Thursday, November 15, 2007 |
12:25 - Driving sales ... away
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
|
(top) |
I don't generally make a habit of linking to John C. Dvorak columns, because they're usually deliberately off-base, designed that way so as to get attention (he's explicitly confirmed as much). But it seems clear that at least for the first half of this one, all he's doing is reporting the facts.
Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around the number of Macs in use.
How did this happen? And what’s going to happen next? Does Microsofthave a Plan B? A number of possibilities come to mind, and these things must be considered by the company itself.
So what went wrong with Vista in the first place? Let’s start off with the elephant in the room. The product was overpriced from the outset. Why was it so expensive? What was special about it? All the cool and promised features of the original vision of Longhorn were gutted simply because it was beyond Microsoft’s capability to implement those features.
This failure to deliver what was promised—even after several delays in the product’s release, by the way—did nothing to excite anyone. It made the company look bad. It directly resulted in a no-confidence vote that was manifested in a lackluster reception and low sales. Microsoft should have scrapped the project two years ago and instead patched XP until it could deliver something hot.
To make things worse, there are too many versions. Exactly what is the point of that? Don’t we all just want Vista Ultimate? The other versions seem like a way to maybe save money for some users who cannot afford to get the real thing. You can be certain this version glut results only in complaints about what each variation is missing.
These complaints amount to a textual distillation of Apple's recent ads ("PR Lady", "Choose a Vista", "Party's Over"), to the point where drawing attention to this sort of thing almost looks like poor sportsmanship. I mean, it's not that one can really blame Apple for taking hold of this opportunity and worrying it like a chew toy; but damn, this is too easy.
But as an Apple partisan, I have to echo Gruber's genuine calls for a real iPhone competitor, a real iPod competitor, a real OS X competitor: without those things, Apple's entries stagnate and lose their way. It's no fun if there's nothing to chase.
Then again, though, I have to imagine that a lot of Leopard's more questionable features—Stacks, the translucent menu bar, the wonky new Dock—are the products of a company that's been watching Redmond's every move a little too closely... like someone driving so close to the car ahead of him, trying to read his bumper sticker, that when the light turns red he ends up plowing into him.
Dvorak's recommendations for Microsoft to salvage the situation sound pretty half-baked—their own Mac OS X-esque all-new OS? Surely Dvorak knows that's not an option for backward-compatibility-is-king Microsoft, otherwise they'd have done it long ago—but in all honesty I don't know what would be a better suggestion. ...Other than, of course, coming up with some genuinely new, innovative, useful features and delivering them in a timely and affordable manner.
|
|