5 ms·

Hell no. Tens of thousands of businesses worldwide purchase "the full Microsoft experience." They integrate every single aspect of their digital enterprise wi

by urthor 4y ago

Hell no. Tens of thousands of businesses worldwide purchase "the full Microsoft experience." They integrate every single aspect of their digital enterprise with Microsoft's off the shelf option. The same applies to Apps. Many people want 1 thing that does it all.

csydas 4y ago
I don't think that's true that people want 1 thing that does it all. They certainly want one bill, that I'll grant, but that's not exactly the same thing. People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to, and more specifically they want _the ecosystem they're familiar with_. In a past life with software support, when it came to large/enterprise customers, the biggest pushback/fights had nothing to do with features or price, but with a few stubborn IT Managers/Administrators who were used to another product and didn't want to change. UI/UX should have a common 'language' for lack of better words between them with a spin on it that still makes it unique for the program. We already see this with desktop OSes and mobile; if I right-click on any common desktop OS, I know I get a contextual menu on an object, if I swipe or tap on mobile likely something will happen, etc. Users mostly get this except for a small subset and can use a lot of apps; the app ecosystem on mobile more or less demonstrates this. What Meta is doing with WhatsApp isn't about the one app for all, it's just they have a huge user base that isn't bringing in money and likely they see this as a cardinal sin _not to monetize_ WhatsApp somehow. They likely look at WeChat and go "wait you can make money like that?" and are desperately trying to figure out how to get themselves there. I have not been in the US for a long time so I don't know how people there will adopt to Meta-Money or whatever Meta ends up calling it. For the EU countries I've lived in, I'm not as confident people will want to be doing that with Meta at least when Apple/Google Pay exist and work pretty alright and banking apps already handling fast direct payments without needing an SV intermediary.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Facebook has already tried payments before through Messenger, and no one really used it. I don’t really see WhatsApp doing much better.
  - skohan 4y ago
    WhatsApp might succeed because it's less of a kitchen sink. WhatsApp is mainly about private communication. It's an app you feel like you control, where you're not being bombarded by advertising. Somehow payments feel psychologically safer in that context than a social network.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      I mean, none of the US messaging-based payment transfer things have really worked. iMessage has no ads and no one uses the payments feature there either
- urthor 4y ago
  I think we've pretty much saying the same thing. I say application, you say ecosystem To people who don't care about software, the difference can be... marginal. They want a that is easy to use without training. Works perfectly, for their use case, the first time. There are no other relevant details.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to People don't know what an 'ecosystem' is. They just want to click twice, and have things work. They don't have neither time nor energy to take away from daily hustle and dedicate it to maintaining an open web.
skohan 4y ago
I don't necessarily think people want an MS-like offering that does everything. I think an enterprise package like MS offers is successful, because it makes life easy for people who handle procurement and IT management at large firms. It's just one relationship to negotiate, they structure their offerings to make them sticky, and it's less work for an admin to take care of. I think the consensus among users is that no single component of MS's offering is best-in-class, except maybe Excel.

by urthor 4y ago

csydas 4y ago

I don't think that's true that people want 1 thing that does it all. They certainly want one bill, that I'll grant, but that's not exactly the same thing. People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to, and more specifically they want _the ecosystem they're familiar with_. In a past life with software support, when it came to large/enterprise customers, the biggest pushback/fights had nothing to do with features or price, but with a few stubborn IT Managers/Administrators who were used to another product and didn't want to change. UI/UX should have a common 'language' for lack of better words between them with a spin on it that still makes it unique for the program. We already see this with desktop OSes and mobile; if I right-click on any common desktop OS, I know I get a contextual menu on an object, if I swipe or tap on mobile likely something will happen, etc. Users mostly get this except for a small subset and can use a lot of apps; the app ecosystem on mobile more or less demonstrates this. What Meta is doing with WhatsApp isn't about the one app for all, it's just they have a huge user base that isn't bringing in money and likely they see this as a cardinal sin _not to monetize_ WhatsApp somehow. They likely look at WeChat and go "wait you can make money like that?" and are desperately trying to figure out how to get themselves there. I have not been in the US for a long time so I don't know how people there will adopt to Meta-Money or whatever Meta ends up calling it. For the EU countries I've lived in, I'm not as confident people will want to be doing that with Meta at least when Apple/Google Pay exist and work pretty alright and banking apps already handling fast direct payments without needing an SV intermediary.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Facebook has already tried payments before through Messenger, and no one really used it. I don’t really see WhatsApp doing much better.
- skohan 4y ago
  WhatsApp might succeed because it's less of a kitchen sink. WhatsApp is mainly about private communication. It's an app you feel like you control, where you're not being bombarded by advertising. Somehow payments feel psychologically safer in that context than a social network.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    I mean, none of the US messaging-based payment transfer things have really worked. iMessage has no ads and no one uses the payments feature there either
urthor 4y ago
I think we've pretty much saying the same thing. I say application, you say ecosystem To people who don't care about software, the difference can be... marginal. They want a that is easy to use without training. Works perfectly, for their use case, the first time. There are no other relevant details.
unity1001 4y ago
> People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to People don't know what an 'ecosystem' is. They just want to click twice, and have things work. They don't have neither time nor energy to take away from daily hustle and dedicate it to maintaining an open web.

skohan 4y ago

I don't necessarily think people want an MS-like offering that does everything. I think an enterprise package like MS offers is successful, because it makes life easy for people who handle procurement and IT management at large firms. It's just one relationship to negotiate, they structure their offerings to make them sticky, and it's less work for an admin to take care of. I think the consensus among users is that no single component of MS's offering is best-in-class, except maybe Excel.