Microsoft needs to stop tying to Apple, Google, and others and focus on their core business of building software and come up with their own ideas. Microsoft's product history is basically copy what the market leader in a segment is doing, and try to dominate it. Sometimes it has worked for them, sometimes not.
The Apple store works for Apple because Apple makes the hardware and the software. How will the Microsoft store differ all that much from the Dell store or for that matter the computer section of Best Buy?
It worked well through the 90s but hasn't been completely successful recently
The primary reason is that when MS did this in the past, their products were arguably better than the competition. Word and Excel were arguably better products in Windows, even though the character version of those products were superior. NT 3.51, and 4.0 was a lot easier to set up and maintain than Netware 3.12, and Netware 4 was a POS. It's questionable whether or not OS/2 was a better OS than Windows 95, but at the time Win 95 was pretty cool.
Lately, however, they have't been as successful with this strategy. The Zune is fine, but has not come close to dislodging the iPod after 3 years. the XBOX 360 is a great, but aging platform, and has not been financially successful (yet) and it seems apparent that MS has no replacement in the works. Regardless, MS's overall gaming business has not come close to beating Sony on a world wide basis.
Anyway, the Microsoft store simply seems like the computer section at Best Buy minus the Apple section, and the gaming section minus the Play Station and the Wii, and probably a few HD tvs with Media center. The Apple store sells a lot of things you can only get there, or on-line. When you can already get everything the Microsoft store will sell at Best Buy and other places, what is the business model that will make it successful in terms of retail? I don't think that Microsoft really understands what makes the Apple store successful.
Windows succeeded because most businesses had already standardized on DOS, so when Windows came out they just converted to it. So Microsoft was able to push adoption because they already had a built in monopoly, like Apple with the iPod. Apple is going to push the iPhone and succeed because people already have large quantities of music on iTunes. iTunes succeeded because it gave people something beyond subscription, which was the only thing being offered at the time (back in 2001).
It was very hard for Microsoft to break into the DAP market once people had made their choice of iTunes as a place to get music.
So, in other words, the "Me Too" thing only works for Microsoft when they already have a market that they already control. For instance, it would be easier for them to create a cloud service for Office, that is, a cloud service that businesses actually use (sorry Google Docs), then to compete with Google's search monopoly or Apple's music download/player monopoly.
I actually think this would be a great idea if Microsoft could pull it off.
The problem with Best Buy and other big box electronics stores is that they don't care about Windows. The average salesman doesn't know (or need to know) about all of the bells and whistles of Microsoft products in order to sell hardware. People come in wanting to buy laptops or desktops, and they're guided mostly on hardware features and whether or not they like the physical model.
If Microsoft could provide staff that are highly trained on MS products and could actually show people what Vista and other products are capable of, I think it could help change perspectives on MS.
I think your suggestion is kind of stupid. Why would Microsoft need to sell people on the benefits on their operating system? It's on most computers whether you like it or not. The only way I could see your suggestion being relevant is if Microsoft needed salespeople to upsell their Ultimatte versions of Vista. The myriad versions of Windows are confusing, and assuming Microsoft continues the trend with Windows 7, it would be nice if someone was actually knowledgeable about features in all versions.
@Paul. I don't think that is strictly correct. Microsoft had no real network server entries when they introduced Windows NT. They beat Novell, because while Novell was arguably a better network OS, more scalable and robust, for smaller networks NT 3.51 was just fine, it worked just like Windows and was pretty easy to install and configure for the average person (relatively speaking), unlike Netware, and unfortunately the UNIX market was so fragmented that they couldn't get their shit together to fight Microsoft. I kept selling UNIX System V for as long as I could get customers to buy it because it was (and remains) far more stable and scalable than Windows servers. Eventually, however, customers started demanding Windows NT, and companies stopped supporting UNIX, and, well, here we are. The Linux movement is still too fragmented to offer any significant entries into the business server market. Sure, there are a number of companies using it, but still, probably over 90% have a windows 2000/2003 server infrastructure, and probably aren't going to move off of it anytime soon.
"The Apple store works for Apple because Apple makes the hardware and the software."
One thing is for sure, the internet has produced a plethora of self-taught experts convinced of their own empirical brilliance. Please don't rely on Google search results to promulgate your opinion.
I work (yes, RIGHT NOW) for a motherboard manufacturer who produces boards for Gigabyte. And no, I WON'T mention their name. But I will say this, we were just contracted to build boards for the 17-inch MacBook Pro. Apple DOES NOT make the hardware.
And about making the software....that's debatable. One might ask, who "makes" FreeBSD?
That is a stupid, semantic argument, and you know perfectly well that the point is. Strictly speaking, almost no major manufacture makes 100% of their own stuff.
I don't think anyone implies that Apple makes their own hardware, but they do design it. It's like an architect who draws blueprints. The architects never actually goes out to build a house, someone else does the hard grunt work. Now of course, they don't design certain components like processors and hard drives, because those components have already been standardized in the market, but when it comes to the enclosure, and mother board, all that stuff gets designed by Apple's engineers.
"Why would Microsoft need to sell people on the benefits on their operating system? It's on most computers whether you like it or not."
Sure, this marketing trick has worked in the past, but Microsoft is not guaranteed the same level of market share or consumer loyalty in the future just because all the computers at Best Buy are running some version of Windows (hint: they don't. Best Buy sells Apple products now).
Consumers DO have alternatives, and will probably have more as the years roll by and new technologies emerge. Microsoft doesn't just want to sell copies of Windows -- they want to incorporate a whole ecosystem of products into the consumer's life (xbox, zune, Windows Mobile, media extenders, etcetera). Increasingly, these sorts of devices and platforms will be integrated with personal computers.
Considering how much bad PR and consumer trust Vista has garnered, Microsoft *might* benefit from having direct ways to communicate with and educate customers. If the "Mojave" experiment actually produced the results the commercials claim, I think that shows a tangible benefit to Microsoft.
Clearly, its not just about the point-of-sale. If you hear that Vista is the most god-awful operating system ever made from a trustworthy friend (who may have heard it down the line from other people), you might consider buying Apple, or holding off on buying a Vista PC.
I also realize from the comments that the article deals with retail equipment, etc. etc.
That doesn't impact my belief in the value of MS having trained experts demo their consumer products in a retail space (even if they just have a booth or section at Best Buy).
the Nook Color proved it was an undercover tablet all along, Barnes and Noble has hit back with this latest Nook as proof of its focus on one thing: reading.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Microsoft needs to stop tying to Apple, Google, and others and focus on their core business of building software and come up with their own ideas. Microsoft's product history is basically copy what the market leader in a segment is doing, and try to dominate it. Sometimes it has worked for them, sometimes not.
The Apple store works for Apple because Apple makes the hardware and the software. How will the Microsoft store differ all that much from the Dell store or for that matter the computer section of Best Buy?
tying to *copy*
I'd like to see the "Genius Bar" at such a store.
Its been successful so far... why stop?
It's not always successful.
It worked well through the 90s but hasn't been completely successful recently
The primary reason is that when MS did this in the past, their products were arguably better than the competition. Word and Excel were arguably better products in Windows, even though the character version of those products were superior. NT 3.51, and 4.0 was a lot easier to set up and maintain than Netware 3.12, and Netware 4 was a POS. It's questionable whether or not OS/2 was a better OS than Windows 95, but at the time Win 95 was pretty cool.
Lately, however, they have't been as successful with this strategy. The Zune is fine, but has not come close to dislodging the iPod after 3 years. the XBOX 360 is a great, but aging platform, and has not been financially successful (yet) and it seems apparent that MS has no replacement in the works. Regardless, MS's overall gaming business has not come close to beating Sony on a world wide basis.
Anyway, the Microsoft store simply seems like the computer section at Best Buy minus the Apple section, and the gaming section minus the Play Station and the Wii, and probably a few HD tvs with Media center. The Apple store sells a lot of things you can only get there, or on-line. When you can already get everything the Microsoft store will sell at Best Buy and other places, what is the business model that will make it successful in terms of retail? I don't think that Microsoft really understands what makes the Apple store successful.
Windows succeeded because most businesses had already standardized on DOS, so when Windows came out they just converted to it. So Microsoft was able to push adoption because they already had a built in monopoly, like Apple with the iPod. Apple is going to push the iPhone and succeed because people already have large quantities of music on iTunes. iTunes succeeded because it gave people something beyond subscription, which was the only thing being offered at the time (back in 2001).
It was very hard for Microsoft to break into the DAP market once people had made their choice of iTunes as a place to get music.
So, in other words, the "Me Too" thing only works for Microsoft when they already have a market that they already control. For instance, it would be easier for them to create a cloud service for Office, that is, a cloud service that businesses actually use (sorry Google Docs), then to compete with Google's search monopoly or Apple's music download/player monopoly.
I actually think this would be a great idea if Microsoft could pull it off.
The problem with Best Buy and other big box electronics stores is that they don't care about Windows. The average salesman doesn't know (or need to know) about all of the bells and whistles of Microsoft products in order to sell hardware. People come in wanting to buy laptops or desktops, and they're guided mostly on hardware features and whether or not they like the physical model.
If Microsoft could provide staff that are highly trained on MS products and could actually show people what Vista and other products are capable of, I think it could help change perspectives on MS.
@Sisyphus
I think your suggestion is kind of stupid. Why would Microsoft need to sell people on the benefits on their operating system? It's on most computers whether you like it or not. The only way I could see your suggestion being relevant is if Microsoft needed salespeople to upsell their Ultimatte versions of Vista. The myriad versions of Windows are confusing, and assuming Microsoft continues the trend with Windows 7, it would be nice if someone was actually knowledgeable about features in all versions.
@Paul. I don't think that is strictly correct. Microsoft had no real network server entries when they introduced Windows NT. They beat Novell, because while Novell was arguably a better network OS, more scalable and robust, for smaller networks NT 3.51 was just fine, it worked just like Windows and was pretty easy to install and configure for the average person (relatively speaking), unlike Netware, and unfortunately the UNIX market was so fragmented that they couldn't get their shit together to fight Microsoft. I kept selling UNIX System V for as long as I could get customers to buy it because it was (and remains) far more stable and scalable than Windows servers. Eventually, however, customers started demanding Windows NT, and companies stopped supporting UNIX, and, well, here we are. The Linux movement is still too fragmented to offer any significant entries into the business server market. Sure, there are a number of companies using it, but still, probably over 90% have a windows 2000/2003 server infrastructure, and probably aren't going to move off of it anytime soon.
"The Apple store works for Apple because Apple makes the hardware and the software."
One thing is for sure, the internet has produced a plethora of self-taught experts convinced of their own empirical brilliance. Please don't rely on Google search results to promulgate your opinion.
I work (yes, RIGHT NOW) for a motherboard manufacturer who produces boards for Gigabyte. And no, I WON'T mention their name. But I will say this, we were just contracted to build boards for the 17-inch MacBook Pro. Apple DOES NOT make the hardware.
And about making the software....that's debatable. One might ask, who "makes" FreeBSD?
That is a stupid, semantic argument, and you know perfectly well that the point is. Strictly speaking, almost no major manufacture makes 100% of their own stuff.
@egawrangler
I don't think anyone implies that Apple makes their own hardware, but they do design it. It's like an architect who draws blueprints. The architects never actually goes out to build a house, someone else does the hard grunt work. Now of course, they don't design certain components like processors and hard drives, because those components have already been standardized in the market, but when it comes to the enclosure, and mother board, all that stuff gets designed by Apple's engineers.
@ Paul Chapel
"Why would Microsoft need to sell people on the benefits on their operating system? It's on most computers whether you like it or not."
Sure, this marketing trick has worked in the past, but Microsoft is not guaranteed the same level of market share or consumer loyalty in the future just because all the computers at Best Buy are running some version of Windows (hint: they don't. Best Buy sells Apple products now).
Consumers DO have alternatives, and will probably have more as the years roll by and new technologies emerge. Microsoft doesn't just want to sell copies of Windows -- they want to incorporate a whole ecosystem of products into the consumer's life (xbox, zune, Windows Mobile, media extenders, etcetera). Increasingly, these sorts of devices and platforms will be integrated with personal computers.
Considering how much bad PR and consumer trust Vista has garnered, Microsoft *might* benefit from having direct ways to communicate with and educate customers. If the "Mojave" experiment actually produced the results the commercials claim, I think that shows a tangible benefit to Microsoft.
Clearly, its not just about the point-of-sale. If you hear that Vista is the most god-awful operating system ever made from a trustworthy friend (who may have heard it down the line from other people), you might consider buying Apple, or holding off on buying a Vista PC.
@ Myself:
I also realize from the comments that the article deals with retail equipment, etc. etc.
That doesn't impact my belief in the value of MS having trained experts demo their consumer products in a retail space (even if they just have a booth or section at Best Buy).