4 ms·

For what it's worth, a ton of people inside of MSFT are opposed to these changes. The few responsible for them are answering to overwhelming pressure from the

For what it's worth, a ton of people inside of MSFT are opposed to these changes. The few responsible for them are answering to overwhelming pressure from the Finance side. Every time something like this ships out, guaranteed just about every CVP fields angry/annoyed/exasperated complaints about it.

wvenable 4y ago
Unfortunately, it's perfectly logical. On the one hand you have $x/year and the other you have $0/year. The argument that all this marketing stuff in the OS is having a negative financial effect is extremely hard to prove. This is where having a strong minded CEO comes into play. You literally have to have someone who can say "although this makes us less money, this is correct approach". In an organization whose entire purpose is to make money, very few people have the authority to make that call.
- pianoben 4y ago
  Yep, you're absolutely correct. Services are where the money comes from these days, and Satya et al show with their actions that they consider the Windows value prop to be as a sales driver for those services. It's simplicity itself to attribute the revenue growth, and very difficult to link ads to negative sentiment leading to abandonment. No doubt they see Apple's relentless iCloud spamming as validation, but it's grating to get spam from an OS that you already paid for.
- mjamesaustin 4y ago
  Hello late stage capitalism.
- esafak 4y ago
  On the one hand you have $x/year and the other you have $0/year. That's the wrong metric; you should look at the LTV. Guess what: pissing off users reduces your LTV significantly. If their users are too dumb or tasteless to care then they deserve each other.
binkHN 4y ago
Longtime Windows users here—migrating away because the OS has become a marketing tool instead of the productivity behemoth that it once was. Yes, there are still TONS OF THINGS THAT WINDOWS DOES BETTER THAN EVERY OTHER OS, but what Windows is becoming is causing me to overlook this. The next step for me here will be migrating clients off of Windows on their machines too.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  As an proponent of Linux and other FOSS operating systems, I have from time to time remarked that it's wonderful to see the Free options becoming better than Windows... but I do so wish that it had happened by the Free options getting better rather than Windows managing to get so much worse. This is not how I wanted to win.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    The primary reason for using FOSS has always been freedom: it's right there in the first letter of the term. Technical superiority has never been the primary reason; it's just always been assumed by some that technical superiority would be a natural byproduct of lots of people working together on a project without a profit motive, but there's really no evidence supporting that. FOSS applications have usually (but not always) been behind their proprietary counterparts, because a for-profit company can afford to pay people to work fulltime on something they might not be all that interested in. There are some exceptions where FOSS software has been class-leading, but I don't think it's really the norm, although I do believe the overall ecosystem is much better for various reasons.
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      It may be (and always felt to me this way) that technical superiority is only one dimension of the problem. For example the reason I keep using Linux on my machines is not because the OS works better for me -- it definitely does not. Things are crashing or doing stupid things and the entire ecosystem is completely disjoint and not integrated very well. The reason I use Linux on my desktops is because I know I own the machine and it is doing my bidding (mostly, if we forget about the hardware part...) It is knowledge that if there is a problem there is a path to fix it -- it just depends on how much effort I am willing to expend.

wvenable 4y ago

Unfortunately, it's perfectly logical. On the one hand you have $x/year and the other you have $0/year. The argument that all this marketing stuff in the OS is having a negative financial effect is extremely hard to prove. This is where having a strong minded CEO comes into play. You literally have to have someone who can say "although this makes us less money, this is correct approach". In an organization whose entire purpose is to make money, very few people have the authority to make that call.

pianoben 4y ago
Yep, you're absolutely correct. Services are where the money comes from these days, and Satya et al show with their actions that they consider the Windows value prop to be as a sales driver for those services. It's simplicity itself to attribute the revenue growth, and very difficult to link ads to negative sentiment leading to abandonment. No doubt they see Apple's relentless iCloud spamming as validation, but it's grating to get spam from an OS that you already paid for.
mjamesaustin 4y ago
Hello late stage capitalism.
esafak 4y ago
On the one hand you have $x/year and the other you have $0/year. That's the wrong metric; you should look at the LTV. Guess what: pissing off users reduces your LTV significantly. If their users are too dumb or tasteless to care then they deserve each other.

binkHN 4y ago

Longtime Windows users here—migrating away because the OS has become a marketing tool instead of the productivity behemoth that it once was. Yes, there are still TONS OF THINGS THAT WINDOWS DOES BETTER THAN EVERY OTHER OS, but what Windows is becoming is causing me to overlook this. The next step for me here will be migrating clients off of Windows on their machines too.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
As an proponent of Linux and other FOSS operating systems, I have from time to time remarked that it's wonderful to see the Free options becoming better than Windows... but I do so wish that it had happened by the Free options getting better rather than Windows managing to get so much worse. This is not how I wanted to win.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  The primary reason for using FOSS has always been freedom: it's right there in the first letter of the term. Technical superiority has never been the primary reason; it's just always been assumed by some that technical superiority would be a natural byproduct of lots of people working together on a project without a profit motive, but there's really no evidence supporting that. FOSS applications have usually (but not always) been behind their proprietary counterparts, because a for-profit company can afford to pay people to work fulltime on something they might not be all that interested in. There are some exceptions where FOSS software has been class-leading, but I don't think it's really the norm, although I do believe the overall ecosystem is much better for various reasons.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    It may be (and always felt to me this way) that technical superiority is only one dimension of the problem. For example the reason I keep using Linux on my machines is not because the OS works better for me -- it definitely does not. Things are crashing or doing stupid things and the entire ecosystem is completely disjoint and not integrated very well. The reason I use Linux on my desktops is because I know I own the machine and it is doing my bidding (mostly, if we forget about the hardware part...) It is knowledge that if there is a problem there is a path to fix it -- it just depends on how much effort I am willing to expend.