News - Satya Nadella replaces Steve Ballmer as Microsoft CEO

[Saracen]

Agreed on the shuffling of "$uperstar$" point.

On tech company's having different set of demands, well, I'd say it depends how broadly or narrowly you define it. Being a superb drink company boss doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good running a tech company, but nor does it necessarily mean you won't.

After all, a lot of a CEO's job is about company structure, understanding costs, staffing, sttucturing finance, etc. Basically, management. But, yes clearly, you need to broadly understand the market, and factors dominating drinks and tech will likely be very different. But no company the size of Coca Cola, MS, Ford, etc, has one man making all the decisions and, like any good army, a superb general staff is necessary. So presumably, MS has board-level technical people, board-level marketing people, and so on for finance, probably personnel, etc. And, reading between the lines, His Gatesness is going back to provide some sort of technical vision, and he didn't do so bad last time round.

As for the balance between desktop and cloud, it seems self-evident to me that, at the very least, that's the direction MS has been going. The vision, quite possibly correctly, is that the desktop market is, if not at saturation point, then close to it, and that more portable-device-oriented markets are where a lot of the growth will be.

My view, personally, is that while there is a fair degree of overlap between desktop and mobile devices, and clearly, mobile devices are better at some functions previously the exclusive preserve of desktops, not least because technology didn't allow for sufficiently portable AND powerful mobile devices, that bridge is clearly crossed.

I think MS would be stupid to rest on their desktop laurels. IBM did that, which is how MS got to be such a success. MS would have been still-born as a force had IBM seen the future as Gates did. MS won't want to repeat that piece of tunnel vision.

BUT ..... there are ways to do it.

One way is to take existing users with you. That is, by all means enable MUI in W8. But DO NOT try to strong-arm users into it. You can lead a pig to an obstacle course, but if you try to make him jump it, you're going to end up with one very angry pig.

The other way is to be dictatorial, and try to pretend that the UI ethos that, at least for argument's sake, works well for phones and tablets is also the ONLY ethos for desktops, when it self-evidently is not.

It's rather akin to a large pig farmer buying half a dozen cattle, and telling the pigs they've now not to pretend they're and graze in a field.

Ever tried milking a pig? Many of whom are male? A good way to annoy the pigs, especially the latter group, and not a great business model. Instead, by all means start raising cattle, but as cattle, and yet respect that pigs are pigs.

Hopefully, MS' s new boss isn't blinkered in a cloud-centric viewpoint. Hopefully. Not holding my breath, though.

[crossy]

Love the pig-milking analogy!

[aidanjt]

...

I wouldn't even mind 'cloud services' so much, as long as the client can be figured to freely choose backends which are open/free/affordable (in order of preference) which I can choose host it myself, or even pick hosts which are in a jurisdiction I prefer. That, and the desktop client UIs aren't contaminated by mobile nuttiness.

It isn't 'the cloud' I detest, as much as the blatant attempts at yet more vendor lock-in and the nasty software which uses those services.

[tomthum]

Who cares they spy on everyone

N.S.A. and G.C.H.Q. The only government goons that "LISTEN"?????
I'm a 30yr old trapped in a 62yr old body

[Saracen]

I wouldn't even mind 'cloud services' so much, as long as the client can be figured to freely choose backends which are open/free/affordable (in order of preference) which I can choose host it myself, or even pick hosts which are in a jurisdiction I prefer. That, and the desktop client UIs aren't contaminated by mobile nuttiness.

It isn't 'the cloud' I detest, as much as the blatant attempts at yet more vendor lock-in and the nasty software which uses those services.

Exactly.

I don't dislike the cloud, per se, any more than I object to MUI, per se. I just want the choice, and for me both cloud storage and cloud/online apps are a no-no. If other users, business or personal, want to go that way, good luck to them.

As you so eloquently put it, it's the blatant attempt at lock-in that does annoy me, hence my Win -> Ubuntu migration. MS haven't locked me into their mobile view, they've locked me out of Windows. And, as you MIGHT ( ) have noticed, I'm not best pleased with them over it.

[Top_gun]

He seems to have a good sense of fashion compared to his peers, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, etc. Makes me think we may actually see stylish microsoft products in the near future.

Satya also have a connecting, well balanced demeanor so hopefully he will listen to the customers about their needs and aspirations.

All in all, I think MS has chosen wisely.

[Saracen]

....

All in all, I think MS has chosen wisely.

Only time will tell.

Even if they have, though, from the perspective of MS and shareholders, people like me aren't necessarily going to like what that means for product direction.

[crossy]

Only time will tell.

Even if they have, though, from the perspective of MS and shareholders, people like me aren't necessarily going to like what that means for product direction.

One that's been mooted in the past was perhaps to offer Windows, and certainly Office, as (annual?) subscriptions rather than outright license purchases - note this is different from SaaS "Office 365".

If I remember the discussion correctly, you'd pay your annual fee and then get access to whatever version of Windows/Office were available during the period of your license. Presumably it'd be up to you whether you decide to upgrade if a newer version comes out.

Not sure how I'd react if this was offered - probably makes sense for Office etc, but less so for the core OS.

[peterb]

One that's been mooted in the past was perhaps to offer Windows, and certainly Office, as (annual?) subscriptions rather than outright license purchases - note this is different from SaaS "Office 365".

If I remember the discussion correctly, you'd pay your annual fee and then get access to whatever version of Windows/Office were available during the period of your license. Presumably it'd be up to you whether you decide to upgrade if a newer version comes out.

Not sure how I'd react if this was offered - probably makes sense for Office etc, but less so for the core OS.

Yes, I think that was the plan for XP, and iirc, an annual licence would have been required to continue using Windows, otherwise functionality would be lost. I think the corporate users scuppered that plan as they saw the costs rising. It was about ten years ago, so my recollection of the detail may be a bit hazy.

[ik9000]

Yes, I think that was the plan for XP, and iirc, an annual licence would have been required to continue using Windows, otherwise functionality would be lost. I think the corporate users scuppered that plan as they saw the costs rising. It was about ten years ago, so my recollection of the detail may be a bit hazy.

and it's a lame way of doing business. Watch how fast I move to Libre office. I have office 2000, 2007 and 2010. Use 2000 and 2010 lots for different things. 2013 with its BS licence terms never got a look in. And anything done on a yearly licence can jog merrily along. At that point I will move to free alternatives. Yes their excel equivalent isn't as powerful. Yes I do need VBA. But no I won't upgrade from my old version unless it's physical media that doesn't expire. Good luck MS.

[wasabi]

I don't mind the rental scheme for software as a concept. In theory spread the costs and stop renting when you stop using. The problem is when all the established guys try it, it is an excuse for a price hike and even more invasive DRM / license management annoyance.

Some renting is pretty good though when done right. Spotify for example.

[Saracen]

One that's been mooted in the past was perhaps to offer Windows, and certainly Office, as (annual?) subscriptions rather than outright license purchases - note this is different from SaaS "Office 365".

If I remember the discussion correctly, you'd pay your annual fee and then get access to whatever version of Windows/Office were available during the period of your license. Presumably it'd be up to you whether you decide to upgrade if a newer version comes out.

Not sure how I'd react if this was offered - probably makes sense for Office etc, but less so for the core OS.

I am sure how I'd react, which is .... no way in hell am I renting software. That's exactly the point I'm at with Photoshop. I switched from Picture Publisher to Photoshop at about PS3 (not CS3, but the one about 20 years ago). I'm now stuck at my current version gecause I am NOT paying a subscription.

My attitude is that I will upgrade if, and ONLY if, what the upgrades offers me is sufficient to justify the cost. With a version upgrade, I know the cost, down to the penny. With a subscription, it's a commitment, effectively, to a service, that could go on for the rest of my life.

So, my last upgrade (about £180, IIRC) might have lasted me two, three or four years, or twenty, thirty of forty. MY choice.

So, I decide, right now, is the upgrade cost, £x, worth it to me. With a rental model, I don't know the ultimate cost.

I still have one machine here running WinXP and it has Office 97 on it. It's not my main workhorse, but it is useful to have a WP function on it. The cost of that copy of Office has been spread over, what, 17 years .... so far? Of course, I have Office XP on another machine (an Athlon 1700 laptop) and Office 2007 (or is it 2003, not sure without checking) on my main workhorse. That latter version is the Ribbon Bar one. But I have no plans now to upgrade Office, not least over Win8. So, you could well find me still using that Office 2007 (or 2003) in 10 years. Amd it will have cost me not one penny more than it already has. But what would a subscription version of it have cost? Or 10 years on monthly/annual subs to Photoshop have cost?

For me, the subscription model implies several things:-

- loss of control over total cost,
- lost of control over decision whether to upgrade or not,
- loss of ability to retain current functionality without incurring ongoing costs, and
- a never-ending commitment.

Note, I'm NOT claiming the subsciption model won't suit some users. It certainly spreads the upfront cost for businesses taking out new licences. It might be good value for people that want to, or need to, keep absolutely up-to-date. It might simplify version control for business with multiple copies. All good points, but of no value at all to me.

As IK9000 put it, "watch how fast I move to Libre." And, while I'm still evaluating my best option, maybe GIMP. I was, maybe still will, go to Lightroom 5 (especially if Adobe re-introduce their recent temporary price cut) and if I do, I'll probably just stick with my current Photoshop. On-going future cost of Photoshop, whether upgrade fee or sub, =£0.

Currently, my image management is in Extensis Portfolio, but I think it's V4. I must have got that about the same time as Photoshop v3 or v4, more or less. One purchase cost, 15 years or more of use. Portfolio has been upgraded many times, but my original version, and investment, has sufficed. And I have control over when, AND IF, I upgrade.

So, if I can find a suitable image management package for Linux, that machine may end up as Linux, GIMP, and that image management package, or Win7, Photoshop (current version) and Lightroom. Either way, neither Adobe nor MS are getting any more money from me, other than possibly for Lightroom, and that, of course, is a one-off cost for which I can decide if benefit justifies cost.


It seems to me that this switch is about locking customers in, about ensuring monthly cashflow, and about stopping users deciding whether the feature set of a new version justifies the upgrade cost.

And I'm not doing that. Not for Photoshop, not for Office. Not for Windows.

And, though my reasons are different, not for Spotify either.

[Saracen]

I don't mind the rental scheme for software as a concept. In theory spread the costs and stop renting when you stop using. The problem is when all the established guys try it, it is an excuse for a price hike and even more invasive DRM / license management annoyance.

Some renting is pretty good though when done right. Spotify for example.

Although my reasoning is a bit different, I won't "buy" music on subscription, either. Though I understand why those that do, do. If I want to buy specific music, I'll buy a CD.

Sometimes, I just want background music, then there are countless radion stations, jnclyding internet radio, that I can pick. If I actually want to sit and listen, then I want whatever appeals to me at that moment, which is why I buy CDs, and have a half-decent audio system.

Subscription streaming service? Personally, not interested. I'll buy a CD, and this week, have used CDs bought in the last few months, and CDs bought when CD players first hit the market. Some of those early CDs I've played hundreds of times. Maybe more.

[ik9000]

Although my reasoning is a bit different, I won't "buy" music on subscription, either. Though I understand why those that do, do. If I want to buy specific music, I'll buy a CD.

Sometimes, I just want background music, then there are countless radion stations, jnclyding internet radio, that I can pick. If I actually want to sit and listen, then I want whatever appeals to me at that moment, which is why I buy CDs, and have a half-decent audio system.

Subscription streaming service? Personally, not interested. I'll buy a CD, and this week, have used CDs bought in the last few months, and CDs bought when CD players first hit the market. Some of those early CDs I've played hundreds of times. Maybe more.

Ditto, though I don't have the pro audio system... I use free spotify to listen to new stuff. If I like it I buy the CD. No licence fees, and a permanent (relatively) copy for my use and ability to RIP to ipod etc to digitise it. Sure, I need storage. But the HDD cost is upfront and known. And with such a poor internet connection with a data cap that is far better for my usage.

I was, maybe still will, go to Lightroom 5 (especially if MS re-introduce their recent temporary price cut)

isn't lightroom by Adobe? typo or is there a way to snag a bargain discount via MS? If so do PM me details as at a more reasonable price I may get lightroom also.

[Saracen]

....

isn't lightroom by Adobe? typo or is there a way to snag a bargain discount via MS? If so do PM me details as at a more reasonable price I may get lightroom also.

Oops. Yeah, typo. I meant Adobe. I'll edit that.

The price cut referred to was one that seemed to appear on Adobe's website (but not MS ), of about £25, just before Christmas. It was reflected on, for example, Amazon, with a price of about £72.

But it's disappeared now.

I went away "for a few days" over Christmas, that ended up being about a month. With no net connection. By the time I got back, the offer price (assuming that's what it was) had finished.

[ik9000]

Oops. Yeah, typo. I meant Adobe. I'll edit that.

The price cut referred to was one that seemed to appear on Adobe's website (but not MS ), of about £25, just before Christmas. It was reflected on, for example, Amazon, with a price of about £72.

But it's disappeared now.

I went away "for a few days" over Christmas, that ended up being about a month. With no net connection. By the time I got back, the offer price (assuming that's what it was) had finished.

Yeah I saw that, but got elements for £35 instead. Couldn't justify lightroom even at £75 as I understand it depends on you keeping lightroom going to retain any edits with the photo - it doesn't edit the image itself, or something like that, (I was informed on here in another thread anyway)