Linked by David Adams on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 15:55 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Windows By all early reports, Windows 8 is going to be a good operating system. Microsoft's hegemony may be crumbling in a mobile computing onslaught, but its core empire remains undimmed. However, whereas Windows 7 had three versions, Windows 8 will apparently be ballooning to 9 versions.
Thread beginning with comment 509433
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08


Why on earth would they offer one singular version? First of all, they don't have customers with identical needs. For people who need less, why wouldn't you offer those people a trimmed down version...


The "everybody has different needs" is a crap excuse. It's not rocket science to provide a custom install which lets the user choose only what applies to there different needs. This excuse belongs in the field scaring birds away from the crops.

You wrongly assume that all features are pluggable. What you're failing to realize is that some feature may require core changes in order to function properly, and that may require other changes to prevent breakage in unrelated areas.

I will tell you right now, the different Windows versions are not simply builds with different build configuration arrangements.

For me the question is more about what happened to cost+reasonablemarket. Why does the market allow this to be cost+asmuchaswecantakeyoufor? Especially in the software market where all scarcity is artificial. Once development costs are paid back, your looking at 0 cost per unit plus 1$ for distribution media and packaging, less if you stick to digital distribution. They could easily make development costs back plus reasonable profits after that. But no, we need to pay $100+ for an OS. (and some thought 40$ for a Dos install was high markup)

I'm not sure why you think there's $0 cost per unit and $1 for distribution and packaging. Running a business in the real world costs money, even after the cost of development has been recouped. Believe it or not, Windows pricing is not outrageous. They are not 'raping' their customers at point-of-sale.

If nothing else, we live in a world that revolves around economics. The idea of everything being free or absurdly cheap is very alluring. But, it's far from realistic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

the different Windows versions are not simply builds with different build configuration arrangements.


The only build that I can see that would be significantly different is ARM. It's not 1995 anymore, we have modern tools to ensure exactly that the OS can be modular. If that makes charging different prices for different modules rape is a different story but you'd be kidding yourself if you don't think MS made 8 modular enough to enable different editions with ease.

absurdly cheap is very alluring.


I thought that's why we have sweatshops.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The only build that I can see that would be significantly different is ARM. It's not 1995 anymore, we have modern tools to ensure exactly that the OS can be modular. If that makes charging different prices for different modules rape is a different story but you'd be kidding yourself if you don't think MS made 8 modular enough to enable different editions with ease.

Windows versions are not created with a bunch of plugin modules -- at least not according to the people I know who work in that division.

absurdly cheap is very alluring.

I thought that's why we have sweatshops.

Using sweatshops doesn't eliminate the cost of running a business.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"I'm not sure why you think there's $0 cost per unit and $1 for distribution and packaging. Running a business in the real world costs money, even after the cost of development has been recouped. Believe it or not, Windows pricing is not outrageous. They are not 'raping' their customers at point-of-sale."

He was talking about marginal costs, and as far as development goes he was right.

If it costs X to build (whatever that amount may be), then every dollar of revenue above X is pure profit with zero additional developer costs. Of course we're only talking about development costs and not sales or marketing, but the OP already explicitly said that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If the added features are not "plugable" then there is something broken with the OS architecture to begin with. They could easily have designed the "value add" features to be more plugable. I honestly don't believe the difference between Win7 Home, Win7 Pro and Win7 Ultimate are as great as the "plugable is hard" theory would suggest.

They could easily offer Win7 Workstation and Win7 Server both with more customizable install options to support individual needs if the business objective was the maximize benefit for the customer not maximize profit. It is purely to provide synthetic differences for the justification of multiple sku price points; get each target customer for as much profit margin as that cross-section will tolerate.

Yeah, I know.. it's not going to change any time soon and MS isn't the only company doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

the 0$ cost thing. I actually suggested cost + reasonable marketup versus cost + maximum margin. $0 cost per unit after development costs are paid back.. fair enough, I'll accept that this is an exaggeration. I will keep to the opinion that after development is paid off, the per unit cost is significantly lower then what the retail price remains at. The price of Win7 Ultimate is no where near the cost of stamping a disk, slapping it in packaging plus the ongoing maintenance and support it needs. And that's not even considering the support contract business they run along side it.

Reply Parent Score: 2