoly pricing. Sure. they made good stuff but they just couldn't keep up with the Intel/Windows and they were almost double the cost.

i do believe that we are in a much more mature computing world with companies who are much more savvy, much more accomplished and much more capable of designing hardware for different systems. I would like to see more options come out based on entirely different systems. this might spur even more innovation, which is always a good thing. I also think that MS needs to have a major challenger to kick them in the ass a bit. Linux might be able to do that but first they have to decide on a common driver format and make it so the same software packages can be installed on all the different flavours. They can still all have their own style, feel, look and options and the could compete on that level. Then you will really see that OS blossom out and start to give Windows a serious run for their money.

[Nemesis]

I still believe that MS played an integral part in the extremely rapid advancement in computer hardware, and PC games for that matter. By being the only OS out there for the IBM clones, it set the "standard" that all the varied hardware manufacturers and software designers had to design to. and by being an open design where anyone can design hardware and software for, it encouraged competition between manufacturers and other software houses.

Microsoft played an accidental part.  IBM set out to create a Business Microcomputer.  Bill Gates Mother happened to have contacts within IBM and suggested that they contact Microsoft.  Gates happened to know of another company that had already written such an OS.  If none of these things had happened Microsoft would be a nobody company like Traff-O-Data.

If IBM had not has such a draconian NDA that could put any company that signed it out of business then IBM would have used CP/M86 from Digital Research.  DR already with CP/M had market presence but did not do the per computer licensing that Microsoft used to build their monopoly upon.  This would have allowed cloning and competition which would have led to advancing the OS. 

Why did MS-DOS advance so much more once DR-DOS was on the market?  Because MS had to compete at least a little as DR-DOS was a threat.  Why did IE languish for so long until Firefox started to grab market share and now IE is under active development?  Once they had a competitor MS had no choice but to advance or be left behind.  When they have none they set on their laurels.

This in turn spurred innovation. let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Imagine that things had developed differently.

Imagine instead of the OS stagnating and only progressing when directly challenged on occasion it had been challenged continually?  The Atari ST had a GUI in 1985, Lisa in 1983, Mac in 1984 and Amiga in 1982.  Windows was in Nov 1985.  Why is it that Windows was so late?  There was only a Windows at all because Gates saw the Mac as a threat.

Why is there an IE?  Because Gates saw Netscape as a threat.  Microsoft was late to the Internet and missed the BBS phenomena all together.

How much has PC networking evolved since MS integrated it to prevent effective competition? 

If there had been the ability to actually compete directly without Microsoft using its per PC licensing then the OS field would have been pushed far ahead and DRM would be no where.

Even now if the Windows OS had the add on functions set up so that they were actually independent programs technology would advance faster.  If Microsoft would follow public standards rather than creating their own or twisting the public standard beyond recognition things would advance faster.

There are 10 competing major operating systems out there and they all have their own way of working. If I wanted to create a startup and design games or a new technology for video cards, I would have to make it run with 10 different ways of doing things. That would add a ton of costs and increase the complexity to a point where it would make the card so expensive that no one would be able to afford it. If that could even be made. or, I could limit the compatibility to just a couple OSes but that would limit the market that I am making it for. neither option would be very attractive to businesses. Just look at the differences in the different Linux flavours out there.

Alternately competition might just as well resulted in an OS far superior to anything now available and compatible clones which is exactly what happened in the PC market once IBM's ability to control it and set the pace was broken. 

Apple went the other route and it costs them dearly. They went the closed hardware route where you had to buy the hardware that only they made. with the exception of peripherals. this led to a stagnation and monopoly pricing. Sure. they made good stuff but they just couldn't keep up with the Intel/Windows and they were almost double the cost.

Just as IBM was adopting the Apple open hardware concept (which allowed the PC cloners to enter the market against IBM) Apple closed their hardware and acted more like IBM and in the process shot themselves in the foot.  One company was unable to make computers that fit all needs and Apple therefore ended up in a niche which they have yet to break out of.  IBM however by allowing other companies to provide hardware and software to supplement the PC caused it to become the dominant stand as you could add whatever any company created to the machine.  Need a custom controller card?  Can't add it to the Mac so you added it to the PC.

i do believe that we are in a much more mature computing world with companies who are much more savvy, much more accomplished and much more capable of designing hardware for different systems. I would like to see more options come out based on entirely different systems. this might spur even more innovation, which is always a good thing. I also think that MS needs to have a major challenger to kick them in the ass a bit. Linux might be able to do that but first they have to decide on a common driver format and make it so the same software packages can be installed on all the different flavours. They can still all have their own style, feel, look and options and the could compete on that level. Then you will really see that OS blossom out and start to give Windows a serious run for their money.

How long did it take Microsoft and the PC industry to put in all the innovations that the Amiga and Atari ST had?  Do we have them all even now?  I think we would have them all and more except for the Monopoly.