"Hi, I'm the editor of a website and you run the most profitable tech company in the world - so let me now tell you what you should do with your main product line"
My favourite point is "Flatten the whole strategy and offer a single version of Windows 7 for $50." Why would they sell windows for less than OSX? (Unless I am mistaken while the _upgrade_ price for leopard may be just $29 I bet the new price will still be at least $129). Why is it that everyone wants to be one of the biggest software companies in the worlds financial advisor.
They frequently sell Windows for less than $129 when it comes on a new computer. Big computer sellers (Dell, HP, etc) pay very little for Windows. I'm not sure if the numbers are public, but I think that it's no more than $50, at least for the base version. The cost of Windows is in development. It costs them nothing to put it on an additional new computer and maybe 50 cents of packaging and a CD to sell it in stores. So they really can make it up on their huge volume pretty easily, as they already do when they practically give the OEMs the basic versions. If every Windows user were to upgrade to Windows 7 for $50, they would make huge profits.
Now, not every Windows user will, but if they can get a lot more to upgrade with a cheaper price, it might be worth it.
You are asking for business versions to be slowed by fancy virtualisation, home versions to be confused by power user features etc.
Okay so let's imagine that you can pick some magic confic option when you install to get around this. Then every version will include the price of all features. So the home user and netbook OEM user will be required to pay the current "Ultimate" cost.
Apple doesn't seem to have this problem with MacOS X -- my mom uses the same exact operating system for Word, email, and posting photos, that I use for graphic design and web dev, that my programmer friends use for writing desktop and web apps and game development -- but maybe they have other problems as a result of having only 2 SKUs (Standard and Server) that I'm not aware of.
I think the article has the right idea. No one thinks that if the single version is the Ultimate, it will cost $500. That's silly. It would be priced somewhere near the bottom of the current range. Starter should not exist. It's just a way for low end OEMs to screw the end user. It is reasonable to have two or three versions: a desktop/laptop for nearly all users, a server version with fewer UI frills and more system management/security, and possibly a smaller fewer frills for low end devices but not crippled like the starter version.
Why would it be silly? Microsoft would charge the price where they can make the most profit and that would probably be somewhere in the middle of all the current price ranges. The current setup allows Microsoft to sell to people who don't have the budget of companies without appearing to rip companies off. Similarly OEM demanded that the price be cheaper so Microsoft made a new version but had to justify to regular users why they don't pay the starter price.
So instead of bundling the software together to match common use cases, put the burden on the shopper to know what every single part of windows does and whether they need it?
That would be fine for geeks but the vast majority of the population would not appreciate that at all.
I think the idea is that the "Home" functionality is built-in, but say media center is an option, domain/security permissions is an option, and maybe "server" is an option (to transform into Windows 7 Server).
It's stupid that they have like 9 (home, pro, server, server small business, etc.) versions of a very similar solution (an operating system). They're all fundamentally similar.
While it's true that there are a lot of versions, there aren't 9 boxes side by side on a shelf in a store. I think home, pro and server is all that should be in a best buy or equivalent.
More specialized but very real and useful cases such as enterprise, unlimited, small business, etc should still be available but only through a vendor or website.
It's called 'segmentation' and it is used to maximize your profit.
Abstract from Joel's article:
"In the world of software, you can just make a version of your product called "Professional" and another version called "Home" with some inconsequential differences, and hope that the corporate purchasers (again, the people who are not spending their own money) will be too embarassed at the thought of using "Windows XP Home Edition" at work and they'll buy the Pro edition. Home Edition at work? Somehow that feels like coming to work in your pyjamas! Ick!"
Alternatively, just pretend the other versions don't exist and buy a PC with Windows 7 Home Premium on it, like 99% of other users will. Starter (basically Netbook only) and Home Basic ("developing markets" only) can largely be ignored, as can Enterprise (volume licensing only).
I see nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft trying to sell business premium versions with more features that the vast majority of people won't use, and with Windows 7 they've fixed the biggest confusion with the different versions of Vista by making sure that Business is a clear superset of Home's features. That said, perhaps they should merge Ultimate with Business to create a rather clear-cut two-tier system.
Except the home can't be run in a VM so programmers can't (easily) test home. Business can't play DVDs - becuase a business would never need to show a DVD
Citation? I believe you're allowed to virtualise Windows 7 Home Premium - Microsoft changed their EULA to allow virtualisation of the Home versions of Vista a while back and I don't understand why they'd suddenly change it back.
They tried to segment the market but they segmented it incorrectly. It's definitely better if they reduce how many versions there are, but as others are saying, they can't go to a single version.
I think the problem is that the definition of "operating system" has been warped over the years, and customers can think only in terms of bundled programs and not the capabilities of...well...the operating system.
From a software developer's point of view, a single target is most valuable. If I have to worry about the availability of APIs or libraries based on Microsoft's arbitrary bundles, it's a huge problem (not only because explaining the "problem" to customers becomes my job, but because it means Microsoft is arbitrarily limiting the size of the potential market).
If 3rd party programs all work the same no matter what version of Windows 7 is in use, it should be fine.
Thanks to the stupid EU, Microsoft is stuck having at least one separate version, the new one that has NO web browser installed. It's clearly impossible to make that the only version, else home customers who buy that package will have no way to bootstrap themselves into full Web access.
In the 21st Century, product segmentation is as much a matter of satisfying regulators as it is marketing or technology.
There should really be just one edition of Windows: an official userspace Microsoft WINE library for OSX and Linux. It is really a waste to dedicate an entire computer just to run Excel.
If you can get away with it, use Gnumeric software http://www.gnumeric.org/ as your spreadsheet ;)
Actually I can see a day when MSFT contributes to Wine because as they have stated, they are hoping to preserve all their past API's and version it based on OS release. So in that sense all of it will be a legacy eco system.
The cynical part of me thinks they will name a free software project as Chardonnay first, or Whyne, before they consider a merge.
It sounds very doomsday like but we should be realistic too and acknowledge where the computer industry is headed.
