Sales of Windows Vista to businesses were stronger than expected during the operating system’s debut month, according to a report from NPD Group. The sales outpaced the first month’s tally for Windows 2000 and only slightly trailed that for Windows XP, the market researcher said Thursday. Commercial revenue from Vista in December was 62.5 percent above that racked up by Windows 2000 in March 2000, its first month after launch. But Vista’s total is 3.7 percent below what Microsoft got in the commercial channel for Windows XP in November 2001, its first month on the market.
When it starts talking about commercial revenue. It means they can sell less at a higher cost, and in 5 years there are an awful lot more computers used in business.
…and then it goes on to % of businesses planning on running Vista at year end.
To be fair with WGA you would think they have exact numbers for this rubbish.
The only numbers that matter are % install base after 1 month Vista vs % install base after 1 month XP the rest is rubbish, but it doesn’t seem to quote these figures
Edited 2007-01-12 01:20
I am running Vista Business on two machines. This comes as no surprise.
So what are you saying? Microsoft expected to sell 1 copy of Vista and you bought two?
Half-kidding, right? One copy for your desktop PC, one for the notebook and finally WHS, because the world may not know that yet, but everybody needs it for their shared digital experience. That sums up to 3 Windows licenses per capita at least.
No wonder it’s going to mean big business as long as it’s the only thing that’s going to be found preinstalled on any PC, unless you build your own or have it custom-built. I’m not sure how much figures really count, cosidering XP was released in 2001 and its obsoletion date is nearing.
// The results track only U.S. licenses sold indirectly to businesses, through resellers such as Soft Mart, Software Spectrum and CompuCom, Swenson said; NPD does not track software licensed directly from Microsoft. //
I think an important point is the differentiation between a purchase by default, and a purchase by request.
Many businesses, especially large ones, “purchase” a license for hardware through leasing cycles and general hardware refreshes, only to remove them and install an image of say Windows 2000 or Windows XP instead. They already have the Windows 2000/XP licenses via previous purchases or volume license purchases.
The additional cost of paying for Vista provides not only an additional tax write off, but an upgrade path with respect to licenses should they choose to upgrade to Vista in the future.
The point being, this doesn’t necessarily qualify as proof that business are largely accepting Vista early on.
Edited 2007-01-12 01:05
And don’t forget the Software Assurance contracts.
The company I work for is an early adopter only because Vista and Office 2007 would still be covered by that when the 3 year period ended last year.
It’s a management decision, not an IT decision.
“I think these results could be classified as ‘strong,’ or at least ‘stronger than expected,'” NPD analyst Chris Swenson said in an e-mail interview. “Although Vista dollars were slightly lower than XP dollars in its first full month, I consider Microsoft’s December results to be very impressive, given the commercial-only ‘soft launch’ approach that Microsoft took with the OS.”
Seemed more like an editorial with a sensational headline.
People rushing out to get that new security model copied from OS X.
That’s not surprising.
Still, you have to use an Apple to get the full effect.
At this point any would be more than expected.
So I guess this article is right
They sold two copy of windows Vista instead of one X-D
Is there anywhere a good graph of Windows Sales History? Even if it’s just aproximative or estimated, it would be a nice piece of info to have when seeing these “62.5 percent above what W2k sold on its first month”.
If anyone knows where to find this kind of information, please post the link. Thanks.
“62.5 percent above what W2k sold on its first month”.
That statement is inaccurate and I hope it is not intentionally so.
“Commercial revenue from Vista in December was 62.5 percent above that racked up by Windows 2000 in March 2000”
That is the quote. It is completely different.
Woa, sorry. I’ll just flog myself ten times.
In addition to that, a graph of Windows versions actually sold versus PCs with Windows installed would be such interesting viewing!
My company will inevitably be part of this figure since we upgrade immediately on client facing machines (laptops for clients and internet cafe machines) to look ‘cutting edge’.
Again, that’s a management decision :/
Edited 2007-01-12 11:17
No… nowhere on the internet is there going to be an accurate sales percentage because Microsoft has paid off the media and analysts. I know I will never listen to anybody that says they know the percentage of people using Linux as a desktop out there unless they are know everybody out there and what OS they use. As far as Market Share, you have got to be kidding me, Linux is free and anybody could have it out there and it isn’t calculated because it is impossible to be accurate. Most of the information you get from .com news sites are paid off and they use inaccurate statistics to promote sales. OS News is open to anybody to post so you can expect anything.
The internet news business is way out of control… Mass Bullshit controlled by money. You be the judge and quit following the herd of sheep and do some thinking for yourself (not intentionally pointing that at you gonzalo but everybody).
I use Linux at my home and I love the freedom. Linux could be use in business if you customize it the way you want and store it as an image on a file server and deploy it to all of the workstations. Why pay money when it isn’t necessary. Most companies customize windows with scripting anyways why not customize linux and have a secure environment. This way would avoid all problems with MS as well being that there would be no windows workstations in the organization.
Use it the way you want, get the outcome you were hoping for.
Edited 2007-01-12 11:28
Does this count the VLAs also? You don’t have much of a choice whether you get it or not, at least we don’t.
I got my vista upgrade CDs in last week. I actually installed it on a machine. It looks nice. Start menu is cludgy. Some things are difficult to find, but that will take getting used to. I can’t run anything I need on it, so it’s not going to be used for anything important.
Sales are strong…
So I could buy it.
Is there and URL where I can buy it?
And if there is no url for businesses to buy it… how could there be December sales? Oh I get it, big contracts where signed that they can’t talk about, I see, some big anon sales.
.V
Exactly
Welcome to the marketing roundabout
SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN
We know all about that living in the UK, our goverment does it all the time, now Microsoft are trying it.
It is almost, as bad as the number 1 in the charts getting there on downloads…
Sorry but this article stinks of a msft bought and paid for PR, it stinks of msft distortion.
The truth is that sales of Vista, Zune, and Office-2007, are very weak.
Vista, and the new office, are some of the least worthwhile “upgrades” in the history of computing. The Zune does not compare to the ipod – it’s late to market, and not seen as hip.
Don’t get me wrong, msft is still a very strong company, but I think earning will disapoint the street for the next few quarters.
The truth is that sales of Vista, Zune, and Office-2007, are very weak.
And may I know where did you get that “truth”?
In my opinion MS is making more money than ever. Product activations is working in reducing pirated copies and updates provided to paid Windows installations is making the rest.
In my experience, I never saw such a low volume of pirated MS software. I know many persons that decided to revert to a paid copy of Windows in order to get all the stuff MS is providing. Many of them are sick of having to fight with updates and keys when updating their system if using a pirated copy.
Really, I think MS is actually cashing years of pirated Windows installations.
Of course, ZUNE is something very different. Right now is a niche but Xbox was a niche too.
don’t think ms do money with xbox
i readed ms has done only one month money with xbox there was when halo go out
Near as I can tell, they make money from MS Windows and MS Office and sink most of that into loss leading attempts at gaining new monopolies in other areas… with little success so far. I suppose XBox is their best prospect.
Sorry but this article stinks of a msft bought and paid for PR, it stinks of msft distortion.
If MS ‘bought and paid’ for the article, then they would have said Vista sales were exceeding XP one month after launch; the article says they’re trailing slightly. Hardly surprising, given the very low key launch.
It said nothing of “sales” it said “Commercial revenue”. There is a massive difference.
The excuse of a “very low key launch” is used in the article.
The business world has an awful lot more computers than they had 5 years ago, and it costs more.
BTW this is the same group that claimed success for the Zune by not including sales from apple stores fro the iPod.
I’m yet to find this report anywhere.
Edited 2007-01-12 17:17
I stand corrected. In that case:
“If MS ‘bought and paid’ for the article, then they would have said Vista commercial revenue was exceeding XP one month after launch; the article says they’re trailing slightly. Hardly surprising, given the very low key launch.
Howzzat?
No they have massaged the figures that makes Vista seem more popular in its first month than it really is. What they have done is not mention installs which would have been an even smaller number, or sales a slightly larger number but still smaller. They have talked about revenue.
If say XP Pro cost £255 and Vista Business costs £288 then the difference is even less.
Thats without the new super product that comes in at £370. That didn’t even exist originally.
I’ve used uk amazon figures in the absence of anything else…and have current figures
http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49284723,00.htm
Vista is more expensive than XP.
…and even talking about revenue they made less than they did with XP
Secondly I state there are more computers worldwide than they used to be look at http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0203.htm. A quick glance shows that there are about twice as many PC’s worldwide than when XP was launched.
With a little maths we can comfortably say that Vista’s rollout is less than half that of XP…Not trailing slightly. When Microsoft are claiming a rollout by year end of twice than of XP, and yet Vista replaces a 5 year old OS, and had Millions of beta testers.
<insert excuse here>
Microsoft have *exact* numbers and have not released them.
The title shouldn’t be “Vista’s business sales stronger than expected” but “XP rollout twice that of Vista”. Seriously how bad did they expect sales to be.
Edited 2007-01-12 18:54
If say XP Pro cost £255 and Vista Business costs £288 then the difference is even less.
Thats without the new super product that comes in at £370. That didn’t even exist originally.
I’ve used uk amazon figures in the absence of anything else…and have current figures
Businesses are not paying retail for Vista (it’s not available at retail yet), and the existence of Vista Enterprise via Enterprise Agreements makes Vista cheaper to acquire in many cases than XP.
Absolutely, unfortunately the pricing in business is an awful lot more complex. I’m happy for you to point out a direct price comparison where Vista is cheaper than XP was for businesses at *launch*.
Supersaver weekend returns in a leapyear answer not excepted.
In fact point to any article that says Vista is cheaper than XP. Having had a look the only thing there is from Microsoft is cheaper to Maintain, Deploy etc etc but they seem to leave out cheaper to buy.
Edited 2007-01-12 20:02
Absolutely, unfortunately the pricing in business is an awful lot more complex. I’m happy for you to point out a direct price comparison where Vista is cheaper than XP was for businesses at *launch*.
That would only give you retail pricing. Again, Vista is not available for purchase at retail. There is an Enterprise SKU of Vista that many businesses will buy that has no retail counterpart, and many businesses have existing agreements that automaticlly entitles them to Vista. You can’t do a direct price comparison that applies generally to businesses based on SKUs. At best, you can survey their client licensing costs at the time of migration to XP vs their current migration to Vista. But for the non-relevance it has, I’ll post a price comparison at the end of this post.
In fact point to any article that says Vista is cheaper than XP. Having had a look the only thing there is from Microsoft is cheaper to Maintain, Deploy etc etc but they seem to leave out cheaper to buy.
Maintainance and deployment benefits alone counter most cost arguments. Even if you assume Vista has a hiqher license cost comparable to that at Amazon UK, the need not to also acquire other prooducts for deployment and maintanence, the ability to use a single image for multiple SKUs and locales, etc., can still make the total cost lower than XP. Now for a few price comparisons, the first comparing XP and Vista launch prices.
ZD Article at XP Launch
Windows XP Professional upgrade $196.34
Windows XP Professional full $290.86
Comparable Vista launch prices at Amazon
Windows Vista Business UPGRADE 194.99
Windows Vista Business FULL $282.99
Microsoft’s US suggested retail price for Vista Business full package product is $299.00 USD, and suggested upgrade retail price is $199.00 USD. I assume XP had the same MSRP given the XP launch prices in the ZD article.
http://review.zdnet.com/AnchorDesk/4520-6033_16-4206549.html
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000HCTYSA/ref=s9_asin_image_2/102-561…
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Business-UPGRADE/dp/B…
For something closer to what Businesses will pay (still excludes the special pricing they get on the Vista Enterprise SKU), there’s the Open Licensing price list on MS’ website.
Microsoft U.S. Open License Estimated Retail Price List – December 2006
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/licensing/licensingchoices/40018463
And theirs a retail price list w/ current XP/Vista pricing on MS Canada’s website:
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/pricelists/default.aspx
E85-02665 Windows XP Professional English NA CD w/SP2 XP Win NT 429.00
66J-00002 Windows Vista Business English NA DVD Non-specific 379.00
E85-02666 Windows XP Professional English NA UPG CD w/SP2 XP Win NT 259.00
66J-00003 Windows Vista Business English NA UPG DVD Non-specific 249.00
E85-01210 Windows XP Professional English UPG MLP NA Only Additional License XP Win NT 279.00
E85-02983 Windows XP Professional SP2 English UPG MLP NA Only Additional License XP Win NT 279.00
66J-00012 Windows Vista Business English NA UPG MLP Additional License Non-specific 219.00
E85-03196 Windows XP Professional English UPG NA Only CD w/SP2 Retail Tech SKU XP Non-specific 259.00
66J-00026 Windows Vista Business English UPG DVD Retail Tech SKU Non-specific 249.00
E85-02982 Windows XP Professional SP2 English MLP NA Only Additional License XP Win NT 399.00
66J-00016 Windows Vista Business English NA MLP Additional License Non-specific 329.00
Edited 2007-01-12 22:20
In addition to this, this really is the softest OS launch I’ve seen from MS in years, so I’m actually surprised they’ve managed to shift any at all.
No, I think that you have actually misread the article. It talks about sales AND commercial revenue, BOTH of which are better than expected. Here’s the first paragraph for you.
“The sales outpaced the first month’s tally for Windows 2000 and only slightly trailed that for Windows XP, the market researcher said Thursday. Commercial revenue from Vista in December was 62.5 percent above that racked up by Windows 2000 in March 2000, its first month after launch. But Vista’s total is 3.7 percent below what Microsoft got in the commercial channel for Windows XP in November 2001, its first month on the market.”
(quoted from the original article – emphasis added by me)
Thats without the new super product that comes in at £370. That didn’t even exist originally.
Mmm … no. The article says that most businesses will avoid the Ultimate edition, which is understandable, since not many companies want their employees using their PCs as media centres. So I doubt the higher priced version will count very much in revenue calculations, which means that the sales are of units that are similar in price to XP.
Secondly I state there are more computers worldwide than they used to be look at http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0203.htm. A quick glance shows that there are about twice as many PC’s worldwide than when XP was launched.
Which is not particularly relevant I’m afraid. No matter how the many more computers there are, there is one universal truth; the majority of businesses will wait for a new machine to come with the OS preinstalled. The vast majority of MS ‘sales’ comes in the form of preloads. This will not change, and Vista has been priced at this level to make sure that this remains the case. In fact, I’m actually rather surprised that this many businesses are buying it.
With a little maths we can comfortably say that Vista’s rollout is less than half that of XP…Not trailing slightly. When Microsoft are claiming a rollout by year end of twice than of XP, and yet Vista replaces a 5 year old OS, and had Millions of beta testers.
… and of course this is also incorrect because they are actually talking about sales.
@n4cer checked the American prices. Your assumption for those seems to be correct.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/pricingretail.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/business.ms…
Without seeing the report, the *sales* quoted is measured in commercial revenue, not licenses or installs or anything else.
The article does indeed say that *most* are not buying ultimate. Most is not a universal all, and also points out “the only way a small business can get their hands on one of the most compelling features of the new operating system”
Please look up the word percentage. If the market is twice as large you expect twice the sales. Its a monopoly.
Vista is not selling well compared to XP. Saying otherwise is silly.
We don’t yet have software that works on Vista but suddenly the whole world is knocking down the doors at Redmond to buy Vista. Just give me a break because this spinning is making me woozy.
We don’t yet have software that works on Vista but suddenly the whole world is knocking down the doors at Redmond to buy Vista. Just give me a break because this spinning is making me woozy.
What are you talking about? Most existing software works on Vista. Has it never occurred to you that people are moving to Vista because their existing software works, thus the transition is easy? There’s also likely migration from companies that did not upgrade the last 2 cycles and are still running NT/2000.
This is just due to several things:
1. Microsoft’s unchecked monopolistic OEM contracts
2. Microsoft won’t probably offer any other operating system other than Vista (not sure if this was the same when Windows 2000 and Windows XP were released)
3. IT management and management in general are usually pretty dumb and think that latest is the greatest.
4. Playing with statistics, Vista is reasonably more expensive than Windows XP for a variety of reasons (higher initial release price from Microsoft, inflation, etc). What we’d need to know is not the amount (value) of sales, but the number of products actually shipped/ordered.
Another possible issue is security. Many businesses will probably jump at Vista, since previous versions of Microsoft Windows were like sieves when it came to security. Microsoft has just finally managed to make a secure operating system.
I for one will not be recommending or endorsing Vista, it is far too expensive for what little it offers above and beyond Windows XP. If desktop customers are that concerned with security and reliability, move them to either OS X or Linux (preferably OS X to be entirely honest). For servers, you can’t beat a good BSD or even Sun’s Solaris 10 for Intel.
Dave
1. Microsoft’s unchecked monopolistic OEM contracts
Thing of the past. MS now just offers discounts to partners. They are under no obligation to take them.
Microsoft won’t probably offer any other operating system other than Vista (not sure if this was the same when Windows 2000 and Windows XP were released)
Guess what? Apple won’t sell me an OSX Panther pack either. Moving on.
Playing with statistics, Vista is reasonably more expensive than Windows XP for a variety of reasons (higher initial release price from Microsoft, inflation, etc). What we’d need to know is not the amount (value) of sales, but the number of products actually shipped/ordered
The article says that the number of units sold is higher than expected, and the prices are roughly the same. The only higher priced version is Ultimate, which businesses are not buying.
Another possible issue is security. Many businesses will probably jump at Vista, since previous versions of Microsoft Windows were like sieves when it came to security. Microsoft has just finally managed to make a secure operating system.
Many businesses will actually jump to Vista because it will be installed on their PC.
If desktop customers are that concerned with security and reliability, move them to either OS X or Linux (preferably OS X to be entirely honest).
But they are also concerned with running their applications and their systems that have been built around the Windows platform. Security is the argument that is being bashed to death because without that argument, some of the alternative platforms have little else to offer. Or at least their users seem to think so. There is an almost desperate need for Vista to fail which I find odd.
Perhaps if the other platforms looked at why they are not as popular, instead of waiting for MS to trip up, then there would be a much fairer spread of OS usage.
If desktop customers are that concerned with security and reliability, move them to either OS X or Linux (preferably OS X to be entirely honest).
And if they’re concerned about picking hardware that doesn’t warp or crack or shut down intermittently for no apparent reason, then maybe they should steer clear of the Mac? Security is only half the story.