LWN.net Logo

This is good for the longterm

This is good for the longterm

Posted May 13, 2008 2:22 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203)
Parent article: Microsoft vies for budget laptop market with XP price cuts (ars technica)

This move is a good thing.  It means many things.  First I'd say we are officially in the
'then they fight you' phase in yet another market segment, low spec laptops.

I suspect OEMs are split on this, many were terrified of what was shaping up as a race to the
bottom and hope Microsoft has saved them from the pressures of the marketplace.  On the other
hand some won't like the heavy handedness of this move, the obviously artifical line between
cheep machines that qualify and others that don't, etc.  And besides, OEMs like Asus don't
have a choice but to play ball with Microsoft because while the EEE PC is selling well with or
without Windows, annoying Microsoft would risk their higher dollar product lines.

Watch customers for the interesting reaction.  What do you think Fortune 500 corps are going
to think when a) they are told XP is dead, kaput, unavailable, etc. yet Microsoft is selling
the very product many of them WANT at prices lower than the sweatheart deals they can get when
buying by the 10K units and sometimes after waving the Penguin flag themselves in attempts to
get better prices.

Longterm this move won't stop the bleeding.  Moore's Law is going to drive prices down because
for a large segment of the market a 1Ghz class machine is enough so faster isn't really
valuable to those customers.

I'll just repeat a prediction I have made before.  Eventually the prices on hardware will drop
low enough that one of two things happen.

1.  Microsoft lowers license pricing far enough it guts their profitability in order to
maintain an OS monopoly that won't be able to keep enough cash rolling in to make shareholders
happy.

Remember that Windows and Office generate almost all profits, which is how they can lose money
on things like their Internet and game divisions.  Office will be under increasing pressure
from OO.o as the years roll on so jacking it's price to compensate isn't an option.

Keeping XP around is only a stopgap.  When they are selling the same OS at vastly different
prices those paying the premium prices will start to balk.

2.  Microsoft conceeds the bottom to Linux.  Of course this will be fatal because what is low
end today will be average tomorrow.  The computing world is littered with the husks of
companies who made this mistake.  Don't expect Microsoft to be this dumb.

But even worse will be when a Chineese consumer electronics maker gets the bright idea to
churn out a cheep generic linux desktop or laptop and sell it in places that don't have a
horse in the PC game and thus won't care if it canabilizes sales of higher price/margin
machines.  Not being in the PC business they won't have other product lines to worry about
retaliation on.  Game over.


(Log in to post comments)

This is good for the longterm

Posted May 13, 2008 3:32 UTC (Tue) by mtall (guest, #52045) [Link]

I'm not sure if I buy your reasoning. Machines like the EEE pc are not aimed at people who buy traditional laptops. Instead they represent a new market segment that is largely orthogonal to normal laptops -- in other words, more sales in this segment is not likely to cannibalize sales of normal laptops. This new market segment is growing, meaning Microsoft isn't undercutting itself, but instead getting an ever bigger slice of the overall PC market.

This is good for the longterm

Posted May 13, 2008 8:54 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Two things I think you're missing:

  1. Market-leading products have a tendency to be destroyed by something that creates a new, lower-end market, then climbs up. IBM ignored the PC market, assuming it wouldn't damage mainframe sales, as it is a market that's largely orthogonal to mainframes. They hit pain when it became clear that powerful PCs (while not as reliable as mainframes) were Good Enough for most users. Microsoft can't ignore UMPCs, or treat them as a new market segment, as it's all too plausible that they'll become Good Enough for most users; imagine (for the sake of argument) an eeePC with 20GB flash, 1GB RAM, a processor equivalent to today's 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo, and a HDMI port for connecting to your HDTV. Suddenly, if the software on the eeePC is good enough for you, an eeePC is enough; when you need a big screen, you just plug into the TV.
  2. Microsoft have existing customers, who are being told that XP will not be available for love nor money in the near future; they don't yet want to migrate to Vista, and now they're being told, "you're not important enough to sell XP to; other people can have it for less than you've ever paid, but you've got to move to Vista whether you like it or not". This is not good for relations with existing customers, and gives them new incentive to look at (e.g.) Ubuntu desktops, using WINE to run their business-specific applications.

So, in the short term, no change - but, in the long term, Microsoft are facing two competitive pressures, one from cheap hardware with free or nearly free software, one from existing customers getting grumpy at not being treated well.

This is good for the longterm

Posted May 13, 2008 12:25 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]

I've the impression that mainframes never did better than nowadays. Perhaps you're confused
with minicomputers that were wiped away by micros? (Though it happened all before my time.)

And people, don't forget that MS is a software company that has a lot of small to medium
business customers in its grasp with (semi-)custom software.

BY 1990 mainfarmes were dying

Posted May 13, 2008 14:39 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I've the impression that mainframes never did better than nowadays.

Is this a joke? In 1960-1970 mainframes were THE business computers. All big companies used them. By 1990 they were almost wiped out: only IBM survived and even IBM's mainframes had bleak future. Linux quite literally saved them - but that's totally different story.

Mainframes still selling well

Posted May 13, 2008 16:37 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]

No joke. IBM's mainframes continue to sell well. Consider that mainframes have been used for virtualization for forty years, and companies nowadays often use a mainframe to run hundreds of virtual hosts.

IBM did attempt to slowly withdraw from the mainframe market, but then a lot of companies using them for traditional purposes (i.e., non-virtualized hosts) started clamoring for upgrades and new models. Apparently these businesses have a "it ain't broke, so no need to fix it" attitude towards their IT needs.

BY 1990 mainfarmes were dying

Posted May 13, 2008 18:44 UTC (Tue) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

Maybe mainframes nowadays have a 1% share of a market that is 100x as big as the market 40 years ago of which they had 50%, and in that sense, mainframes never did better than nowadays.

This is good for the longterm

Posted May 15, 2008 9:24 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

OEMs like Asus don't have a choice but to play ball with Microsoft because while the EEE PC is selling well with or without Windows, annoying Microsoft would risk their higher dollar product lines.

I thought ASUS mainly sold motherboards and other components, but maybe I'm wrong there. My main point is that UMPC laptops will be tempting as a higher margin product for companies which mainly sold very low margin, high volume components before. So look for motherboard and LCD manufacturers, and Chinese assembly houses (Flextech etc.) starting to build these. They don't care a jot what Microsoft think.

Rich.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds