Comments on: Microllsoft http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/858/microllsoft/ The new thing Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:52:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: jeffrey http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/858/microllsoft/#comment-1337 jeffrey Mon, 05 May 2008 15:47:05 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/?p=858#comment-1337 #5 is a great idea and it's actually one that supports my thesis. Microsoft has a bunch of opportunities to create follow-on businesses around its platform. There are two reasons why it doesn't: scale and channel conflict. The scale problem is this: "we can't afford to get into a new line of business that doesn't promise to generate a billion dollars per year." Channel conflict is when you compete against the retailers that sell your product. Both arguments are bogus in Microsoft's case, but they're the reason why they don't move forward. A new business could kick off all kinds of interesting follow-on products and marketplaces around Microsoft's platform without having to worry about that stuff. #5 is a great idea and it’s actually one that supports my thesis. Microsoft has a bunch of opportunities to create follow-on businesses around its platform. There are two reasons why it doesn’t: scale and channel conflict. The scale problem is this: “we can’t afford to get into a new line of business that doesn’t promise to generate a billion dollars per year.” Channel conflict is when you compete against the retailers that sell your product. Both arguments are bogus in Microsoft’s case, but they’re the reason why they don’t move forward. A new business could kick off all kinds of interesting follow-on products and marketplaces around Microsoft’s platform without having to worry about that stuff.

]]> By: Douglas Arellanes http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/858/microllsoft/#comment-1336 Douglas Arellanes Mon, 05 May 2008 15:27:39 +0000 http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/?p=858#comment-1336 Even though I'm coming to things from the open source side, I've been giving some thought today to what I'd advise Ballmer to do, and many of the things I'd recommend are similar to what you're also saying. 1) The big growth in the franchises isn't going to come from developed countries. A cut-price Windows for emerging markets is nice, but there are few who will willingly downgrade a fully-functional (albeit pirated) copy of Windows for crippleware unless they are forced to, and even then the current approach of BSA bullying really isn't building brand loyalty. And those customers will bolt at the earliest possible moment, partially because the company has done nothing to partner with them, and has instead treated them as either criminals or retards. 2) Come up with real differentiators for its web titles or spin them off and let them die. I can't think of an MS web title that wasn't a me-too in terms of its features for quite some time. 3) Lock-in only works when your products are compelling enough to get customers' consent. The philosophy behind so many MS products - especially Windows Media Player - seems to be that customers are just sources of ARPU to be locked in. 4) Break up Office into an integrated pay-as-you-go product/service. This would bring the initial price down and streamline Office's performance. It would also create a growing source of revenue as users add features they really need. This would also make individual features open to more competition, and, hopefully, innovation both inside and outside MS; and the EU would probably love to hear about something like that. 5) Create compelling value-added services around Office standards. Why hasn't MS done a better job of selling premade Office templates relevant to individual industries? Why is it so hard to find good third-party templates, anyway? And if there isn't a developer community for paid products, why not try a SourceForge for Office macros and templates? 6) Enough with the product renaming. MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger/Windows Live Messenger? Sheesh. Even though I’m coming to things from the open source side, I’ve been giving some thought today to what I’d advise Ballmer to do, and many of the things I’d recommend are similar to what you’re also saying.

1) The big growth in the franchises isn’t going to come from developed countries. A cut-price Windows for emerging markets is nice, but there are few who will willingly downgrade a fully-functional (albeit pirated) copy of Windows for crippleware unless they are forced to, and even then the current approach of BSA bullying really isn’t building brand loyalty. And those customers will bolt at the earliest possible moment, partially because the company has done nothing to partner with them, and has instead treated them as either criminals or retards.

2) Come up with real differentiators for its web titles or spin them off and let them die. I can’t think of an MS web title that wasn’t a me-too in terms of its features for quite some time.

3) Lock-in only works when your products are compelling enough to get customers’ consent. The philosophy behind so many MS products - especially Windows Media Player - seems to be that customers are just sources of ARPU to be locked in.

4) Break up Office into an integrated pay-as-you-go product/service. This would bring the initial price down and streamline Office’s performance. It would also create a growing source of revenue as users add features they really need. This would also make individual features open to more competition, and, hopefully, innovation both inside and outside MS; and the EU would probably love to hear about something like that.

5) Create compelling value-added services around Office standards. Why hasn’t MS done a better job of selling premade Office templates relevant to individual industries? Why is it so hard to find good third-party templates, anyway? And if there isn’t a developer community for paid products, why not try a SourceForge for Office macros and templates?

6) Enough with the product renaming. MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger/Windows Live Messenger? Sheesh.

]]>