3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoYep, 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 agoHello late stage capitalism.
- esafak 4y agoOn 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.