Nipping silliness in the bud: Windows 7 SKUs and pricing

Wae, I got it, but apparently robertsjoe didn't. He isn't old enough, so I won't hold it against him.

So what happened to 110? --John (who still has his acoustic coupler downstairs--but no phones shaped right)

Paul, You are part right and part wrong here. I have a better solution to the SKU debacle. Instead of Microsoft sending multiple SKU's to the stores, which requires more packaging and printing cost, the solution would be one version that contains every version of Windows 7. Your installation process could be changed to a menu that says this. "Select the Version of Windows 7, you wish to install." "Home, Professional, Ultimate." A brief explanation of each version would be by each version. All the Product Keys can be used for any version, including the ability to go down to a less featured set like Home or up from the Home Version up to Ultimate. This was an idea they were floating originally with Vista but it never got done. I think this was one of the big issues with Vista that help make it so unpopular. Second, each version of Windows 7 should have have 2 licencees. Almost everyone I know has 2 desktops or a desktop along with a notebook. I'm sure that a desktop/netbook will be the future thing. So instead of one licence which is very restrictive, go ahead and meet the audience with 2 versions. I also believe a 4 licencees family pack is definitely in order. This harkens back to Paul's argument of Easy vs. Simple. Easy is limiting the SKU's. Including the 3 sku's in a 2 pack licence arrangement that allows for flexability, thats simple. You go up or down as you need or don't need features. It would also be great if MIcrosoft allowed users to have access to a downloadable ISO, just incase your DVD is damaged, lost, or destroyed. I really hope that Microsoft doesn't blow it again with the multiple SKU's again. That would just be annoying.

"@shark47: What I never get is why people don't ignore the trolls in here. " @yert: It's hard when they literally hijack the thread. If it's not robertsjoe, it's someone else like fivepoint or boy.... Oh, in other news: GO CARDINALS!!!!

Shark is right about this, "I agree with buchanan here. Offer a Windows 7 upgrade license to Vista users for $49 - great PR. It might reaffirm the notion that Vista was bad, but who cares? It'll help the Windows brand." For several reasons. All that really does is give consumers an upgrade price that is likely comparable to the volume price they're already giving Dell, HP, et al. Yah, it might mean a revenue hit, but the offer could be time limited and that would spur initial sales, which are important for perception purposes. It would do a lot to restore the brand, and make the brand again "Windows", not the horribly perceived (whether fairly or not) Vista tag. It would be a nice differentiator from Apple. They could even put it in ads that way. I wouldn't mind a meaningful competitive gesture from Microsoft. Hell, if I could get it for $49 I'd probably buy a copy to run under VMWare just for compatibility purposes.

"That said, I don't think Microsoft would lose much by charging less for upgrade versions. I think it's the OEMs that would mind." It's easy to assume that Microsoft can just charge a very small amount for an upgrade. Here are the reasons why it isn't easy at all: Royalty/Direct OEM's get Windows license at a discount over, say, System Builders. It's not just about volume either. Direct OEM's only get the licenses to include Windows with systems. They have a recurring contract with a predicted MOQ (minimum order quantity). That MOQ will start in the thousands. PER MONTH. They also DON'T get anything tangible from Microsoft aside from the licenses and a gold master copy of the software. The OEM has to pay out of their own pocket to produce COA's and documentation based on Microsoft's designs. They also have development costs to produce system recovery methods, such as creating or purchasing third-party recovery software, or for manufacturing installation media (has to be done professionally, not just burned). It's not a free (or cheap) ride for OEM's whatsoever. OEM's just generally want control over how the software is packaged, and don't want to pay Microsoft for services that aren't warranted for them. System Builders don't get as much choice or control but they get generic software. Smaller builders (like me) will have less resources at their disposal, so they need to have the basics done for them. Microsoft provides, through distribution, generic install media, COA's, and documentation. The cost of producing that is included in the cost of the software package. It reduces headaches for the smaller system builder. There are still some policies in the SBLA (System Builder License Agreement) that need to be followed, but it's pretty standard stuff. Who is to support these upgrades? OEM software (all types) is not supported by Microsoft - it's supported by the OEM (unless a customer buys SA as an extra, but that's a whole other story). Retail software includes support though. That's why it's more expensive (the only other thing it includes is transfer rights). If you've ever looked at Microsoft's PPI support, you know why retail versions cost so much. So who absorbs that support cost? Also, if they're offered as upgrades, wouldn't that mean that the OEM would have to take the responsibility of testing compatibility of preloaded software as well as provide hardware drivers for hardware from their Vista images to make sure it works on 7? How do they recoup that cost if Microsoft sells it directly? How would Microsoft recoup support costs if they offer to provide support? If OEM's have to support it, they'd have to sell it. That means that they'd have to front more money for their own support and dev costs on producing media, docs, COA's, etc., all over again. How can they manage to do that on such low revenues? Provide it at a loss?

If Microsoft were to lower the price to anything under $100 dollars, the competition would be screaming that it is an unfair advantage...guaranteed! If they charge more than $129, they will be shouting, "Look how much MS charges for Windows"...so, it seems that the sweet spot is $100-$129...and of course, if they price it in that range, they will be accused of copying Apple on price point, since they are already copying them by releasing an incremental upgrade as a new version and charging for it. --tayme

I was trying to figure out why Paul has the image Chinese Fighting Fish on his banner. Then I realized he was confusing the more common name for the fish ("betta", pronounced "bet-uh") with "beta". I bet he pronounces "chic" as "chick" too.

tayme, you are correct in regards to the pricing. There is no price that they can offer that will appease everyone.

"@"lotsamystuff" - Obviously, you have not installed the W7 beta" Nope. I'm still using XP Professional, and I'm not about to mess around with the beta. I'll probably buy a new system when Vista 1.1 (Paul's words, not mine) is finalized. "most people incorrectly prounounce the fish, betta, the same as the Greek letter, beta." Yes, they do. Why would anyone encourage this? "Or, it was just a jab at Paul..." Well, Duh. ;-)

Waethorn, the Brits do not pronounce Lara and Laura as you described.

Ya know, there are some good ideas from this peanut gallery indicating knowledge is readily available. So how in the frak can executives of the big car makers, getting paid hundreds of thousands, to millions of dollars, come up with such bad ideas? They would be consumers as well and should know the needs of the 'people'. And we just gave those bozos more money to piss away again. As Paul states, where's the outrage? And where's common sense?