Slashdot Mirror
Average User Only Runs 2 Apps, So Microsoft Will Charge For More
Barence writes "Microsoft's decision to limit Windows 7 Starter Edition to running only three concurrent applications could force up the price of netbooks as many manufacturers opt for the more expensive Home Premium. The three-app rule includes applications running in the background but excludes antivirus, and the company claims most users wouldn't be affected by the limit. 'We ran a study which suggested that the average consumer has open just over two applications [at any time]. We would expect the limit of three applications wouldn't affect very many people.' However, Microsoft told journalists at last year's Professional Developers Conference that 70% of Windows users have between eight and 15 windows open at any one time."
Microsoft's decision to limit Windows 7 Starter Edition to running only three concurrent applications could force up the price of netbooks as many manufacturers opt for the more expensive Home Premium.
Ok, ok, hold the phone. I bitched about this last time and I'll bitch about it again. Where is the official Microsoft statement?
PCPro has an interview with a Microsoft product manager claiming this but I would assume everything is up in the air until it's officially released. Even he uses words like "we would" and makes it sound like this would only be available to OEMs. Which if you think about it is a great strategy because once a major OEM adopts a Windows, it's as good as gold. It doesn't matter to Microsoft if Dell's phone lines are awash with people trying to open up Windows Media Player while running anti-virus and IE, the deal is done at that point. Of course it will be sold only to OEMs; using them as insulation to the potential retaliation of consumers but you won't be able to pick it up in Best Buy.
Quite frankly, I'm giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. I just did a Google search for Windows Vista: Compare editions and the first set of links are all the official Microsoft Compare Editions site. I don't know how long that's been down for but click any of those links and it's broken. From a cache of Vista Starter edition I found this tidbit:
Windows Vista Starter is not available in developed technology markets such as the United States, the European Union, Australia, or Japan.
So I would contend that Microsoft has already washed the slate of the Compare Editions campaign of Vista and put that behind them. They will wise up and change their mind about Windows 7 soon if they haven't already. And if they do have a starter edition--like they did with Vista--it will probably be shipped only on OEMs to undeveloped tech markets where consumers are glad to have a computer and lack a very American sense of entitlement to consumer rights.
And if Microsoft only charges ~$10 for this edition of Windows 7, it may have a positive net effect for third world countries--although it makes you wonder how long other people will put up with shelling out $100 before finding an alternative.
My work here is dung.
This is getting really old. At no point has Microsoft even hinted that the Starter Edition would be used on netbooks. It is made for developing nations. Period. Just because a few random blogs found out that the Starter Edition exists and started going "OMFG, MS is going to put this on netbooks" doesn't make it so. Everything else that's come out about this is pure speculation based on rumors started by those same idiot bloggers.
And that's why I can't stand blogs and bloggers.
The End
In other words... we don't want anybody to buy our cheapest product, so we'll enforce a ludicrous restriction never used in any other OS or software company before, with some statistical justification in the hopes that people will "think" we offer cheap products but still buy the expensive ones which are virtually identical but have a one-bit flag difference between them.
The average user might only use one or two "apps" but it's the definition of apps that's the problem. Apparently AV isn't an app, by this definition. But a firewall might be. A utility to check your startup entries might be. What about the Adobe Reader Speed Launcher, is that an app? Notepad? This is the problem - they are drawing a boundary where it doesn't make ANY sense to anybody. To users, their startup entries are not apps. But to the professional, a startup entry which works around the app limit could well be the downfall of the entire system that could allow companies or charities to save money by buying the cheaper Starter editions.
They are trying to introduce an artificial limitation based on the intended use, rather than just targetting the intended use - cheap, compatible, standard, available for home use. Instead, they want you to "think" that somebody actually buys that crap and that you are a "power user" because you have more than three apps open, thus leading you to believe that you have to buy a "more powerful" operating system for more money.
It's crap. Nobody will buy it, like nobody bought the other starter editions... because it's an artificial limitation for no good, technical reason.
What is the extra cost to MS for allowing users run more apps? What is the cost savings for restricting to two? Unless there is something significant here... the pricing structure is just silly.
Can I just write a meta app that runs multiple apps beneath it? I'm sure it's not as easy as it sounds... but I'd expect to see some pretty clever work arounds.
Microsoft DOES want people to like their product, don't they?
heh! I posted that quote before I saw yours... And it is dead on. (Yours is more accurate - I was going from memory :-)
It's funny that MS hasn't figured this out yet. But they, like the rest of the world, are going through some shrinking (layoffs) and are scrambling to find a way to recover that revenue. This isn't a good way of doing it however - charge more for optional software - not the base. If you squeeze the base too much, you push people out of your platform (and get NO additional sales of add-on products) and grow the market for alternatives. It's a downward spiral that is not smart.
I mean... I know this is microsoft... And I know this is slashdot... But, can you at least read the summary, where it's stated:
It's almost like they are trying to hand the market to Google and the webapp gang.
Browser + MP3 player + IM app = "oh, shit, can't open Email."
Gmail + Gtalk + Google Apps + Pandora = still two local app slots open.
I realize that shipping various flavors of crippleware is a standard price discrimination tactic; but if a substantial percentage of your company's value hinges on the survival of win32 apps as a relevant segment, isn't limiting the number of win32 apps your OS will run a pretty fucktarded move?
You will NEVER see this edition in the west. This is designed for ultra poor countries and it's a fraction of the price of other editions. The version you will see on netbooks will be Home Basic (the most logical version for a fully compatible, budget laptop), not this.
Has anyone even seen a computer with Vista/XP starter edition?
The FUD surrounding Windows 7 is getting increasingly desperate each day. Slashdot is almost becoming a parody of itself on this front. If there's valid things to criticise MS on then fine but don't twist things around in a desperate bid to make them look evil in such a pathetic manner.
In theory is not true, but in practice it usually is?
And did I miss the transition to a multi-tasking OS somewhere ?
This is going to be great for power users--the kind that read slashdot.
Why? chances are you want to use Linux or a mac but you can't because the typical user has a handful of application that
1) they have to run concurrently
2) that require windows.
For example, a lot of people MUST use windows (or a mac) because they have no alternative to running Word or Excell or some enterprise app.
but really just how many apps require MS?
the thing keeping virtualization from taking off is that windows is not cheap. But with a starter edition it could be made cheap.
run sun's virtual box. then you can run windows and linux seamlessly at the same time. FOr the aplications that require windows you use windows.
this would probably work out well.
However it won't actually work for the low end user. The lowend user is not going to have the sophistication to run two operating systems.
It may work out however for the high enduser that has the savy and extra computer resources needed to virtualize
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This quote, even if not an official policy of Microsoft is indicative of the monopolistic mindset of a tyrant.
There is *no* technological reason or justification to limit the number of applications that can be run. The *only* reason to even think of doing this is that if you are confident that no one can compete with you.
In a truly competitive environment, *NO* ISV could dare even think of this. The instant that you artificially limit your software, competition eats you up.
We, as an industry, REALLY REALLY need to nuke Microsoft. They are anti-customer (this), anti-worker (H1B), andi-freedom (DRM), and anti-competitive.
"This is typical of MS though--something not completely thought out that's going to have unintended consequences..."
It's NOT unintended consequences. It's intended. You probably think Microsoft is a software company that is sometimes abusive. It's not. It's an abuse company that uses software as a way of delivering abuse.
Yes, it's my opinion. But I'm not the only one.