Finally, they're consolidating all their incoherent branding nonsense. As a PC user I'm wasn't sure of how much more of this I could take. "Windows Live Office Live for Games for Windows Live. Lets not talk about the "Windows Update" & "Microsoft Update" or "Windows 7 Starter", "Windows 7 Home Basic", "Windows 7 Home Premium", "Windows 7 Professional", "Windows 7 Enterprise", "Windows 7 Ultimate". Office Live, Live.com, Windows Live, Games for Windows Live, Windows Live Mail.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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."
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.
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).
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.
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.
>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!"
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).
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)
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.