Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessewmc | Hacker News Reader

They almost made the same mistake with XBox, but Allard, Fries & company managed to convince Gates not to brand things as Windows.

View on HN

Wbox doesn’t sound as good either.

Windows Everywhere was a bad slogan, bred tunnel vision.

It's just incredible that MS has never understood how toxic the Windows brand is -- or, if not 'toxic', at least worthless. The only time the term Windows ever enters an ordinary user's vocabulary is when they call tech support to complain about something going wrong with their computer. (Or when a scammer calls them.)

It would be one thing if it were a branding mistake made by one CEO or one management team at one isolated point in time. But they have tried to turn Windows into a viable, positive consumer brand for longer than many of their customers have been alive. Time to run up the white flag on this one, guys. It's not going to happen.

So your saying that to a layman Windows is ubiquitous to a computer, and that somehow makes the brand worthless?

When you are talking about a Hoover, sure. Anyone can make a hoover, and the name looses all meaning and becomes a victim of its own success. That’s happening to Docker right now.

But Windows is different. Not anyone can make “a Windows”, because the difference between a computer and Windows is a lot more noticeable than the difference between one type of vacuum cleaner and another.

The link between Windows and a computer does make it harder to turn into some form of platform, sure, but it’s far, far, far from worthless.

You got the association off: It's not brand -> generic, it's "user has a problem" -> brand.

For non-techie people (most users), it was always "my computer" or "my PC" until they had a problem with it and had to think about "Windows". So yeah, as GP said, "Windows" did already have a negative reputation and was viewed as a necessary evil.

Particularly when the iPhone was released, Windows Vista had just come out a few months before.

>Windows Vista had just come out a few months before.

Yes, I know, Vista == awful. But I can never think too badly of it because I live through Windows ME, And when I think "worst Windows OS" everything else just kind of fades into the background.

It's overall an improving pattern though, with every other version being a step backwards, but not as big a step as the one before. Vista wasn't as bad as ME, Windows 8 wasn't as bad as Vista. At the same time, Windows 7 wasn't as much of an improvement on Vista as XP was over ME, and 10 not nearly as much of an improvement on 8 as 7 was on Vista.

Windows ME and Windows Vista were both terrible (it doesn't matter which one was worst), but that was because Windows XP and Windows 7 were also so good. So you start to notice the difference between the predecessor or successor which articulates the strong and weak points further.

Windows ME was bad because it would crash A LOT. Every 20 minutes sometimes (and computers didn't start up so quickly back then).

Vista qas comparatively wonderful.

>> how toxic the Windows brand is -- or, if not 'toxic', at least worthless

How about the "Microsoft" brand? Looking at the "most valuable brands", Microsoft is always near the top. Example:

https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank

I think it's because the association is "Microsoft == successful/wealthy company" while on the other hand "Windows == bluescreen/ransomware"

I'm not sure the majority of consumers make that second association. I think you're projecting your opinion onto the public.

Blue screen/ransomware is too strong, but the point is, Windows is like a carburator: if you’re thinking about it, you’re probably not having a good time. You want Windows to get out of your way so you can do the stuff. Windows is the loading screen.

Windows is like a carburator: if you’re thinking about it, you’re probably not having a good time

That's awesome, is that line original?

Yep

Can't that second sentiment be said about almost all products? I want MacOS to get out of my way so I can do stuff, I want my Google TV to get out of the way so I can watch stuff, I want Samsung to get out of the way so I can use my tablet. I don't actively think "Wow I'm using an X product" until it breaks or fails, and that's the same with any brand not just windows. How can the Blue screen/ransomware be "too strong" if Microsoft is consistently in the top 5 most trusted brands?

Yes, it applies to a wide range. My usual go-to analogy it plumbing. You never see it, never think about it, until something goes wrong. From the user perspective, most technology is "plumbing".

I think where Apple excels is both in "getting out of the way" but also making the limited contact with plumbing that's necessary be a generally aesthetically pleasing experience. I still prefer Android and windows though.

For sure. That’s why Apple didn’t sell “iPhone: with MacOS”.

I don't think Microsoft shares what their marketing team learns about their brands, but I'm not cold to this idea, and it would explain why all those scammers are introducing themselves as "Windows Support" instead of "Microsoft".

I'm projecting my experience with other users onto the broader population. The views and experiences of other people I know might not be representative, but it's not just my projection.

We are in the comment section of a niche tech forum though. Our views and those of the people we associate with will be far more critical of technology than the public, so I wouldn't make such grand statements as Windows == bluescreens and ransomware. Sure it has them, but it's far more associated with computers in general, which people need to do their work and daily activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com