Let’s Explain Windows 8’s Failure To Sell, Shall We?
In a far too tasty article written by the king of Microsoft hyperbole, Paul Thurrott we get an insane rationalization of why Windows 8 sucked over the holidays? Do we blame it on a bad product? Do we blame it on a poorly positioned product? Do we blame it on alienating OEMs from the market they should have been more excited about? No! That would just make sense!
He starts off by telling us the apparent success of Windows 7 was a lie. Because why? Because of netbooks!
Netbooks didn’t just rejuvenate the market just as Windows 7 appeared, they also destroyed it from within: Now consumers expect to pay next to nothing for a Windows PC.
Wow, that explains it.
By why would manufactures make netbooks and Microsoft sell Windows 7 and then anyone consider that a failure? it gets better though. Thurrott shows he’s confused about touch capabilities too:
the fact that statistically zero percent of PCs that were upgraded to Windows 8 included touch capabilities
Yea, that’s, um, for the tablet you know. How many OS X desktops are touch based? Zero. If Microsoft sells few tablets, it will sell very little touch-feuled things. News flash, the core upgrade to Windows (in 8) is touch.
And the reason is that the touch-based machines are too expensive.
That’s a seriously stupid rationalization. Touch only works on tablets. No one is avoiding touch-based laptops because they cost too much, it’s because they make no sense. Holding an arm out, in the air, for an extended period of time is more appropriate for strongman competitions, not computer use.