Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#41

Post by calambrac » Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 10:49 PM UTC

twopoint718 wrote: post #38

calambrac wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropp…

Don't let me put words in other mouths, but the reason tomsaffell is saying that if MS sells a $y-priced version of Windows for netbooks that they'll end up losing $(x-y)(# of non-netbook PCs) is this: if there is a fully-functional* Windows version on the market then all contemporary Windows versions will tend to that price. Users will say "why do I pay $x for Windows when John Q. Otherguy got it for $y on his netbo…

Users don't know how much OEMs pay for the copy of Windows that's on their machines. MS just simply wouldn't sell it to end users at that price, just like they don't sell regular Windows to end users at OEM prices now.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#42

Post by Mazy » Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 11:39 PM UTC

calambrac wrote: post #41

twopoint718 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't let me put words in other mouths, but the reason tomsaffell is saying that if MS sells a $y-priced version of Windows for netbooks that they'll end up losing $(x-y)(# of non-netbook PCs) is this: if there is a fully-functional* Windows version on the market then all contemporary Windows versions will tend to that price. Users will say "why do I pay $x for Windows when John Q. Otherguy got it for $y on his netbo…

Users don't know how much OEMs pay for the copy of Windows that's on their machines. MS just simply wouldn't sell it to end users at that price, just like they don't sell regular Windows to end users at OEM prices now.

The problem is that if there is this cheaper version for netbooks that's good enough, OEMs will just buy that and put it on all their boxes.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#43

Post by GrandMasterBirt » Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 11:44 PM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #35

latortuga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you for the same reason that Apple doesn't allow their OS to run on any hardware but their own. It's a user experience decision. I'm willing to believe that Microsoft put plenty of testing into Windows 7 on suboptimal hardware and determined that performance suffers with more than 3 applications open. I can't cite it at the moment but recall the Google study that compared user satisfaction with respon…

It's a user experience decision Maybe, but if so it's a bad branding decision. The problem is not only that the "improved user experience" looks too much like "deliberate crippling". It's also that they use the same name for the crippled version. They will be derided for that, and that bad PR is going to carry over to the entire Windows 7 brand. What are they thinking? Apple put a Mac OS with a "different user experi…

This is exactly right... MS is marketing it as windows 7 srtarter.. Should be windows notebook 1.0, hey 2.0 will come out at same time as windows 8. Cool. Even nicer if they changed the interface so the "netbook" feels like a netbook with a different ui and so on. This way nobody feels like they got the crummy windows and ms is milking em, they just got something different... And ms gets to sell dumbed down oses. Windows 7 just aint compatable with your pos notebook. Ok get windows notebook 1.0.

I still feel that selling a crippled os like xp vs xp pro is just plain ol evil... Vista is worse and no lessob learned

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#44

Post by calambrac » Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 11:49 PM UTC

Mazy wrote: post #42

calambrac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users don't know how much OEMs pay for the copy of Windows that's on their machines. MS just simply wouldn't sell it to end users at that price, just like they don't sell regular Windows to end users at OEM prices now.

The problem is that if there is this cheaper version for netbooks that's good enough, OEMs will just buy that and put it on all their boxes.

And then they would be sued. That's what contracts are for.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#45

Post by blasdel » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 12:00 AM UTC

latortuga wrote: post #17

acangiano wrote: post #12

As I commented a few days ago, Microsoft hasn't learned much from the Vista fiasco. Just deliver two versions already: a home one and a professional one. The Pro one would cost slightly more and offer more advanced features that the (average) home user won't care about. Limiting the number of applications you can run is an idiotic move. Foolish. There is no other way to put it, netbook with limited resources or not.…

I disagree with you for the same reason that Apple doesn't allow their OS to run on any hardware but their own. It's a user experience decision. I'm willing to believe that Microsoft put plenty of testing into Windows 7 on suboptimal hardware and determined that performance suffers with more than 3 applications open. I can't cite it at the moment but recall the Google study that compared user satisfaction with respon…

But it was never the number of "open programs" that brought people's windows systems to a crawl -- it was always horribly written services: virus scanners, preloaders, viruses, etc.

Windows 7 Starter Edition does not in any way limit the number of Windows Services you can have running!

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#46

Post by tomsaffell » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 12:19 AM UTC

calambrac wrote: post #30

tomsaffell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right in saying they haven't learned much from Vista, but I think your 'just have two versions' argument is overly simplistic. Today MSFT sells Windows Home/HP for $x to lots of OEMs, who don't like paying that price, but don't have much choice, as their users 'want' Windows (want='think they want, because they dont know anything else'). OEMs say to MSFT 'we wont pay $x for Windows on netbooks, it's too ex…

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropp…

> It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropping it on anything other than a netbook.

I'm no lawyer, so I'd love to have a lawyer wade in on this. But seeing as you asked, I'll take a stab: such a contract could be perceived as being anti-competitive, and MSFT are super sensitive to being perceived to be anti-competitive. A product that is demonstrably less good can be sold for less. But to sell the identical product at two different price points to the same company, that sounds to me (as a consumer) unfair, and anti-competition law is intended ultimately to protect consumers. (aside: MSFT had a nice solution before Win7: keep selling XP under certain netbook restrictions because it is a different product to vista, and a product that is better for netbooks/ULCPCs (and a liked product). I'm guessing they wont have as much luck selling Vista on special netbook /ULCPC only terms once Win 7 is out.. )

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#47

Post by calambrac » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 12:43 AM UTC

tomsaffell wrote: post #46

calambrac wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropp…

> It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropping it on anything other than a netbook. I'm no lawyer, so I'd love to have a lawyer wade in on this. But seeing as you asked, I'll take a stab: such a contract could be perceived as being anti-competitive, and MSFT are super sensitive to being perceived to be anti-competitive. A product that is demonstrably…

Um, they already have variable pricing for XP on netbooks.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23795 http://www.crn.com/software/212902058

(not the best sources, but they were the first hits. wsj reported it, too)

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#48

Post by mechanical_fish » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 1:43 AM UTC

GrandMasterBirt wrote: post #43

mechanical_fish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a user experience decision Maybe, but if so it's a bad branding decision. The problem is not only that the "improved user experience" looks too much like "deliberate crippling". It's also that they use the same name for the crippled version. They will be derided for that, and that bad PR is going to carry over to the entire Windows 7 brand. What are they thinking? Apple put a Mac OS with a "different user experi…

This is exactly right... MS is marketing it as windows 7 srtarter.. Should be windows notebook 1.0, hey 2.0 will come out at same time as windows 8. Cool. Even nicer if they changed the interface so the "netbook" feels like a netbook with a different ui and so on. This way nobody feels like they got the crummy windows and ms is milking em, they just got something different... And ms gets to sell dumbed down oses. Win…

I still feel that selling a crippled os like xp vs xp pro is just plain ol evil... Vista is worse

And that's another reason why this is a bad move: Microsoft has a history of this sort of thing -- their confusing product lineup has been the butt of jokes for years -- so the negative stories just write themselves.

Yes, I believe I was hinting that Microsoft should have released the netbook version of Win7 under another name. But then there's a different problem: It may be a bit late to introduce Windows Netbook 1.0, because they've already shipped thousands of netbooks with full-blown XP running on them. It's not a secret that you can run XP on a netbook. Are people going to trade "up" to Netbook 1.0 from XP? Only if it's actually better -- it's not enough just to change the name.

Once again, we see that one of Microsoft's most serious competitors is itself from ten years ago. I guess there are worse problems to have in the short run, but it's a serious problem when you're trying to move forward.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#49

Post by netsp » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 2:13 AM UTC

tomsaffell wrote: post #46

calambrac wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropp…

> It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropping it on anything other than a netbook. I'm no lawyer, so I'd love to have a lawyer wade in on this. But seeing as you asked, I'll take a stab: such a contract could be perceived as being anti-competitive, and MSFT are super sensitive to being perceived to be anti-competitive. A product that is demonstrably…

Tiered pricing is not seen as bad as it once was. Bill Gates is currently promoting it as an international development tool. I'm not sure what the laws are (or will be), but I think there could be work-arounds.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#50

Post by netsp » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 2:23 AM UTC

calambrac wrote: post #30

tomsaffell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right in saying they haven't learned much from Vista, but I think your 'just have two versions' argument is overly simplistic. Today MSFT sells Windows Home/HP for $x to lots of OEMs, who don't like paying that price, but don't have much choice, as their users 'want' Windows (want='think they want, because they dont know anything else'). OEMs say to MSFT 'we wont pay $x for Windows on netbooks, it's too ex…

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropp…

I guess that the answer to your first question relates to how much faith shareholders have in those contracts as a way to keep the average cost of Windows high. Milking a cash cow is not a win-lose, binary process. It is a matter of how much & how long. Tiered pricing would make me edgy.

The answer to your second question is lack of competitive pressure. Windows isn't ideal for netbooks. When they came out first, Linux looked like it might win. But it didn't. They kept netbooks windows. They did this without a fight, without a netbook strategy.

At this point, there are no new competitors & no problematic trend. They now have a netbook strategy. Flawed or not, this is better then no strategy. Why should shareholders be worried.