"Microsoft quietly raised last week its per-incident support prices across the board for Windows and Office. Support for Windows XP and Windows Vista now costs USD 59 per incident. Prior to the Vista launch, the per-incident support price for Windows was USD 39. Vista users get their first 90 days of support for no charge. Support for Office XP and Office 2007 now goes for USD 49 per incident, compared to USD 35 per incident prior to the January 30 Windows Vista/Office 2007 retail launch. Office 2007 users also get their first 90 days of support for free."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
"The cost for support is part of what the consumer pays for, it is the cost of doing business."
In this case, the price for the 90 day warranty support is built into the cost of the product, hence why retail versions cost more than an OEM version (which comes with zero warranty support). 90 days is plenty of time for a customer to call in as many times as they need to get their system up and running. This new system is actually better than the old way; previously a retail version of Windows came with 2 free calls...any more than that and the customer had to pay.
"The consumer also pays for Mr. Gates foundation as well as MS employee salaries."
Actually, stockholders are who indirectly pay for Gates' foundation, not consumers. Even moreso, it is Gates himself who pays, as it was he who purchased his own stock in the first place. His salary (which consumers do directly pay for) is less than .1% the amount he donates to charity each year, i.e. that's all paid for out of his own pocket.
"Consumers pay for all this along with the privilage of spending large sums of money for buggy software."
As opposed to getting buggy software for free? For most companies and consumers, the cost of a license is worth the guarantee of getting something fixed should it break. And as I stated before, if it's a bug, there is no cost to the consumer...MS absorbs that cost 100%.
"MS fanboys are annoying enough, but MS shills are elitist snobs."
Fine, I'm a shill/snob, but am also factually correct. At no point did I sink to the level of name calling in my response.
"So be it, but I would think that MS would be more interested in solidifying a warm and friendly relationship with their customers..."
MS regularly gets high marks when it comes to customer support (> 90% customer satisfaction), much higher than almost all other software vendors. Much higher than most call centers period. I'd like to know which competition you're speaking of, as well as their options/prices for their comparable products, as well as their overall CSAT (customer satisfaction) ratings. Then we'll compare apples to apples rather than vague assertions.
Member since:2006-06-02
"MS regularly gets high marks when it comes to customer support (> 90% customer satisfaction), much higher than almost all other software vendors...."
According to ACSI (http://www.theacsi.org/), MS scored 73%, so I must question your "factually correct" assertion.
"At no point did I sink to the level of name calling in my response."
The arrogant tone of your posts doesn't get you a pass.
As for the rest of your specious arguments, no matter how you cut it, the consumer pays, including shareholders return on investment. Of course "For most companies and consumers, the cost of a license is worth the guarantee of getting something fixed should it break", but to say that "MS absorbs that cost 100%" is "factually" incorrect.
Member since:2006-04-21
After the "free" support period is over, consumers can of course choose to pay 60 bucks per call, or find another source of support or education. So be it, but I would think that MS would be more interested in solidifying a warm and friendly relationship with their customers duirng a time when the competiton is growing and doing a far better job with satisfying their respective customers.
Chortle. You know that email from Jim Allchin in which he says he would buy a Mac if he weren't a Microsoftie and Microsoft had lost their "customer focus"? Well, I've never been involved in MSDN which people say is Da Bomb, but as a consumer that last part made me think maybe he actually sent it sometime between the release of Win98 and that of WinME.
OEM's are worthless, but I never had a single call passed to MS; it was always "oh, nobody knows why that happens; reboot/reinstall."
Member since:
2006-06-02
The cost for support is part of what the consumer pays for, it is the cost of doing business. The consumer also pays for Mr. Gates foundation as well as MS employee salaries. Consumers pay for all this along with the privilage of spending large sums of money for buggy software. OEM's are worhless because they push off calls to MS because of software issues? MS fanboys are annoying enough, but MS shills are elitist snobs.
After the "free" support period is over, consumers can of course choose to pay 60 bucks per call, or find another source of support or education. So be it, but I would think that MS would be more interested in solidifying a warm and friendly relationship with their customers duirng a time when the competiton is growing and doing a far better job with satisfying their respective customers.