Ballmer pumps Windows 7 up to thrifty customers
Hopes upcoming OS will fit into frugal 'new normal'
Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer has used the ‘C’ word in a missive he wrote today that paints an austere picture of the world economy, but at the same time punts the company’s technology as a saviour to businesses and their depleted piggy banks.
“In the new normal, one thing is clear: cutting costs is extremely important. But cost cutting by itself is not a long-term winning strategy,” opined Ballmer.
The word ‘cut’ has become de rigueur among some politicians and biz tycoons of late.
“To build a sustainable competitive advantage, companies must ultimately do two things - increase productivity and find ways to deliver new value to customers.”
Cue Windows 7, which gets it official launch party on 22 October and is, according to Ballmer, “the best PC operating system we have ever built.”
He was also quick to single out the public sector and its diminishing funds as an example of the sort of customer Microsoft is super keen to scoop up.
“Governments must figure out how to deliver more services on budgets that are sharply constrained by falling revenue.”
Ballmer went on to cite the city of Miami’s recent deployment of Windows 7. The result: it expects to save nearly $400,000 a year in reduced security, management, and energy costs, he said.
Of course, he didn’t offer a compare-and-contrast with how those savings might be weighed against an open source option from a rival vendor, say. But then, why would he? After all, the man has a new OS to flog in the midst of an economic slump. ®
*We've reproduced the email in full on the next page.
Next page: The New Efficiency
The New Efficiency: With Less, Do More
Oh, well here's a comforting new idea. Well, it was new maybe twenty years ago. And never really been comforting, but at least it's an idea. Or at least it's a upbeat marketing phrase.
No I'm not saying that! I said "Apple try and position themselves as a premium brand" the key word there is TRY. Note that that was followed by "If you don't think they are, then that's your choice". At no point did I say that that choice was wrong. Also at no point did I say that Apple use better quality components than everyone else. If that is the inference that you got, then thats my fault, it's certainly not what I meant. They do, by and large, use some custom designed components in the Macs and AFAIK the form factor is not ATX - in other words, Mac's aren't made with just "standard components"—in fact the only major difference between pre and post Intel Macs is EFI and Intel processors, I also said if you can build what Apple, Dell et al. produce for considerably less, then well done, but the majority of people either can't or don't want to.
"Apple charges extra for the brand and everyone knows it." THAT'S WHAT PREMIUM BRANDS DO!!! Sorry for shouting! Not to labour the point, but its exactly what Mercedes-Benz do. Louis Vuitton do it too. So do Sony. That's not a justification, just an observation.
Sorry, I'm not having a go, but you seemed to have miss understood the point of my musings (or not read the whole post!) which was that, whilst at the more expensive end of the market, they are by no means as expensive as the majority of posters would have you believe, and that the AC's post which was having a dig at Peter 39 was way off target. Windows 7's pricing is too high, especially when you consider what Apple charged for 10.5–10.6 upgrades (in fact you can do 10.4–10.6 upgrades with same disk), and especially when you consider the global economy.
"For years, we’ve talked about how information technology enables companies to do more with less. But during this economic reset, IT provides business leaders with the answer to a slightly different question: Can my company with less, do more?"
Someone really is taking the piss here. Slightly different question, yes - but same fucking semantics !! Do people really listen to this kind of drivel and think that they're being told something new or intelligent? I'm really a non-violent person but if someone told me that to my face I'd have to punch them in theirs. No, that's not true, I wouldn't punch them in the face, rather, in the face, I would punch them.