Explaining Windows 8 PC Sales Over the Holidays

The basic problem in my opinion is that if you spend 400 € you're ok with plasticky rubbish, but if you spend 700 € you want to have a quality product. The 700 € laptops feel just as bulky and plasticky as the 400 € laptops, so nobody buys them, especially since most of them don't even have touchscreens. The solution is not for prices to go down, it's for build quality in the sub-1000 segment to go up.

If a 499€ retina ipad can feel great in your hands, then there is no excuse for the fact that the cheapest windows 8 touch laptops that feel nice in your hands have 4 digit price tags.

The sales weren't there because people didn't buy the product. The era when anything that MS put out was an instant success is over. Now someone needs to go tell Ballmer that the bar has been raised. Beware of flying chairs.

However, I don't agree that PC prices have to come down to make Windows 8 a success. I believe the main reason why Win8 PC sales are low is because we haven't seen very many touch based laptops at all. Take a look for yourself and see if you can find one you'd buy ignoring whether you like win8 or not.

There are only 3 currently available touch laptops a sane person would consider:

- Lenovo Yoga - Acer S7 - Lenovo X1 carbon touch - Asus UX31a Touch

So despite the typical advantage Windows has had in the past with a Tom of breadth in make and models, its just not the case at this point with Win8 touch laptops.

If OEMs pump out more high quality touch laptops, we will see sales spike. Prices don't even have to come down.

For orporate/enterprise use, the story is albeit different, Win8 is too novel for the ITs to start migrating when everybody already -unwillingly- upgraded to win7 from winxp. In 2 years, Windows 9, will have a better corporate chance. The underdogs such as business tablets, ChromeOS and Linux based PCs have a small chance in corporate area too.

It's too early to say but I believe, at least the first version of Surface is a failure.

Naturally the vast majority of consumers are nothing like us. They know little to nothing about computers, and because there are so many options out there in computers, they feel extremely anxious because they have no idea how to choose one. As a result, they buy sizzle, because sizzle makes them feel less anxious about buying something. Who has the best sizzle? Apple. Are Apple products really the best? Doesn't matter - Apple makes their customers feel safe spending money. If you hear non-tech literate people talking about computers, who are they talking about nine times out of ten? Apple. Or maybe Android. Windows? No. Touchscreen laptops? No. Not even the best new W8 models - eg. the Yoga. They're there in the shops, the ads are on tv, but no normal people are talking about them. They're all busy talking about the iPhone 5, or the iPad.

Microsoft's selling strategy - a rough-around-the-edges OS sold on hundreds of different OEM machines, 95% of which are pretty crappy for all sorts of different reasons - bad build quality, shitty trackpads, rubbish battery life, bloatware, poor customer support - has ruined their reputation among consumers. The stain of generic, confusing, quality-agnostic OEMs has polluted their brand. All the time Microsoft was busy selling whatever crap people would buy, Apple was selling only a handful of carefully-chosen products. Apple sold less in the short term, but their restraint is paying off massively now, because they never polluted their brand. They still have a brand they can sell. Microsoft doesn't, except for Office maybe.

The neat thing about how Apple's strategy works is that their lower-priced products don't compete with the rest of their range. Consumers don't buy iPod Touches instead of iPads, or iPads instead of Macbooks. Kids buy iPod Touches, which is as much as they can afford, and then their iPod Touch makes them aspire to buy an iPad. Then they buy an iPad when they can afford it, and again they aspire to a Macbook. Apple protects its high-end products well. Importantly, at every stage, at every income point, consumers are willing to prioritise buying an Apple product. Even iTunes and the App Store help Apple skim the cream off consumer's disposable income. It's a great system, with desirable, non-competitive products at every price point.

All the while computer stores are filled with masses of generic Windows boxes, competing against and drowning out some of the better, less-generic models - and nobody really cares. Microsoft has rushed right into its next-generation OS, launching it on as many different PC models as possible, trying to accelerate its app ecosystem to life as quickly as possible. I personally think Microsoft should have taken it slower, though maybe things will improve over time - Microsoft has a knack for persistence. I can however see Microsoft trying to do too much too soon, missing the opportunity for a real refresh, perpetuating the same problem of appearing try-hard and incoherent to consumers, tainting it app store with prolonged early irrelevance, failing to create a splash which a next-gen OS could have made, and giving Apple plenty of opportunity to watch and learn.

Thurott's advice is to drive for even-lower prices - polluting an already tainted brand even further. I would argue the opposite is necessary. Microsoft needs to cut the cruft, somehow, take its time, dial back its strident "look how great we are!" marketing, and develop some real, quiet, unforced confidence. If you're quiet and confident, and its clear you respect yourself, you don't need to run around trying to get people's attention. People will pay attention to you, given time. Patience pays off. That's the lesson of Apple I think.

That's why I think Ballmer is not a great CEO. He never quits yelling about how great Windows is, how everything is fine in Microsoft land. There's no humility.

TL;DR microsoft should have left the netbook market alone. They didn't. Fast-forward a few years, and it's biting them in the ass.

Justice exists.