Ballmer blames piracy for lackluster Vista sales

[plinden]

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.

 

[72930]

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

 

[gkarris]

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

 

[mkrishnan]

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]

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

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Ballmer...nothing he says means anything.

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

 

[Sun Baked]

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

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

 

[balamw]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Osarkon]

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]

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]

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...

 

[wordmunger]

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]

...

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.

 

[72930]

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

 

[patrick0brien]

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

 

[puckhead193]

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

 

[danny_w]

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]

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]

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

 

[yg17]

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]

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]

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]

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.