Microsoft's Battle For Software Mindshare 245
chemicaloli writes to mention a BBC article about Microsoft's battle to convince users they need to buy new software. The article explores the changes to the UI in Microsoft Office 2007. Along with the changes prompted by the adoption of the 'Ribbon', the article also looks at some of the software's new features. From the article: "'One of the biggest challenges... is to fight that perception that old versions of software are good enough,' said Microsoft's Chris Capossela. Office 2007 goes on sale to business on 30 November, the same date new operating system Vista is launched. 'Our business model of course allows you to keep using Office 2003 — the software doesn't really expire,' said Mr Capossela, corporate vice president of the Microsoft Business Division. Many large businesses will have Office 2007 delivered as part of existing IT contracts but small business and individual consumers will need persuading to make the change."
Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same old 10% active ingredient and 90% inert filler.
While IT staff around the world convince otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time there is an "upgrade" in the company all of us in IT cringe.... Office incompataibility between versions is legendary (2000-2003 was a nightmare.. some images showing up backwards in documents, scripts not working and the dreaded warning on every launch has served to only numb users to real warning dialogs.)
Honestly, I can do things on windows 2000 and Office 2000 in the corperate environment that you can do on the latest and greates... but with far less expense in both hardware and software. And yes you still can keep it secure, there are apps to do that as well.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't really expire... (Score:5, Insightful)
Office 97 - The last M$ Office you needed to buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is smart/sneaky with Office (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing more annoying than receiving an e-mail with a Word 2003 document and not being able to open it in Word 2000
Future transition to subscription model? (Score:2, Insightful)
I imagine that they would like it if Office did expire--they could really suck money out of their customers if the software expired through DRM-style technology.
Business Model (Score:5, Insightful)
Your "business model" is a hold-over from the stone age, and does not have the authority to "allow" or "disallow" me to do anything. Any company/industry that forgets that deserves the fate they get from it.
Not good enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
"'One of the biggest challenges... is to fight that perception that old versions of software are good enough,' said Microsoft's Chris Capossela. Office 2007 goes on sale to business on 30 November, the same date new operating system Vista is
This from the company which probably wrote the book on deploying software when it's 'good enough'.
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
old software not good enough? horrible argument! (Score:5, Insightful)
A subscription model would improve things (Score:3, Insightful)
This would remove the drive for forced upgrades through new features that I don't care about. I would consider $40/year for Windows and $100/year for office to be reasonable. Buying a new computer would get you a 1 year subscription.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's business model requires constant growth (I was once a house guest for a weekend in a friend's home when another house guest was a Microsoft exec and his family. He said that Microsoft had to "grow a new Disney" in size every year for their business model to work). I don't think that $40/year from every legal Windows user would satisfy Microsoft's appetite.
On the other hand, look at Apple: I occasionally use OS X (Linux is my main development and writing platform) and I don't mind paying for a $130 OS X upgrade every 18 months or so - one reason is that OS X upgrades actually run faster -- great for older Macs.
Microsoft needs to get off of the forced upgrade path.
OOo needs a marketing push (Score:3, Insightful)
Good enough?: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ribbon UI may have its uses; but I guess its just a gimmick. The real value for this release is in the server-side development, XML stuff that's gone in. And this is pretty tough to market. Still, people will buy it, since the default format's changed; and the upgrade treadmill cant be avoided.
OpenOffice and its cousins missed the bus; the minimum they needed to do was atleast match MS Office's UI performance. Sadly, even MSO2K3 spanks OO. When the competition figures out how to make a snappy, feature-rich, stable product, they'll trouble MS.
Sigh, I know how it works (Score:2, Insightful)
Same procedure as last upgrade. Same procedure as every upgrade.
We end up paying Microsoft not for new features we don't need, but for being allowed to cooperate with our partners.
This is why I believe the government needs to standardize on an open format for exchanging documents internally between branches and externally with private citizens and organizations. This is not a problem that can be solved by local decision makers. The locally optimal solution is always to go for a format that can read what the external partners, and this vicious cycle can only be broken by finding a different global optimal point.
(My math/cs background tells me that a local optimum is not necessary a global optimum, which is the provable wrong leap-of-faith that the dogmatic anti-regulation people have made).
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Poles apart. (Score:4, Insightful)
Behold, the difference between open and closed source software.
From http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/ [linuxhq.com]
Version 2.6 * Current: 2.6.18, 20-Sep-2006
Version 2.4 * Current: 2.4.33, 11-Aug-2006
Version 2.2 * Current: 2.2.26, 25-Feb-2004
Version 2.0 * Current: 2.0.40, 08-Feb-2004
So, 2.6 and 2.4 are actively maintained, with 2.2 released in '99 with updates to '04, and 2.0 being updated for over 8 years, since 1996. And I'll wager that there's been no more updates since then for those two kernels simply because it *is* good enough.
Need I also mention the little bit of text that is present in almost *any* F/OSS software update that pretty much says "Hey, if you're current version's working fine for you, that's great. Don't think we're forcing this on you."
Problem with the software industry. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons that, although I am a programmer by nature and by trade, I have a really hard time with the idea of starting up some kind of software company. I'd rather other people take those risks and hire me. As I see it, there are two problems with starting a software company:
1) Your product is inherently easily copied, giving it low value no matter how good it is. In fact, the more popular it is, the more likely it will be pirated, thus the better it is the LESS value it potentially has. This is definitely counter-intuitive.
2) Once you create a product that does what it needs to do and is easy to use, what then? Software eventually always reaches a plateau, and it becomes a question of "now what?" At this point software companies start to add "features" that bloat the software bundle and aren't wanted by customers, in the hopes that they've at least acquired a dedicated customer base that will buy the new version simply because it is "the newest version".
No, as I see it, it's better to do software in your spare time, and release it for free. Not because I'm some kind of altruist, but just because I see it as being a much more viable way to focus on the "product" rather than the "profits".
To clarify -- I'm certainly not any kind of anti-profit advocate. I'm a capitalist. I just don't see software and other information-based services as fitting into a capitalist model very well. As soon as you are a software company, you must focus on getting customers to upgrade, rather than on making sure they have a good experience with your product. Any industry in which it's in a company's interests to make sure its own customers are having a bad experience is in contradiction with itself, as far as I can see. I think the same thing goes for anti-virus products -- it's in their interests to make sure there are viruses around. They have built up their flagship products on the existance of something evil. There is simply something wrong with that.
This is why I tend to trust open-source products. I know that they have no reason to exist except to "get the job done", and therefore they do what they are meant to, and nothing else.
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, software isn't a consumable like washing powder.
Precisely, which is why the Trusted Computing Group was started with Microsoft as a founder member, along with Intel. To put hardware in every PC that allows software and data to be a) sparse (cannot be copied) b) forced to expire. Including, I might add, taking Free software and signing the binaries to prevent you from modifying the code and still running it... effectively making their version of your code proprietary.
The group now also contains all the major technology companies, including AMD, VIA and such FOSS luminaries as IBM and Sun. Lovely thought.
Re:Why upgrade? (Score:5, Insightful)
The need to compel people to adopt a solution is not, in itself, an argument that the solution is unnecessary. Applying game theory, even given a dominant strategy consumers may actually choose the weaker strategy because they lack the cognitive level required to understand which strategy is better.
Many consumers will choose what is familiar over what is better, even given a clear-cut advantage. For example, many dial-up users will refuse to switch to a broadband connection, even if the offer has all of the following properties:
This type of decision making can also be observed in solar panel sales. A consumer who can afford a $25,000 solar panel setup and has the government offer a $25,000 subsidy (effectively paying $0 for a lifetime reduction of 80% of their energy bill), will still not have it installed. This behavior is a result of 3 related fallacies. The "Burden of Proof", "Appeal to Tradition", and "Fallacy of Pride".
Burden of Proof - It is much harder for Microsoft to prove Office 97 is inferior to Office 2007 than it is for a user of Office 97 to prove Office 2007 doesn't meet their needs as effectively as Office 97 does. This is because Microsoft does not know the needs of the user in question, only the user does, and therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the assessment.
Appeal to Tradition fallacy - This is what I've always had and it has always worked for me, therefore it must be the dominant strategy.
Fallacy of Pride - People want to believe the initial choice they made was intelligent. Changing strategies would imply that their previous choice was not intelligent. Therefore, the intelligent choice is to not change strategies.
Re:Office 97 - The last M$ Office you needed to bu (Score:2, Insightful)
Except interoperate with Office <insert newer version here>.
Re:Why upgrade? Know Your TRUE COSTS (Score:3, Insightful)
While I find your article very insightful, and well worth the +5 it has earned (and I've saved it because I like your arguments), you miss a point. You don't discuss an analysis of needs verses true cost of the upgrade.
The only reason I moved from MSO97 to MSO2000 is that I needed to make that move to do VB6 software development for customers. I've stayed with MSO2000 since because it offers everything I need.
Why pay for features I don't need; need to learn the ins and outs of the new system; my time to upgrade; plus dealing with a whole new round of bugs and issues. That's a high price to me, and only benefits MS.
You discuss not upgrading when there is no apparent cost and compelling advantages. For many of us, neither of those conditions are true if we already own MSO97 or later.
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:2, Insightful)
.docx and security... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh...isn't the point to moving to XML that it be interoperable...easier to get access to the data and do good things? Standard text file and all that?
Oh, wait...MS-Standard Text File...
Re:convince them the old isn't good enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
People that seriously use Office frequently see compatibility problems. It's the occasional users, like you, that don't see the issues.
FWIW, the filters that MS has sponsered for OpenDocument are terrible, and I can't use OfficeML because most people can't read it without downloading additional software. Besides, if I'm going to consider switching products from Office2000/DOC to Office2007/XML, I might as well save 500$/person and just switch to OpenOffice/OpenDocument.