With everyone’s fears about multiple versions of Windows 7 confirmed today, the question on everybody’s lips is “why?” After all, they say themselves that they’re focusing on just the two main versions (Home Premium and Professional), and they must know, if not admit, that the various tiers of Vista hurt it badly. So why release these different versions?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but I don’t know. Nobody does for sure, though it probably has something to do with inertia. A body that’s blowing it tends to continue blowing it, and it was too much to expect that Microsoft would remove all the suck from Vista in one swoop. But this particular problem could have been solved with a minimum of fuss. Here’s how.
First, let’s just acknowledge that there’s a reason Microsoft does this many-editions thing. They serve such an enormous market that they have to have a product for an incredibly diverse clientele, which nonetheless divides essentially into three user classes: home, business, and big business. It makes sense to have different capabilities for different users and situations — that’s what modular computing is all about. But it doesn’t mean you have to flood the market with confusingly-named lookalike OSes.
Can you imagine a Microsoft hot dog stand where they use the same wiener and bun in every hot dog, but if you want relish, or Sriracha sauce, you have to call it something completely different, and the menu has every configuration of hot dog included, with price? They could just have “Hot dog, $2″ on the menu, and then “relish, 40¢ extra” and “Sriracha, 50¢ extra” on there. Yes, there’s a reason every hot dog stand does it like that. Because if they set it up like Microsoft does, people would get confused and go get something simple, like an apple (which could represent the obvious).
The workaround sounds simple, and it is: just offer one version. I call it “Windows 7,” though they’d probably add something to it. Here’s what it includes: everything that goes into Home Premium, since that’s the first “complete” version that isn’t crippled or ugly. It’d be priced like that “base” version as well. It’s all on a DVD or flash drive of course, and when you install it, it asks you whether you want the eye candy, the extra drivers — the fixins. Don’t need ‘em? Won’t run on your stripped down machine? Click no and move on. Broken “Starter” version and questionable “Home Basic” edition removed from the lineup.
What about business users, who need mobility and security apps? Sell a suite of programs, like everyone else in the world! Business Connectivity Suite, $60 (package deal with Office!). Corporate Security Suite, $35 (special on orders over 1000 copies). Is that so hard? That way you have several truly distinct products, with easy-to-understand price points, and no one feels like they’re being ripped off or buying an incomplete version of the OS. Hell, Microsoft will probably gain sales from people buying these suites separately just in case.
Windows 7 is a promising OS, and I look forward to using it. But Microsoft’s marketing strategy leaves much to be desired, seeing as it’s already failed. One product. One price. Relish 40¢ extra.
Its really hard to believe that they are really going for multiple versions.
I like MS cause many of has have joba cause of there products but is there no one sitting looking at this kind of stuff. Keep it simple stupid.
This time Microsoft is really going to screw up on Windows 7. They have added all Ultimate edition features in Home Premium and the upgrade will just unlock the features (which even a patch can).
More: http://jashsayani.com/windows-7-to-get-3-versions/
I think this makes sense. I can understand the idea of having extra features for business/enterprise users, but how much does it really matter if MS includes those features (disabled if necessary) for consumer users? I mean, to some degree that’s what all these different versions are anyway, way? The same basic OS with different features enabled? So sell Windows 7 like you say, same OS on every system. Disable stuff like BitLocker. Does it hurt MS if they sell every OS for $150 or $200 instead of one for $50 and one for $200 and one for $300?
Interesting article, but you failed to account for the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit hardware/software.
I personally have over 4GB of RAM and would hate to be constricted to a 32 bit operating system.
Mark
ok, so 2 versions ;)
Nonetheless, I think Bigg’s central point remains.
You better believe it does… It really is quite pathetic considering the massive amount of funding Microsoft has available to conduct marketing research.
Sadly though, those of us that actually understand and can relate to this article are in the minority NOT the majority. The masses could care less, really.
There is no real compelling reason why the 32bit and 64 bit editions cannot be included on the same media. It is in the current ultimate editions.
True! Though I don’t see any reason why a 64-bit version (soon to be the standard, I’m sure with so much new hardware) couldn’t ship on the same DVD. It’d be a simple matter for the installer to detect the capability.
Actually, the Vista Business/Ultimate versions did include a 64-bit DVD early on. They removed it because of low demand.
Ah – I didn’t know, having never installed Vista – heh. But that makes sense. 64-bit will be increasingly in demand over the next year, though – I’d bet they’ll see a serious need for it come launch time.
True, I own an original Vista Ultimate box, and it comes with 2 dvds, one for the 32-bit install, and another one for the 64-bit install (bought on jan 2008 at msft store)
Funny, back when Vista came out the whole confusion over a what windows to get next made me quit the while windows mess altogether and finally equip the entire office with Macs.
I am not the typical fanboy but I have to admit that I sleep much better since.
Apple manages to sell just 2 versions, OSX client and OSX server. 32bit, 64bit, etc. It can’t be that hard to get Windows 7 down to 2 client versions and a server version. I really don’t need Windows 7 Business Lite Extended version.
Apple sells 2 version because Apple’s hardware (and market share) is tight. Frankly selling multiple sku’s of the product is the way to go. If you capable of arguing the concept of multiple skus, you’re capable of researching the sku you will need.
Their hardware is “tight”? With PowerPC & intel, each in 32 bit & 64 bit? The very core of the computer is entirely different for PowerPC and x86. Multiple non-compatible processor architectures are about as different as hardware can get, and apple supports them on one disc. How is it different for Microsoft? The versions based on hardware are the most sensible of those in the line up (though they’re still mostly unnecessary) as the decision is obvious and unchanging.
Windows supports x86 and x86-64 and itanium (only in servers though). Each of them with many separate distributions. How many distributions of windows are there for standard PCs (as opposed to embedded systems, and excluding packages like essential business server):
Starter x86
Home Basic x86
Home Basic x64
Home Basic N x86
Home Basic N x64Home Premium x86
Home Premium x64
Business x86
Business x64
Business N x86
Business N x64
Enterprise x86
Enterprise x64
Ultimate x86
Ultimate x64
Server Standard x86
Server Standard x64
Server Standard x86 Without Hyper-V
Server Standard x64 Without Hyper-V
Server Enterprise x86
Server Enterprise x64
Server Enterprise x86 Without Hyper-V
Server Enterprise x64 Without Hyper-V
Server Datacenter x86
Server Datacenter x64
Server Datacenter x86 Without Hyper-V
Server Datacenter x64 Without Hyper-V
Web Server x86
Web Server x64
Storage Server x86
Storage Server x64
Windows Server for Itanium
What releases should there be?
Windows 7
Windows 7 Server
Windows 7 Itanium Server. (probably not released into stores though)
Windows 7 Starter, if they must cripple it. (again, not visible to most markets)
The reason for multiple versions is simple – Windows is an extremely complicated and diverse OS that serves over a billion customers. People try to compare Windows to OS X, but it’s simply not that easy.
You look at the Home versions of Windows – XP, Vista, soon to be Windows 7 – they are all comparable to a release of OS X. However, on top of that is all of the business/enterprise features for which OS X doesn’t even come close in capability. The second that Apple does release a version of OS X suited to businesses and large enterprises, you bet your asses that they would introduce a new SKU along with it. Hell, they already have OS X Server, which people happily neglect when talking about it. This article seems to think that the “Professional” version only adds Office and other applications like it, while that’s just plain dead wrong.
Back to Windows 7, though, this model just wouldn’t work. Maybe for a technical crowd, but we’re the niche – time to face reality.
For the mainstream – the hundreds of millions of people who just want something that works – they don’t want to mess around with purchasing every single extra feature set. They want to buy one product, and have it do everything they want it to. That version is Home Premium, which will be the only version ever marketed to the home consumer type. No Starter, no Basic, no Professional – the only version that the vast majority of home consumers will ever see is Home Premium.
The second that Microsoft releases Windows in one version only, Windows becomes a whole crapload more expensive to have all customers pay for business/enterprise features they would never come close to using, or the alternative is that you confuse and piss people off by nickel and diming them for every damned feature.
I don’t see why people hate this multi-SKU idea so much – when only two well ever be on store shelves, and only one will ever be relevant to the vast majority of home consumers, who cares?
I don’t see what’s missing from my little quick fix – people wouldn’t be paying for business/enterprise features, those would be available separately. The base OS (Home Premium essentially) is what people would buy, and the other parts would fit comfortably into two packages – essentially what they’re currently offering but in a much more accessible way.
You are neglecting what the true differences between the OSs are, and you’re not being completely clear in what exactly it is you’re suggesting.
In your article, you make it sound like users would pay for every little thing they want extra – Aero this, perhaps Media Center that. Now here, you’re making it sound like you’re saying that no, Home Premium would be the base (that includes Aero and everything else), so what else from there would they buy?
Regardless, such a model wouldn’t work from a consumer satisfaction standpoint or a marketing standpoint. The last decade of Windows has shown that people want fewer options and fewer hassles upon OS installation, not more – they can just configure stuff after installation. And then what about OEMs? Are you suggesting that Dell, HP, and other companies build this configuration into their online setup? Talk about confusion.
Or do they build it into the out-of-box experience they get once the computer ships from Dell? Talk about major annoyances – the last thing I’d want to do when going through the setup phase of a brand new computer is be charged to death on all the extra features I want included.
Going further to adding Business features on top of Home Premium, it’s not that easy either – BitLocker drive encryption and domain access, for one, are not simple features that you can just tack on to an installation. These are features that exist on the lowest level of the operating system that everything else depends on. Outside of the notion of how silly it would be to expect corporations to pay these little micro-transactions for every extra business-oriented features, it’s a technically impossible notion too.
And then we get into IT infrastructure setups – say it was possible to sell the business features separately but on the same disk – how do you expect mass deployments on thousands of computers to go smoothly here? It just seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
What it seems like here is that you’re so desperate to crunch everything into one SKU that you’re throwing out all logic and technical consideration out with it. What you ask for would be an incredibly complicated situation for Microsoft, an incredibly overwhelming situation for IT admins, and an incredibly annoying situation for end-users.
All to avoid a couple separate SKUs that consumers won’t even see on store shelves in the first place.
Great analysis Bob. Finally someone gets it!
I hear you. But the experience people want – and the experience MS wants people to have – is Home Premium. With less than that (essentially de-activating features, it shouldn’t *cost* less) it’s less than Windows 7. That’s the out-of-box configuration, the basic thing that would be on 90% of end-user boxes.
As for including Bitlocker, Applocker and other serious capabilities, I certainly agree that they’re not like adding Winamp to your computer. But Service Packs and firmware upgrades are easy and fully containable in a binary package, why shouldn’t a security suite like what I’m imagining be?
I also hear you on the ‘less options not more’ thing – that’s something we people in tech tend to forget. But the solution is again as easy as letting people choose: the first screen in start up – “Welcome to Windows 7! Blah blah blah. Would you like to customize the installation? Yes/No” – seriously, that’s all it takes.
Having the capability for the stripped down hardware all the way up to a 64-bit gaming PC with 8GB of RAM on one disc isn’t *that* hard. The installer can figure out the hard stuff. It’s not like I’m suggesting that every install of 7 on every PC be the same, just that the different price points and SKUs they have could easily be consolidated and repackaged.
Anyway, it’s not just about the multiple SKUs. It’s about the brand, the product they’re offering. They’re fragmenting their brand and making the product more complicated than it has to be. We could all deal with a few boxes on the shelf, that’s not the real issue. The issue is that Microsoft COULD do something interesting, simple, and forward-thinking but instead has gone with this old method that’s both unnecessary and unpopular.
Your logic is not correct, if we follow it, we will end with 100+ different Windows versions aiming each at different type of customer…
We only need ONE windows Seven, the core one, the kernel thing, everything not essential has to be optional. By optional I mean really optional, not even included by default.
Then you can build infinity of different versions just by selecting the extra stuff, and paying for it, why not, if you really need it.
What I really don’t want is basic Windows Seven install taking 10Gb of my hard drive, just to boot up my computer. If I need stuff, I’ll add it myself, I don’t need some Microsoft marketing boy thinking what is good for me just to make me pay. Call me dumb but actually I prefer to pay the most simplest and lightest version of windows Seven just to get rid of everything NOT essential in it :)
If Microsoft really want their customers to be happy, they need to stop making their products for themselves, or *just to be sold*.
my 0.02$
@Bob Thank you. I agree. Multiple SKUs are no big deal. It seems like the tech news is pretty slow b/w CES and the MWC, so the tech blogs need to manufacture controversy.
Mac OS X Server does all the necessary stuff that an business/enterprise would need. Please see post 59 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2160047/posts?page=98#59
I purchased Vista and Microsoft did nickel-and-dime the hell out of me.
Like what? Please elaborate, because I can’t think of one thing in the client or server versions of Windows that doesn’t have an analog in the corresponding version of OS X. But I am all ears.
I’m sorry Bob, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. OS X is the equivalent of Windows 7 Ultimate. (I have both on my Mac Pro right now).
It has server capabilities built right in. The server version just puts a GUI on them and either has client licenses for 10 machines or an unlimited number. – Try that Microsoft!
You want Postfix mail server? It’s in OS X. Apache Web Server? Built in. X-Windows to run UNIX and Linux apps? In there. Developer tools with the best IDE going that can even build an OS like OS X, Linux or Windows? Free, in the box or download the latest from Apple. The list goes on and on. And all the normal UNIX utilities are all there too.
Microsoft rips the good stuff out for the Home edition (including the eye candy, so why leave XP?). Apple doesn’t rip the good stuff out. They give it to everyone to use as they see fit. All the multimedia stuff is there. All the development tools, all the programs and utilities a power user needs. All in the box.
So don’t even try to pretend OS X is the equivalent of the panty waist Windows Home Edition. That doesn’t fly.
Yes, Microsoft really needs to simplify their product lines, but the problems are not as easy as you think.
well..I ended up with 2 laptops with the Premium version and a desktop with the basic version and for me – I don’t see much difference except in the “skin”..
and I like to have the option of paying less for a basic bare-bones version – to be honest… and let others pay more for the bells and whistles if that is important to them…
In other words, I don’t see what all the hee-haw is about…
Conventional wisdom might be to consider MS to be a dunderhead on lots of issues… after-all, the inventors of the word “bloatware” probably deserve it.. but methinks.. they might have it right on this – I bet they actually did some focus groups and stuff…
I don’t think doing what the author says is reasonable for Microsoft and the end-user.
1) I am not sure how correct I am on this but at schools, if you want Word on all your computers, you wouldn’t have to install it on all the computers, but there is one way to install it and share the program or distribute it to all the other computers. If this is not the way, then I am sure the school does it through a ghost image (pretty much pirate the program I suppose or have some enterprise edition of Word). This would mean less profits for Microsoft because buying an unlimited license is surely cheaper than buying something single like a single version of Enterprise
2) There are 6 editions of Windows 7 but did anybody care to stop for a minute and realize they’re only going to be dealing with 2 versions: Home Premium and Professional. Ultimate is an add-on so you don’t even have to stop and think about it because you can get it whenever you want later on. You can’t buy Starter, Home Basic, and Enterprise. And if Starter does become an option, you obviously are not going to plan on upgrading on a netbook that is intended to run only 3 apps at a time.
I don’t think everybody reading these articles are that stupid. It’s the disgusting press right now who’s trying to get some extra hits or whatever by seeing this as one of the first opportunities to create some bad press around Windows 7. Wow…
Don’t you love it when bloggers pretend they know better than everyone else. All MS had to do, says Devin, was to remove the “suckiness”.
>> But Microsoft’s marketing strategy leaves
>> much to be desired, seeing as it’s already failed.
And… it has failed because they didn’t pay bloggers off to “create a buzz”? LOL.. Right.
I was referring to Vista…
Jeez, I bet you’re even a beer drinker. Silly beer drinkers, always trying to drink their beer.
I agree they should simplify the versions but all I really care about is does Windows 7 deal do the following:
-When I close my laptop, shut down
-When I open it, come back quickly to exactly where I was when I closed the lid
-Don’t ask me stupid questions all the time like “I have detected a mouse, what would you like to do with that mouse” or “Yahoo! instant messenger would like to access the internet, is that ok”
-Give me a list of programs currently running and if they are part of the OS or a well known program (there are only like 20) let me know what they do so I can shut them down when they start taking up all my CPU cycles
-Try not to use cascading menus everywhere, I am too uncoordinated and it is annoying
Then maybe I will consider giving up my Mac even if I have 30 operating system flavors to choose from
Don’t even get me started on the Task Manger… I don’t use Windows often, but even if I did, I’m certain I would not be able to figure out what half of the processes were for.
“-When I close my laptop, shut down
-When I open it, come back quickly to exactly where I was when I closed the lid”
Sounds like you want the laptop to hibernate when you close the lid.
Easy to do, although pcs themselves are not designed to send a responce when the lid is opened once the power has been cut off.
The closest equivelent is sleep, but that requires power to sustain.
The point is, you can choose what you want the computer to do when you close the lid, sounds you are just belitteling windows because it dosen’t by default have the option you would prefer set, hardly MS’s fault.
“-Don’t ask me stupid questions all the time like “I have detected a mouse, what would you like to do with that mouse” or “Yahoo! instant messenger would like to access the internet, is that ok””
What version of Windows have you been using?
When I plug in common harware like a mouse ro USB drive, for the first time it just tells you that drivers have been installed, after that it does nothing.
If you are talking about driver installation for unrecognized hardware, you truely have been blinded by Apple’s Kool-Aid if you want to fuilt an OS for asking what to do with hardware that it dosen’t have the drivers for.
As for the Yahoo thing, again, usually firewalls are set to an automatic mode to avoid these, but some do require user interaction because the computer can’t know everything. Sure, the app claims its Yahoo Messenger, but anybody can write an app that claims its Yahoo Messenger, the computer can’t tell that the game you downloaded is really a virus in disguise, but a human would become suspeciosu if the app he just downloaded claims its something else and is trying to access his network.
“-Give me a list of programs currently running and if they are part of the OS or a well known program (there are only like 20) let me know what they do so I can shut them down when they start taking up all my CPU cycles”
Umm, wrong, there are FAR FAR more than 20 well-known apps, the list easily hits the hundreds. And again, how is this Microsoft’s fault? You expect them to catalog and test hundreds if not thousands of apps from 3rd party developers completely unrelated to them so you can use your brain a little less?
“-Try not to use cascading menus everywhere, I am too uncoordinated and it is annoying”
There are several ways to display menus and icons in newer versions of Windows.
Honestly, it sounds like you hate Windows because it dosen’t default to MACOS behavior and you are forgetting something very important. MACOSX has a very LIMITED amount of systems it cna run on, its nothing like a PC that can have literally trillions of hardware and software combinations, there are only a very small amount of different configurations and most users have the same set of software.
The day MACOSX tries to take on a hardware and software market as diverse as the PC market is the day it becomes less usable than Windows.
This whole “debate” is so ridiculous. Let’s see, so there’s TechCrunch, and TechCrunchIT, and CrunchGear, and CrunchBase, and TechCrunch UK, etc. That won’t do! A bunch of idiots with blogs have decided that they all have to be called TechCrunch! sheesh.
There are 6 editions of Windows 7 but did anybody care to stop for a minute and realize they’re only going to be dealing with 2 versions: Home Premium and Professional. Ultimate is an add-on so you don’t even have to stop and think about it because you can get it whenever you want later on. You can’t buy Starter, Home Basic, and Enterprise. And if Starter does become an option, you obviously are not going to plan on upgrading on a netbook that is intended to run only 3 apps at a time.
Whos cares; there will only be 2 or 3 versions sold at stores which the average consumer shops at (Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Staples, Office Depot or any of the mentioned websites) within the US
None of those will sell the other version therefore even if there were 20 different version it wouldn’t most effect users.
Windows can have as many version as microsoft pleases, you dont have to buy them.
If you want Microsoft to have one version of Windows, tell the linux crowd for only a couple versions cause that confuses consumers more than windows.
Try telling consumers that Canonical, Linspire, Debian Project, Gentoo Foundation etc all make Linux you will confuse them more than Microsoft could ever do
Interesting thoughts, but how hard would it be to just have one version. Yes you heard that right.
Windows 7 seems to come packaged in about 3 GB. Then you can quite easily fit the full 32-bit and 64-bit on a single DVD.
The installer could then run, test the hardware and determine if the user needs 32-bit or 64-bit automatically.
This original scan could also determine what level of glossy effects and similar that the hardware can deal with. You then go through the install process where only the hardware-posibble options are available to install. Netbooks get fewer options, full blown gaming rigs more etc.
There could even be set profiles for netbooks/notebooks/business/gamers, with certain options already selected for what Microsoft thinks you’ll want – so if people don’t know or care then they don’t have to.
This way everyone gets the best of Windows 7 – the bits they want. If you want it lean, you can have it lean. If you want all the extras you can have them.
Then there would be no confusion whatsoever.
XP came in 2 flavors and nobody complained, but because they messed up with Vista, and in Windows 7 they are still releasing 6 versions, but fixed the problem by making just 2 available (just like in XP), everybody has to go flame
XP Home is a joke.
Still, I’d equate Windows more with Adobe – it’s not just the multiple editions, but the multiple languages.
I’d vastly prefer one single worldwide edition, of a single version of the OS. The fact that you can only have a truly multilingual windows if you get the enterprise version is pathetic. OS X gives you that out of the box for $129.
Not to mention the potential savings – a single edition of windows means a single maraketing platform, a single package design, less shelf space required (with better tracking/churn of product to see when and where sales need more attention)… The author would’ve done well to lay out a more “formal” reasoning across not just the tech side but all* of MS’s business, but the core idea is sound, and more than doable… It NEEDS to be done to secure Windows’ future in the world market.
No one here is discussing the economics of it. That’s where the answer lies.
I think they’d sell more copies in the home sector, though business, enterprise and the increasing ‘emerging,’ netbook, and world markets would be hard to predict. Can’t be any worse than what they’ve got.
If you just had the single DVD installer for all of Windows 7 as I noted above, you could also easily add any of the other parts you may want in the future as you upgrade your hardware as well.
This makes total sense. Here’s my question – is everyone working at Windows total idiots? My answer… probably.
Think about it – every smart person, every tech site, every reviewer, market analysis, etc., believes that multiple version of Windows are dumb and confusing.
Soooo…. after researching all this info (do they even do that, or do they think they’re God), they decide, “hmm…. let’s make all these confusing and useless versions again, because no-one wants them.”
Ya, everyone at Windows are idiots…
Is Windows a company now?
I think Microsoft understands the complexity of their software and how to appropriately distribute it to their wide audience (a netbook user to the enterprise server administrator) far better than an ex-preschool teacher blogger who uses a Mac.
Oh no you didn’t!
I don’t believe that any *serious* company that has a product to sell, will define its mkt strategy based on blog posts. Sure they might be taken into account, but I believe that msft has made a few focus groups before making that decission.
From what i have been hearing Microsoft will only have the two versions; Home Premium and Professional on the shelf. So for those going to the local electronics store, there will be two boxes they can chose from. Now for those will be buying preinstalled computers, the options will be a few more. We will see how strictly they will enforce the minimum system requirements to make these systems run smoothly. I like this sku plan better than the Vista debacle. With vista the consumer had to decide between four versions on the shelf. Everyone i know was asking, “Which version should i get?” Well see how this sales model works this time around.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the minimum sys requirements. Did you see this?
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/31/windows-7-works-on-a-600mhz-umpc-lets-try-a-game-gear/
Does anyone else think that “Ultimate” just sounds cheesy and cringeworthy anyway?
I was about to say the same thing, i mean i would probably prefer to see Windows 7 Gamers Edition or
Windows 7 Turbo or Windows 7 Maximum or heck windows 7 Warp – as long as they make sure they include something no other version has other than dream scene…
Gamer Edition would be the exact opposite for me, light and fast, Ultimate is the synonym for “bloatware” : Slow & Heavy, I bet it takes 20Gb on hard drive :)
I can belive so many people make such a big deal out of this. Choice is good people! Why do you want to have a one-size-fits-all OS force fed to you. Why pay for features you don’t need?
It looks to me like this is a case of morons crying that they want everything but don’t want to pay for it. How would you react if you went to buy a laptop and Dell had decided that everyone needed the same thing and only sold one mode? Tech sites would be screaming about how stupid that is.
For Win7 it looks like there are going only be a few choices. Two for home users (Basic and Pro I think), once for corporate, and one for those that always think they need everything. (Oh, and the starter version maily aimed at other countrys.)
As long as they make it clear what is different from one version or another, I say give me MORE options so I only pay for the options I need.
What I don’t understand is how Microsoft feels that they can justify $260 to get the fully featured home operating system (Home Premium). The market has fundamentally shifted, and that is more expensive than many computers these days.
With OS X ($129 for a single license or $199 for 5 licenses) and many FREE Linux distros, this seems foolhardy. The majority of Windows sales are of those preinstalled in retail machines, so why not try to gain some ground by pricing Windows 7 more competitively?
They mock the “Apple tax”, but this seems to be just as egregious.
You’re forgetting that part where you spend upwards of $1-3,000 for a machine which includes the OS, then adding $129-$199/year because practically every software title available for the Mac (free or no) will only work on “the latest version”. Universal binary, my disk.
What on earth are you talking about?
With OS X, you don’t have a super-set above all those home features such as domain networking and enterprise-level encryption. Until OS X has such enterprise-based features and it’s possible to deploy on networks containing tens of thousands of computers in one organization, it is an irrelevant OS to consider here.
And the second that Apple does offer such an OS, you bet your ass it’s going to be a separate SKU, otherwise the entire price of OS X would go up to cover the cost of those enterprise-focused features.
Also, you say that Windows is $260? On what earth?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488
Try $100.
I am talking about the average user–businesses don’t go the retail route, and probably are not paying the retail prices. For the average home user, $260 seems outrageous. Especially when it is more than, or nearly as much as, their whole computer.
The Home Premium version will not have many of the networking features of the Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate versions. I believe Windows 6 Home Premium and OS X are the most equivalent versions.
According the Microsoft pricing list for Windows 7, Windows 7 Home Premium will be $260. http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/windows-7-skus-announced-yes-your-worst-nightmare-has-come-to/2
And that is what most people who walk into retail stores will see. Most “normal” people don’t go hunting for OEM versions at NewEgg.com. They walk into a big box store and ask for a copy of Windows.
I’m not arguing the pros or cons of Windows 7 (it looks great!), I’m asserting that they are overpriced for today’s market. This is not going to help them grab back market share, which they need to begin doing.
Why don’t you look at Microsoft’s own price comparison for Vista:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx
That’s $199 for the Home Edition, you windows fanboy retard.
What enterprise features? Like what? Mac OS X has very good enterprise features and this really depends on what you’re doing. I was able to easily upgrade 2K plus Mac Pros from a single XServe running Mac OS X Server. BTW, I do Mac OS X Server system administration and I’m familiar with both client and server packages.
devin, this video might explain the idea of multiple SKU’s
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html
and vista’s problem with multiple versions is that there were too many versions, not that there was more than one. there wasn’t a clear segmentation of roles for different packages. this is a problem that’s solved in win7
OSX has only one sku because it ships optional installs along with the OS and the cost of all of this is hidden in the hardware. they also don’t have the share to need 3 different variants.
Hi, when you purchase both client and server packages, there are optional installs but there are not any hidden cost. In general, the client package supports the consumer product line (i.e. iBook, MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro). Then the server package supports XServe in general.
Next, all recent hardware is based on Intel processors using Intel Core 2 Duo or better. Thus, this makes it very easy for Apple to not only deliver 64 Bit OS from the ground up but also allow the running of both 32 bit and 64 bit applications without skipping-a-beat. Lastly, this quote holds true in regards to Apple:
“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” — Alan Kay
BTW, I can run both 32 and 64 Bit applications now using Mac OS 10.5 aka Leopard out of the box. Anyway, Microsoft produce products based on their market research/analysis. It’s there choice on how many versions Windows 7 they produce and people here simply have to deal with it. just purchase the package that best supports their objectives. It may fail or it may succeed. Thus, time will tell.
Good luck.
I don’t think you did a good analisys of the versioning system or did propose a good replacement for it. Good attempt but here is where is fails, first if they included one version of
Windows with these options first of all how would average folks who buy it know what’s good for them or not? yeah it might sound simple but it’s not to the average computer user.
Now labeling them starter, home premium, professional, ultimate they can eliminate having a customer choose features they don’t know if they need, plus it would add more time to the installation of windows which most people whine about if it takes too long. So having label on them makes it easier, which most people would have access to home premium anyways.
One of the things that alianate people from linux is having to choose different sub-packages which is nice and great for the geek group but confusing to the average joe. I mean choosing which distribution ain’t no peace of cake either. So i think they are in the right path. Having three versions cater to consumer home premium, professional and ultimate(this would be for enthusiast and gamers). However, i would reconsider their naming scheme a bit and make sure that ultimate has something worth the price but besides that i think that these versions are ok.
Notice that Apple built their PC so the provide the necessary hardware to make sure it runs, no matter how many mactards claim i runs good on a old machine i have confirmed that is bullsssh) But MS on the other hand caters to everyone. I don’t see how the average joe or even geeks should care about starters, enterprise even if they exist. So i really don’t get what all the FUZZ is about this versioning setup is all about.
If any of you have installed windows 2003 server you would know that it also has different versions catering to the type of job the server will be doing. The different versions Enterprise is the top dog with utilities for distribution and security, data center basically for hosting dabase, web edition(IIS6.0 installed by default).
Now think of it how the auto makers built their cars and heck if you think 5 versions of windows is confusing than ask yourself how many car types we have? shouldn’t we all be going crazy because we have too many choices in cars? For example their is compact cars, standard cars, full size, SUV, high ocupancy, convertible, cargo van, and moving truck… so which one would you pick? oh yeah I forgot luxury cars (kinda like ultimate even if they all take you from point A – B their is that luxury type)…. We are in the 21st century where kids learn to hack computers at age 7 and are already in the pentagon computers by age 10 so stop the bitching please we are not in the stone age. I mean my little nephew is 7 and basically can tweak XP for you for optimal performance with no guidance. I mean think of linux again and we have ton’s of distributions. So i see no fuzz other than most blogger bitching about it are Apple fan boys/girls.
yes one version would be a great thing. the fact of the matter is, thats impossible, unless your apple where there is no choice. the reasoning behind owning a PC is to have choice. different RAM, different video card(s), different CPUs. why not different types of OS?
people need to stop complaining and research (like you would when upgrading different comp parts) which Windows 7 version you want.
Hi, I purchased a Mac for personal use so that I would have choice. Now, I can run Mac OS X, Windows 7, Linux, and Ubuntu from a single piece of hardware. This is very possible using VMWare. Why? I have clients that I need to support in other environments. Thus, when I’m out in the field, I can take a single laptop to a client site instead of two.
Windows isn’t exactly like a hot dog. Sure they could do one version but they wouldn’t make as much money.
To use your analogy… By bundling all the ketchup, relish and mustard together you can charge more even if you only need one.
You make more money selling people things that they don’t need. Sales 101. Having seven versions is ridiculous but having one with options would be less profitable.
Certainly if you run a hot dog stand where all you can get is “plain” or “the works” you’re going to sell a lot of “the works” even if people just want mustard. You’re right there.
But that only works as long as there isn’t a hot dog stand next door that has a better or more flexible price. Right now MS is fighting for more than profits, they’re losing market share all over the place. They need 7 on every computer they can get it on, and I think my version would help that happen.
Why cant they have system like dell.com where we can costomise our windows 7 prior shipping. It’ll be cool thing.
Also they can offer fewer costomisation options so that their servers won’t stop down due to heavy traffic costomising their OS.
Costomise: LOL, good name for business model based on paid extras.
First of all, even though they have 6 versions total, regular consumers will only really see 2 of them (home premium and professional). This is a large improvement compared to Vista.
Second of all, what about pizza? Pizza Hut has Cheese pizza (read=starter), pepperoni pizza (read=home basic), meat lovers (read=home premium) and I could go on.
There are many features that some people don’t need or don’t want. I have no problem with them releasing multiple versions. If the average person doesn’t use BitLocker, why give it to them?
Exactly, much like Windows XP Home & Pro.
I reckon 99% of regular customers can handle choosing between these two options.
Having trouble counting to 6? If this is too much for Devin he should go back to teaching preschool…
Your analogy with Pizza Hut is the same as his analogy with the hot dogs. They have different sizes of pizza, but they are all “cheese” until YOU customize the toppings.
Simple – buy a Mac.
Not a solution for those of us that want a computer that actually does what we want instead of looks shiny
Complicated – buy a Mac, then find suitable software to get daily tasks done.
Devin,
You assert that the reason Microsoft sells these different versions is becuase (sic) “it makes sense to have different capabilities for different users and situations.” You give Microsoft far too much credit here and I must correct your business logic. The reason for different prices being charged for flavors like “Student” and “Professional” is an attempt to charge different prices to markets with different demand curves. Students’ willingness to pay is far lower than businesses who will buy the Professional edition.
This helps them maximize revenue–it is not done with the user in mind at all.
W. Hambly
Dear Microsoft,
Google “Paradox of Choice”. Learn. Apply.
Thanks.
The problem with Vista had nothing to do with the 4 different flavors. The differences between the flavors were clearly displayed on each box and on Windows website.
The problem with Vista was that no one seemed to remember the problems that occured with Xp or even Windows ‘98 or ‘95 when they first came out. Problems are going to arise when an OS is installed on computer systems with an infinite number of hardware configurations. Vista users have informed Windows with combatibility issues and Windows for the most part have corrected them. Hardware and peripheral manufactures also started producing products that work with Vista as they did for XP. Windows patched Vista to the point that it works great and have developed Win7 which is pretty much a tweaked and improved version of Vista.
Apple has it easy, they produce an OS that works on their computers with a FINITE set of hardware configurations.
The PC configurations have gotten so vast that software and video games even have a hard time running on any PC without being patched several times after release dates.
Linux OS such as Ubuntu is constantly updating as new hardware configurations arise and never have to release a completely new version. Windows doesn’t have that luxery because they need to sell more units. In order to sell more units they have to completely redesign there system and thaats where the problem occur. Otherwise, everyone would still be using Windows 1.0.
Although, there is always compatability issues with new PC operating systems, they are usually corrected overtime. Tech bloggers should just give them a chance. I am a PC because I like to be able to spend about $200 a year on components and keep my system up to date and run any game or software available. I’d like to see a Mac do that.
I couldn’t agree more with this article – 2 version is MORE than enough. I think McDonalds should follow this logic too – it’s way to confusing having 20 or so options. I don’t like options. Just two options should work for McD’s customers.. A hamburger and a chicken sandwich. More than enough to chose from.
woops, looks like the food analogy was already used several times. glad we all get the point.
I think techcrunch is brainwashed with apple and goog fanaboys…
Windows is sold to BILLIONS of people in the planet… and it is difficult t ahve ONE SIZE FITS ALL…
apple is doing this becos only Tech crunch lovers folks use Mac (which is handy and can be counted in fingers) …
Windows is more diverse pplatform unlike apple which has properiety hardware…
So go away techcrunch apple and goog fanaboys …. do some work and go and get life …
Hmm – if your grammar and spelling is typical of a dedicated Windows user who lives IN the planet then I think I’ll stick my mac – thanks.
And one more thing – it’s a bit lame to post on a TechCrunch blog telling TechCrunch boys to piss off … don’t you think?
STFU… blaming techcrunch becos they always write NEGATIVE for every company except fruit company (aka apple) and goog (who stores ur data and can trace you) … they get paid that way….
last week did you see what happened to goog? on satuarday peope were not able to use search…becos of “human error”….
huh… be fair… if same thing would have hppened to windows or yhoo or ask… you people would have be happy and had made all sort of nonsense crap…
GROW UP and BE FAIR… and stop whining !!!
This is a blog. People offer opinions. If you don’t like them, fine, but saying that they’re horribly biased because their viewpoint doesn’t gel with yours is a bit short sighted.
Besides, do you not see that your diatribe against google/apple falls into the same category of negative comment that you’re supposedly rallying against?
I think it is you who should grow up and be fair. By all means stop whining too.
It all gets down to something Microsoft calls a product mix. It also is about perceived value. So, let’s assume in 1995, Win95 cost $99 (note, making up all SKU prices for illustration). Well, Home Basic is made to cost $99 so Microsoft can say that they never have raised the price of Windows. Now they have Home Premium which is the same price of Windows XP Pro. Thus, when you pay your $149 Home Premium, you basically paid $50 more. Microsoft knows that the mix of premium and home is say, 90/10. Therefore, Microsoft was able to increase revenue. Next, you have Business (the old XP Pro SKU) and Ultimate. For all of these SKUs, you pay an additional premium. Thus, Microsoft instructs its sales people to drive the mix to these SKUs. So, when Dell puts Business on the box, you basically paid more than XP Pro. They sign EA and SA agreements to move the mix to the higher end business SKUs. So, let’s say Windows XP & XP Pro brought in 10 billion a year. Simply by shifting the “mix” to Home Premium and Business, Microsoft could realize $1-5 billion more in revenue on the same sales. So, if the PC industry was 100% flat and sold the exact same number of PCs as the year before, Microsoft would be able to report a 10%-50% increase in sales. Thus, it is all about managing the mix. Of course, the goal was always that PCs shipments would grow YoY at 7-10% + Microsoft premium would give the Windows division a very nice growth multiple. So, the numbers and predictions went south when [a] pc sales went to negative growth and [b] netbooks took a piece of sales and used XP which also had to be discounted. So, with light Vista sales, strong XP sales and discounted XP, Microsoft still grew and met its numbers, but nothing like its mix models that it created in the beginning of the year. So, Microsoft has SKU of Windows to drive mix and drive additional revenue.
Also, if you remember, XP had some other premium SKUs. However, they were well differentiated so you did not call them out on it. Don’t forget, XP was:
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
Windows XP Media Center
Windows XP TabletPC
Windows XP Starter Edition
Windows XP N (Bastardized EU Edition)
So, basically Windows 7 is bring Microsoft back to the count of XP SKUs. However, Microsoft has completely lost differentiation. The old model worked because it was based on verticals, not on some random set of horizontal capabilities.
Also, Microsoft get pressure for this because Dell, HP and others want to have a Toyota line as well as a Lexus line. They were pissed when Media Center went away. The OEMs knew that if you bought a Media Center PC, you also bought a remote, speakers, cables and a whole bunch of accessories that they were able to charge big money for and receive great margins. Vista took that away from the OEMs.
Don’t forget that most of your drivers and things, which make new and diverse hardware workable on your computer, are provided by the hardware manufacturer. Graphics cards, sound cards, programs, input systems, etc etc, these are not things that show up on the install disc for the most part (generic drivers do a temporary job).
The diversity of PC hardware is not something that can really be quoted against an OS; someone mentioned the diversity of Apple hardware somewhere upstream as well. The OS i’m talking about is a base layer, not missing anything crucial or crippled (like some versions they like to put out), upon which manufacturers’ drivers would work just like any other PC.
In fact having a single type of install would be a boon for the variety of hardware makers that work on PC stuff. They know for sure what the end user will have. They know what’s on the disc.
“One size fits all” is a bad way of describing it, but yes this version would fit all because it would start large, shrink to XS if it needed to, and grow to XXL if you want to pay for the extra “fabric.” I’m saying it’s the same shirt they’re selling in every case, why not make it official?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Really bad idea! I hate Microsoft did things are wrong! Stay on Windows XP!
Skip Vista and Windows 7 and wait for Windows XP SE2 (Secondary Edition 2) can support Directx 10 or higher and compilable with old games to working on XP SE2 like Directx 9.0c and older. Bring all old memories back to relive again on Windows XP SE2!
Forget Vista and 7! No thanks! Finally Microsoft is SPAMMER and making money for doing stupid!!!
That’s called Econ101.
If you have only one product, no matter the pricing, you always leave money on the table. Price it low to sell to the masses, and you fail to capture the extra willingness to pay of the hardcore users. Price it high to capture that and you lose the masses. With many different versions, you can fine tune the prices to extract the maximum money of every type of customer.
Remember: Microsoft is a BUSINESS. Their BUSINESS is to make money, not necessarily make everyone happy with the best product and the simplest price structure.
i’ll be interisting with windows 7. but how about performance i can’t give value
LOL @ 1 version.
So you say they would make $50 win 7 version with all the major features?
Yeah, right.
If you want mroe features, pay for it.
I don’t mind with 6 versions of Windows 7 (3 x 64 bit + 3 x 32 bit), it excludes server editions, etc
home, pro and ultimate would be ok.
Seriously, I don’t get the problem.
Starter: Not sold in US.
Home Basic: De-emphasized as a standalone. Netbooks and low spec installations.
* Home Premium: Emphasized for home installation, like XP Home.
* Professional: Emphasized for SMB installation, like XP Pro
Enterprise: as name suggests, not sold in stores, only for large 1000-seat installations, etc (btw, there was an XP Enterprise edition, smart guys)
Ultimate: Enthusiasts.
I honestly don’t get the problem. Mainstream people will only see 2 (indicated with *), like XP, and the only people who see the rest are enthusiasts, IT admins and the like, ie people who know enough about computers to research the differences and not be confused.
Sorry, but this whole hullabaloo sounds like bloggers complaining just to complain.
LOL @ Guest86
I don’t even know what you just said…
This is a global market, there needs to be differentiation… I don’t want to pay more than someone else and get the same product!
Focus on the fact that Windows HP is what most people will use. Isn’t it good to have options?
It’s simple economics:
Please read the following about “How much to charge for my software”
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html
Essentially Microsoft wants every last penny it can get by subdividing the marketplace and capturing every segment.
Written before papuso’s comment:
Holy Xist people! Has nobody heard of price discrimination?
Basic micro 101 concept: you charge people whatever they are willing to pay.
I think the suggestion makes sense – perhaps 2 versions – Desktop and Server, but others being add-ons.
There wouldn’t be any particular difficulty in then selling a Windows+Business Connectivity bundle that’s then positioned much as the Business version is currently, either. Media Center would probably then be available either as a standalone product or as an add-on, which makes sense to me anyway.
Lastly, it would probably help their case in the EU courts about monopolistic practices, since the issue there is about how much Microsoft bundles into their OS package, shutting people out of various markets.
Multiple versions worked fine for Vista (it was really well received by both consumer and business markets). Why wouldn’t it work for 7?
The reason for the multiple versions can be attributed to simple economics. Windows is a monopoly so it can set its own price in the market (within some reason). The problem is that with one product there will be those who can’t afford it and there’s no place for them to go other than competition or pirate it.
MS brings out multiple offerings to help define its own demand curve and extra more money than they normally would have done.
There are 2 consumer versions of this product, Home and Professional. All of the other products are designed for specialty markets.
Stop writing misleading articles.
ok.
I totally agree with this article.
i am still usings XP Pro both at home and at work.
the thought of switching to vista at home crossed my mind – but i remember actually having to RESEARCH which version would work for me.
give someone too many options, and they sometimes just walk away. *ha* that’s what i did at least.
gary
All I can say is: $ apt-get dist-upgrade
* Oops, repisotory error
* Oops, cannot configure menu.lst, please configure it manually
* Oops, something incredibly obscure went wrong, enjoy talking it over on the forums for two months to fix it