Coffeehouse Thread

74 posts

Ballmer confirms shift to devices and services

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • magicalclick

    At least it has services, unlike KIN that is only device without a service that supports other OEM. Meaning, no more device only KIN fail. Same with Courier, pull the plug because the service doesn't support other OEM. Nothing new indeed because they already killed two of those device only product lines.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • wkempf

    @RobGreenly: You heard wrong. $80-100 is the price for Windows AND Office. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html

    Regardless, Microsoft would be putting themselves in a precarious position legally if they undercut OEMs in the way you suggest... even if it made sense to do it, which I don't believe it does. Undercutting the OEMs would mean less profit for Microsoft. It's a complicated calculation, and Microsoft does have to be careful here, but I honestly don't see any way that them making hardware means there's no room for OEMs. There is the chance OEMs would opt for an alternative (like Android) that would offer them a larger profit margin, but that's just more reason why it's not a good idea for Microsoft to give the OS away for free to customers of their hardware.

  • PaoloM

    , RobGreenly wrote

    *snip*

    I've heard that Microsoft charges $99 to the OEMs for Windows 8,

    Evidence?

    and being closely tied, Microsoft can charge themselves a lot less.

    Evidence?

    So, the OEMs can never compete with Microsoft on price irregardless how high they raise the price.

    I would think that a large OEM, with all the supply chain advantages that are implied, could easily compete against a Microsoft device.

    Think about Samsung, for example. They have factories build RAM, displays, etc, that - by your logic - could be almost free to the device building division. Microsoft has to BUY all that stuff from Samsung.

  • cbae

    , RobGreenly wrote

    *snip*

    I've heard that Microsoft charges $99 to the OEMs for Windows 8, and being closely tied, Microsoft can charge themselves a lot less. So, the OEMs can never compete with Microsoft on price irregardless how high they raise the price.

    Samsung manufactures displays, SSDs, and DRAM. So, Microsoft can never compete with Samsung on price regardless of how high they raise the price.

  • cbae

    , PaoloM wrote

    *snip*

    Think about Samsung, for example. They have factories build RAM, displays, etc, that - by your logic - could be almost free to the device building division. Microsoft has to BUY all that stuff from Samsung.

    Beat me. Smiley

  • RobGreenly

    55 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

    @RobGreenly: You heard wrong. $80-100 is the price for Windows AND Office. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html

    Regardless, Microsoft would be putting themselves in a precarious position legally if they undercut OEMs in the way you suggest... even if it made sense to do it, which I don't believe it does. Undercutting the OEMs would mean less profit for Microsoft. It's a complicated calculation, and Microsoft does have to be careful here, but I honestly don't see any way that them making hardware means there's no room for OEMs. There is the chance OEMs would opt for an alternative (like Android) that would offer them a larger profit margin, but that's just more reason why it's not a good idea for Microsoft to give the OS away for free to customers of their hardware.

    OK. Last time I checked, $99 is $80-$100. But Microsoft undercut the OEMs all the time with Xbox 1 and Xbox 360, selling at a loss to gain popularity. I don't see any legal issues in that. But I think that either MS should stay out of the hardware business, or pay the OEMs to build Microsoft hardware. That would give the OEMs incentives to build beautiful hardware.

  • RobGreenly

    44 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

    I would think that a large OEM, with all the supply chain advantages that are implied, could easily compete against a Microsoft device.

    Think about Samsung, for example. They have factories build RAM, displays, etc, that - by your logic - could be almost free to the device building division. Microsoft has to BUY all that stuff from Samsung.

    My point is that Microsoft has already said that the Surfaces prices will be "competitive" with the iPad. If you believe that Samsung's cost to build a tablet is comparable to Apple, then how can Samsung sell their tablets at a "competitive" prices as Apple, given that they have to pay Microsoft $99 for the OS.

    All this race to the bottom will drive the Samsungs out of the market, leaving only Microsoft as the monopoly hardware maker. In a monopoly, consumers lose.

  • blowdart

    , RobGreenly wrote

    In a monopoly, consumers lose.

    Except, well, iPad. Consumers are not losing there, they're buying in droves.

  • kettch

    Silly me, it's been at least 2 months since the last unwarranted panic over something that will end up being innocuous. I guess we were due.

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Beat me. Smiley

    Gladly. Wink

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • PaoloM

    , RobGreenly wrote

    *snip*

    OK. Last time I checked, $99 is $80-$100. But Microsoft undercut the OEMs all the time with Xbox 1 and Xbox 360, selling at a loss to gain popularity. I don't see any legal issues in that.

    Right. Especially since there were/are no OEMs building game consoles based on Microsoft's OS.

    But I think that either MS should stay out of the hardware business,

    Why?

    or pay the OEMs to build Microsoft hardware. That would give the OEMs incentives to build beautiful hardware.

    Did you miss the part where the OEMs had the chance to build "beautiful hardware" since, like, forever, and they've ALWAYS squandered it?

    If in the future they'll come out with decent offerings, we can thank the Surface kick in the pants for that.

  • PaoloM

    , RobGreenly wrote

    *snip*

    My point is that Microsoft has already said that the Surfaces prices will be "competitive" with the iPad. If you believe that Samsung's cost to build a tablet is comparable to Apple,

    Apple buys a lot of components from Samsung. There is literally no reason whatsoever that would cause Samsung to be unable to undercut Apple in prices.

     then how can Samsung sell their tablets at a "competitive" prices as Apple, given that they have to pay Microsoft $99 for the OS.

    Please provide evidence that the "OS" will cost $99. As of today, most OEMs pay between $30 and $50 for a copy of Windows, and I don't see that going up anytime soon.

    All this race to the bottom will drive the Samsungs out of the market, leaving only Microsoft as the monopoly hardware maker.

    Awesome.

    In a monopoly, consumers lose.

    As blowdart already mentioned, that's not always true.

  • RobGreenly

    *snip*

    Except, well, iPad. Consumers are not losing there, they're buying in droves.

    that's like saying global warming has caused the world to turn into one big desert, and a thirsty man bought a glass of water to quench his thirst, but he doesn't know if he's drinking tap water, or Perrier 

  • RobGreenly

    @PaoloM:

    Right. Especially since there were/are no OEMs building game consoles based on Microsoft's OS.

    Games console is a funny business. My point was that Nintendo decided to make a profit on each Wii. And Microsoft decided to take a loss on each Xbox. Just so that the Xbox can be popular. It is not a reach to think Microsoft can do the same thing with the tablets.

    Why?

    Did you miss the part where the OEMs had the chance to build "beautiful hardware" since, like, forever, and they've ALWAYS squandered it?

    If in the future they'll come out with decent offerings, we can thank the Surface kick in the pants for that.

    Until the iPad, no one knew what beautiful means. Just imagine before they held the first ever Miss America Pageant. There was no standards of beauty. Until the first Miss America set the standard.

    Now that we have the iPad, no tablets can succeed unless they approach its beauty. The OEMs know this now, and they won't make an ugly tablet. But they cannot succeed if Microsoft always undercut them in price.

  • RobGreenly

    Apple buys a lot of components from Samsung. There is literally no reason whatsoever that would cause Samsung to be unable to undercut Apple in prices.

    Samsung walks a tight rope. Whether to sell components to Apple to make some profit, or build their own tablets and make a huge amount of profit, or go bust. I would love it if Samsung could make iPads, too. So that the diversity of the ecosystem can be maximized. The strongest would survive, and consumers win.

     

    Please provide evidence that the "OS" will cost $99. As of today, most OEMs pay between $30 and $50 for a copy of Windows, and I don't see that going up anytime soon.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html

    As blowdart already mentioned, that's not always true.

    And people in the Matrix prefer digital steaks, even though they are not good for their bodies.

  • ScanIAm

    , RobGreenly wrote

    *snip*Until the iPad, no one knew what beautiful means.

    You owe each and every person in this forum an apology.

  • cheong

    , TexasToast wrote

    @vesuvius: I left out the Azure strategy but agree with you on what you just stated.   I think companies are really getting tired of paying for IT maintenance on all the servers and backups.  Azure does the upgrades and backups for you.   The heavy activity is in cloud services.   Even personally I think we are getting more comfortable with the cloud and keeping our digital valuables backed up there.

    I think most non-e-store companies won't accept case when everybody inside the company stand still staring each other just because the network (or even Azure itself) is down. At least they'll insist one or a few local servers there.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • magicalclick

    @RobGreenly:

    is this some kind of new account, haven't seen you around. Anyway, if you worry about Xbox selling at lose. Let me be clear. A) PS1 and PS2 are selling at lose before Xbox is getting into the market. B) There is NO OEM for PS and Xbox.

    Yes, monopoly is bad. Like Nintendo insist on selling console at profit because they can cash more from the consumers. Like how Google only provides turn by turn navigation on Android instead of iPhone. Like how Apple charges cloud storage instead of offering it for free like SkyDrive. If they managed to monopolize the market, just see the impact.

     

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.