Why the 'Mojave Experiment' Fails
|
News Commentary. I rarely so suddenly turnabout about an opinion or analysis about Microsoft. But I can admit being wrong. |
The "Mojave Experiment" is conceptually a fresh marketing effort—at least for such a lame marketer as Microsoft. But after looking more closely at Mojave and reviewing Microsoft Watch reader comments, I have to call the experiment perhaps the worst kind of marketing.
I apologize to readers. I got caught up in the Microsoft glow after so many months of marketing darkness. Did I drink Microsoft Kool-Aid? Sadly, yes. The reasons why the Mojave Experiment fails should have been obvious. They are:
1. Microsoft treats its customers like they're stupid. I've had this complaint for a decade. Wizards perhaps best personify the attitude. Microsoft compels customers to go through long and unnecessary step-by-step processes to set up something. It's click, click, click, click, click, click, click, where one or two clicks should be enough. The iPod model is an example of the right approach. The end user plugs in the device and it begins loading music.
Microsoft takes an infantile approach, of holding the end user's hands, like a parent with a child learning to walk. But Microsoft doesn't let go—doesn't let Windows users grow up. Microsoft's handholding holds them down.
The marketing campaign presumes that people are too stupid to see how great is Windows Vista.
"Telling the customer that they have been stupid is a great way to get business," wrote commenter Ken Houghton. "Especially the customer who then goes to her Corporate IT department and says, 'Gee, I see people saying Vista is a great OS?' and is then told that there are no plans to roll it out this decade." Or maybe if that person works in the IT, they're fired for seeming to be so stupid or having given out bad advice.
2. Microsoft embarrasses Mojave participates. Continuing on the stupid theme is how Microsoft finally gets that "ah-ha" or "wow" reaction to Windows Vista. As I said yesterday, "I am wrong" isn't the best emotion to elicit about a product. Nobody likes being shown they're wrong or for it to be insinuated that they're stupid. "Wow, I feel like an idiot" is light years removed from "Wow, this is a great product."
Good marketing campaigns tout product benefits, show how the product will make the buyer's life easier. There's nothing aspirational or good feeling about making someone look foolish or stupid.
Last night, I watched Monday's "Saving Grace" from a DVR recording. To my surprise, Apple had two separate iPhone ads in the program. Right now, iPhone 3G is one of the hottest products on the planet. The hype alone, propagated by blogs, mainstream media and word of mouth, is like billions of dollars in free advertising. Yet Apple chooses to advertise on TV, to spend hundreds of millions more to tell its story.
What story does Microsoft choose to tell about Vista after about 15 months of silence: You the customer are too stupid to see how great is Windows Vista. Wow, that's brilliant marketing, guys.
3. The marketing campaign blames customers for Vista's problems. It's easy for Microsoft to say that bloggers, reviewers, forum posts and even Apple advertising are major reasons for negative perceptions about Windows Vista. But the blogs and reviews are negative for a reason. Many advanced users don't like Windows Vista. Problem: Mojave doesn't really blame them directly but the people in the videos. Everybody else is the problem with Vista but Vista.
There's presumption here that there's nothing wrong with the operating system. This was a consistent theme coming from Microsoft executives during last week's Financial Analyst Meeting and the Worldwide Partner Conference two weeks ago: Vista is OK now; Service Pack 1 has come to the rescue.
Oh? Then why are so many customers still asking for Windows XP? And why are so many OEM partners aggressively pushing XP over Vista when that means, after June 30, shipping two Windows licenses on new PCs? Something's wrong here that is much bigger than negative perceptions.
"The first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you have one. The only way to read this campaign is that Microsoft considers Vista's failure to be due to customer ignorance rather than failings of the product itself," wrote commenter Phil. "Either fix the product, or lower the cost to make it a justifiable purchase."
Microsoft isn't good at fixing some of its problems. On the one hand, the company's corporate culture is self-deprecating, in a fairly positive way. Company execs can laugh at themselves. But this "It's not my fault," blame the customer or partner attitude is pervasive. Microsoft treats many customers and partners with contempt. Licensing polices are great example, but that's topic for another blog.
4. Microsoft denies there is a real problem. Contempt and blaming relate to corporate cultural denial. Microsoft's way of deflecting fault is to look ahead. Microsoft messaging consistently is that the next version will be better. It's "Let's look to the future," when the problem is now.
The company will spend billions of dollars on research and development for future products but barely a fraction of that promoting its existing stuff. It's the same "tomorrow will be better thinking" that denies problems now and arrogantly presumes research is the only way to make things better.
When it comes to advertising, Microsoft is the worst kind of cheapskate. Microsoft should spend a whole lot less on R&D for the future and lots more now selling its products' benefits. Microsoft does advertise. Its TV commercials are about corporate vision, about how people will achieve their dreams. They're arrogant commercials. They're feel good for Microsoft, rather than feel good for customers, by showing them how the company's products could make life better.
5. Mojave seethes with arrogance. Microsoft's stated Mojave Experiment hypothesis: "If people could see Windows Vista firsthand, they would like it." The real hypothesis: If we trick people, they will see just how stupid they are.
From conception to execution, Mojave carries a strong undercurrent of arrogance: We're smart. You're stupid. The mechanism of tricking customers, who were specifically chosen because they had strong negative attitudes about Vista, is hugely arrogant. Microsoft says that "Hardy har har har, we're better than you."
There's already a perception of arrogance about Microsoft, and now company marketing executives want to reinforce it? Who's really being dumb and dumber here?
If the Mojave Experiment is example of what Microsoft spent $300 million on to promote Vista, bad is going to get much worse.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Comments (114)
"Company execs can laugh at themselves."
Yeah, I can just imagine the discussions:
Robbie Bach:
"Ha ha ha, Steve, can you believe it, we lost $7 billion on Xbox and who knows how much on Zune? Is this funny or what!
Steve Ballmer:
"Stop it Robbie! Your killing me - I just snorted latte through my nose! The shareholders will be pissed, but who cares! Oh man is this a great job, I get to laugh at billion dollar screw ups and nobody can do a damned thing about it!" (presses intercom button) "Ozzie, get in here and tell Robbie that joke about the Indian programmer who dies at his desk!"
Posted by George Carlin | July 30, 2008 12:59 PM
It fail because neither MS change attitude
(loss of credibility) or Vista really improve.
the rest is only propaganda.
Therefore:
How I got a Windows Vista refund.
http://equiliberate.org/?q=node/3
"So, world, it CAN be done - this is ~34% refund bringing the total cost of my laptop to $399.99+tax. Don't take NO for an answer. Know your rights and enforce them, or you may one day no longer have them."
Posted by Marco | July 30, 2008 1:10 PM
"But after looking more closely at Mojave and reviewing Microsoft Watch reader comments, I have to call the experiment perhaps the worst kind of marketing."
I'm sure!
"Did I drink Microsoft Kool-Aid? Sadly, yes."
Yes, just like I drank the Apple kool-aid.
Very interesting strategy there, Joe. You first mildly praise something and then go ahead and bash it. Makes you look a little more objective. Hats off to you. And the usage of terms like "kool-aid"? Brilliant!
Apple's Mac ads are as arrogant as advertisements can get. They basically call PC users idiots for using them. Do these ads work? Of course. Like someone pointed out the other day, you know nothing about advertising. So, it's better to shut up than to say something stupid. And I'm not commenting on Mojave itself, but on your attitude.
At this point, I would like to apologize to your readers. I think I've had a little too much Microsoft Watch kool-aid.
Posted by Reflections | July 30, 2008 1:25 PM
Of course, I do understand that in the end you have to write what your readers what. If a majority of your readers like to hear you talk about how crappy everything that comes out of Redmond is, that's what you need to give them. I realize that objectivity in the media is more or less a myth. You guys are humans too and have your own biases and prejudices just like your readers.
Posted by Reflections | July 30, 2008 1:38 PM
Right on Joe!
"Microsoft compels customers to go through long and unnecessary step-by-step processes to set up something. It's click, click, click, click, click, click, click, where one or two clicks should be enough.
Posted by JM | July 30, 2008 2:12 PM
i agree with point #1. i told them all through the beta they were "dumbing down" vista way too much, trying to be everything to everybody. i also told them they must be using kindergarteners in their usability studies. that's why i say every version of vista is "vista home edition", im my opinion.
Posted by gary | July 30, 2008 2:14 PM
Ha,ha,ha
Reflections is a old 'acquaintance-he is a MS'shill, his 'Modus operandis' is to start fighting everyone who has a word against MS. At the end if he doesn't get to shut them up, he rants against the blogger.
You can tell me: so...what is new about a MS' Shill? well, Reflections has no control over himself, he can insult you without any self-control. Now you know.
What's interesting about all of this is that Ms' shills are working in shifts...this would indicate a central command as well as co-ordination.
Posted by Marco | July 30, 2008 2:17 PM
"But the blogs and reviews are negative for a reason" - right, because negative articles sell publications. The goal is not truth or objectivity, it's advertising and subscription dollars. If there wasn't anything negative to say about Vista, the press wouldn't say anything at all. How many years has it been since you've seen an article praising XP?
As for people reverting to XP, if you have a problem on your PC and choose not to troubleshoot it, of course you're going to get a good result from an OS reinstall. I'll bet that in many of these cases, a Vista reinstall would have worked as well or better than going back to XP. If I can't drive because my tires are flat, a new car is one way to solve the problem, but the fact that the new car works doesn't prove that the old one was junk.
Two things I wonder about: has anyone done satisfaction surveys of people who simply bought new PCs with Vista? Forget about those whose $50, 10-year old printer won't work, and just survey people who bought new hardware with Vista. Are they less happy than those who bought the same hardware with XP? And, if Microsoft makes such garbage products, has an evil culture, scorns the consumer, and all the rest, how do you account for their ongoing financial success and market penetration?
Posted by DaveN | July 30, 2008 2:22 PM
You wrote, "Microsoft should spend a whole lot less on R&D for the future and lots more now selling its products' benefits."
I disagree. MS should continue spending tons on R&D, but they should also spend tons on QA testing as well as publicity and marketing. Considering their profits, they can certainly afford it.
Reflections is right when he writes, "Apple's Mac [vs. PC] ads are as arrogant as advertisements can get." However, he is wrong when he adds, "They basically call PC users idiots for using them." Unlike the MS ads, which call all of the people idiots, the Apple adds call one person an idiot and give people the option of being like the idiot or being like the person who is supposed to be cool, has fun, and gets his work done quickly.
Reflections and MS both miss the different approach, which is why Apple's ads work and the MS ads don't.
Posted by Don | July 30, 2008 2:39 PM
You wrote, "When it comes to advertising, Microsoft is the worst kind of cheapskate. Microsoft should spend a whole lot less on R&D for the future and lots more now selling its products' benefits."
You see, Microsoft has this one little problem with advertising. As the center of the advertising universe shifts towards Google, more and more of those ad dollars are going to go in Google's pockets. That realization alone must grate Microsoft every time it thinks about advertising.
Posted by Google | July 30, 2008 3:15 PM
Joe,
Why dont you encourage Microsoft to not do such stupid experiments. You have had excellent advises for Microsoft in the past.
Besides, they really respect your analytical and technological prowess. Like the time when you were giving a program manager such a hard time over a technical issue that he didnt know what to say.
BTW, did you find out if they filled out your dossier at Microsoft? That way you can make sure they dont forget to invite you for select-press-only events and call you up whenever they want any further encouragement or advise?
Anyway, I thought it was cool that you could IM David Worthington right away after his Midori article - it shows how well connected you are. Not only that, when you called him a click-whore and laughed about it (over IM), it clearly showed the amount of respect you commanded him. I wonder why his tipster did not reach out to you instead. Did you check your emails? Maybe it was in the Junk Mails folder?
By the way, check out Mary Jo Foley's articles on Midori or Mojave experiment. I dont think she realizes yet that the Mojave Experiement has been a failure. Please send her a note (it will be cool if you send it over IM and told us about it) advising her of your conclusion that it has failed.
Your tech and analytical savvy are mind-boggling. Keep up the excellent work Joe.
Posted by Joe | July 30, 2008 3:19 PM
Good article. This is the right time for hiring managers to get quality resources for thier projects.
One of the companies that provide technical interview service, leapways.com, says in their slogan that "A hiring manager's primary job is not hiring!"
They are offering a technical interview services though their website. This service is aimed at hiring managers who want to hire technical staff on contract basis.
IT vendors that these hiring managers work with, normally provide resources that are not the right fit for their project. These vendors make them believe that the candidate that they provide are the best in the industry. The managers are normally do not have enough exposure to test the technical capabilities of the candidate. So they have to believe what their IT vendor says. What is the result? The IT Vendor bill a junior candidate with a high rate. Managers who do not have time and money to go though the hassles of complicated candidate selection processes and still want a good candidate at a reasonable rate can use this service and hire a good technical resource for their project.
Leapways help them finding the right technical candidate even from the IT vendor they are using now. By using Leapways' candidate service, the hiring managers can concentrate on their actual work and not worry about the quality of the resource he/she is getting. The service is offered at a reasonable cost. Please visit their website leapways.com or contact info@leapways.com for more information.
Posted by John | July 30, 2008 3:19 PM
You're first argument as to why mojave fails is "1. Microsoft treats its customers like they're stupid.". I think this is a flawed argument. Mojave is showing people who made conclusion about vista based on never having seen it, then did an about face after having seen it in a demo. What else would you call these people?
Posted by Jeremy | July 30, 2008 3:37 PM
I've been taking a look at those videos and a few things surfaced:
- they are repeated, some clips show up more than one time
- they are not unique people, those clips that are unique are sometimes the same person saying something else
- a vast majority of the ones I viewed were around the lines of "this isn't Mojave its Vista" followed by a "wow", "gosh", "son of a gun" or something similar
- of the clips that do not fall into the previous point, I recall them mentioning such great distinctive features as "I like how you switch between windows", "I like the brown color decoration", "it looks sexy". All truly compelling reasons to switch to Vista, not.
Then again I only looked at the first two rows. Maybe down below there were comments on the ease of network connectivity, data backup, mobile device sync, gaming etc. But I seriously doubt it.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | July 30, 2008 3:53 PM
Wow, we all really need to read what we type before we hit post... But back to the article, along the lines of why I think Mojave is not the preferred way of selling your product to your users is that it assumes the fact that "lots" of people don't like vista because they haven't seen it. I watched the video online and initially was impressed that they found that many people with such a strong opinion of the OS that weren't in IT. That says a lot about the failure to relay what the benefits of the OS are to the user base. This happens I believe because for the last 15 years Microsoft did not have to relay what the benefits were to users, there was no choice, you bought a machine you need a new OS. Linux and Mac OSX are only gaining a little traction now because they have fought to tell the story of why their OS is preferred. Mac OSX more than linux of course, but I think linux has come a long way in the past 3 years, and the mac has sold viewers "it just works". What does? no one really knows but "it" just works. For an established champ like windows that should be it's mantra, instead we get the blue screen of death, or security / virus comments, anything but it has more software than any other OS and runs on more manufacturers. Though that strength has played into a weakness in a failure to have partners deliver rock solid integration. We're back to a positive slant in apple commercials again, we build it all and it just works... but enough of that. Mojave is bad advertising, if your the one duped. If you had no opinion then it might work to sway you toward looking at it. If you had a strong opinion then your angry that they did that to other Vista bashers, and if you love vista, then you'll like mojave. But which of those classes of viewer/users were they really after?
Posted by Minezamac | July 30, 2008 4:03 PM
"Reflections is a old 'acquaintance-he is a MS'shill, his 'Modus operandis' is to start fighting everyone who has a word against MS. At the end if he doesn't get to shut them up, he rants against the blogger.
You can tell me: so...what is new about a MS' Shill? well, Reflections has no control over himself, he can insult you without any self-control. Now you know."
Chill out, Macro. I have only called Joe biased, Which is not a derogatory term. You need to understand that bias is part of human nature. I agree that ranting against Joe was stupid and that's why I wrote the second post correcting myself. Expecting Joe to give up his bias would be like Fox News suddenly supporting Barack or MSNBC rooting for McCain. Whether Joe thinks Mojave is a success or not is his personal opinion, obviously.I guess what irritated me what that kool-aid comment. That was a classic instance of "pandering to his readers". Coming from chips or in fact, you, it probably wouldn't have mattered. But that fact that it was Joe who made that statement ticked me off. In my opinion, it was uncalled for. But that's just me.
"he is a MS'shill"
"he can insult you without any self-control."
Umm ... pot, meet kettle.
Posted by Reflections | July 30, 2008 4:38 PM
"Unlike the MS ads, which call all of the people idiots, the Apple adds call one person an idiot and give people the option of being like the idiot or being like the person who is supposed to be cool, has fun, and gets his work done quickly."
Not really, Don. The people in the MS "ads" (because they're not really ads) appear stupid only because they disliked something without knowing anything about it. It's just asking people not to "trust" some blogger/critic and try out the system themselves before jumping to conclusions. I think much of the critism of it is only because it's Microsoft that's doing it. If Canonical were to run a similar campaign about Ubuntu or Apple about Apple TV, it would be unanimously praised. If Microsoft ran ads like the Apple switcher ads, people would call them arrogant.
Posted by Reflections | July 30, 2008 4:51 PM
1. Microsoft treats its customers like they're stupid.
(Windows Genuine Advantage)
2. Microsoft embarrasses Mojave participates.
(Yes, let the partcipants bring along thier "Vista capable" 512 MB laptops and four year old printers and see "how well" Mojave works.)
3. The marketing campaign blames customers for Vista's problems.
(Yes, classic MSFT response ...blame everything else ...except the software itself.)
4. Microsoft denies there is a real problem.
(Denial always works...better to sweep the problems under the rug and hire shills and
bogus trials to tout the benefits of Vista/Mojave/Whatever...Whats next? Blame the IT Corporate Enterprise world that it is the fault of the customer that the computers can not run Vista..or the software essential to their businesses cannot run on Vista either? )
5. Mojave seethes with arrogance.
( And MSFT sometimes wonder why people don't trust them? )
The Mojave Experiment has made good fodder for the Linux and Mac forums. So, one question to ask now.
Is anyone surprised?
Posted by Ralph | July 30, 2008 4:53 PM
Good article. I love how MS essentially thinks that the cornerstone of a great marketing slogan is "Vista: See... It's not so bad." Reminds me of something a doctor would say to you after giving you a shot.
They are truly challenged when it comes to marketing concepts. But then, how are they going to articulate a cogent marketing strategy when they can't seem to figure out why they made Vista in the first place?
Wait, I've got the next marketing concept: "Vista: because we needed something."
Posted by Bracco | July 30, 2008 5:09 PM
Well, I was going to disagree with you, Joe, and say that Microsoft treats their customers like they are potential thieves, not like they are stupid.
But then, I came across one of those Microsoft series of security ads in which they tell you how easy it is to defeat a skeleton, a man-eating plant, a zombie, a witch, a cyclops, and a dragon.
Is this cute? To the same group of people who (still) live at home, these ads might be cute. But those ads are 0.000000000000001% as good as the Apple Mac vrs. PC ads. And I am being VERY generous to those Microsoft ads with that estimation of the percentage comparison.
So, Joe, I guess I really must agree with you. If Microsoft thinks people are stupid enough to think it's cute to know how to defeat a witch, then they must be stupid for avoiding or complaining about Vista. Microsoft's arrogance is so big that it dwarfs the mass of all of the stars in our galaxy and even some of the less massive black holes. And that kind of massive arrogance is a deadly terminal cancer to any company.
Posted by Philosopher | July 30, 2008 5:58 PM
It is also idiocy to think that a 10 minute demo can possibly show that Vista is fixed. Did they hook a new device to it? Try to network it? Try to run the users' existing programs on it? Try to run it on the users' existing PC? No. Vista demos OK on a high-end PC because of the eye candy, but fails in the marketplace because it is a bloated, resource-hungry OS lacking good device drivers and backward compatibility. It also lacks UI consistency which makes it a pain to learn/use.
The demo doesn't address the problems of Vista - it more or less "punks" some people who prefer XP.
Posted by Cmac | July 30, 2008 6:07 PM
"Unlike the MS ads, which call all of the people idiots, the Apple adds call one person an idiot and give people the option of being like the idiot or being like the person who is supposed to be cool,"
Apple ads don't call anyone an idiot. Only haters see it that way. One person is creative with his computer, while the other is being held back by issues, and all sorts of poorly designed "features" like UAC and click, click, click, click, click, click, click. Both characters are likeable, but the PC guy is the guy you sympathize with. He's a well meaning, hard working (even lovable) guy who is besieged by problems not of his making. But Apple has a solution....
Posted by zato | July 30, 2008 6:14 PM
Philosopher wrote: "Well, I was going to disagree with you, Joe, and say that Microsoft treats their customers like they are potential thieves, not like they are stupid."
I would have to yeild and agree with him for the most part, at least with regards to Microsoft and the general public. They aren't the only ones who do this. Making one feel that they are condecended is an old ploy. 99.% of the television adds, and other forms of media do the same thing. Apple attempts to dupe people in their FUD campaign by comparing the plump PC guy and the other actor. Needless to say that is deceiving, anyone with half a brain will realize that though I admit, it's entertaining, but deceptive.
MSDN Subscriber and have been for years, so what I see and visit into TechNet and other areas, I don't see the MS Downgrading to the public and I am not making excuses of tactless or the nearly non-existant positive advertisment from Redmond.
I will also like to make mention that what I've read about this person called "Marco" making (assuming this is a grown up and in the male gender) enjoys railing on people who has a difference of opinion -- I will assume that he will rail against me because I am Pro Microsoft. However jumping on "Reflections" is uncalled for and Marco assumes entirely too much.
Yes, I am biased as well as the next person, and I too am opinionated.
Posted by TotaltarianMicrosoftX64 | July 30, 2008 6:14 PM
Deja vu - remember OS/2?
There were generic IBM ads to let you know they still existed but no money was spent on advertising the benefits of OS/2. As a fan of OS/2 it was frustrating watching it fade into obscurity.
There were Microsoft ads promoting Windows all over the place. The reasons given was that IBM was too big to promote one product and the different departments fought with each other about eroding their fiefdoms. Microsoft was able to promote Windows because they were smaller and more agile.
Now that Microsoft has a lot more fiefdoms (Zune, MSN, Windows, Office, XBox) it has become the behemoth that was IBM. You can substitute IBM, OS/2, Microsoft, and Windows above with Microsoft, Vista, Apple, and Mac respectively and you see history repeating itself.
Apple is now the small company beating up on the behemoth. It was said that IBM would take 9 months to ship an empty box. How long does it take Microsoft to ship the next version of Windows?
Posted by Jamie | July 30, 2008 6:52 PM
Nice to see some reflection and second thoughts in writing. The blogosphere moves so quickly, it rarely gives people the opportunity to sit back and take those second looks.
Thanks for not leaving this issue alone, and double-checking your gut reactions. I noticed over on Techmeme a similar "day after" retrospection about Cuil, the "Google killer".
Posted by GearsofPeace | July 30, 2008 6:55 PM
Zato, you are right. It's quite remarkable, actually, how positive the ads are towards PC. We see him crash, and we shed a tear for the poor guy. We see him going into the hospital and fear for his health. And having him express how much fun he had on his vacation through a monochrome pie chart has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
We love PC but the ads make us not want to buy another one. How clever is that?
The author of this article does not seem astute in saying that more marketing will fix Microsoft's problems. Their problems are associated with very poor products, which means R&D needs to be improved. I do not know how much more money this is going to take, but reducing R&D and increasing advertising budgets is not going to fix products.
I have had two encounters with Windows users in coffee shops where they have volunteered, without prompting, how much they hate Vista. One had already downgraded and the other was too lazy to do it now but planned to do so soon. This makes me think the hatred of Vista is real and not just a tech press gimmick.
On the other hand, Windows is so entrenched that neither seemed to want to join me in Appleland any time soon. One of them has a job as a programmer that requires Windows, and the other had a sister who had unfortunate motherboard problems with her iBook. For people without those problems, I think it is difficult to get people to switch from Windows, but I strongly suspect it's virtually impossible to get them back once switched.
D
Posted by David H Dennis | July 30, 2008 7:16 PM
"To the same group of people who (still) live at home, these ads might be cute." Where the hell else is one to live? In a field? Only the homeless don't live at home, dipshit. Do you mean in the home of a parent or parents? Wake up moron.
Posted by Les Verbose | July 30, 2008 7:26 PM
Hey, all you Microsoft execs: want a good scare? Step out of your plush Redmond office suites and into your nearby Apple store and see the -throngs- just waiting in line to buy stuff.
That's just ONE of the places your customers are headed....
Posted by mgo | July 30, 2008 8:32 PM
David H Dennis wrote: "It's quite remarkable, actually, how positive the ads are towards PC..."
Nicely written, Dennis.
To Microsoft: Hoodwinking your customers is not clever. They won't appreciate it. Especially the gamers, who are the foundation of MS.
Posted by zato | July 30, 2008 10:02 PM
Joe, admitting you were wrong is laudable. It's just too bad you missed the biggest reason why the 'Mojave Experiment' fails. You should have added:
6. Mojave is based on flim-flam research.
You're a journalist. Go ask an authority on marketing research (or related area). The "before and after" conditions in the experiment were completely mismatched. You can't draw the kind of conclusion that Microsoft tries to make. I would go so far as to say the Redmond folks are being unethical here. Or incompetent. Or both.
Posted by Underwhelmed | July 31, 2008 12:17 AM
This is all very easy to say if you are ignorant of what it's like to be a software company. The vast majority of people who use computers _are_ stupid. You have no idea what it's like to try to talk to users who don't want to learn anything, don't want to use a computer, don't want to cooperate, don't want to see anything new...ever.
Everybody absolutely knows that their way is the right way, and they don't care if they are the only user who thinks like them. Bloggers and analysts don't help anything either.
Maybe if some of you had an open mind for once, instead of spouting a constant stream of sensationalism to get ad revenue, you might learn something.
Posted by Fred | July 31, 2008 2:29 AM
Mojave smacks of in-house marketing. Bad type design, bad editing, etc. This reveals MS's slap-dash throw anything against a wall to see what sticks approach to marketing.
At Microsoft's age, the company should have developed an iterative process for planning, executing, reviewing, modifying and then repeat the cycle. It's apparent this process has broken down from marketing to OS development. Everything they do seems like a "new initiative" that fails to build on the past.
Time for the company to behave like adults, get it together and bring back some cohesiveness to their business and marketing message.
Posted by geo | July 31, 2008 7:31 AM
There's something seriously wrong when the advice is "reinstall the OS" to solve a compatibility problem.
IBM used to behave the way that MS does now. Customers using mainframe OSs would be told that "upgrading" to a new release was mandatory and then discover that all the software that had been written in-house had to be redone! When you have a monopoly, you can get away with it.
As well as all versions of "consumeer" Windows from 2.0 to 98 and NT3.1 to 2000, and XP, I have used Linux (SuSE) and now use Mac OS 10.5. I have never had to reinstall a non-Windows OS.
Despite all the hoo-ha, we'd do well to remember that the main purpose of an OS is to allow us to do our work by running programs. The OS should support our work rather than get in the way.
Posted by Arthur Norton | July 31, 2008 7:56 AM
@LesVerbose:
Yeah, I meant to say "To the same group of people who (still) live at THEIR PARENTS' home". Small omission, but big change in meaning.
By the way, was it your mom or your dad who taught you to use words like that? You must be a real joy to behold when you discover a transgression that is more serious than a typo.
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 9:39 AM
I watched a few of the Mojave Experiment videos. I felt embarrassment for the folks put into the on-camera position. Kind of like Candid Camera, only not so funny.
"Microsoft treats many customers and partners with contempt. Licensing polices are great example, but that's topic for another blog."
And one I'd like to read!
Posted by Partners in Grime | July 31, 2008 10:32 AM
Arthur Norton says:
"There's something seriously wrong when the advice is "reinstall the OS" to solve a compatibility problem."
@Arthur Norton:
Heretic! You are blaspheming the Church of Microsoft! You should be burned at the stake before you start spouting other things, such as the world really isn't flat, and the Sun doesn't really revolve around the Earth.
;-)
(btw, I agree with you 100%. We'll probably end up being burned on adjacent stakes for our crimes of telling the truth and exposing incompetence and lies...)
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 11:17 AM
You forgot to ask a question about Mojave: What hardware was the experiment using? If the answer is a brand new high-end dual processor machine with 4GB of memory, then maybe the users WOULD like Vista. I'm absolutely certain of one thing: if the hardware was a three year old 1.5GHz clocked Celeron machine with 500MB of memory, Vista would surely not look quite so good!
Joe
Posted by Joe | July 31, 2008 11:51 AM
Uh, Joe, "participate" is not a noun. You should've used the word "participant."
Posted by Richard | July 31, 2008 2:02 PM
Advertising is about appealing to people's emotions. It's not about presenting factual information.
I like Apple's Mac ads. They're amusing and entertaining. And they make you feel good about Apple products.
Arrogant? Hardly. They're just poking fun at Windows. And why not? Windows provides lots of ammunition.
MS fans are pissed at Apple because the Mac ads are so brilliant and effective. Beware of the green monster -- envy.
Posted by Richard | July 31, 2008 2:09 PM
Joe's article is dead on. Mojave is no way to make people feel good about themselves or about Microsoft. Mojave is not entertaining nor amusing.
And suggesting that people's opinions of Vista will change after they've seen a 10-minute demo is absurd. You can't evaluate the worth of any product after 10 minutes.
It is public knowledge that Vista is rife with all kinds of issues. To deny this is insane. To hide behind SP1 is disingenuous -- SP1 solves some problems but not all.
In attempting to mask all of this with Mojave and other marketing schemes, Microsoft risks injuring their reputation even further. My recommendation is, just publicly admit that Vista is flawed, ask the public for forgiveness, and ask them to wait for Windows 7.
Then *deliver* on Windows 7's promises. Simple, n'est ce pas?
Posted by Richard | July 31, 2008 2:21 PM
I think you missed the biggest problem: the experiment is just plain bad science.
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/07/mojave-experiment-bad-science-bad.html
Posted by Jon | July 31, 2008 2:44 PM
Finally...
I went out to the official Mojave web site to see what all the hub-bub is about. As a loyal professional Microsoft User that also develops using Microsoft products, at first I smiled at hearing all those admitting that they didn't try Vista out for themselves, but instead listened to a bunch of folks complaining.
I would imagine that many untold numbers along the bloggosphere are falling into the same category.
This experiment is nothing new, and certainly not "scientific" by any means. This is nothing more than the deceptions that has been going on for decades by the use of the multitudes of companies.
"Is it Pepsi or Coke..." Just more deception, but if you went after everyone doing this on TV, there wouldn't be much to watch.
I'm not defending Vista, it's a good operating system and I am only talking about the X versions -- Everything else means nothing to me. I migrated from X computing since WXP Professional had a x64 version built upon the very reliable 2003 Server kernel.
Vista SP1 made some considerable improvements, still has a ways to go by any means. Still, public perception, word of mouth, regardless if it's first hand or otherwise has "doomed" Vista.
As far as an operating system is concerned by Redmond, XP Professional x64 is the only version that matters to me, stable, fast, reliable, and without the overhead of Aero -- But, hey that's just me and my opinion.
People are going to make too much about this Mojave Experiment -- Really, you're giving MS too much credit, this "experiment" isn't an MS original...
Posted by TotaltarianMicrosoftX64 | July 31, 2008 3:04 PM
Just a note about the Apple ads. Windows partisans consistently attack them as arrogant, but the truth is they are simply saying aloud what millions of people already think and have been thinking for years: Windows PCs are annoying. The vast majority of Windows users do not “like” Windows in any meaningful sense; they put up with it because they have never felt they had any choice. The brilliance of the Apple ads is that they actually make the PC character sympathetic — he’s not stupid or malicious, just a little misguided and stuck in his ways. Most Windows users will not feel defensive at this portrayal, and can consider a jump to the Mac without the reflexive need to justify or defend their original choice.
Posted by Dan | July 31, 2008 3:54 PM
"Apple's Mac ads are as arrogant as advertisements can get. They basically call PC users idiots for using them."
Apple's ads aren't arrogant. Microsoft's campaign and decades of near-mediocre product couldn't validate Apple's ads any better.
I'm a Vista hostage and the IT department is holding the gun to my head. Should it take 2 minutes to open a simple text-based e-mail message in Outlook on my Vista laptop? I would be an idiot to purchase Vista after my (real world/good science) workplace experience.
Posted by Had Enough | July 31, 2008 4:05 PM
Another wasted minute! To all you "unbiased" reporters/columnists/bloggers, GO BUY A MAC AND SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY!
yes, we get that you don't like Redmond, yes you look good in the Steve Jobs turtle neck - go tickle a penguin and learn to write something of interest - not regurgated the same old crap!
Posted by Annoyed | July 31, 2008 4:11 PM
Mojave is not just advertising, it is also the total Microsoft machine, it is misinformation by Microsoft Media, attack by Microsoft shills, lies by Microsoft bloggers, dirty game from Microsoft total War.
Posted by Israel | July 31, 2008 4:35 PM
@Annoyed:
Aside from the relatively tiny sampling of "reporters/columnists/bloggers", lots of people are buying a Mac and doing it quietly (i.e. without blogging about it).
You are annoyed by the relatively small number of outspoken complainers, but Microsoft is SCARED TO DEATH by the MUCH, MUCH LARGER number of silent but deadly (to their economic engine) dissenters who abandon quietly abandon Vista for XP, Mac, and Linux. Especially those who move to Mac or Linux.
And even more scared are those who build their economic lives around Microsoft's products to the exclusion of anything else. Which is odd, because if Microsoft supporters really had no fear of Mac or Linux, they would only laugh at Mac and Linux fans. But there is very little laughter; mostly it's fear-driven loathing tirades. Which sows far more seeds of doubt in Microsoft's future than the Apple and Linux fans ever could.
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 5:02 PM
DaveN asked:
"And, if Microsoft makes such garbage products, has an evil culture, scorns the consumer, and all the rest, how do you account for their ongoing financial success and market penetration?"
@DaveN:
They didn't used to scorn the consumer. They used to fawn all over the consumer. They were evil to their partners and competitors and knew how to lock in vendors to ensure their stuff was installed and nobody else's stuff could run. But they treated the customer as royalty and places the consumer in an adversarial position.
Vista's pervasive DRM, admitted by Microsoft itself to be annoying, is not in Vista for the benefit of consumers. Vista is the first Microsoft product that treats Sony, the RIAA, and other legacy dinosaur content slave-shops as royalty.
Bill Gates knew his way around finance and marketing and knew where his billions came from. While I'm not a fan of Microsoft's operating system technology (until Windows NT, they didn't have an operating system that was beyond the Computing Stone Age), but he knew his market and how to reach out to them and hold onto them. And how to make them feel like royalty.
Ballmer acts as if consumers are his enemy and as though consumers are the reason that Microsoft's future growth prospects are dimmer than they have been. But even though Microsoft has hit the wall in market saturation, Ballmer acts like he can continue to grow exponentially in the very same market. And acts as though he views consumers as the reason for his failures.
Gates saw the Big Wave (a very brilliant insight), got on at the very beginning (took a lot of guts), and rode it fairly well all the way to the top (again, very brilliant and visionary, even if he had to crush a few other companies along the way and make some shady deals here and there), and now is stepping aside as the wave peaks and begins to flatten. I gotta hand it to Bill. He knew when to leave looking like a hero and miracle worker.
And he didn't leave any of the exponential growth curve for Ballmer to ride. So sad for Steve.
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 5:22 PM
CORRECTION:
...But they treated the customer as royalty.
Vista's pervasive DRM, admitted by Microsoft itself to be annoying, is not in Vista for the benefit of consumers. Vista is the first Microsoft product that treats Sony, the RIAA, and other legacy dinosaur content slave-shops as royalty. And places the consumer in an adversarial position.
...
(If I could edit in place, I would.)
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 5:24 PM
It's like the Republican party... There's nothing wrong with our policies, it's just a matter of presentation, of public perception.
You're all too stupid to realize how good things really are.
Posted by GeorgeW | July 31, 2008 5:25 PM
GeorgeW, you hit the nail on the head!
Republican Party: Things are fine! Shut up and go away and don't touch anything on your way out because it all belongs to us!
Democratic Party: Things are horrible and it's all your fault! Empty your pockets, but you can either stay or leave as long as you shut up and keep emptying your pockets into ours!
(I guess it's obvious that I don't trust any politicians. Like Mark Twain said, "Congress is the only native American criminal class.")
Posted by Philosopher | July 31, 2008 5:50 PM
Dan, well said! The PC character is, indeed, quite endearing, and most Windows users simply use what is given them without question. If they knew better, they'd use Mac. The Apple ads are absolutely brilliant.
Posted by Richard | July 31, 2008 6:59 PM
Well said, Philosopher!
"Which is odd, because if Microsoft supporters really had no fear of Mac or Linux, they would only laugh at Mac and Linux fans. But there is very little laughter; mostly it's fear-driven loathing tirades."
Truer words have never been spoken. Why are Windows supporters so pissed? They're awfully defensive. Where there's smoke, there's fire...
Posted by Richard | July 31, 2008 7:07 PM
MS is a perfect example of too many cooks in the kitchen. I can only imagine the UI design meetings there. Lots of self-proclaimed experts who are actually terrible at it spewing out dictates like they're God. The fact is, MS sucks at UI and app design. They need to admit this to themselves.
And, they are very confused about who and what they are as a company. Every giant thinks they'll be on top forever. Will MS become the next Ford/GM. Remains to be seen but Ballmer is not doing them any favors. Seriously, him and Craig Barrett should go start a golf-club for sophmore curse CEOs...
Posted by EF1L4ZODN1W! | July 31, 2008 9:03 PM
"The marketing campaign blames customers for Vista's problems."
Well, this is just the natural next step. When the PlaysforSure partners got no traction in the market, Microsoft blamed them and blew them away with the Zune. But the PC partners are a bit more powerful, so Microsoft decides to just blame the customers instead.
This is what happens when a company is run by salesmen, who have no idea whether their products have any quality whatsoever.
Posted by mark | July 31, 2008 9:06 PM
@mark:
When you said "This is what happens when a company is run by salesmen, who have no idea whether their products have any quality whatsoever" it brought back memories of IBM's behavior. Is Microsoft heading down the same path, but without the foundation of hardware revenue to save their sinking software ship?
I once ordered an IBM publication about the AS/400. IBM tried to kill IBM Austin's use of Unix by severely crippling the PC/RT so that it became an overpriced underperforming joke. But IBM Austin came back with the RS/6000 which was, and sort of still is, quite popular among high-end proprietary Unix installations.
The AS/400 publication lamented that people were buying RS/6000s instead of AS/400s for business applications. The IBM author stated that "IBM positioned the AS/400 for business applications, and the RS/6000 for engineering and scientific applications. Unfortunately, the market has a mind of its own."
I imagined that Tom Watson, Jr. was spinning in his grave. A company that brands its customers as stupid or misguided because they don't follow the strategic sales roadmap is a company that is soon to go under. And if it weren't for hardware and hourly $$$ services, an IBM built only on software would have been dead and buried a long time ago.
And now Microsoft is pulling the plug on XP and viewing customers as either too stupid or too stubborn for not buying into the Vista message. Ballmer has customers clamoring for one of his company's own products and he is trying to slam the door in their faces.
The powerhouse growth engine in the Microsoft of old would have beefed up XP and continued to rake in the money, never once letting its market momentum lapse even for a second.
If Ballmer wants to find out who is trying to bring down Microsoft, he need go no further than the nearest mirror.
Posted by Philosopher | August 1, 2008 12:48 AM
In my opinion, the truth of the matter is that you bought in to the Anti-Vista IT hype bs that was built upon in the ability of large amounts of IT individuals to follow basic use concepts that have been in place for something like 7 years now and then when it was shoved at you from a different perspective you came at it with an open mind.
Now when you realize you were duped, you're obviously mad.
People say it's a slimy sales person situation, I think it's a brilliant marketing strategy. The only people that worked against Vista was the IT group and now Microsoft has shown they're full of it.
It wasn't a slam on the average consumer. It was a slam on the average IT pundit / blogger who deserved it the most for speaking out of ignorance.
No OS/Software is without flaws (my iPod crashed twice last night and still fails to capture e-mails more than once without having to power cycle)
Posted by Bryan | August 1, 2008 10:55 AM
I think the latest fad is anything except Microsft. To get your blog popular all you need to do is bash walmart, microsoft etc. Besides what can one do on an Apple Overpriced singular hardware computers. This is all BS. And why is Apple so afraid to let its OS run on different Hardware.
Linux is much better than apple when it comes to hardware support.
Posted by datechman | August 1, 2008 12:37 PM
@datechman:
What can one do an an Apple? Adobe products run better than they do on Windows and don't run at all on Linux. Final Cut is by far the best and smoothest video production software for advanced home use, and it runs only on Apple Mac.
But other than that (which for some, this means, "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"), yes, Linux is the best of Mac and Windows without their shortcomings.
Personally, I find Ubuntu 8.04 LTS to be a credible, smooth, full-function, high-performance, rock-solid desktop alternative to Windows. But there are only three of us in my group who venture into the Linux-as-a-desktop world. I don't threaten or undermine the rest of the Windows users, and go out of my way to interoperate with them. Interoperability is something that the Linux universe does vastly better than either Microsoft or Apple.
While bashing Microsoft does seem to be a fad these days, and while it isn't valuable or insightful in and of itself, it does help illustrate the fall of the Microsoft empire. The support for Microsoft was once scornful and dismissive but now is becoming very panicked and full of the venom and hatred one would only show for a feared foe. In other words, Microsoft bashing is a form of bait for the legions of Microsoft supporters who feel truly threatened by Apple and Linux, and no longer just amused. And therefore provides a valuable way to measure the fear that is felt, but not openly admitted, by Microsoft.
Posted by Philosopher | August 1, 2008 1:51 PM
Apple's "Get a Mac" ads are very clever. They are not arrogant; they are sympathetic to the plight of Windows users. Whether this "plight" is real or imagined, it does not matter. Either the Windows user has experience those problems OR they have heard of people experiencing those problems OR they are Mac users already. So it is REAL enough to them when they view the commercial. Apple is not informing viewers that Windows has security issues or that performance is poor without hardware upgrades or (insert premise of Get a Mac ad); they already believe these things are true. The ads simply restate these these points through humor and provide the solution (get a Mac).
And the "PC" character is depicted as a regular guy who can't get a break, not an idiot who is fooled into thinking that "Mojave" is Vista. Instead of "You don't like Vista because you are a fool," Apple's ads say, "It's NOT your fault if your Windows PC does not work right."
Posted by Ken | August 2, 2008 2:43 PM
Tell me, if someone were to show how wrong George Bush's administration is by showing it how good it actually could be, would it bother you?
If a country had shown German people how bad Hitler was by showing them how much better it actually could be with another regime, and they had aknowledged they were wrong, would that have bothered you?
If a country was to show the US how bad the health care system is and how good it could be and the government were to recognize that, yes, the health care system is wrong, would that bother you?
How come that, for a trivial matter like Windows Vista and a Microsoft ad campaign, it does bother you that much? Your article fails to prove why it is so bad to make me understand that I am totally wrong because I blindly followed the pack that says "Vista sucks". Being stupid is not a fatality.
Posted by David | August 2, 2008 3:26 PM
This is a perception issue. Why don't you people understand that. Apple's best marketing is to bag on Vista, not even promote their product. This is not about politics. This is about business. Just because you own a computer, it does not mean that you own the OS. Why is this even being discussed. If you don't like it stay on XP or switch to another OS. But please just shut up. And to Joe Wilcox: Cant you find some actual technology to report on, or are you an expert on marketing now.
Posted by Pedro | August 2, 2008 4:38 PM
I'm one of those people who bought a PC with Vista already installed. I've only seen people complain who installed it on a POS PC that was already ready for the scrap heap. My mother didn't want to upgrade from windows 98, but she has vista and is happy as can be. the User control thing? simple. turn the F**ker off. I don't care about the wizards. I might just happen to want to put something somewhere different. Hell, the vast majority of the time, I click-click-click-click-click without thinking because I don't normally read what I'm looking at unless there's the possibility of extra software I don't want. any other time the wizards are there for those who honestly don't completely know what they are doing. (I have a room mate like this.)
I wouldn't completely agree with MS's tactics, but Mohave did show people whose opinions were based on word of mouth alone that Vista isn't as bad as what they think it is.
On top of that. Are you sure they didn't pay those people off?
I won't get an Apple for the simple fact that I like the idea that I can upgrade whatever the hell I want, when I want, without having to buy a completely new computer.
Posted by TC | August 2, 2008 4:43 PM
I totally agree. The tactics used in this “experiment” are disgusting.
The experiment is completley manufactured and coated with the same 20lb. layer of shine that Vista is layered in.
I am reminded of a quote by Ted Nelson in the book Computer Lib:
“A chant you can take to the streets… COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH THE CYBER CRUD!”
I highly recommend this book.
Posted by Zoasterboy | August 2, 2008 7:02 PM
I wonder how many of you are actively using Vista? After using it at both work and home for about 1 year now, I can say it's superior to XP, and yes SP1 DID fix just about all of the issues that initially plagued the O/S.
Sorry Joe, but maybe you should be one of those folks in the experiment, based upon your comments it's easy to see you too refuse to run Vista for... What reason exactly?
Sorry but "because everyone says " just doesn't cut it.
Posted by Richard | August 4, 2008 3:59 PM
To be honest i don't care how bad of a marketing scheme it is. All the claims are true. People think vista sucks. They have never tried vista. Some people have problems with vista and assume it is vista. 99% of the time it is outdated XP drivers.
I have vista and i have much fewer issues with it than i had with XP.
The problem exists between keyboard and chair people.
Posted by aaron | August 4, 2008 9:15 PM
@aaron I'm sorry, but the driver excuse just doesn't cut it. First of all if it were Linux folks would be all over the place about lack of hardware support. Somehow with Vista it becomes the manufacturer's fault.
Only in this industry is such a practice accepted and it is truly pathetic. Look at it from the automotive point of view. If your brand new SUV leaked oil because there was no proper oil filter out yet, there were no spark plug replacements and your transmission fluid leaked too because the seals were for an old transmission model. Wouldn't you be upset? Why do you accept such a behavior in the computer industry?
If I buy a new PC I expect new drivers and everything to work as advertised. If the issue with my Vista is old XP drivers my overall experience is negative, period. It is a problem that should concern the OEM and Microsoft. Not me. Why should I be expected to give excuses for Vista's poor performance on their behalf when I paid for something other than I got.
Your comment is one of the key points why consumers should take their business (and hard earned money) to another computing platform and leave Windows behind. It is certainly not a comment to promote further usage of the Windows platform.
Your closing line is truly an insult. The machine, the computer is here to work for us, not the other way around. Certainly there are people who need some learning experience, but overall if such a chronic situation exists (as we see with Vista) then the problem is elsewhere. There are various reasons to exemplify Vistas broken human-computer interface:
- Icons are not intuitive
- Locations have been rearranged so your 6 years of experience with XP goes to waste
- You have to read more today than you did back in the DOS days
- there is more than one way to reach and do something. Which is a bad thing because it lengthens the learning curve and creates people who do it one way and people who do it some other way thus diminishing peer support.
Once again only after Microsoft accepts its failure with Vista will campaigns like this work. Only if the underlaying issue which has caused the bad impression is removed can you begin to improve the product's image.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | August 5, 2008 9:17 AM
That is the point. Most users are stupid. Especially since the majority or all of those test subjects had a definitive opinion about a product they never used. They watched those "cool" Apple comercials. Talk about drinking the coolaid. Microsoft does not have the best products, but they have the best products for the widest range of customers. If Al Gore and Bono did commercials for Microsoft, we would not be having this conversation.
EWeek bashing Microsoft, that's original.
Posted by Jeff | August 6, 2008 12:44 PM
Perhaps the reason Microsoft adopted their brilliant marketing strategy treating people as if they are stupid is ...well... because the average and majority of Microsoft's user base is stupid. I work with and support their target audience all day long. Idiots!
Hasta la Windows Vista.
Posted by Gates_of_hell | August 6, 2008 1:14 PM
If we take all this criticism at face value, it also means that things like blind taste tests are "condecending marketing." The "aha" when a lifetime Coke drinker realizes that they like the flavor of Pepsi better is so offensive and demeaning to that person... :-)
Posted by John | August 6, 2008 2:20 PM
Joe:
Your comments on Mojave are right on! As a Microsoft Partner I attemp to never denigrate Microsoft products or marketing. However Vista has been a loser for us since the beginning and no amout of marketing is going to change that. I put Vista on a parallel with Microsft ME. I rest my case.
R.A. Bryson, MCSE, MCT, CCNP. Master CIQ Admin
Posted by Rick Bryson | August 6, 2008 2:35 PM
@Gates_of_hell:
* Perhaps the reason Microsoft adopted their brilliant marketing strategy treating people as if they are stupid is ...well... because the average and majority of Microsoft's user base is stupid. I work with and support their target audience all day long. Idiots!
1. You say you work with and support Microsoft's target audience, but you cannot be telling the truth. Don't you know that Windows is so easy to use? Don't you know that it's all just point and click and wizards and nirvana? Well, I have news for you, I know it because Microsoft and all their loyal followers tell me so. *snort* *gasp* Yes, you are 100.00000% correct.
(To the members of the St. Gates Holy Church of Microsoft: I do recognize that for the general audience, Mac and Linux need support too. With Mac and Linux, the problems are mostly related to compatibility with your Holy Book of Protocols and File Formats, but to the average person, yes, these are real problems and need support to fix them or work around them. But at least I'm not fighting viruses at the same time...)
2. But, someone once said that no businessman ever failed by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. And Microsoft hasn't done too badly by targeting the idiots.
* Hasta la Windows Vista.
A great line! Our sys admin loved it!!!
Posted by Philosopher | August 6, 2008 5:23 PM
Let me sum up: Oh, you think I was wrong and this was stupid? Wow, you're right, I was just crazy for a minute there, everything Microsoft does is just horrible and anti-consumer.
Did I capture the tone?
The Mohave experiment doesn't try to show people are stupid or that their opinions are invalid -- it tries to show that people are uninformed and their "opinions" are often based on rumors, innuendo, and whoever rants the loudest in your comment box.
All the experiment shows is that these customers who looked at Vista without their pre-conceived notions actually liked it. There's nothing statistically correct about that (after all, they had to find people who wouldn't recognize Vista when they saw it), but it's hardly the arrogant keaning you (now) make it out to be.
Posted by Jaykul | August 6, 2008 6:16 PM
This comment does not address the Mojave Experiment, its stupidity or otherwise, or the quality of Vista. What I want to comment on is the irrelevant and, in my opinion false, assumption stated in your second paragraph, that Microsoft is a "lame marketer". You talking heads and Microsoft bashers in the media want it both ways. Here's what I mean: Microsoft is almost universally blasted in the media for having inferior products as well as condemned for having a "monopoly". When they used to say that about IBM, the story was that IBM produced overly expensive, poorly engineered and performing products, but they had a the lion's share of the market because they were superior marketers. Now, by some twist of fate, Microsoft is both a "lame marketer" and also produces expensive and poorly performing software. Which is it? They must be doing something right.
Posted by Scott | August 6, 2008 7:16 PM
Microsoft must be doing something right? Of course. They are able to sell mixed quality software with pretty interfaces on top, make vendor lock-in deals, aim their products at the right targets (such as, aiming Windows 3.0 at home users who trickle up their experiences and preferences to their companies) instead of the wrong targets (as most of their competitors did). Bill Gates once told Gordon Letwin, who produced a superior BASIC that was turned down in favor of Microsoft's BASIC, that if he wanted his software to sell, he should join Microsoft. They don't build or sell software nearly as well as they sell it and get money out of it.
IBM was once described as "not a computer company, but a marketing company that happens to market computers". Its top execs were almost always from sales, and it showed. But their monopoly and arrogance, combined with a gross underestimation of the PC market, gave Bill Gates and Andy Grove the keys to the next kingdom. And both were smart enough to know what to do with those keys.
I theorize that by similar reasoning, Microsoft it not a software company; it's a finance company that happens to finance software. It's kind of opposite to how the railroads forgot themselves and thought they were in the railroad business instead of the transportation business. Bill Gates knows finance (his top role model is Warren Buffet, not any technical software or hardware wizard) and figured out that the hobbyist (and soon thereafter, the personal computer, thanks to IBM's generous gift) software market was a boundless source of wealth. The software didn't need to be robust or advanced; the software just needed to be Microsoft's and paid for.
IBM's products weren't inferior, though they weren't always the best in their class. They were, and are, overpriced. But they were well presented to customers. Microsoft's software, whether they build it, buy it, or steal it, isn't as robust as it should be (Bill Gates has admitted that he doesn't fix bugs, though he doesn't admit this anymore!!!) and they don't market it very well ("How to Defeat a Skeleton" is NOT a marketing campaign to brag about). But they sell it by the ton, and they know how to complete a lock-in deal before anyone else even sees that a deal is possible, and knows how to undermine or kill their competition. And that is what they are doing right. It's financial dealings, not software and not marketing, that Microsoft excels in. And boy, have they excelled.
Posted by Philosopher | August 6, 2008 10:40 PM
Heck guy, your missing the point.
Most or all of the subjects, are Americans.
We are so totally behind, in CIT! "If it's new hate it."
Vista, is fast & works wonders, for me!
Allen Jenkins,
United States of America, Tennessee, Cookeville.
Posted by Allen Jenkins | August 6, 2008 11:59 PM
@Philosopher:
"Microsoft must be doing something right? Of course. They are able to sell mixed quality software with pretty interfaces on top, make vendor lock-in deals, aim their products at the right targets"
This sounds like "Marketing" to me. Either I don't understand Philosophy or you don't know what marketing is...or maybe both.
Posted by Scott | August 7, 2008 10:17 AM
@Scott,
Yes, "aim their products at the right targets" is critical part of good marketing. But creating lock-in deals with vendors and governments is not what I would consider marketing.
For example, I would consider it good marketing to sell protective services and burglar alarms to businesses in a bad part of town, but I don't consider it a marketing activity to threaten to burn down a store unless the owner pays a protection fee. And I don't consider it marketing when a monopoly buys influence in the law to make its own proprietary formats into legally enforced standards.
But then again I may be completely wrong on this distinction, and anything to increase market share, up to and including holding a gun to someone in order to increase your market share of money or goods, can be considered a part of marketing. In which case, I willingly withdraw my comments related to marketing. Your thoughts?
However, my point, however clumsily I presented it, is that Microsoft does not excel financially because of marketing, but rather because of how they are able to see their way to vendor lock-in deals that wring money out of market share. It does no good to own a market but make little or no money from it.
Posted by Philosopher | August 8, 2008 2:08 PM
@Philosopher
Thanks for your response and invitation for my thoughts. There are several points I would like to make.
First is the contention that Microsoft has a Monopoly. For the sake of argument, let's begin by saying they do. It is interesting to ponder how that came about when you consider that Microsoft started out on a distinctly inferior platform to the one the Mac used. Intel's 8088 processor was a 16-bit processor with an 8-bit data bus, 16-bit registers, and could only address 1-meg of memory, and only then with cumbersome memory-bank switching. The Motorola MC68000, on which the Macintosh was based, was considered a 16-bit processor, but it had 32-bit registers, and other 32-bit internal architecture. Check wikipedia for more detail. So it is interesting that an Intel/PC based operating system and associated applications grew into a monopoly. At this point, of course, the issue of marketing comes up, and the question is whether it was Microsoft's decision to be open, or Apple's greed-driven decision not to be, that led eventually to Microsoft's present position in the market. This is a question of Marketing, in my opinion. As a side note, the open versus proprietary lesson is particularly hard for large companies to learn -- remember IBM's Micro Channel bus? Where is it now?
While still under the assumption that Microsoft has a monopoly, I take issue with your idea that Microsoft has purchased influence in the law to enforce its proprietary standards. Our own government, under the Clinton administration, spent millions of taxpayer dollars taking Microsoft to court in an attempt to break up what it considered a monopoly. More recently, the European Union has hit Microsoft with huge penalties for monopolistic issues. In reference to your comment about "vendor lock-in" deals, I don't hear anyone complaining about the many restaurants where they don't have both Coke and Pepsi because the much larger Coke has told the restaurant that if they offer Pepsi, Coke won't sell to them. Isn't this vendor lock-in?
However, I disagree with the premise that Microsoft has a monopoly. To start with, Unix has been around longer than any Microsoft operating system has, and all the geeks who get that smug look when they brag about knowing all the arcane commands for the VI editor claim that it is infinitely superior to Windows. Now, you can run substantially the same operating system on a PC, and it's called Linux. And it's free. In addition to this, there is still Apple's Macintosh, with its rather small share of the market. So, what is the definition of a Monopoly anyway?
Frankly, I don't think that everything Microsoft produces is high quality. With that in mind, when you look at all the supposedly superior applications that are no longer being sold because they have been replaced with lower quality Microsoft ones, and not because of Microsoft's strong-arm tactics, it looks to me like good marketing must have played a major part. Forget the operating system. WordPerfect used to be the industry standard word processor. It may still be out there, but Word is now the standard, and I don't think it was because of "vendor lock-in". Word wasn't bundled with Windows until after it became the standard...the feature-challenged WordPad was. How did Excel replace Lotus 1-2-3? How did Visual Studio with MFC replace Borland and OWL? I will agree that Microsoft is a tough competitor, but Windows is their operating system. I think they should be able to bundle any Microsoft application with it they want to.
I hope this is not too long-winded an answer, and I would be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by Scott | August 9, 2008 12:09 AM
@Allen Jenkins
"Vista, is fast & works wonders, for me!"
For me too....
Posted by Rich | August 9, 2008 8:57 PM
First is the contention that Microsoft has a Monopoly....
http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/microsoft_finding/
MSFT ruled a monopoly
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A federal judge declared Friday that Microsoft Corp. possesses monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems and harmed consumers through its anti-competitive behavior, giving the government a pivotal victory in the long-running antitrust trial.
----------------------------------------------
However, I disagree with the premise that Microsoft has a monopoly....
"Three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power," Jackson wrote. "First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
------------------------------------------------------------
To start with........called Linux........still Apple's Macintosh...
"Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," Jackson added.
"The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."
-------------------------------------------------------------
to me like good marketing must have played a major part.
I will agree that Microsoft is a tough competitor..
"Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department's antitrust bureau, said the evidence proved that "Microsoft is a monopolist and it engaged in massive anti-competitive practices that harmed innovation and limited consumer choice."
------------------------------------------------------------
To me the federal judge knows about it more than you.
--------------------------------------------------
"A U.S. judge ruled late Tuesday that the consent decree enforcing a landmark antitrust settlement reached among Microsoft, the federal government and 17 states would remain in effect until November 2009. A group of 10 states led by California and New York had requested the oversight be extended until November 2012."
Posted by Marco | August 9, 2008 9:09 PM
@Richard
"Sorry Joe, but maybe you should be one of those folks in the experiment, based upon your comments it's easy to see you too refuse to run Vista for... What reason exactly?
Sorry but "because everyone says " just doesn't cut it."
I echo this comment... I have ran all MS OS since Win 9,
Vista is a winner if I run it without trying to defeat it's design and make it act as XP. The only time it crashed was operator error while tinkering with Ubuntu dual boot.. Ubuntu ok but caused HD wipeout by my own goof... lol
Posted by Rich | August 9, 2008 9:14 PM
I was forgetting...........
------------------------------
I take issue with your idea that Microsoft has purchased influence in the law to enforce its proprietary standards......
Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation
linux.com/articles/61481
t was just a bit of text advocating open data formats that was slipped into a Florida State Senate bill at the last minute with no fanfare, but within 24 hours three Microsoft-paid lobbyists, all wearing black suits, were pressuring members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Operations (COGO) to remove the words they didn't like from Senate bill 1974.
---------------------------
Sweden a Microsoft representative was caught....
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2007-09-05.en.html
During the voting process the reputation of ISO as a dependable technical standardization organization was questioned. For example, in Sweden a Microsoft representative was caught offering to recompense partners for voting yes to OOXML. Also a sudden interest from countries like Ivory Coast to the OOXML issue has been found suspicious.
Posted by Marco | August 9, 2008 9:46 PM
@Scott,
Macro did my monopoly and government influence homework for me, and his analysis is much better than any response I would have written on that subject. So without further additions, I stand by my statements that Microsoft buys government influence; they don't buy entire governments but they do buy enough to convince a lot of government officials that a Microsoft standard is good because Microsoft is the only company that should be permitted to sell software, and a non-Microsoft standard is bad on anticompetitive grounds because it prevents Microsoft from being the sole seller of software.
To answer your other points, as you've graciously asked me to:
* "It is interesting to ponder how that came about when you consider that Microsoft started out on a distinctly inferior platform to the one the Mac used. Intel's 8088 processor was a 16-bit processor with an 8-bit data bus, 16-bit registers, and could only address 1-meg of memory, and only then with cumbersome memory-bank switching."
The IBM PC was the first serious mass-market business personal computer and IBM chose Microsoft to provide the software. IBM's choice gave the keys to the desktop software kingdom to Bill Gates. And, unlike most of us, Bill Gates instantly recognized the potential value of this and took it from there. Microsoft would not exist in anywhere near its current form without that boost from IBM and also the vision of Bill Gates to recognize how to best use that boost.
* "... and the question is whether it was Microsoft's decision to be open, or Apple's greed-driven decision not to be, that led eventually to Microsoft's present position in the market."
Neither. It was the decision if IBM to hand the market to Microsoft and IBM's software stupidity that allowed it to give suc