Is Bill Gates' Return Good for Microsoft and Good for You?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you on the licensing fee issue. The success of both iOS and Google OSes has created new platform in which the customers are getting used to not paying for the OS, and the reduced cost on the devices as a result. While there is good justifications for a company is entitled to charge for its OS, the new platforms are challenging this business approach. Microsoft needs to rethink their mobile pricing strategy. And while the other platforms start to erode into their desktop platforms as well, they will soon have to rethink the desktop OS pricing strategy as well. Time is ticking and they really have to turn around the situation soon.
Click to expand...
You know what? Microsoft can keep charging for their OSs... But not 80-250 dollars! When the price for Windows 8 was 40, I had no problem going to the store when I needed to buy a copy, and just buy one. At 80, it is just too painful for home customers (which are the people that feed into the corporate environment, not to mention the prevalence of BYOD). Charge the CORRECT amount for the OS, and there is no problem...
 
"Someone with a bold agenda doesn't need the old guard looking over his shoulder."Yes that someone does. You can't move forward if you kick your base to the curb.
 
"I agree with you on the licensing fee issue. The success of both iOS and Google OSes has created new platform in which the customers are getting used to not paying for the OS, and the reduced cost on the devices as a result. While there is good justifications for a company is entitled to charge for its OS, the new platforms are challenging this business approach. Microsoft needs to rethink their mobile pricing strategy. And while the other platforms start to erode into their desktop platforms as well, they will soon have to rethink the desktop OS pricing strategy as well. Time is ticking and they really have to turn around the situation soon. "Apple produces Hardware and charges a ridiculous amount for that hardware to cover the cost of the operating system. Microsoft DOES NOT MAKE COMPUTERS, just an Operating System. Someone with a stout business mind explain how you will pay the developers when you don't charge for the only thing you make?
 
Gates is there because of politics, a marketing way, more dust before the eyes. He is not going to innovate anything, neither did Ballmer. The guys at R&D are trying to do that(fail much but still), and noone knows their names.
 
Dang, Bill Gates has aged quite a bit.Anyways, I'm glad Bill Gates is back and I hope he and the new ceo will change Microsoft from the mess it is in now.
 


That's exactly why it's a poor business model and why Microsoft is scrambling to transition into other areas before it's too late. Most people in their right mind are not going to pay $100 to upgrade to Windows 8 from 7. Hell nearly a third of Windows users don't see the need to upgrade beyond XP.

Not only that, but licensing fees are killing the OEMs. I'm not sure how anyone expects OEMs to make products to compete with those using open source operating systems when they have to tack on $50-100 worth of licensing fees.

Finally, the point about Apple charging high prices is silly because there are plenty of Windows based Ultrabooks that are in the same price range. A big selling point for a Mac over a high-end Windows machine right now would be free upgrades for life.

Is Microsoft going to make Surface owners pay for Windows 9 when it comes out? If so, Android and iOS owners are going be laughing all the way to the bank on that one.

 


Not sure what you're getting at with the JD because I own a Le Pan TC 970 Android tablet and, when I bought it, the company producing it had promised an update to Honeycomb within a few months. The abruptly changed their minds and it's stuck with 2.2 forever - though, a few intrepid Le Pan users cracked their tablets and managed to get an unofficial ICS working on the things, despite the company's claims that the hardware couldn't handle it. I've heard many, many accounts of people using Android devices that are not able to update to newer versions for a host of reasons. Conversely, I updated my Surface RT from RT 8 to RT 8.1 free of charge. I'm not expecting it to continue to Windows 9, though I DO fully expect OS updates to continue for it, keeping in line with MS's track record of... What is it - 10 years support for old OS's? Makes me wonder - if you have a Honeycomb device that you don't want to upgrade, do you expect that Google will continue to support it up to ten years down the road? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

Old hardware doesn't always run newer OS's. This is hardly new, and hardly a Windows only issue. I'm not sure if You're trying to make a different point here but, just to be clear, there are more than a few owners of Android devices who aren't laughing at Windows tablet or phone owners over OS's that can't be updated - because their Android is stuck where it is too.




This is only part of the story. Two things...

One, while it's true that there are PC ultrabooks that cost every bit as much a mac Ultrabooks - more, in fact - you're not mentioning that you can find non-Mac ultrabooks with rough hardware parity to Mac ultrabooks for several hundred dollars less. With Macs, you get what you get, and there is no shopping around for that less expensive Mac ultrabook, whereas with the non-Mac equivalent ultrabook, if you don't like the price of model X, you just buy from a competitor that charges less. Mentioning that there are PC ultrabooks that cost just as much without mentioning that many with hardware parity cost substantially less is a bit cheeky, don't you think?

Second, it's true that Mac OS upgrades are free, that is only part of the story. You buy a Windows machine, the OS you get has ten years support - or more, if XP is any indicator. Conversely, if you happen to have a machine that runs Snow Leopard and for some reason don't want to upgrade, support for that OS ended in 2013 when it had a 2009 release. LOTS of people prefer the OS's they have to the newest release and, with a Mac, they offer those new OS's to you "free," but they don't support their old ones like MS does. Those "free" OS updates make up for Apple's deficiency in long term support for their existing OS's, but it does force a user to upgrade if they want continued support.

The rest of your post raises a lot of relatively true points but, as is your style and your bias, the tone and wording is somewhat exaggerated. Stuff like "Not only that, but licensing fees are killing the OEMs" just make good points harder to take seriously, since many OEMs are still making substantial profits. Less agenda, more focus on the generally excellent analysis.
 


I honestly don't think that's true at all. With Kit Kat, Google actually made the operating system run better on lower spec machines. Chrome OS devices will always have the latest version no matter what. The software isn't getting any heavier. Also, with Android, you can flash any ROM you want to any supported device for free. There are people out there running 4-5 year old smartphones with Kit Kat on them.

Also, it's not just Android. Hardware is getting to the point where it really doesn't need to be upgraded at all. My now almost 7 year old notebook that was originally running Vista is perfectly capable of running Windows 8. People are going to expect having the latest software because their hardware isn't going out of date as fast. I remember back when you upgraded your PC every 1-2 years. Now it's about every 5-6.

I really don't understand the point about people not wanting to upgrade to the latest version when the upgrade is free. The only example I've ever heard of where that has happened is people staying with Win 7 over 8 because the UI was so bad and you have to pay. I don't know of any Android, Mac, Chrome, or Linux user that would want to stay on an older version of an OS for any length of time.

Also, if you'll look at the specs and prices of Windows tablets and notebooks vs Android tablets and Chrome notebooks, you'll see where the cost of Windows is making it hard for OEMs. The fact that so many OEMs are now producing Google products is just proof. Look at Dell and HP. Their most recent product launches have all been Chrome or Android devices. Rumor is that Samsung is dropping Windows entirely. Sonly just sold Vaio. The only thing keeping Acer alive is the Chromebook line. The list goes on.


 
But it is true JD, whether you think it or not. Look up the model Le Pan TC970 and you'll see exactly what I described - a promised upgrade to Android 3.0 that never came. I just Binged (yes, I use Bing - laugh it up) "android phone won't get update" and I see headline after headline about relatively recent handsets that won't get Android version updates any more. Is this entirely Google's fault? Nope. Google has actually taken significant steps to mitigate this issue, but it still is a simple truth of owning some Android devices - that you won't be able to update them past a certain point. What's more, unlike a Windows device, I seriously doubt you'll get 10 years of updates for whatever platform you're stuck with. It's a given and take - you're more likely to get frequent OS updates on an Android device, even if some devices get left in the cold for this, but also less likely to get long term support if you happen to like the OS you're on, since it's expected you update. If you happen to own a device that won't get future Android version updates, you're getting the worst of both worlds.

As for not understanding the point about people not wanting the update, I'm generally with you there - but it's a fact of computer users. Whether it's a power user who wants to keep an older, lighter OS that they like (see: many users here who swear by Windows XP) or a less tech savvy user who just doesn't want change, there are lots of people who do not like to update their OS's. Heck, if Windows 9 moves away from the Windows 8 schema, fans of Windows 8 like myself probably won't want to update. You like the constant stream of updates? Good for you. Don't push that inclination on everyone, or assume that everyone wants that.

Your points are generally excellent and say a lot of things I think many on here miss in their MS fanboyism... MS's corporate culture, Bill Gates' at best questionable status as innovator, and it's obvious race to get away from a business model that won't support them as industry leader any more... But, again, I think you're showing a bit of personal bias. If you do even a *bit* of research, you'll see lots of Android users stuck unable to upgrade their OS, and you'll find lots of people not wanting to update their OS's for many reasons. These are facts of computer users.
 
Also, you're right about some OEM's, but some are still doing fine with. Asus, for instance, is still making oodles of money even in a contracting PC - and particularly windows PC - market. Yes that market is contracting, but more than a few OEMs still make a vast majority of their money off of Windows PCs in spite of the contractions and in spite of licensing fees for the OS.

Think of it like this... When wireless keyboards became good, cheap, and popular, the wired keyboard Markey initially suffered a big decline and many who made them either stopped doing so or went out of business. In short, the market contracted, and some hardware manufacturers rightly jumped ship. Would it then be accurate to say "Wireless keyboards are killing wired keyboard makers! How can wired keyboard makers compete?". The assumption being that demand for one, even competition from one, necessarily means that there is no demand for the other. Not the case in keyboards or OS's, and wired keyboards are still doing dandy.

Windows finally has some legitimate competition and that competition is stealing some of the demand or Windows machines, but shrinking demand does NOT even come close to equalling no demand. Once the fat is trimmed off of the industry and we see how much demand remains for Windows PCs, we'll see quite healthy OEMs providing some people what they want - Windows PCs. The fact that anyone in their right mind would pay Apple's jacked up prices strongly suggests that the $100 license fee - and, in fact, it is less for mass buying OEMs - isn't going to make the Windows device non-competitive. If MS wants to remain in control of the entire PC world though, they had better do something fast, but even if they don't, OEMs will still be able to make good money selling Windows devices.

In short, Windows OEMs are still competing just fine, and saying that you can't see how they can compete and that the license fee is killing all the OEM's is just sky is falling exaggeration.
 


I understand what you're saying Steve. It makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of the blame goes on the OEMs as the code for Android is certainly available to them, it just doesen't make sense from a business standpoint for them to support devices long term in that way. About the only way to get around that would be to let Google handle all of the software updates directly similar to the way Apple does and the way Chrome OS works.

I think we got a bit away from my overall point. If I remember right, you have a Surface RT. Say John Doe bought an iPad at the exact same time. Say iOS 8 and Windows 9 both come out this fall. John gets the iOS 8 upgrade free and instantly, but Microsoft asks you for $100 for the Windows 9 upgrade. How do you feel? What do you do?

A buyer trying to decide between a Surface and an iPad is going to take that into consideration. Or one who buys the Surface is going to be pretty miffed when he realizes he doesn't get the latest software version if he is used to getting it on his older Apple devices.

Microsoft relies on the fact that the Windows device owners are going to upgrade to 9 when the time comes. If they don't, Microsoft is going to be in trouble. What about people buying those $250 tablets? Are they really expected to pay $100 for Windows 9 when it comes out next year, nearly half of what the device cost in the first place?

My guess is that those people won't pay and stay on what they have. What does that mean for Microsoft's long term outlook in terms of revenue? The business model just isn't going to last. They know this, which is why they are trying to sell hardware and services now. That's a good thing. It's actually one of the few things Ballmer realized, although maybe too late.




 
I see what you're saying and it has a lot of merit. You're right - how will I feel when Windows 9 comes out and I get stuck with a big bill to update to it, should I want to? Not very good and that will be a point in favour of me going to an Android or iOS product. Many will jump ship in light of this.

It's a two-sided issue though. Conversely, as you'll see in the post I made after the initial one, I like Windows 8. If Windows 9 comes out and they've gone away from the less popular Windows 8 model and back to something a bit more traditional, I likely won't want to update. Here's the thing though - I get many years of guaranteed support for Windows 8.x. Contrast this to my girlfriend's iPhone with the new iOS... Apple gives you free upgrades, but doesn't support old versions nearly as long as MS does - see my reference to Snow Leopard having under four years of support. That being the case, what if she keeps her current phone and doesn't want to update it? She'll get a few years out of it and then then she's forced to upgrade to continue getting updates. As I'm sure you've heard, the new look/feel/etc of iOS is very hit or miss, and lots of people don't want to upgrade. How long will that older version of iOS that people like continue to be supported? I doubt as long as a competing Windows product will be. The Surface owner may be miffed when they don't get Windows 9 for free, but there are going to be plenty of miffed Apple/Android company when their OS of choice stops getting supported long before the Surface owner's product does.

I don't think MS's business model's existence is at stake here... I think it's more a case of, if MS sticks with it, can they realistically expect to hold the lion's share of the market like they classically have? The answer that is smacking us all in the face is an obvious no. But, even if MS were to keep doing what they are doing, I seriously doubt they wouldn't have decades of life left in them as an entity a bit more like Apple. Simply put, there is a demand for Windows that isn't going to go away even if it is the costlier, "heavier" option, when light and cheap OS's rule the market at large. MS's choice isn't "change or die" it's "change or accept a much smaller portion of the market than you currently do." We both know they're desperately trying to make their whole approach more lightweight, so it's obvious they don't want to slip into second place, even if they arguably already have when you look at tablets/phones as PCs.

And yeah, as I said, the lack of device updates really isn't entirely Google's fault - but it's part of their "it's free, anyone can do what they want with it" approach coming back to bite them in the arse. It ain't Google's fault that Samsung isn't making the update to Android 4.X available for phone model Y, but Google is at fault for choosing a software model that lets Samsung pick and choose if they want to offer updates. PC makers always made their PCs relatively Windows agnostic, while a lot of Android OEM's want you to be forced to buy a new device even if you really shouldn't have to - so they hold back perfectly possible updates because they don't get any money for offering them. Google is attempting to deal with this but, as long as OEM's have the control over Android that they do - something inherent to the way Android has been done since day one - there will always be devices unnecessarily left out of the upgrade wagon.

Much of this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are ups and downs to all of these different approaches at hardware and OS's and such, and different approaches will fit for different peoples' interests. In a way it's an exciting time because there are different approaches that are actually making an impact, rather than the previous "one Windows fits all" environment we had.
 
The new navigation is a new "feature" in 2014. Before that it was one article per page. Not sure why it was changed and this new method does seem annoying.
Click to expand...
I hate it, too. I find that I sometimes miss the comments section while scrolling down, and have to backtrack to the right spot, and double check that I'm opening comments for the right article. If they're going to go with this new "mobile ready" layout, at least have some easily discernable borders between each article, including its comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom