Ballmer blames piracy for lackluster Vista sales [Archive]

plinden

Feb 20, 2007, 03:59 PM

Apparently, Vista sales are lackluster compared to XP sales in its first week, 60% lower. Ballmer is blaming piracy - http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6156

Of course, the details are a little more complex than the headline. New PC sales are up so Vista is still selling, but people are not upgrading their current PCs to Vista, instead waiting to buy a new machine.

psychofreak

Feb 20, 2007, 04:01 PM

Maybe its also because vista is so ridiculously overpriced, and people's hardware can barely run it anyway...

gkarris

Feb 20, 2007, 04:03 PM

I think he means "Squirting each other copies...." :eek:

mkrishnan

Feb 20, 2007, 04:03 PM

Maybe its also because vista is so ridiculously overpriced, and people's hardware can barely run it anyway...

I seem to remember, though, that when XP came out, there were a lot of snafus related to driver availability that prevented computers from being upgradeable, at least in the beginning. I remember that, at that time, I had a Win98 Compaq of my parents' and the Compaq advisor told me not to run XP on it.

dllavaneras

Feb 20, 2007, 04:04 PM

What? you mean the best, most secure system on the face of the earth is a commercial bomb?? :eek:

Lord Blackadder

Feb 20, 2007, 04:04 PM

Ballmer...nothing he says means anything.

I suspect sales will pick up soon enough as more and more people upgrade.

Sun Baked

Feb 20, 2007, 04:05 PM

What? you mean the best, most secure system on the face of the earth is a commercial bomb?? :eek:

I think it is funny that the most secure operating system they have ever made is suffering from rampant piracy.

balamw

Feb 20, 2007, 04:06 PM

I guess it could be worse.

He could be blaming it on the other Steve telling people to hold back until they can keep their iPods safe while running Vista. :p

Or maybe it the lack of purchasing options? Let's add to the Heinz 57 editions of Vista to help folks make their mind up.

B

Rodimus Prime

Feb 20, 2007, 04:20 PM

well going from 98 to XP was a huge changed and there was more push for it. The windows 9.x system was pretty much crap and NT is by far better so that move was there.

Vista is still windows NT and there is not any huge push software side to do it yet. That and the reports of just issues are a lot higher and companies are holding off longer. I will get Vista Ultimate when my college releases it to its students later this semester but I am not going to pay for it because I can get it legally for free.

I really do not think piracy going to put that huge of a dent in the sell numbers. Certainly not 60%. I would give it 5% at most.

gkarris

Feb 20, 2007, 04:21 PM

All those people with iPods, man, they just pirate everything!!!

Osarkon

Feb 20, 2007, 05:45 PM

They should blame themselves for the piracy because if they didn't charge so much, people wouldn't feel the need to pirate it as much. And although tightening their anti-piracy system will work marginally (it finally pushed me, although by then I could get a free copy of XP from my university, 5 years running pirated XP) , it's not going to have a large impact.

Create rules, people will seek to break them. Simple as that.

DerChef

Feb 20, 2007, 05:47 PM

Anybody that buys the any Vista upgrade needs their head examining (see my other thread).

Basically in order to get a pretty interface and a sidebar (some say the aero "glass" effect is far too dark for clarity BTW)

It gave me a machine the takes twice as long to boot , when I then run something meaty like CS2 it bring it to its knees.

Nevermind putting almost all my utlitity software in the bin and not supporting my scanner at all and my printer only partially.

BoyBach

Feb 20, 2007, 06:10 PM

Surely it's partly down to Vista missing the Christmas market, partly the fact that a lot of people XP works fine and partly down to the hardware issues, such as updating graphic cards, RAM etc.?

Or maybe it's because...

:D

wordmunger

Feb 20, 2007, 06:19 PM

I think the "new antipiracy features" probably mean that Microsoft already has solid numbers on how many pirated copies are out there.

If Ballmer says piracy is hurting sales, I suspect he's got good numbers to back that up.

MisterMe

Feb 20, 2007, 07:27 PM

...

If Ballmer says piracy is hurting sales, I suspect he's got good numbers to back that up.Um-m-m, no. Bejamin Disraeli said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

No Microsoft operating system has been a retail success since Windows 95. For those old enough to remember, Microsoft employed the Rolling Stones and their song Start Me Up to promote the OS. Buyers lined-up and stormed the stores for midnight openings on the first day of Win 95 sales. After Win 95, Microsoft relied on its monopoly power over OEMs to sell its OS. Windows 98 was a better OS, but not nearly the retail success that Win 95 was. It took Windows XP years to overcome Windows 98 in the installed base. That Vista is selling slower than Win XP is interesting, but hardly a surprise.

For most Windows users, Win XP works. Vista offers no compelling new functionality. To the contrary, many new computers can't run Vista well. Why put yourself through the hassle of upgrading. Many users have decided not to.

psychofreak

Feb 20, 2007, 07:31 PM

Halo 2 will be a big selling point I think...

patrick0brien

Feb 20, 2007, 07:41 PM

Blamestorming, along with FUD, are other markets Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on.

puckhead193

Feb 20, 2007, 07:46 PM

i think people are smart and are waiting a few years/months for it to become somewhat stable.

danny_w

Feb 20, 2007, 08:14 PM

Most if not all hardware companies (I know Dell and Gateway at least) still offer WinXP as well as Vista to new buyers (similar to the WinXP or Win2k choice for several months after WinXP came out), and I expect that a lot of people in the know will buy new systems with XP installed. I know that is what I would do if I were to buy a Windows machine.

Eraserhead

Feb 20, 2007, 08:19 PM

Windows 98 was a better OS, but not nearly the retail success that Win 95 was.

I had W98 running in Softwindows back in 1998 and I couldn't think of any features except an internet wizard it had over W95 on my friends PC's (I'm ignoring the speed, obviously it was slower ;) ), basically it was a bugfix release.

IJ Reilly

Feb 20, 2007, 08:34 PM

You need more versions, Steve-o! More versions! Versions! Versions! Versions!

yg17

Feb 20, 2007, 08:38 PM

You'd think after Windows ME, they'd learn their lesson. Half assed, buggy OSes don't sell. History repeats itself....and this time, rather quickly at that.

Since Microsoft says Vista's successor will be out in 2009 (I'm sure that will be delayed a few decades though) why would anyone spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade to Vista when it will be obsolete in 2 years anyways?

mkrishnan

Feb 20, 2007, 08:40 PM

Um-m-m, no. Bejamin Disraeli said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I agree with your basic point. I tend to doubt they have great intel already on how much Vista piracy there is, or evidence that it's hurting Vista sales with it having been on the market for such a short period of time.

However, I do remember that a number of credible studies have said that a surprisingly large percentage of Windows installs (considering that Windows is OEM on 95% of PCs sold) are not legitimately licensed. I forget the specific numbers, but I've heard it reported in the 30-50% range in China and substantial (~25%?) in the US as well.

balamw

Feb 20, 2007, 08:45 PM

However, I do remember that a number of credible studies have said that a surprisingly large percentage of Windows installs (considering that Windows is OEM on 95% of PCs sold) are not legitimately licensed.

Which brings us right back to the DRM argument that Steve Jobs was making for music recently.

Some Windows installs are legitimate others are not. Retail licenses have relatively strong, almost onerous, DRM (activation) schemes. The vast majority of licenses though are OEM/enterprise and are preactivated.

If someone wants a pirated copy of Windows they'll get one of the preactivated ones and not the ones that are DRM laden, so what's the point of activation for the retail ones in the first place? All it does is annoy the folks who are trying to play by the rules...

B

Rodimus Prime

Feb 20, 2007, 08:48 PM

Since Microsoft says Vista's successor will be out in 2009 (I'm sure that will be delayed a few decades though) why would anyone spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade to Vista when it will be obsolete in 2 years anyways?
If you think that then why the hell do you up OSX when it just going to be out dated 12-18months later with another upgrade cost.

d_and_n5000

Feb 20, 2007, 08:59 PM

If you think that then why the hell do you up OSX when it just going to be out dated 12-18months later with another upgrade cost.

Because with OS X, to buy the new full version, its $129. To buy the full new version of Windows, it costs well over $400, possibly $500 if I recall correctly. In two years, thats a big jump. Sure, most people don't need Ultimate, but I don't think that even Vista's lowest-end choice(which has few new features over XP) is less than $129. Basically, its much less of a hit on the pocketbook to upgrade OS X every two years than to upgrade Windows every two years.

ghall

Feb 20, 2007, 09:21 PM

i think people are smart and are waiting a few years/months for it to become somewhat stable.

I think people are being smart and not buying Vista, because it's garbage. :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 20, 2007, 09:37 PM

I think people are being smart and not buying Vista, because it's garbage. :rolleyes:
Bingo, I have yet to see any software from microsoft that wasnt, yet they make some good hardware but in fairness Apple has the best software and its hardware is .....crippled in some fashion or another.

Bobdude161

Feb 20, 2007, 11:29 PM

Halo 2 will be a big selling point I think...

Problem is, the game will have a hard time trying to compete with the system resources. It'll probably have a 2.5 Ghz, 1 GB RAM and a 250 dollar graphics card, system requirement.

Eraserhead

Feb 21, 2007, 08:07 AM

Problem is, the game will have a hard time trying to compete with the system resources. It'll probably have a 2.5 Ghz, 1 GB RAM and a 250 dollar graphics card, system requirement.

Doesn't Vista :confused:?

ezekielrage_99

Feb 21, 2007, 08:37 AM

Besides looking pretty I don't think there are too many average home users or companies for that matter are prepared to part with their money for a Vista upgrade.

gkarris

Feb 21, 2007, 11:25 AM

I think people are being smart and not buying Vista, because it's garbage. :rolleyes:

Hey, man, it's not "garbage". The people with dual Xeon processors, 500Meg super SATA drives, Blu-ray burners, dual-SLI 512Meg DX10 video cards and 8 Gig RAM think it's great!

http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_710h2c?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

"Innovative H2C cooling!" Go Michael!!!

Rodimus Prime

Feb 21, 2007, 12:50 PM

Because with OS X, to buy the new full version, its $129. To buy the full new version of Windows, it costs well over $400, possibly $500 if I recall correctly. In two years, thats a big jump. Sure, most people don't need Ultimate, but I don't think that even Vista's lowest-end choice(which has few new features over XP) is less than $129. Basically, its much less of a hit on the pocketbook to upgrade OS X every two years than to upgrade Windows every two years.

sorry that is the retail price you are comparing it with. the only far way price wise to work with is the Upgrade cost which I believe drop it down to 300 max. The only type of OSX version you can buy is an upgrade edition since you the only reason you would be buying it is to upgrade from a older edition. But knowing M$ the next one has no hope of being out until 2010 which would come out to be about the same cost to cheaper than keep up to date with OSX over same time span.

ATD

Feb 21, 2007, 01:00 PM

Ballmer is right. They pirated OSX and they are finding out that it's not a profitable way to do business. :D

danny_w

Feb 21, 2007, 01:21 PM

sorry that is the retail price you are comparing it with. the only far way price wise to work with is the Upgrade cost which I believe drop it down to 300 max. The only type of OSX version you can buy is an upgrade edition since you the only reason you would be buying it is to upgrade from a older edition. But knowing M$ the next one has no hope of being out until 2010 which would come out to be about the same cost to cheaper than keep up to date with OSX over same time span.
Perhaps OSX Retail is only an upgrade according to the EULA, but it allows for a full installation on a clean system without requiring a previous installation or other install disks. Window Upgrade requires a previous installation or a full install disk.

Rodimus Prime

Feb 21, 2007, 08:13 PM

Perhaps OSX Retail is only an upgrade according to the EULA, but it allows for a full installation on a clean system without requiring a previous installation or other install disks. Window Upgrade requires a previous installation or a full install disk.

and tell me how it would be possible to get around it. Apple does not need to do that check because it is impossible (with out a huge work around) to install it on a non apple computer. And since all apple computer come with previous version of OSX on it apple kind of doing the same check. It just checking to make sure it is an apple computer and from there the upgrade check is done.

woodsea

Feb 21, 2007, 08:37 PM

If you can sell it, it will be pirated. It is more popular in Canada to pirate than either Russia or China.

IJ Reilly

Feb 22, 2007, 11:53 AM

Vista is already installed on all new OEM Windows PCs. This is Microsoft's captive market. But Microsoft did not need to create a new version of Windows just to sell to OEMs -- they are forced to buy whatever current version Microsoft sells. The real money for Microsoft is in the upgrade market, and it doesn't look like they're doing so well with it right now.

princealfie

Feb 22, 2007, 12:36 PM

It's not piracy that killing Vista, it's the fact that you can't run it on computers older than 2006.

Swarmlord

Feb 22, 2007, 01:44 PM

It's not piracy that killing Vista, it's the fact that you can't run it on computers older than 2006.

That's certainly the case with the corporate market they thought they had locked up with overnight upgrade sales.

Where I work we're not going to upgrade older computers at all and Vista will only roll out as quickly as new computers are purchased.

MacBoobsPro

Feb 22, 2007, 02:22 PM

I wonder if that 33% of pirated Windows is taken into account when market share is calculated. ;)

johnmartin78

Feb 22, 2007, 02:56 PM

I think people are being smart and not buying Vista, because it's garbage. :rolleyes:

What do you mean garbage,it's got that cool scrolling window thingy,thats the most usefull thing ever!!

FoxyKaye

Feb 22, 2007, 03:49 PM

This whole Visa/Office 2007 upgrade thing has me thinking a lot about Apple in the mid-1990s: Machines priced higher than their competition and so many different versions that making a choice was almost paralytic. There's like what, six versions of Vista and Office 2007 each?

Ballmer can blame piracy all he wants, but the truth is the M$ is offering too little compatibility with too few real new features, for too much, with too many choices for the average consumer to understand.

And, then there's that other issue of having even a Pentium 4HT grind to a halt trying to run Vista (if XP was a resource hog, you ain't seen nothin' yet). Someone said above that M$ has got the PC makers on a short leash b/c that's where every new copy if Vista is being installed - I totally agree with this. I also think that the whole Office 2007 file incompatibility issue is going to come back and bite M$ as well - sure, you can "save as" a previous version of Office document, but somehow I don't think everyone is going to be thinking of this when they're sending out memos from their shiny new Intel quad-core PCs. Has anyone received an Office 2007 document and tried to open it with Office 2004 on a Mac or 2003, 2002, or 2000 on a PC? It's not pretty.

M$ is forcing a major software upgrade on folks, and charging dearly for it. This is classic behavior of a monopolized industry. Heck, even Apple had the good sense to build in "Classic" and "Rosetta" into its OS X versions for PPC and Intel. And while M$ claims that Vista will run almost any 2000 or XP program, reports from the field beg to differ - this wasn't nearly as big an issue as the transition from 2000 to XP.

I'm guessing consumers are hearing more about the initial wave of backlash against Vista and it's giving them pause for concern - especially if they don't have deep pockets to upgrade their hardware and Office.

MacBoobsPro

Feb 22, 2007, 03:54 PM

There's like what, six versions of Vista and Office 2007 each?

I saw a post where someone got it up to nearly 20 different versions including 32 or 64 bit and all the business versions too. :eek:

failsafe1

Feb 22, 2007, 03:56 PM

Were there car thieves around when the Edsel wasn't selling?:eek:

FoxyKaye

Feb 22, 2007, 04:17 PM

I saw a post where someone got it up to nearly 20 different versions including 32 or 64 bit and all the business versions too. :eek:
Good grief - This is even more confusing for the layperson. I understand that Vista will mostly self-determine if it's being installed on a 32- or 64-bit system, but it introduces another layer of unnecessary information for the consumer. I also forgot to mention that M$ *does* have an Office 2007 converter for people running any previous version of Office on Windows (note, this doesn't yet exist for OS X - so much for M$'s "renewed commitment" to Apple from a couple MWSF's back), but again, this means the everyday Windows user needs to be aware the converter exists, how to download it and how to use it.

Apple isn't exactly coming up roses lately with me either, but at least it tries to keep these kinds of hassles "behind the scenes" in its software.

Shadow

Feb 22, 2007, 04:38 PM

Don't forget that it will take a while for businesses to upgrade to Vista. I know Network Rail in the UK isn't upgrading until at least 2010.

psychofreak

Feb 22, 2007, 04:40 PM

Don't forget that it will take a while for businesses to upgrade to Vista. I know Network Rail in the UK isn't upgrading until at least 2010.

I don't see any reason for National Rail to upgrade at all...

Rodimus Prime

Feb 22, 2007, 04:57 PM

I saw a post where someone got it up to nearly 20 different versions including 32 or 64 bit and all the business versions too. :eek:

I do not know where they are getting the 20 from I count 15 at max and 3 of them really should not count because they are not on the self to confuse customers any how (Start, Enterprise, Enterprise 64)

So that puts it down to 12 and then 4 of those are there because of governments (Home basic N and Business N and there 64 bit counter part) so that 4 where beyond M$ control.

It really comes down to there being 4 boxes on the shelf. Now if you put in the Retail and upgrade that numbers goes to 8.

That being said yeah I do think that is way to much. I think 2 version of Vista more than enough (home and Pro) but the 4 different versions is over kill.

As for 64bit version you are given that option at install if you computer can run it.

TheBobcat

Feb 22, 2007, 07:04 PM

Vista blows, world knows, Ballmer cries.

patrick0brien

Feb 23, 2007, 12:41 AM

Aw c'mon guys, Vista's not that bad.

It's just not all that much better than XP.

But then, add the fact that most of us prefer OSX, and Vista is a hollow follower.

Unlike 1995, the public is a lot more informed now, and are wise to Microsoft's business practices.

It's an interesting thing to watch...

johnmartin78

Feb 23, 2007, 04:09 AM

Bingo, I have yet to see any software from microsoft that wasnt, yet they make some good hardware but in fairness Apple has the best software and its hardware is .....crippled in some fashion or another.

What "good hardware" does Microsoft make besides keyboard and mouse?I hate my Xbox360 more and more everytime I use it.The fan sounds like a hovercraft,and nearly need a oven mitt to remove the discs from the drive they're so hot.Damn you Gears of War!!Why be so good on such lame hardware?!?!

Can't think of one thing Microsoft makes,or assembles* hardware wise I would consider good.To be honest,theres a few pieces of software that are actually pretty good.

princealfie

Feb 23, 2007, 09:46 AM

What "good hardware" does Microsoft make besides keyboard and mouse?I hate my Xbox360 more and more everytime I use it.The fan sounds like a hovercraft,and nearly need a oven mitt to remove the discs from the drive they're so hot.Damn you Gears of War!!Why be so good on such lame hardware?!?!

Can't think of one thing Microsoft makes,or assembles* hardware wise I would consider good.To be honest,theres a few pieces of software that are actually pretty good.

I take it that you didn't like the Zune, did you? :D

Swarmlord

Feb 23, 2007, 10:10 AM

I saw a post where someone got it up to nearly 20 different versions including 32 or 64 bit and all the business versions too. :eek:

Yeah, the days of providing just a workstation and server version of their software appears to be long gone. Looks like you'll have to buy a book and read up before you're qualified to even know what to purchase for your computer.