Windows 7 Starter: A Comically Bad Idea
3:30 pm, April 20th, 2009, Pete Mortensen
I get asked a lot why I prefer Macs to PCs. Sometimes it’s from a Windows fan trying to pick a fight, sometimes it’s from a platform agnostic who’s interested why I care enough to choose. But the intent is the same — what makes you so passionate?
And after citing obvious reasons like the elegance of Apple’s hardware and software design or the way everything just works out of the box, I almost inevitably bring up something that seems to dull to get excited about: OS upgrades. Not that they happen, but that it’s always easy for me to know which edition of OS X to buy, and I never feel like Apple is needlessly squeezing pennies out of me by charging more for the features that make it worthwhile to upgrade. Leopard was Leopard. Snow Leopard will be Snow Leopard. Easy.
This is the opposite of the Windows experience, in which there will be seven (!) versions of Windows 7 to choose from, some of which are hopelessly crippled. The worst of these is Windows Starter, designed just for Netbooks.
We all know that the vast majority of personal computers run Windows, with a significant but smaller number using Linux and Mac OS X, and then teeny slices using other operating systems like Solaris and Amiga OS. What might not be so obvious is that Microsoft has become equally dominant in the new Netbook market, with Windows XP or Vista shipping on 95 percent of the tiny lappies compared to just five percent for Linux.
And Microsoft, sitting on top of a dominant market position in netbooks, is quickly formulating a plan to actively screw over their potential customers. In the fall (if they’re lucky) MS will roll out Windows 7, which, from my testing of it, is a lot like Vista without all of the most glaring problems. Alongside Windows 7 will be a version custom-designed for netbooks called “Windows 7 Starter,” which will, I swear to you, only be allowed to run three simultaneous applications and won’t feature the same UI as more expensive flavors of the OS. Those features are present — you’ll just need to pay Microsoft for an upgrade code to access them. So forget about running Word, Firefox, iTunes, and Outlook at the same time if you’re on Windows Starter.
Here’s why this is a brain-dead strategy. The only reason to get a Windows netbook is to run Windows applications. If you’re limited to only three apps at a time, it’s actually saner to use Cloud apps in a Web browser. And if you’re going to do that, it makes more sense to just go with Linux or another alternative. Starter is intended to make people want to buy the nicer versions of Windows 7. I think it’s net effect is more likely to be that people seriously consider alternatives.
And that’s why Apple’s dedication to making OS X available in just normal and server versions is one of the best decisions Steve Jobs has ever made. Apple has ignored the netbook market up until now, but it’s safe to say if Apple did release a netbook, it would be a premium offering at the high-end of the market and run a full version of Mac OS X. That’s just how Apple rolls.
Posted by Pete Mortensen in Apple, Software | Comment on this article
Well, I look at this a bit differently.
First, I’m guessing that part of Microsoft’s thinking is to make sure that there’s no confusion around just how well a netbook will run Windows 7. Put a full version on a netbook with very limited RAM, a relatively slow processor, and low-end graphics (even given Win 7’s performance improvements), and folks might not be very happy. Limit how many applications can run at once, and that takes care of the potential performance issues. It’s probably Microsoft’s way of avoiding the whole “Vista-Capable” kerfuffle.
Second, Microsoft wants to make a profit. If they sold the full version of Win 7 at a Netbook price point (currently at $15 to Microsoft for Win XP), then Microsoft would have a difficult time justifying full price to any other market. And of course, the average netbook price point simply couldn’t accomodate standard Windows pricing. Of course, companies sell products like this all the time, that is, by enabling features/components based on price–the fact that the “bits” are in there changes nothing.
And one should never forget: Apple’s a hardware company first and foremost. They make OS X to sell their hardware, not the other way around. They therefore have far greater flexibility in how much they charge for the OS–essentially, it’s just an accounting thing. It’s also part of the beauty of Apple’s business model, but of course if Microsoft tried the same, they’d get destroyed by antitrust.
Mark, on April 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I can’t do anything but completely whole heartedly agree. Job’s best decision was offering OS X for $129 and it be the whole thing no questions. If these Apple NetBook rumors are true, I’m sure we’ll see Apple put on a full fledge copy of OS X and it will score another win for them against Microsoft in the OS category. OS X already runs beautifully on a Dell Mini 9 NetBook, so when they come out with their own product it will just be harmonious.
Justin
Justin Esgar, on April 20th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Business 101. Normally, it is to the benefit of any company to segment its customer base into groups and charge each group the maximum it is willing to pay for a product. It makes no sense for Apple to do this, because Apple only has one customer group. Apple makes premium product. It is a luxury brand. That’s why Leopard is $150 at retail for an upgrade. Microsoft is not in the same position. It caters to all consumer groups … so a segmented product makes sense. If Microsoft only had a single product like Apple, one of two things will happen. They will either drive a huge number of people to Linux because those people can’t afford a $150 operating system … or Microsoft will lose billions of dollars because it sold its operating system for $10. That’s why a segmented product makes sense for Microsoft. They can push out a cheap/limited operating system for virtually nothing on netbooks to compete with Linux and push out a top of the line version to compete with OS X on high-end computers. That’s the reasoning from the business perspective … what about the consumer perspective? Features in an operating system cost $$$ to develop, test, debug, and support. Those who use them, should pay for them. That way a consumer pays for what he uses and no more than that. Business win. Consumer win. No brainer.
Marat Denenberg, on April 20th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I’m completely agree with ya. Windows SE7EN ( F*CK’em! They’re ruining the name of one of one of the best movies ever! ‘SE7EN’ by David Fincher, starring Brad Pitt & Morgan Freeman : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114369/ ) just sucks…
Pooria, on April 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I couldn’t agree more. ‘Starter’ edition is completely retarded. It’s as if they learned nothing from having a confusing number of Vista editions. I understand having the different tiers in their Server line, but just sell us one fucking consumer level OS.
matt, on April 20th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Have you ever actually used an Atom-based netbook? If you have, I think you’d probably feel a bit differently about the three app limit.
Photoshop, Notepad++, Firefox with a slew of tabs open is plenty to get loads of work done on the road. Much more than that, and the CPU would be too taxed to perform anyway.
Microsoft has to appeal to a much wider base than Apple. That includes extremely budget-conscious buyers who want Windows at a rock-bottom price – and that’s something they’ll never get from a Mac, buts Windows 7 Starter will get the job done.
Also worth reading: Ed Bott’s “Living Within the Limits of Starter”: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844
Lee, on April 20th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
As an windows user I agree with you. I see the point that Mark is doing, but I think is better to let the customer in some way decide the features, than try to guess what they are going to do, and if they fail, trying to buy and install the next tier of products.
GrandHotel&Casino, on April 20th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
i actually saw an interesting comment on another mac forum. how about simply converting the Air to essentially a netbook. use the iphone OS and put in a built in 3g (unlocked preferred) antenna. folks can run the same aps as the iphone/touch etc. probably would need to bump up the processor a tad and also the hard drive and battery.
I thought that an interesting idea cause it seems like the apple stores are pushing the air as a second machine for folks waiting lightweight for email and maybe watching a movie on a plane type stuff. not for ‘real’ computing. so it would probably be an easy sell
Scott, on April 20th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@Mark, actually, any edition of Windows 7 will run fine on a netbook. I’m running the current beta version of Win7 Ultimate on an MSI Wind, and it actually performs subjectively better than Windows XP.
Pete, this is a good post, but I think you’re wrong in some ways. While I think Win7 Starter Edition is a stupid idea, you have to remember that Microsoft and Apple differ in one very important way: Microsoft’s customers for its OS are hardware makers, not end users.
Win7 Starter is all about offering a low-cost version of Windows for the netbook market, while not having to drop the price of OEM Windows 7 for every other kind of PC.
The alternative would be to price according to the hardware that OEMs want to run Windows on – and Microsoft tried that, with differential pricing over multiple-core machines on the server side, and it was a massive failure.
Ian Betteridge, on April 21st, 2009 at 2:08 am
I am totally with Mark on this one. Furthermore I think the versions strategy for Win7 is not that crazy. Apart from the somewhat silly – but understandable – starter edition, most of us will only ever encounter the home and pro edition.
bas, on April 21st, 2009 at 2:24 am
I doubt an Apple netbook will have full OS X. If it did have full OS X it would undermine the MacBook range. I expect an Apple netbook would have an interface somewhere between the iPhone and AppleTV/FrontRow but with very tight intergration to online services, ie, Mobile Me. Netbooks are not desktop/laptop replacements, they’re complimentry to these main systems. Apple won’t just make a small pc and install whatever OS they have lying around.
Also, I’m still not convinced Apple will release a netbook. Any netbook Apple release will have to a significantly different target user than the iPhone and the MacBook.
Benedict, on April 21st, 2009 at 2:38 am
A-fuckin-men to that, brother.
Church of Apple, on April 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
@ Marat Denenberg
“Business 101. Normally, it is to the benefit of any company to segment its customer base into groups and charge each group the maximum it is willing to pay for a product.”
Try Economics 101: Third degree price discrimination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
And no, it isn’t good for consumers.
Church of Apple, on April 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Isn’t Windows marketing the whole “without boxes” idea? What is the three-app limit then? Let the customer decide how many apps they can run (Paint, Notepad, Wordpad, and maybe IE) but warn them ahead of time: “Things might slow down.”
Also, as a consumer, I think the multiple versions of Windows is a burden. Which one is right for me? What are the features I really need? Who friggin’ knows? Certainly not the Best Buy wonks who are selling me a computer.
Newton Poetry, on April 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
@ Church of Apple
Thank you for that link. Did you actually read it? Here’s the first line:
“Price discrimination exists when sales of identical goods or services are transacted at different prices from the same provider.”
I think the point of the article we’re all commenting on is that Windows 7 Starter is definitely not the same thing as Windows 7 Ultimate.
Paying only for features you use is definitely good for consumers. Being forced to pay for features that you never use is definitely not. Simply saying “nope!” is hardly a reasonable argument. Please try again.
Marat Denenberg, on April 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
How is this any different than “OS X iPhone”? Not defending Widows, but this is the same thing as putting a crippled version of OS X on underpowered hardware (a.k.a. iPhone) and telling users they can only run one app at at time isn’t it?
razmaspaz, on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
No, @razmaspaz, those aren’t even roughly comparable. If Apple then tried to sell you full OS X for iPhone for an additional $50 to $100, then it would be the same. It’s the trying to force an upgrade through an intentionally crappy OS that I take issue with.
What Microsoft doesn’t see is that this encourages people to look at alternative OSes like Linux that have no restrictions. The more Microsoft acts mean to its consumers, the less likely they are to remain loyal, especially as so much computing is moving to the Internet…
Pete Mortensen, on April 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Windows 7 Starter Edition, *is not* for netbook but for “emerging nationsâ€Â, it’s non for sell!
Latente, on April 23rd, 2009 at 7:58 am
I-Phone OS allows only 1 app at a time and doesn’t come with any useful applications: lol, what an insult to the brainless Apple slaves
jay, on April 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
LOL, this whole article is based on false information. Windows starter editions are only for developing countries, and will not be released in the US. There will only be 3 US consumer versions of windows 7. The starter edition of software has been around since XP, and has been limited to 5 countries. In the starter program they work directly with the governments of these countries. See the below links for more information on the subject – and please actually research your subject matter next time.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/aug04/08-11WinXPStarterPilotPR.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/WinXPStarterFS.mspx
techhead89, on April 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Article on arid.net (http://digg.com/d1pTAK) that talked about windows 7 starter edition and had suggestions on a better way to implement the starter edition for netbooks.
articles, on April 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
look guys the fact of the matter is…THEY WANT TO RETIRE XP
and the only way to do that is to make the Starter version for netbooks
that way they can say they have a version for the netbooks hardware etc…
besides…WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT WINDOWS 7…yuck…makes me think of using a PC…oh god I just threw up in mouth a little…yuck
peace
scott, on April 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@techhead89,
Actually, it’s your response to this article that’s based on false information. Though Windows XP Starter was only for emerging markets back in 2004, Windows 7 Starter is global, including the U.S., and is for netbooks. Pretty much what I wrote. They now call the version for emerging markets “Windows 7 Home Basic.” The Wall Street Journal has more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018108488732939.html
Pete Mortensen, on April 26th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Vista ( http://file.sh/windows+vista+torrent.html ) for the rough edges it has compared to 7, is every bit as good in the security field. Technically, out of the box, it’s more secure. So that won’t be the case this time around. And for the record, it was the truth between XP and Vista. Vista x64 is substantially more secure through OS protections than XP is. Vista still won’t be as fast as 7. Won’t have the superbar. But under the hood, for the most part, they’re pretty much the same.
gtetge, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:21 am