Hello Dick:
You wrote on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:45:48 -0700:

DW> So, your argument is basically that Money is--or should be--a Loss
DW> Leader to get us all to love Microsoft and buy the stuff they actually
DW> make real money selling.

I'd rather say "may" be - if MS indeed sees it that way.

The problem I'm afraid of is that Money, in fact, does not really fit into
those software categories that border with money-making areas. This product
is pretty much standalone in MS palette, and I think that's why at some
point it was "given" to MSN. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that
discontinuing it was considered by MS at some point.

Would be much more interesting if MS looked at the possibilities of really
integrating Money with their server offerings, which might interest the
banks by some new unique features for their customers, possible only in
tandem between Money and some MS server at the bank - something like more
complete tracking of payments, or faster delivery, or some instant alerting
about account activities, etc. Another very interesting avenue of
integration might be with Outlook - all those reminders and such. Yet
another might stress the analytical features of Money, i.e. finding the best
financial solutions not by dumb msn advertising, but by smart search in the
databases (again, on MS servers) of insurance products, credit products,
checking products, etc., etc. - all based on the user's data Money already
has in the file. The possibilities of this program are endless, but people
with media approach would hardly see them.

Vadim

DW> I also don't entirely blame them because I think their existing
DW> business model is probably unsustainable. Selling consumer software for
DW> barely the cost of the product you ship and then offering free support
DW> (no matter how good the product) is just a recipe to hemorrhage money,
DW> even if you can figure out how to get the regulars to buy that new CD
DW> every darned year.

Um, no, not agreed. Microsoft makes many products, and it's real strength is
in the broad coverage of the software market. If they were making only
windows, or only office, their success would be far more problematic than
when they made windows _and_ office. The more areas they cover, the more
coverage, more customer trust, more purchases in the core areas. It has been
their winning strategy for decades. They buy a product that has nothing to
do with their core traditions (a game, for example), only to cover one more
spot, and the very fact of coverage boosts the sales of their core
products - even if the just-purchased product does not bring any revenue.
It's very smart strategy to offer consumer products with little or even no
revenue, in order to boost the sales of the real money-makers: server
software for the business, hundreds/thousands of licenses of Office and
Windows per each company, TechNet and MSDN subscriptions, consulting
services, etc., etc. Money and the like are small things, reminders of the
brand, so to speak. MS is not unique here, there are many other companies
who offer excellent free consumer software that serves as advertising for
their business products or services. Look at SysInternals, for instance.

And for this very reason, I think, Microsoft is not very smart to play in
the media business. In the light of the above, these "small things" may not
bring big revenue, but consumers must love them. MSN hardly satisfies this
criteria, as it never has been truly successful. So not only MS lost
billions on it, but I doubt it brought any significant consumer confidence
benefit to the core areas.

The really smart strategy would be demonstrating on every corner that
Microsoft is only engaged in software business, and whatever it does in
software business, really shines. That would be right on target. Pursuing
software and media revenues at the same time, I think, is very risky, and
with very stiff competition in the both areas, has little chances to
succeed.

Of course, all of the above are only my personal views, and can be
completely wrong.


Vadim

They say it all over M05 with apparent sincerity.

I think that they truly wish all existing users preferred the dumbed-down
stuff because that's where they are heading, our wishes be damned, and it
would make the transition easier if we really did prefer it that way. I also
suspect that there may be some component of what you say: if they repeat it
enough, we might actually begin to believe it. What's the truth? That lie
which is repeated most often?

To the extent that they have some factual basis for saying it, yes, I
believe what Bob Peel wrote is true.

I think they'd dearly love for every person in the world who already has a
computer, and everybody who doesn't yet have one but could get one, to latch
onto the MSN advertising stream. Then they could charge more for the ads.
Then they'd have this great revenue stream that they wouldn't have to do
much to nurture but keep selling the ads. That's a whole lot easier,
cheaper, less risky, and more sure than actually developing software. Do I
blame them for this? Heck no. We'd all love to attach ourselves to a "free
money" iv drip. Some of us, read: Microsoft, are just in a better position
to do it than others: read: you and me. I also don't entirely blame them
because I think their existing business model is probably unsustainable.
Selling consumer software for barely the cost of the product you ship and
then offering free support (no matter how good the product) is just a recipe
to hemorrhage money, even if you can figure out how to get the regulars to
buy that new CD every darned year.

I suspect they do a lot of research to this end. I bet they have research
that says "managing my money" is a top five reason cited by a huge
proportion of people who don't yet have one but could get one as to what
might drive them to do it. I'll bet it polls even higher among people who
already have a computer but can't really figure out what to do with it as to
what they'd like to be able to do with it. I'll bet they also know that **if
they could entice these people to actually do this rather than just say they
would** how much time they could get access to these people's eyeballs for.
They've certainly tumbled to how much more they could sell the ads for if
they could target them based on knowing all there was to know about the
viewer's financial and life situation--as the person who has access to our
Money data surely would be able to do. (An interesting side question is why
the people who say they'd like to use a computer to manage their money say
it. There is research out there on some subjects that people say these
things because they think it's what "smart people" (or popular or whatever)
should say, and they want to seem smart, so they say it. It has nothing to
do with their real gut reaction. Things like asking people if they intend to
vote: the numbers way outstrip the behavior.)

So, this surely looks like the Pot Of Gold At The End Of The Rainbow to
them.

But they haven't been able to tap it. Those of us who actually do use our
computers to manage our money haven't exactly been playing along and looking
at all the ads. Surely they know how many hits to the MSN properties linked
to from Money there are per unit time as a function of the number of copies
of Money in use. I'll bet the number is a whole lot lower than they keep
hoping to make it. Worse, they aren't growing the user base. They surely
know how many people get OEM Money licenses on new PCs, start it two or
three times, never have the "light bulb moment" or find it actually requires
typing (arrggh) or is not effortless, and never start it again.

So they go to figure out what's holding all these people back who say they'd
like to use a computer to manage their money but don't. They invite
grandmothers and teenagers and computer-phobes into their lab, show them
Money, and ask what they like. Simple (or Essential, if you prefer) will win
this race EVERY TIME. So, they conclude that SIMPLE is the only ticket left.
It's like asking people who actually have no intent of working on their car
what looks like the best tool in the toolbox to work on the car. They tell
you the hammer because it looks, well, SIMPLE. So you conclude, if you want
to sell more toolboxes to people who say they'd like to work on their cars,
you'd best show them the hammer. Whether a hammer is actually useful for
much serious car repair gets lost in the shuffle.

I can't claim all of this as original thought. See
http://blogs.msdn.com/philipsu/archi...01/170682.aspx for some
insight.

"Vadim Rapp" <vrapp[at]nospam.polyscience.com> wrote in message
news:%23NbXICSGFHA.228[at]TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
- quote -

I do know that MS spend a lot of time and money dragging Joe Public in off
the streets (well probably rather more scientifically selected) and sitting
them down in front of a PC with Money and some tasks.

They wouldn't select us lot as we a) know too much and b) are too set in our
ways! ;-)

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

For UK tips & fixes see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...d=fh;EN-GB;mny.
For wishes or suggestions see
http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp
or for UK wishes http://www.microsoft.com/uk/support/money/feedback

I do not respond to any emails that I have not specifically asked for.

"Vadim Rapp" <vrapp[at]nospam.polyscience.com> wrote in message
news:%23NbXICSGFHA.228[at]TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
- quote -

DW> Most Users Prefer(tm) the dumbed-down "Essential *" ones.

Unless it's a sarcasm, I very much doubt that Microsoft has a 1% clue about
what 1% of users want. I don't recall a single survey on this, do you? I'm
sure though they know a lot about what MSN wants the users to want. And any
wishful thinking, given the absence of real knowledge, and empowered by
incompetence, soon becomes the belief and then confidence that it's
objective. Money/Microsoft is not an exception: in today's world, you can
see examples of it literally on every step - beliefs with no correlation to
the reality or to the logic - just look around.

Vadim

Comments inline.

"Glenn B." <pkguy323[at]NOSPAMMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AgJSd.14607$uc.6787[at]trnddc09...
- quote -

So this will come out in 2013? BTW, M98 was the only other edition of M I
ever skipped. Among many other buggy things, the day it shipped it created
backup files that were almost certain to be larger than one diskette but it
didn't know how to do a diskette spanning backup.

- quote -

You are considering Investment Accounts bloat? Forecast Cash Flow? One
user's bloat is certainly some other user's one key feature. There may be
exceptional features which most users can do without, but M05 would indicate
that Microsoft knows the exceptions are virtually all of the "Advanced *"
features, since Most Users Prefer(tm) the dumbed-down "Essential *" ones.

- quote -

This can be easily dealt with--dual track the files/versions while you are
deciding. It is also likely a very daunting technical challenge and one that
would divert a huge amount of limited development resources from so many
other things the product needs. I hope they don't go work this one in
priority to all of the other things that need working. In the long term, you
probably needn't worry: the potential future Web Service won't have this
problem. They'll store your data on their web servers in whatever format
works for them and you'll neither need to know or care.

After reading through the posts today, here are some of my thoughts on Money
2005 and how to resolve some of the issues.

#1 MS should offer a 15 year anniversary edition of MS Money 98 that works
on WinXP...

#2 Undo all the extras. Give us a Basic Edition product that allows us to
balance the checkbook, manually download our QIF/OFX files, do a budget and
add a calendar to remind us of bills...that's it. Remove the bloat that
really makes MS 2005 slower and buggy.

#3 Allow a feature that will let us revert back to a former version. Sure,
you tell us to backup our previous data, but that previous data becomes
corrupted somehow. I'd like to be able to try out a new version for a
while, and if I don't like it, I should be able to export my MS 2005 file
back into MS '98..with all new transactions going with it and not having to
manually re-enter everything.

Yes, it is simple as 1-2-3!!!

Glenn B.