>>The cost. These features cost money to develop and they cost money to support. Imagine if Microsoft was getting calls from everyone who enabled BitLocker and then forgot their password. Enterprise costs a lot more than Home Premium.
I dont know who is doing your purchasing but through volume licensing enterprise pay significantly less per cal than a home user could ever hope of getting. Also enterprise tend to purchase MS support but home users do not.
>MS's stock hasn't moved in the past decade.
>>That's a sign of a mature company. They rake in a lot of money. They're no longer "cool" but they're a steady source of a lot of income. And unlike Apple, they actually pay dividends on their stock. [1]
While gangbuster growth is not usually sustainable flat earnings are not a sign of maturity they are a sign of stagnation. Without growth (real or expected) dividends are required to keep share holders happy. Also I am not sure its clear cut that dividends in general are a great thing.
>(and they're not anymore)
>>I'd like to see some numbers on this, because every number I've seen shows Microsoft in the mid 90% range for computer install base.
This only takes into account the desktop market which is quickly becoming less relevant than the mobile market where MS has no dominance and little growth. Even in the desktop market the user experience is shifting away from the OS to the web, again not a dominant area for MS.
>If MS could stream easily, people wouldn't be buying Roku boxes, Boxee boxes, PS3's.
>>And where are people streaming from? Their PC, among other places. Because Vista and 7 have it built in, and XP has the feature as a download.
They are streaming mostly from the web not saved content.
>Why not just give Access away!
>>You would make a great businessman.
Is Access really the killer app from Office? I cant see the case. Outlook and Excel are still killer apps but charging for access, or at least not making it part of the most basic bundles like word is did not do MS any favors.
>If MS had simply given away SQL server licenses, Apache would have never taken off.
>>Because if there's one thing Apache servers are known for, it's SQL (wtf is this?)
Agreed here I am not sure what the OP was referring to unless he means the power of the LAMP stack. Had microsoft had a competing offering that was not under such expensive licensing it would have given them a big bost in server licenses.
>Why am I shown different deals if i'm a home user, a small business user, a medium size business user, or a larger business user?
>>Because home users buy one computer. Businesses buy dozens or hundreds.
But this segmentation does not work if everyone can see every deal. You can achieve similar results based on volume discounting or segmentation along less artificial lines. For example as a home user I do not care if the same modle of PC will be guaranteed available for a 3 year life cycle. As a business customer I am willing to pay extra for that.
>Why are my computing needs different if I'm a small
>>business user vs. a medium size business user? Business machines need to be stable, supported, and perform well for the task they do. Home computers tend to be less stable, less supported, easier to break, but above all closer to bleeding edge and cheaper.
Home PC tend to fall into bleeding edge or cheap but reliability and support are just as important too the two groups. Delivery of service is different but expectations are the same. At the end of the day these are the same components and are used by users at work and at home. The reason consumerization of IT is hitting business hard is because users no longer have a difference in expectations between what they can do at home and what they can do at work.
>Why is it such a struggle for me to order a machine with an SSD and 16GB RAM?
>>Because you can't figure out how to read? Your mouse is broken? Monitor is unplugged? I don't know, you tell me. Listen, complain all you want, but it makes sense from a business standpoint.
His point on 'What's the different between a "vostro" and an "optiplex"and an "inspiron" and an "xps"' is completely valid. What the hell do those mean and where do I even begin looking for what i want when these are the initial choice presented to me. To make matters worse I can configure near identical machines under these different lines but get vastly different prices. Now I need to configure my PC several different times and track that pricing to make an intelligent choice? That is insanity.
>>If you can't wrap your head what Microsoft is doing, just take a step back and realize that there are really only two options for Windows 7: Home and Professional. That's all you need to know.
And Microsofts marketing does a horrible job at making that clear. That is not a fault of the consumer.