Letter to Microsoft

OK, so let's make the wild assumption that we don't all love Microsoft. Have you ever been so incensed with their mediocrity that you wanted to write a letter? What would you say? Here's what I would say (this also just so happens to be part of an ITEC610 assignment):

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a user of Microsoft products for more than a decade. During this period I have been, at times, both delighted and disgusted with your software offerings. There were certainly instances of total elation – such as that offered by the stability and utility of Windows XP SP2. Lately, however, I have encountered a series of difficult disappointments that summarily led me to write this letter. In contemplating potential ways to improve the quality of your software offerings, I have developed four broad suggestions: make your software products cheap, of high quality, competitive, and transparent.

First, you must continue to find cost efficiencies in your production methods so as to bring cost savings to the consumer. Your core products, including Office and Windows, are prohibitively expensive for some users. An operating system that costs more than $400 (in the case of Windows Vista Ultimate) borders on the ridiculous; so too does paying more than $300 for an office suite. With the availability of viable open-source options becoming increasingly common, it may behoove you to exercise better control over your software production and development – and then pass said savings onto those who depend on your products.

Second, I think it is vital that you improve the quality of your offerings. When Windows Vista was launched earlier in 2007, it arrived with a host of problems. From miscellaneous bugs to broken features and a dearth of drivers, Vista was provided to consumers as a half-baked package. The issue could not have been development time, as there was already a significant investment in this area. The new Office 2007 suite is another salient example, as the problems with its OOXML format compatibility are well-documented and continue to cause consumer frustration. The lesson here is simple: don’t release products that are not ready; don’t release products that require a service-pack update to be useful; and don’t release products that cause significant headaches for those for whom the software was designed.

Microsoft products used to dominate their respective software domains because they were superior to competitive products; the popularity of Word over WordPerfect is a good example. However, in recent times this has not been the case. As a third recommendation, I plead that you spend more development dollars to create competitive, first-class products. Internet Explorer, for instance, continues to see its market share dwindle because of superior open-source products such as Firefox or Opera. The Windows market is being threatened by various user-friendly versions of Linux, all of which run leaner than the resource-intensive Vista OS. Microsoft Office has suffered significant blows, most recently having its OOXML standard rejected by the ISO. Meanwhile, arguably equal or better products such as OpenOffice or Google Documents will erode market share. Microsoft, you must re-emphasize quality and competitiveness in your software designs, so that we consumers choose them because they are superior – not because they are the most widely available.

Finally, you must encourage transparency in your operations and software development. The most recent spat over Microsoft Windows Automatic Update, wherein the software would retrieve updates despite users’ settings to the contrary, brings this issue into sharp relief. Your market position allows you to do many things, one of which is the unfortunate ability to act in a monopolistic or autocratic manner. This behavior should be avoided, as it creates the sense that your software products are created without any genuine regard for the user. If an individual chooses not to invoke automatic updates, than he or she should have the right to instruct the software accordingly. This has happened in other cases, as evidenced by your recent loss in a European Union court over Windows Media Player. Apparently, your media software has gained an unfair market position due to its inclusion in Windows, and the difficulty users endure in disabling the software.

As a corporate entity, Microsoft, you are perhaps one of the great leaders. Your performance in the marketplace and ability to maintain a leadership position are certainly enviable. Your actual software offerings, however, have become somewhat lackluster while other corporate ambitions are satisfied (Xbox, the Zune player, etc). In considering the four measures suggested above - decreased cost, increased quality, enhanced competitiveness, and a focus on transparency – you may be able to regain the reputation and luster that your products once had. Your recent admission that OEM computer manufacturers may now voluntarily downgrade to XP signals that something is wrong with your current offerings. I implore you to consider these and other valuable suggestions, as they may help re-establish Microsoft as a credible, deserving industry leader rather than simply a leader in spite of itself.

Sincerely,

Terry G