, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I'm not interested that Microsoft makes mistakes. I'm interested why they make mistakes. That is why I am much more interested in asking "what is the thought process that led to this action" than just pointing at their mistakes and saying "Hah! Microsoft is going to die!"

And yet you constantly reframe valid issues that people bring up just in the negative with such recasting of their ideas as "Hah! Microsoft is going to die!". It's pretty clear you don't ask "why". You do you best in defaming the original issue. 

I never said on this thread that Microsoft should all be giving themselves a pat on the back for removing the codecs, or that putting them back in is impossible. I just want to get this into your head: Every Change Has Consequences. This is true at Microsoft and it's also true everywhere else.

If Microsoft puts codecs back into Windows, they will make their money back another way. And in business you make money by either charging more or by cutting costs.

Right... So there is no point in bringing up issues with Microsoft's decisions or direction because in the end every change has its consequence. Got it. I'll keep aimlessly bringing up issues; you don't need to remind me that it's a lost cause.

So it is utterly inconsistent to ask for expensive codecs to be added in on the one thread, complain that unused Microsoft features get dropped on another, and also then complain that Microsoft products are too expensive.

Something has to give. You can't have all of those things.

You're right; something has to give. I think it should be the price of Windows. They dropped their costs -- pass it on to the consumer. After all Windows 8 is a very unfinished product and if Microsoft was smart IMO they'd use price to try and retain their user base.

Honestly I don't think you want to understand the argument here. You're just taking one aspect of it at a time and tearing it down. IMO there's three ways to look at this:

  1. Microsoft excludes the codecs and drops the price of Windows (because their COGs are lower).
  2. Microsoft includes the codecs and the price stays the same.
  3. Microsoft excludes the codecs and the price stays the same. Microsoft profits from reduced cost of manufacturing Windows.

Options 1 & 2 are fine by me. Option 3 is less desirable and is the issue that is being brought up.

If you bothered to think about seeing the world from Microsoft's perspective, you'd realize that you can get them to do stuff that you want them to do by phrasing your requests as a win-win.


I see "we're saying it wrong". How about: "Microsoft should lower the price of Windows by excluding the DVD codecs OR Microsoft should include the DVD codecs and keep the price the same. Both approaches are a win/win because they appeal to the existing Windows user base, allow for quicker adoption, and help Microsoft sell more copies of Windows." 

Frankly I think Bass's conclusion better reflects the reality here.

I'm not "being a Microsoft protectionist". I'm trying to see the world as Microsoft sees it so I can understand their decisions better so I can plan for them, or intercept changes that I don't like coming by arguing it "in Microsoft-speak" before it happens.

I'm sorry if that seems like a protectionist to you. But it's certainly more useful and more constructive than just stamping my feet and shouting "NO! MICROSOFT IS ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL AND THEIR PRODUCTS SUCK" like some people on C9 of late.

Sure you are. You assume the best intentions on Microsoft's part and respond with conflicting points when taking the issue as a whole. Your constant attack of anything that questions Microsoft's decision making is only further underscored by the recasting of peoples' remarks as "NO! MICROSOFT IS ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL AND THEIR PRODUCTS SUCK". That's no different that people using "M$" as an abbreviation for Microsoft.