Microsoft needs to do this...
I know this is a claim a lot of people make about a lot of companies on a regular business and it is generally someone claiming that a company they like or want to like should do something a more successful competitor is doing. And it is generally bad logic because there is no guarantee that company would be successful at it just because another one was.
Having said all of that... I'm about to say it myself. And like everyone else, I feel like my reason is immune to those arguments (when it probably isn't). Preamble out of the way, I shall now dispense my suggestion.
Microsoft should (like Apple) continue to sell their previous gen hardware at a reduced price.
They only currently do this with phones (and arguably they actually don't) and Xbox. Surface and Band they don't (at least not here is Canada). And I think that is detrimental to those businesses.
Firstly, to clarify the phone stance. They keep some older phones, but not usually the logical successor to a particular phone. So, may be semantics, but they don't even really keep old models there. Though in phones it is hardly worth talking about it. In phones they are a ludicrously small margin of the sales, and getting cheap older models isn't a huge deal thanks to subsidies.
But, in their Surface and Band lineup, this is a fairly critical oversight in my mind.
For Surface, they may be concerned about OEM reaction. But I'd argue that they don't offer enough models to be a huge concern there. Or they may be concerned about complicating their manufacturing process or product line. But, challenging their manufacturing process will only lead to it improving over time and there is no need to go full bore. They could trim their last gen line down to just 2-3 variants. The entry level model and the most popular configuration (and maybe the top end as a third). Throw in a small price cut and you've expanded your market.
Frankly, I don't think PCs are a large enough market any more that they would need any mass production runs for these and Surface Pro 3 WAS the version of the product that finally got people talking about it more generally. Effectively killing it off at the release of the SP4 feels premature.
Band needs it even more. Smart watches and fitness devices are a hard sell. And an even harder sell at Band 2's price point. A fresh influx of Band 1's at a better price point might help to drive up interest in the both the particular product and the product segment. I don't think it will be a star product even then. But every little bit helps. Right now, the market really wants to find a smart watch they can love. And, I doubt Microsoft will stay out of that market indefinitely. Right now they need to drive people to their products so that when they release one people will be excited about it.
Ultimately, this is the same sort of mistake they made for years with the Lumia line. They were too focused and missed out on the (perhaps less profitable) things that make a platform as a whole successful. With Lumia's they ignored flagships in favor of affordable devices. But without any exciting hardware, people stopped buying even the more affordable phones, all the while people only really talked about the 1020 and Icon which were years old by the time the 950 and 950XL were unveiled.
With Band and Surface they seem to be making the opposite mistake. They are making products in their categories that are exciting, but they are exciting because they are premium products and that puts them out of reach of most people. Price cuts on old hardware (which you continue to produce) can allow you some flexibility without sacrificing on product image.
From a product perspective it is REALLY helpful to have that new and exciting, if expensive, product to get the eyes looking your way but then a cheaper, or at least less expensive item for consumers to "settle" on. Without the "flagship" devices people don't care about your ecosystem. And without more reasonable products to "settle" on you don't get the sales to keep the momentum alive.
Apple didn't have this problem with the original iPhone because phones are in a freak category where device subsidies make the actual cost of even a premium device unimportant. Unless Microsoft can come up with a way to do the same with their non-phone hardware both pieces of the puzzle will remain necessary.
Having said all of that... I'm about to say it myself. And like everyone else, I feel like my reason is immune to those arguments (when it probably isn't). Preamble out of the way, I shall now dispense my suggestion.
Microsoft should (like Apple) continue to sell their previous gen hardware at a reduced price.
They only currently do this with phones (and arguably they actually don't) and Xbox. Surface and Band they don't (at least not here is Canada). And I think that is detrimental to those businesses.
Firstly, to clarify the phone stance. They keep some older phones, but not usually the logical successor to a particular phone. So, may be semantics, but they don't even really keep old models there. Though in phones it is hardly worth talking about it. In phones they are a ludicrously small margin of the sales, and getting cheap older models isn't a huge deal thanks to subsidies.
But, in their Surface and Band lineup, this is a fairly critical oversight in my mind.
For Surface, they may be concerned about OEM reaction. But I'd argue that they don't offer enough models to be a huge concern there. Or they may be concerned about complicating their manufacturing process or product line. But, challenging their manufacturing process will only lead to it improving over time and there is no need to go full bore. They could trim their last gen line down to just 2-3 variants. The entry level model and the most popular configuration (and maybe the top end as a third). Throw in a small price cut and you've expanded your market.
Frankly, I don't think PCs are a large enough market any more that they would need any mass production runs for these and Surface Pro 3 WAS the version of the product that finally got people talking about it more generally. Effectively killing it off at the release of the SP4 feels premature.
Band needs it even more. Smart watches and fitness devices are a hard sell. And an even harder sell at Band 2's price point. A fresh influx of Band 1's at a better price point might help to drive up interest in the both the particular product and the product segment. I don't think it will be a star product even then. But every little bit helps. Right now, the market really wants to find a smart watch they can love. And, I doubt Microsoft will stay out of that market indefinitely. Right now they need to drive people to their products so that when they release one people will be excited about it.
Ultimately, this is the same sort of mistake they made for years with the Lumia line. They were too focused and missed out on the (perhaps less profitable) things that make a platform as a whole successful. With Lumia's they ignored flagships in favor of affordable devices. But without any exciting hardware, people stopped buying even the more affordable phones, all the while people only really talked about the 1020 and Icon which were years old by the time the 950 and 950XL were unveiled.
With Band and Surface they seem to be making the opposite mistake. They are making products in their categories that are exciting, but they are exciting because they are premium products and that puts them out of reach of most people. Price cuts on old hardware (which you continue to produce) can allow you some flexibility without sacrificing on product image.
From a product perspective it is REALLY helpful to have that new and exciting, if expensive, product to get the eyes looking your way but then a cheaper, or at least less expensive item for consumers to "settle" on. Without the "flagship" devices people don't care about your ecosystem. And without more reasonable products to "settle" on you don't get the sales to keep the momentum alive.
Apple didn't have this problem with the original iPhone because phones are in a freak category where device subsidies make the actual cost of even a premium device unimportant. Unless Microsoft can come up with a way to do the same with their non-phone hardware both pieces of the puzzle will remain necessary.
Comments
Post a Comment