Microsoft to Manufacturers: Its your fault Windows 8 crash landed!

[Zaap]

Originally Posted by Sleepingforest

Well, that's not quite accurate. The vast majority of the decision making process for "what drink to buy?" lies in the price, while the display area for the drink is pretty negligible.

Actually I think his analogy was pretty accurate. Coke didn't raise the price of 'New Coke' vs. classic they simply made a product that was established and well liked 'different' enough that it pissed off a lot of people and was subsequently a huge flop. Change for the sake of change wasn't the future of Coke, it was bad business.

And though it's a separate topic, display area for soft drinks is a huge part of their business. Coke and Pepsi both pay huge bucks to get premium display areas in large grocery chains, as well as lock out other makers.

[Nothinman]

Originally Posted by VirtualLarry

There is a company, that tried changing their formula from something that was a long-time best seller, just like Microsoft did with Windows 8.

That product was called "New Coke".

And we all know how that turned out, didn't we?

Edit: More in line with the topic, that example would be if Coca-Cola blamed their retailers for a "not attractive enough display" for lack of sales of New Coke. Rather than admitting that they screwed up by changing their sucessful formula.

The problem is that there are tons of different kinds of pop out there and it's dead simple for someone to drink Pepsi or RC Cola instead. Switching to another OS is a much bigger task and lots of people are convinced that they need Windows (even if an older version for the time being) whether that's the case or not. That gives MS a lot more control over the situation and they really don't have to capitulate to the vocal minority because they know they'll mostly use it anyway.

[VirtualLarry]

Originally Posted by Nothinman

The problem is that there are tons of different kinds of pop out there and it's dead simple for someone to drink Pepsi or RC Cola instead. Switching to another OS is a much bigger task and lots of people are convinced that they need Windows (even if an older version for the time being) whether that's the case or not. That gives MS a lot more control over the situation and they really don't have to capitulate to the vocal minority because they know they'll mostly use it anyway.

Linux is free, like tap water.

[Eug]

Not only do I not know anyone who has "upgraded" to Windows 8, people just aren't even asking me about it. That's a first for a new Windows version. Every time MS releases a new OS, I get lots co-workers asking me about it. This time no. It seems that consumers just don't care, at least in my circle of work acquaintances.

I have a few geek friends who have mentioned it... just to say they just don't understand its point on desktops or even laptops and that they won't be getting it.

Actually, it's probably a good thing my non-geek acquaintances are not asking me about it, because I don't really care enough myself to investigate it in depth. I've just played with a few Windows 8 devices in-store, and then gone back to my Win 7, OS X, iOS, and Android machines.

[power_hour]

Microsoft was stupid. They should have made it look and act like Windows 7. People want familiarity, consistency and compatibility. The GUI is the problem and they know it.

They need to bring out a new version, call it Windows 8SE, slap the Windows 7 GUI on it and show people how fucking easy it is to use.

Steve, you can send me a check for the Marketing advice

[Nothinman]

Originally Posted by VirtualLarry

Linux is free, like tap water.

Really? I wasn't aware...

But like I said, lots of people believe they need Windows even if it's not true and they could get by with Ubuntu or a Chromebook.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by power_hour

Microsoft was stupid. They should have made it look and act like Windows 7. People want familiarity, consistency and compatibility. The GUI is the problem and they know it.

They need to bring out a new version, call it Windows 8SE, slap the Windows 7 GUI on it and show people how fucking easy it is to use.

Steve, you can send me a check for the Marketing advice

How does this help them with their non-existent market share in tablets?

(It helps them keep their market share in non-tablets by not pissing off people, but that clearly wasn't a priority for them)

[Ravynmagi]

I really like Windows 8. But I understand it's a big change and that is hard for a lot of people. So I can go along with customer disinterest being a factor in Windows 8's slow adoption.

But I also think Microsoft is right. When Windows 8 first came out, the selection of touch screen laptops and tablets was horrible. Manufactures didn't seem ready to take advantage of a key selling point of Windows 8, touch.

Fortunately the tablets and touch screen laptops are starting to show up in somewhat better varieties now. But it was a pretty slow start with the touch hardware.

[PliotronX]

Ehhh I wouldn't say Microsoft is right in the slightest. I know they're trying to evolve with the hardware but 8 has no redeeming qualities as a desktop OS whatsoever and what are most of us putting 8 on? Desktops/notebooks. It should not have been released for x86 period.

[Ravynmagi]

Originally Posted by PliotronX

Ehhh I wouldn't say Microsoft is right in the slightest. I know they're trying to evolve with the hardware but 8 has no redeeming qualities as a desktop OS whatsoever and what are most of us putting 8 on? Desktops/notebooks. It should not have been released for x86 period.

I realize everyone has to hate on Windows 8, but not sure it's entirely relevant regarding the lack of Windows 8 touch hardware before the holidays. This is what I'm saying Microsoft was correct on in regard to this article, there was very little of it.

I was shopping for a Windows 8 tablet before Christmas and the only one even listed by local retailers like Staples or Best Buy was the Samsung Ativ Smart PC and it was always out of stock. An Acer W510 was available online, but also scarce. I believe the selection of touch laptops and ultrabooks were also dismal.

I certainly won't argue this is the only reason Windows 8 isn't doing better (and I don't really know how well it's selling anyway), but I think more hardware and Windows 8 could have been sold had their been more touch enabled hardware available.

[lowrider69]

Originally Posted by Nothinman

Or if Win8 ends up doing decently history may show that AOL was ahead of their time. It's all perspective and dependent on who ends up writing the history books.

I agree. I took the plunge and downloaded the Windows 8 Pro upgrade for $40 yesterday after using the enterprise evaluation for several months. I'll most likely install it in a VM and keep using 7 as my main OS. I still don't like metro (too bad I'm still calling it that) but I figured for $40 I'll fuck around with it some more. I have to admit there's a few things in 8 that are sort of cool, but not enough to make me want to use it all day.

[wirednuts]

Originally Posted by Eug

Not only do I not know anyone who has "upgraded" to Windows 8, people just aren't even asking me about it. That's a first for a new Windows version. Every time MS releases a new OS, I get lots co-workers asking me about it. This time no. It seems that consumers just don't care, at least in my circle of work acquaintances.

I have a few geek friends who have mentioned it... just to say they just don't understand its point on desktops or even laptops and that they won't be getting it.

Actually, it's probably a good thing my non-geek acquaintances are not asking me about it, because I don't really care enough myself to investigate it in depth. I've just played with a few Windows 8 devices in-store, and then gone back to my Win 7, OS X, iOS, and Android machines.

its not even the fact that the metro ui sucks.. for me its the fact that win7 is still awesome, and its transparent to what i do on my computers so why would i want to f with that?

its like when xp matured and everyone had it. there wasnt much reason to upgrade until security became a huge concern. by then, thankfully, win7 came out and it was a no brainer by then because performance was on par even with old systems.

windows 8 doesnt bring anything to the table, even if you put the classic desktop on it. i think not upgrading the visual style of media center didnt help at all either... i would have easily bought win8 if it had a new media center.

[power_hour]

Originally Posted by VivienM

How does this help them with their non-existent market share in tablets?

(It helps them keep their market share in non-tablets by not pissing off people, but that clearly wasn't a priority for them)

Windows 8 / 2012 have some serious improvements.
The guts have improved but the interface is ass.

So to gain market share in tablet market they screw themselves in desktop and server? This one size fits all is stupid.

[BrightCandle]

Windows 8 now has the same market share as the entirety of Mac OS. It did that in 4 months. Might not be what was expected of it but its been widely slated everywhere.

I am more than a week in now with it and I am happy. I have no major issues and I don't find I need start8 and I can be productive. Some of the improvements are really good, well worth having.

[pyjujiop]

Originally Posted by wirednuts

these days though, fricken android isnt too far off from a full operating system. and it runs hundreds of times more efficiently. im sure google will continue to push for a rival to desktop windows, and something tells me they have a real good chance at competing.

Android should be close to being a full operating system, and should have been all along, seeing as how it's based on Linux. As far as it being more efficient....no comment.