"Sorry, Microsoft, but consumers just don't like you"

An interesting editorial.

(although I don't agree with it in every point, it seems to be quite accurate in the generality of its conclusions IMO).

Some highlights:

...The problem that Microsoft faces in trying to market its products to consumers is that people are undeniably willing, almost to the point of being eager, to believe the worst about it...

...Perhaps the only major Microsoft brand that consumers have any strong, positive emotional connection with is Xbox...

...It’s hard to not feel sorry for Microsoft – or at least as sorry as one can feel for a company that’s announced record multi-billion dollar revenues...

...The company is evidently working hard to change its ways, and the speed at which it’s been able to effect those changes has been, frankly, stunning for a multinational corporation of its size...

...The tragedy, such as it is, is that consumers have no sympathy for Microsoft's plight, no appetite to give it the benefit of the doubt, no patience to wait for things to improve....

...Can Microsoft pull off the impossible, and accelerate its pace of change and the scale of its improvement even more? Can it improve so quickly and so significantly that it actually comes to exceed the expectations of consumers? Paul Thurrott probably put it best: "As Microsoft has shown again and again, you can't count out a firm that does its best work when under fire."...

 

"...Of course it's a rough ride.

Writing miles of code isn't easy.

Making comments and swaying opinions on blogs is.

I give them credit for pushing ahead, persevering and never giving up..."

Author.

 

they better be on top of their games because a project like Ubuntu is being very pro-active going after the home and business market.

competition is good for everybody.
especially since there are few players in that market.

 

I dont think bill gates will lose any sleep over ubuntu somehow.

 

Ubuntu just scored a major contract with China.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/03/ubuntu-to-become-the-official-os-of-china

there's no mention of much money was involved but i'd take a guess it's a whole lot!

 

MS is a snail, that's part of the problem. They're slow in just about everything. The other problem was pointed out in the article. Windows is not "fun", it's not "exciting". All most do when another Windows release arrives is discuss the security differences between this one and the one it replaced, and start shopping for newer hardware. Metro was the first time in a long time that security was not the focus of the discussion, yet the discussion of Metro was more negative than positive.

I doubt I'll get too many arguments when I say Windows pretty much sucks. No, actually it sucks hard. Consumers and corporations are all but locked into it, how can that make them love it? Sure, you can spend double or triple the amount of cash on Apple products, and some do. Don't want to do that? Locked into Windows. Of course, we could argue that Linux is an option...but it's really not one for the majority of people...so yeah, locked into Windows. It's hard to change that as well, because we've had years and years to do everything based on the fact we're using MS products. Office files for sure.

I do admit it's quite funny that the public is so forgiving of Google when they do naughty things, considering they arguably have far more to gain and more power to abuse consumer data and such. MS does something stupid and it's article and opinion after article and opinion for weeks.


@Moontan: I don't know about the money either, but I can only assume that China will be saving a lot more cash with this move.

 

It does suck right now, and it would appear that it will continue to suck for some time in the future. The monopoly situation is difficult. No doubt. I agree that Macs are too expensive, and Linux, although cool, still doesn't seem to be a mainstream solution or alternative.

But... I do believe that if MS continues like this, and alienates even more business and home users, that SOME form of competition will emerge. People will take just so much... and when that point is reached, I believe something will happen to change things.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for MS now, because they won't give us what we want? Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

 

And what exactly do you want? And why?

Most people who dislike MS don't even know the answer for such simple questions.

 

Eh, people will keep eating whatever they're fed as long as it's convenient for them. That's a sad thing to have to say, but it's been proven time after time. Quite honestly I don't think consumers known what they want. Sure, you could list a few things here yourself that you'd like, but you aren't "consumers" simply just one person with preferences. I think as a whole that consumers just buy Windows because it's both required, no questions asked, for what they do and, even more so, because it's what store shelves are lined with. When I go into an actual brick and mortar place, what I see is a Mac or two grouped together with about 200 Windows desktops and laptops. You want Linux you head over to the tablets and phones.

 

These days I think the struggle between Microsoft, Google and Apple can be summarized like this:

1) Apple creates new necessities for the consumers and charge expensive to satisfy them in order to lead the elitist market.

2) Google gives room for cheap ways to satisfy such new necessities in order to lead the popular market.

3) Microsoft strives to more satisfactorily address the new necessities and charge the most fair price to satisfy them, but the average human IQ is 100, so almost nobody can see that (too much variables to take into consideration!).

 

Actually here is how I personally see it:

1. Apple is out of ideas, and still charges people like it's still the "cool kid" offering what consumers have never had before.

2. Google is quickly becoming "everything". A search engine, browser, email provider, office suite, ISP, map service..you name it, they're doing it. And they're doing it for data, data that is more valuable in the long run than all the gold in the world.

3. Outside of Windows, MS is a "These guys are doing it, let's do it too" company. MS needs to be now what Apple was in 2000/2001.

 

At this particular moment, if I was buying a new desktop or laptop, I want Windows with NO METRO, period.

Why? Because Metro is totally unnecessary, useless, and in the way on any non-touch machine.

THIS (the above) is what people want, it's why the public hates 8 and is why the marketplace is so dissatisfied with 8.

Nobody needs that (should I say) crap on a non-touch desktop or laptop.

My question to MS is: Why can't you give me what I want? Or better yet, I guess I should say, Why WON'T you give me what I want?

If they can't answer that and satisfy the public majority, then someone else will emerge to fill the demand and displace MS in that market. That would be tough for MS, because they won't succeed in the mobile market either.

This is a bit of a rant I guess, but wow.. Come one folks.

 

I think your vision is quite accurate too.

Take for example the case of smartwatches.

Smartwatches, in just a few months, are going to be the next hot thing in tech market according to several reports.

So, where is my frustration? Well, my frustration is that MS big guys seem to think that "a lot of young people don't really wear watches."

Heck, what's your problem? You need to create necessities.

Microsoft R&D is the best one out there!

Why can't they release really cool smartwatches (but listen to the designers, please, don't release whatever the basement nerds build, )?

More importantly, why can't they release such devices before Apple announces overpriced ones and link their name in the popular consciousness to a (lol) "new revolution"?

Microsoft needs to take more risks. More risks, not less risks.

 

There are many people who hate or simply dislike Microsoft because they live in the past and they heard some bad things of the past - from the 3.11 and Win95 era. These are all gone now and Microsoft and its products are a lot better and dramatically changed.
For business reasons Microsoft has given too much rights to 3rd parties to touch into the OS and change it with their products, this causes sometimes troubles to the OS and they are visible for end users. But end users have IQ less than 80 and they can't understand where the problem actually comes from. Windows and Office are excellent with default configuration - problems always(very often) appear from 3rd parties.

 

I see, however the way you attribute "values" or "names" is of little help.

Detailed descriptions are of more help than adjectives.

What are the exact shortcomings of Modern UI in your opinion?

What it has that makes it "undesirable", "useless" or "in the way", in your opinion?

 

WH, all this has been discussed endlessly, both here, and on other forums. Everyone knows what the issues are. Let's not beat it to death here again. If you haven't seen it all yet, then I suggest you do some serious reading on various forums for a while.

MS knows very well what's wrong, and what people don't like. They knew it when the 8 beta testers told them, but they still wouldn't listen. If they keep persisting with that attitude, there probably will be consequences when someone else steps in to fill the demand that they aren't satisfying...

 

Try the Win 98 through XP era..namely security which wasn't really even an issue during the 3.11 to 95 era. The reason 3rd parties have had to "touch into the OS" is because, by default, the OS is/was poor. 3rd party security vendors had to dig their claws in because Windows is a behemoth with nooks and crannies and there wasn't much else they could do to protect the OS.

As for other 3rd parties, unless Windows had come with its own programs for doing basic tasks beyond calculating simple math problems and...Paint....pray tell what were end users to do? Wish a PDF reader into existence in Windows 7 and below? MS is just now getting its act together with better built-in security and normal, every day tools to do work with...and they couldn't even do that without screwing up the UI and basically forcing hardware vendors into making touch-based systems that nobody asked for or needed outside of tablets/smartphones in the home market.

 

I was interested in the detailed description of your opinion, as you are the one who exposed it in this thread.

But it's OK; if you don't want the discussion, let's not have it.

 

Yeah, I don't see the point. Let's move on....

 

Help my personal research and offer detailed descriptions (not only adjectives) of how exactly the UI was "screwed up" in your opinion.

The hardware vendors were going to make touch-based systems without Windows (Google is now combining Chrome OS with Android!) if Microsoft didn't take the direction that everyone else is taking.

And some of them may take the non-Windows (Chrome OS + Android) route anyway.

 

it's not hard to tame Windows 8.

uninstall all Metro apps first.
i like my Metro menu to only have the Desktop app.

then install a PDF viewer and an image viewer.
so you don't drop in and out of Desktop into Metroland just to look at an image or PDF.

if that is still not enough you can install Classic Shellor some other program like that to make it even more to your taste.

 

moontan, this is true, any of us Wilders members can (I have) easily do that, but I think the point is, why should we have to? The absense of Metro (completely) would be so much cleaner and better. Let's face it, it's a mistake for any non-touch system.

 

Not their fault. Adobe simply didn't allow Microsoft the right to bundle a PDF Reader with Windows, until Windows 8.

BTW, the insane and ridiculous antitrust-related things used to cripple Windows more than everything else.

Microsoft lived almost a decade with worries of making Windows too good and facing antitrust problems.

Only recently, it was allowed more liberty.

 

I think it's a terrible mistake to design exclusively for non-touch systems when the whole screen industry is adding touch technology in their offers with plans to make it an universal feature.

 

Oh lord, Wild, haven't we ridden this merry-go-round a couple of times before? I don't intend to try to get you over to my side, but just hear me out. Before Windows 8, how many touch-based systems outside of smartphones and tablets were home users buying? Where precisely was the need for touch in the home? Home use has to be considered here because they aimed Windows 8 right at it. They didn't say "Well, this is for mobile devices and console use only". No, they came with "This is how we roll now, deal with it." Nobody asked for it, nobody needed it, MS just decided they were going to play Google for a bit and decide where they thought everyone should go (Google is wonderful at this game).


I wouldn't use ChromeOS in a positive light considering their Chromebooks are selling less than Windows 8 has. I'd need to have you explain to me why hardware vendors were going to start this new touch-based phase without Windows 8 and without taking tablets and smartphones and special usage into consideration. Because from the information I've always gotten, Windows 8 came first and was thrown into the laps of said vendors who scrambled to come up with new screens and such.

Fair point in regards to PDF reading, though my point still stands in the argument in which that statement was included. End users had no choice but to rely on 3rd parties.