![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why is Windows 7 more expensive than Windows 8?
- Thread starter pinoy
- Start date
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,786
... /facepalm
Cute.
This coming from the person who in this thread said:
Gotta love hypocrisy
@ OP
It's because they want to push Windows 8, and Metro, down everyone's throat, at all cost.
Cute.
This coming from the person who in this thread said:
Gotta love hypocrisy
@ OP
It's because they want to push Windows 8, and Metro, down everyone's throat, at all cost.
Do you have any more evidence for that, then say, people complained that Windows was too expensive compared to competitors, so MS listened and adjusted the price? Or, is it a game of pick the worse possible motive for any MS action, but not for anyone else?
Is that why the OEM price is still the same (or close) as previous versions?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/12/windows-8-packaging-and-pricing-revealed/
http://www.zdnet.com/prices-and-packaging-for-windows-8-go-public-7000005685/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-RT-Windows-8-Licensing-Supply-Chain-OEM,16267.html
Or why Windows 8 will cost $199 after January 31st 2013 as the current price is just a promotion?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/21/3257406/windows-8-pro-price-upgrade-price
http://www.ghacks.net/2012/08/21/windows-8-pro-to-cost-199-after-promotional-pricing-of-69-99/
http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...d-to-cost-199-after-69-99-promotional-period/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-8-Price-Promotion-Retail-Pricing,17059.html
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/windows-8-pro-to-retail-for-199-20120821/
Wanna try again?
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
People have been complaining about the cost of Windows for years... even way back when when I paid $100 for Windows 95 Upgrade (but I did get a free 104-key keyboard with it
). Why all of a sudden do they drop the regular price on a product that has so far had worse reception than it seems even Vista had?
BTW, I really like Windows 8, so this isn't coming from rampantly illogical hatred of the product or the company behind it.
Thanks for the link spam, After 4 links I still wasn't sure MS did that, but the fifth really inspired new thinking in me.
Anyway, if the price is not lower, than why don't you link spam the OP. If it is lower, then my point holds. I'll let you figure out the rest since you're so smart that you can post a half dozen links instead of just stating an uncontested fact in a few words.
So saying what anyone by now ought to know (it's not a secred) is unsubstantiated claims and need evidence.
But then when I providing evidence, and with multiple sources so you don't think one is biased, it's 'link spam' and it's bad.
I don't even...
But then when I providing evidence, and with multiple sources so you don't think one is biased, it's 'link spam' and it's bad.
I don't even...
People have been complaining about the cost of Windows for years... even way back when when I paid $100 for Windows 95 Upgrade (but I did get a free 104-key keyboard with it
Why all of a sudden do they drop the regular price on a product that has so far had worse reception than it seems even Vista had?
BTW, I really like Windows 8, so this isn't coming from rampantly illogical hatred of the product or the company behind it.
Ok, my opinion (and my opinion only), from watching MS over the years, is they tend to answer a series of complaints all at once with each release, and after the low hanging fruit is gone, they work themselves up to harder things, like dropping the price, to add enticement, so there is something new for the users..shrug, just my opinion, please don't link spam me like the other guy did, I'm already hiding under my blanket from his post.
I wish you were speechless after this gem. Your link spam answered a question I did not ask or disagree with, what is the upgrade price. I addressed WHY the upgrade price is what it is. I just can't wait to see the next post in this thread. lol.
And I wish creatures that 'live under a bridge' didn't exist. Oh well.
Why don't you put that pretty little head of yours to use and figure it out?
I'll give you a hint:
Adoption rate
More people buy it = they can claim people love Metro (and the direction they're head in)
You don't have to wait any further. But then it'll be over because you've been fed enough for today
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
If customer complaints of price were the case, and not that they want to push his out as hard and fast as possible, then it would seem that they would want to keep the price low for the life of the product.
Ok, here's me using my 'pretty little head' (thanks, nobody ever says that anymore.
): 98% of people get Windows with a new computer, and 2% do upgrades on old systems, so basically it doesn't matter either way what MS charges for upgrades.Or, they want to reward early adopters, but business-wise can't afford the price indefinitely. MS has to make money and keep it's shareholders happy too, ya know. But this way, people who want it cheap can get it cheap. But like I told Raudulfr, 98% of users get Windows with a new system, the upgrade price doesn't mean squat business and market share wise, that's why I think it was done to make the customers happy.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
If 98% of their business comes from OEM licenses, then what's the point of increasing the price on the 2% that upgrade? They're not making much money, therefore there's not much money to lose out on.They have a product which is receiving quite a bit of hatrred because of the significant changes being made, and that product is trying to take the spotlight of a one that everyone worshipped; does it not make more sense that they're trying to push this out hard and fast to get inflated adoption rates before the close of the first quarter it was offered for sale?
App store software commissions are subsidizing the lower introductory price. They were allowing even pirates to upgrade for $15 uuntil the other day, its not a coincidence they slammed that door almost immediatley following their big over 4 million upgrades sold. They needed a rapid adoption rate out of the gate in order to get software devs aboard the metro gravy train, once those must have apps are out they can then raise the price and make a killing on both ends.
How can they get inflated adoption rates from a price decrease for 2% of the market? It makes no sense to speculate on the 'ulterior motives' behind this since it makes no difference either way. But companies do promotions all the time, business isn't a science and you kind of have to go out on a limb and try random things I figure, who knows. But I take issue with know-it-alls that claim everything is a Balmer plot or whatever, it kind of eliminates the need for any critical thinking, because no matter what the question is, the answer is Balmer trying to enslave the world, bah.
Even if you were right, 4 million is nothing and they could face charges in the US and EU if evidence comes to light that it was designed to flood the market. Any way, 4 million makes Linux market share look huge..
jlbenedict
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
Windows 8 is at the $14.99 promotion price because maybe Microsoft is having a feeling based on the initial feedback, it could potentially be a flop. The price is a strategy of "penetration". Set a low promotion price to really try to get the product in as many hands of consumers as possible.
98% of Windows users get Windows with a new machine, the upgrade price makes no difference to market share. This has been stated 2 or 3 times in this thread already, so it'd be nice if you at least acknowledged that fact.
jlbenedict
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
1. I never denounced the idea that Windows is primarily penetrated via new PC purchases. I do acknowledge that. (hell... on November 2nd, QVC sold over 7000 Dell Inspiron One 20's in just a 24 hour period... of course.. all shipping with Windows 8)
2. The original post appears to not mention anything about purchasing a new pc.. makes it clear that it could be the scenario of just buying the software.
3. Microsoft is not just having a "warm and fuzzy" feeling and want to offer it at the low promotion price. This is unprecedented pricing on Windows... never has there ever been such low pricing on the latest operating system release from Microsoft.
the windows 8 been super cheap is a illusion.
on launch full windows 7 was £50 in the uk.
here is windows 8 comparisons.
Upgrade from new OEM machine £15, win 7 had similiar offers.
Upgrade from old retail or old OEM £25, this is ok but its upgrade only version. Possible issues reinstalling after change of hardware etc. down the line.
Full version now only available as OEM licence £100 for win or £150 for win8 pro. The £50 for win7 was home premium not pro so will compare to the £100 price, so basically full win8 is double the cost of win7 at launch.
Also that windows 8 has cut a lot of features from windows 7, people wrongly assume its upgraded in all parts of the OS.
on launch full windows 7 was £50 in the uk.
here is windows 8 comparisons.
Upgrade from new OEM machine £15, win 7 had similiar offers.
Upgrade from old retail or old OEM £25, this is ok but its upgrade only version. Possible issues reinstalling after change of hardware etc. down the line.
Full version now only available as OEM licence £100 for win or £150 for win8 pro. The £50 for win7 was home premium not pro so will compare to the £100 price, so basically full win8 is double the cost of win7 at launch.
Also that windows 8 has cut a lot of features from windows 7, people wrongly assume its upgraded in all parts of the OS.
Regarding 2, I am not talking to the OP obviously, and I also have no idea why these arguments are in this thread.
Regarding 3, this is not really correct, as others have said, MS did this for 7 at first. Second, if it's not "warm and fuzzy" then what is it, "cold and calculated"? That's just as cliché. Bottom line is none of us are mind readers so we'll never know the truth, but of all the "cold and calculated" people on this planet, someone selling me software I use everyday all day and like, doesn't rank high in my book of A-holes. Might as well just complain the SOBs are breathin our air.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're gathering this. Could you please share?
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,786
Cute.
This coming from the person who in this thread said:
Gotta love hypocrisy
@ OP
It's because they want to push Windows 8, and Metro, down everyone's throat, at all cost.
In one post OP complains about Metro interface, and the other, OP complains about how Windows 8 is more expensive than 7. That would have been fine, had the OP not asked someone to give him a copy of Windows 7.
My 2 pennies...
Win8 is known to be an "all-in-one" OS, optimized for mobile devices, yet capable of running x86.
To compete with Google Android, they need to hit the market hard and cheap.
And to wean mobile users from the Android mentality, they NEED end-users to WANT Windows8 on their laptops and desktops before they will want a unified OS on their mobile devices.
Win8 is known to be an "all-in-one" OS, optimized for mobile devices, yet capable of running x86.
To compete with Google Android, they need to hit the market hard and cheap.
And to wean mobile users from the Android mentality, they NEED end-users to WANT Windows8 on their laptops and desktops before they will want a unified OS on their mobile devices.
I agree with jlbenedict about Microsoft fearing Windows 8 being a flop and possibly stun their penetration in the tablet and smartphone market once again. Given all the negative talks about the new UI before release I think they felt for $15 it won't hurt our pockets as much if we don't like it. In the end the sales count will look good on paper and perhaps persuade OEMs on the fence to join the bandwagon.
It also familiarizes people with the Metro UI which is similar to its phone OS. People have been converting their Android phones to look like the Metro for years. Microsoft and Nokia have teamed up to fight that front against Google and Apple this fall.
I will answer my question. Microsoft doesn't want Windows 7 to have the staying power that Windows XP has. So they want users to convert to Windows 8. It's basically Windows 7 with Metro preinstalled and Media Center uninstalled. Now if only I can find the uninstall menu for Metro.
It also familiarizes people with the Metro UI which is similar to its phone OS. People have been converting their Android phones to look like the Metro for years. Microsoft and Nokia have teamed up to fight that front against Google and Apple this fall.
I will answer my question. Microsoft doesn't want Windows 7 to have the staying power that Windows XP has. So they want users to convert to Windows 8. It's basically Windows 7 with Metro preinstalled and Media Center uninstalled. Now if only I can find the uninstall menu for Metro.
Again, the idea that MS is flooding the market is a misnomer, the 2% of people that upgrade make no difference in market share. MS could charge $200 for the upgrade, and Windows 8 would sale almost the same. You operate from the presumption that "windows 8 sucks" and proceed backwards, that's why it's cheap, etc. If you operate from a non-biased presumption, and take into consideration pertinent facts like upgrades being almost none of their market, you come to other conclusions.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,786
Let's look at Microsoft's recent history:
Windows 7: buyers of recent Vista PCs get a free upgrade to Windows 7. Not sure if there was an upgrade option for existing Vista computers, and there was no upgrade option for XP.
Windows 8: buyers of recent Windows 7 PCs get a $15 upgrade. Existing XP, Vista, and 7 licenses all get $40 upgrade options.
As it stands, it's more of an incentive for people on existing XP and Vista installations to upgrade to Windows 8. Windows XP still makes up a significant share of the desktop space.
Windows 7: buyers of recent Vista PCs get a free upgrade to Windows 7. Not sure if there was an upgrade option for existing Vista computers, and there was no upgrade option for XP.
Windows 8: buyers of recent Windows 7 PCs get a $15 upgrade. Existing XP, Vista, and 7 licenses all get $40 upgrade options.
As it stands, it's more of an incentive for people on existing XP and Vista installations to upgrade to Windows 8. Windows XP still makes up a significant share of the desktop space.
@ Tsumi...
Yes, owners of recent XP machine purchases got a FREE upgrade to Vista on release.
PC / Laptop manufacturers feared that prospective buyers would hold for the new OS, so the offer was initiated to prevent a sales slip for the few months just prior to Vista release.
I still LMAO that only a month or so later, the manufacturers were offering the XP DOWNGRADE for a premium...
Yes, owners of recent XP machine purchases got a FREE upgrade to Vista on release.
PC / Laptop manufacturers feared that prospective buyers would hold for the new OS, so the offer was initiated to prevent a sales slip for the few months just prior to Vista release.
I still LMAO that only a month or so later, the manufacturers were offering the XP DOWNGRADE for a premium...
I guess what we're saying is Microsoft wants to steal market share from previous Windows version. If Apple users convert, the more the merrier, but that's not my main point. There are more users of previous Windows version that is ripe for an upgrade than people who will buy a new computer with Windows 8. The upgrade market accounts for more than 2% for sure.