September 6th, 2010

Microsoft: Price Predator0
JR posted in Windows, Operating Systems on June 30th, 2006

Excellent article by Alex Eckelberry at the SunbeltBLOG regarding Microsoft’s entry into the security software marketplace.  He doesn’t mince words and accuses them of predatory pricing.  With some quick quotes and a plain analysis of the financial terms they are offering, he makes it plain that this may be what is going on.

Now, offering your product at a discount sounds like it would normally be a good thing for consumers.  In this case, because of the power of Microsoft, it may kill the competing products entirely.  In a diverse world, this wouldn’t be a good thing.

I’ve always had misgivings about Microsoft selling products to secure Windows and Outlook/Exchange.  It seems too likely that they are double dipping in profiting from the flaws that should be patched in their original product.

XP Non-destructive Rebuild0
JR posted in Windows on June 19th, 2006

I had to place the link for this on the blog because I’ve had too much trouble where this would have been a nice option.

This article has instructions for doing a non-destructive re-install of Windows XP.  While it won’t fix a badly corrupted registry, it will correct a problem where the key Windows files are broken.

LA Times predictions - part 20
JR posted in Windows, Web news on January 3rd, 2006

This is the second part of my commentary about the excellent article by Sallie Hofmeister of the LA Times.

After the initial part of the article about Google, she goes on to talk about Microsoft’s actions in the wake of its failed attempt to win AOL’s search business.  Given that Google retained that place by taking a 5% stake in AOL, Microsoft is now supposedly in the market for some other way of capturing more market for its Internet ambitions.  The article points at several expensive candidates; Yahoo (at $90+ billion), InterActiveCorp (of Ask Jeeves, Expedia, Ticketmaster and more), or the crown jewel, Time Warner itself.

Microsoft is facing a challenging year.  Google appears to have the momentum, the means and the will to press that advantage.  Microsoft’s secure bases are looking less secure than at any recent time.  Windows is on hold waiting for the release of Vista late in 2006 and continues to suffer imaging-damaging security breaches on what appears to be a bi-weekly basis.  Microsoft Office, meanwhile, is suffering in comparison to its own earlier versions and will be having trouble defining a compelling reason to upgrade when the next version is released.

Next, Microsoft is gambling on finding some way of making the transition to web-based services while retaining their existing base.  So far, Microsoft’s Live selections are showing a bit too much “me too” offerings.  Don’t count them out, but Microsoft hasn’t shown the same sort of skill in dealing with the web as they did on the desktop.  With the restrictions incumbent on a convicted monopolist, they may find it difficult to recapture that same dominance.

The remaining bulk of the article discusses the media merry-go-round of the executives at the various television and movie companies.

Pundit Gets It Almost Right!0
JR posted in Windows on December 31st, 2005

In John Dvorak’s December 21 article, he examines Microsoft’s onrushing venture into software subscriptions as a revenue source.  What he is missing is the reason that Microsoft is doing so.

Dvorak points out that Microsoft built a large part of its fortune on selling software directly to consumers and that this flew directly in the face of the previous paradigm which was licensing usage on a “per seat” basis for a fixed period of time.  He notes that he doesn’t understand why they would now decide that the previous model was so good that Microsoft needs to get into that business.

Dvorak then goes on to say that Microsoft should instead invest effort into improving the Office suite and points to PowerPoint as needing particular improvement.

Dvorak is so close to answering his own question, but doesn’t see it staring him in the face.  The problem that Microsoft wants to fix with a return to a software subscription model is that they are having trouble improving the Office suite at all.  It is widely acknowledged that users don’t use even 10% of the capabilities built into Office (and, if my experience is any guide, that may be as little as 2% (still hitting two returns to space paragraphs?)).  Why try to improve the software if no one is using all that is already there?

In conjunction with this is the Microsoft monopoly problem.  They already so dominate the Office space that their real competition is from previous versions of their own suite.  Why upgrade from the nicely working version of Word 97 when you are already not making use of any of its outdated ‘advanced’ functions?  Microsoft has successfully created a near monopoly in the Office suite.  How can they make more sales when the existing stuff is still doing everything and more than the users need to do?

If you want to get a revenue stream for something that isn’t changing and isn’t likely to change in general, a subscription model is a great idea.  No problem with doing any more work on the software, just keep it working properly in the core functions.  Any bells and whistles added are “giving increased value” to subscribers and can be done without risking a revenue stream.

There is plenty of reason to test a subscription model for software.  But I have to agree with Dvorak, it will ultimately be a waste of money.

Imhotep theme designed by Chris Lin. Proudly powered by Wordpress.
XHTML | CSS | RSS | Comments RSS