Microsoft's Decline Continues

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely_to_keep_hurting_Microsoft_sales_analyst_says_>.

    The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    Client in revenues.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 29, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    > year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely_to_keep_hurting_Microsoft_sales_analyst_says_>.
    >
    > The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    > Client in revenues.


    Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
    effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    overwhelmingly in negative territory.
    EMB, Oct 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    > > year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    > > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely....>.

    >
    > > The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    > > Client in revenues.

    >
    > Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    > users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    > available even as far back as Office95?  Add the cost of upgrading for
    > effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    > by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    > overwhelmingly in negative territory.


    So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    and academic applications.

    So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    billions in unnecessary expenditure.

    Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
    peterwn, Oct 29, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    >>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    >>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
    >>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    >>> Client in revenues.

    >> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    >> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    >> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
    >> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    >> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    >> overwhelmingly in negative territory.

    >
    > So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    > Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    > hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    > and academic applications.
    >
    > So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    > operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    > makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    > long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    > billions in unnecessary expenditure.
    >
    > Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    > trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.


    One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
    XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
    approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
    None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
    business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
    reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".

    The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
    (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
    to schools.
    EMB, Oct 30, 2009
    #4
  5. EMB <> wrote:

    > peterwn wrote:
    >> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    >>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    >>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
    >>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    >>>> Client in revenues.
    >>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    >>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    >>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
    >>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    >>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    >>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.

    >>
    >> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    >> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    >> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    >> and academic applications.
    >>
    >> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    >> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    >> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    >> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    >> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
    >>
    >> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    >> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.

    >
    > One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
    > XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
    > approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
    > None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
    > business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
    > reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
    >
    > The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
    > (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
    > to schools.


    Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:

    "There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
    "Not as we know it
    "Not as we know it ..."

    --
    - Nicolaas

    .... Oh! And a bottle of jubjub repellent, please.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Oct 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Oct 30, 5:52 pm, EMB <> wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:
    > > On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    > >>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    > >>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
    > >>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    > >>> Client in revenues.
    > >> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    > >> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    > >> available even as far back as Office95?  Add the cost of upgrading for
    > >> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    > >> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    > >> overwhelmingly in negative territory.

    >
    > > So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    > > Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    > > hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    > > and academic applications.

    >
    > > So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    > > operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    > > makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    > > long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    > > billions in unnecessary expenditure.

    >
    > > Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    > > trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.

    >
    > One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
    > XP/Office 2003.  It is going to require hardware upgrades to
    > approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
    > None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
    > business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
    > reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
    >
    > The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
    > (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
    > to schools.


    And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
    salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
    top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
    with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
    IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
    very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
    to them that should not open.

    It is like when Steve (chair thrower) Ballmer visited NZ a few years
    ago and was able to see top Government people - what the hell standing
    did he have to see them when many NZ business leaders can only dream
    of such access to top Government people. in this regard he was no
    better than a 'team leader' salesperson.
    ..
    peterwn, Oct 30, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-30, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    > EMB <> wrote:
    >
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    >>>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    >>>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
    >>>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    >>>>> Client in revenues.
    >>>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    >>>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    >>>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
    >>>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    >>>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    >>>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
    >>>
    >>> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    >>> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    >>> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    >>> and academic applications.
    >>>
    >>> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    >>> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    >>> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    >>> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    >>> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
    >>>
    >>> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    >>> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.

    >>
    >> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
    >> XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
    >> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
    >> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
    >> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
    >> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
    >>
    >> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
    >> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
    >> to schools.

    >
    > Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:
    >
    > "There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
    > "Not as we know it
    > "Not as we know it ..."
    >

    Indeed Alice
    Gordon, Oct 30, 2009
    #7
  8. Gordon <> wrote:

    > On 2009-10-30, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    >> EMB <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> peterwn wrote:
    >>>> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <> wrote:
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
    >>>>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
    >>>>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
    >>>>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
    >>>>>> Client in revenues.
    >>>>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
    >>>>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
    >>>>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
    >>>>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
    >>>>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
    >>>>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
    >>>>
    >>>> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
    >>>> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
    >>>> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
    >>>> and academic applications.
    >>>>
    >>>> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
    >>>> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
    >>>> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
    >>>> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
    >>>> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
    >>>> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
    >>>
    >>> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
    >>> XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
    >>> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
    >>> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
    >>> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
    >>> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
    >>>
    >>> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
    >>> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
    >>> to schools.

    >>
    >> Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:
    >>
    >> "There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
    >> "Not as we know it
    >> "Not as we know it ..."
    >>

    > Indeed Alice


    Welcome to my Nightmare!

    --
    - Nicolaas
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Oct 30, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 30, 6:55 pm, peterwn <> wrote:
    > And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
    > salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
    > top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
    > with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
    > IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
    > very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
    > to them that should not open.


    For various reasons a large number of organisations view their IT dept
    as an impediment or a roadblock to any progress. In some cases they
    are right, in others they aren't but that is the perception.

    So the sales people will sell something as being a decision of
    strategic business importance that shouldn't be left in the hands of
    the IT dept.

    While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 30, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 30, 6:55 pm, peterwn <> wrote:
    > And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
    >> salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
    >> top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
    >> with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
    >> IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
    >> very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
    >> to them that should not open.


    > For various reasons a large number of organisations view their IT dept
    > as an impediment or a roadblock to any progress. In some cases they
    > are right, in others they aren't but that is the perception.
    >
    > So the sales people will sell something as being a decision of
    > strategic business importance that shouldn't be left in the hands of
    > the IT dept.
    >
    > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.


    When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
    giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever of
    how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder that
    IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
    decisons made by others.
    impossible, Oct 30, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 31, 12:20 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    > > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    > > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

    >
    > When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
    > giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever of
    > how real work gets done in most of the business world.  Little wonder that
    > IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
    > decisons made by others.


    Yawn.

    What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade? Should the board also dictate when to
    upgrade the cellphones too? A board getting involved in low level
    details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
    micromanagment at the wrong level.

    Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
    you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
    mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
    someone with your limited view.

    And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
    people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
    to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
    are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
    strategic issues too.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 31, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 30, 9:13 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:

    > Welcome to my Nightmare!
    >
    > --
    > - Nicolaas


    Mine also. One of the companies I deal with have a third party vendor
    app that absolutely must upgraded due to central Government reporting
    requirements. They have absolutely no reason to upgrade to the latest
    version of Office.
    Simon, Oct 31, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 31, 11:14 am, "AD." <> wrote:

    > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.



    I disagree; there are many other third party apps that integrate with
    only a specific version MS Office. We have recently had to upgrade the
    back-end of a document archival product, so that the new front-end can
    be installed that is compatible with the latest edition of MS Office.
    What might seem as a relatively mundane Office suit upgrade, can spawn
    a number of large server-side upgrades.
    Simon, Oct 31, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 31, 12:20 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    >> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    >> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

    >>
    >> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
    >> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever
    >> of
    >> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
    >> that
    >> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
    >> decisons made by others.


    > Yawn.
    >


    Yawn.

    > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?


    The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
    strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
    productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
    process -- if they have a job at all.

    > Should the board also dictate when to
    > upgrade the cellphones too?


    Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who share
    the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
    employees, is a vital part of achieving success.

    > A board getting involved in low level
    > details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
    > micromanagment at the wrong level.
    >


    Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly is
    that?!

    > Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
    > you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
    > mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
    > someone with your limited view.
    >


    Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.

    > And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
    > people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
    > to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
    > are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
    > strategic issues too.


    Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
    stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to techs
    instead of business managers -- What a surprise!
    impossible, Oct 31, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:01:33 +0000, impossible wrote:

    >> What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    >> Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?

    >
    > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
    > strategic ambitions.


    That is his way of saying that he knows of no strategic business advantage to be gained by an average
    business in (re)purchasing yet another newer version of MS Office "Pro" and installing that in place of
    MS Office 2003 Pro on all its desktops.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Oct 31, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 31, 5:01 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Oct 31, 12:20 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    > >>  > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
    > >>  > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

    >
    > >>  When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
    > >>  giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever
    > >> of
    > >>  how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
    > >> that
    > >>  IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
    > >>  decisons made by others.

    > > Yawn.

    >
    > Yawn.
    >
    > > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    > > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?

    >
    > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
    > strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
    > productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
    > process -- if they have a job at all.


    You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
    management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
    about dictating an upgrade.

    What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
    a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
    the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
    their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
    couldn't before?

    Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
    operational, not strategic.

    > > Should the board also dictate when to
    > > upgrade the cellphones too?

    >
    > Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who share
    > the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
    > employees, is a vital part of achieving success.


    Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?

    >
    > > A board getting involved in low level
    > > details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
    > > micromanagment at the wrong level.

    >
    > Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly is
    > that?!


    Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
    you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
    There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.

    Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
    entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
    something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
    done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
    now.

    > > Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
    > > you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
    > > mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
    > > someone with your limited view.

    >
    > Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.


    Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.

    >
    > > And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
    > > people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
    > > to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
    > > are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
    > > strategic issues too.

    >
    > Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
    > stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to techs
    > instead of business managers -- What a surprise!


    Huh? You not read so good. I'm not in sales, my point was who you
    should sell to depends on what you are selling. Go to upper management
    for strategic tools, and the operational people for operational tools.
    No matter how much you squint an incremental office suite upgrade
    isn't a strategic imperative.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 31, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 31, 5:01 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >"AD." <> wrote in message
    > > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
    > > >> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of
    > > >> > place
    > > >> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

    > >
    > > >> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a
    > > >> dead
    > > >> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding
    > > >> whatsoever
    > > >> of
    > > >> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
    > > >> that
    > > >> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic
    > > >> business
    > > >> decisons made by others.
    > > > Yawn.

    > >
    > > Yawn.
    > >
    > > > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    > > > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?

    > >
    > > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
    > > strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
    > > productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
    > > process -- if they have a job at all.

    >
    >
    > You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
    > management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
    > about dictating an upgrade.
    >


    That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?

    > What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
    > a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
    > the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
    > their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
    > couldn't before?
    >


    All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is far
    from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.

    > Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
    > operational, not strategic.
    >


    Is that your sales pitch?

    > > > Should the board also dictate when to
    > > > upgrade the cellphones too?

    > >
    > > Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who
    > > share
    > > the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
    > > employees, is a vital part of achieving success.

    >
    > Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?
    >


    I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says no
    to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".

    > >
    > > > A board getting involved in low level
    > > > details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
    > > > micromanagment at the wrong level.

    > >
    > > Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly
    > > is
    > > that?!

    >
    > Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
    > you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
    > There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.
    >
    > Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
    > entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
    > something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
    > done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
    > now.
    >


    You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
    wouldn't even get to talk a tech.

    > > > Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
    > > > you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
    > > > mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
    > > > someone with your limited view.

    > >
    > > Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.

    >
    > Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.
    >


    Yeah, right, salesman.

    > >
    > > > And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
    > > > people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
    > > > to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
    > > > are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
    > > > strategic issues too.

    > >
    > > Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
    > > stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to
    > > techs
    > > instead of business managers -- What a surprise!

    >
    > Huh? You not read so good. I'm not in sales,my point was who you
    > should sell to depends on what you are selling. Go to upper management
    > for strategic tools, and the operational people for operational tools.
    > No matter how much you squint an incremental office suite upgrade
    > isn't a strategic imperative.
    >
    impossible, Oct 31, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 1, 1:00 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    > > You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
    > > management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
    > > about dictating an upgrade.

    >
    > That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?


    Nothing. Obviously.

    > > What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
    > > a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
    > > the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
    > > their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
    > > couldn't before?

    >
    > All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is far
    > from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.


    So no actual answers there either eh?

    > > Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
    > > operational, not strategic.

    >
    > Is that your sales pitch?


    Still waiting....

    > > Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?

    >
    > I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says no
    > to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".


    That's a pretty clumsy sidestep.

    > > Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
    > > you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
    > > There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.

    >
    > > Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
    > > entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
    > > something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
    > > done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
    > > now.

    >
    > You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
    > wouldn't even get to talk a tech.


    That's a relief. They probably wouldn't have any answers either.

    > > Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.

    >
    > Yeah, right, salesman.


    heh

    It seems your only area of expertise or self worth was threatened, and
    you were so upset you couldn't actually form any coherent arguments
    and had to resort to exceptionally weak abuse based on wildly
    innaccurate assumptions.

    Don't worry, I won't hurt your precious any more.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 31, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Nov 1, 1:00 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >"AD." <> wrote in message
    > > > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP
    > > > > or
    > > > >> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of
    > > > >> > place
    > > > >> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
    > > >
    > > > >> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a
    > > > >> dead
    > > > >> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding
    > > > >> whatsoever
    > > > >> of
    > > > >> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little
    > > > >> wonder
    > > > >> that
    > > > >> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic
    > > > >> business
    > > > >> decisons made by others.
    > > > > Yawn.
    > > >
    > > > Yawn.
    > > >
    > > > > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
    > > > > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?
    > > >
    > > > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the
    > > > board's
    > > > strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
    > > > productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the
    > > > decision-making
    > > > process -- if they have a job at all.

    >
    > > > You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
    > > > management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
    > > > about dictating an upgrade.

    > >
    > > That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?

    >
    > Nothing. Obviously.
    >


    Ohhhhh...poor salesman. Another door slamnmed in your face? Hard to take ,
    eh?


    > > > What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
    > > > a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
    > > > the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
    > > > their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
    > > > couldn't before?

    > >
    > > All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is
    > > far
    > > from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.

    >
    > So no actual answers there either eh?
    >


    Can you not read, salesman?

    > > > Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
    > > > operational, not strategic.

    > >
    > > Is that your sales pitch?

    >
    > Still waiting....
    >


    Well, is it?

    > > > Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?

    > >
    > > I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says
    > > no
    > > to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".

    >
    > That's a pretty clumsy sidestep.
    >


    Actually, that was pretty much dead on. Not getting in the door to see the
    decision-makers is the ultimate saleman's lament. You're angry that your
    product doesn't amkle the cut -- I get that. But instead of taking at a
    criticvall look at what you peddle, you instead blame the decison-making
    process and the "dictatorial" deciders.

    > > > Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
    > > > you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
    > > > There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.

    > >
    > > > Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
    > > > entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
    > > > something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
    > > > done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
    > > > now.

    > >
    > > You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
    > > wouldn't even get to talk a tech.

    >
    > That's a relief. They probably wouldn't have any answers either.
    >


    Yes, you're undoubtedly at your best when talking to yourself.

    > > > Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.

    > >
    > > Yeah, right, salesman.

    >
    > heh
    >


    Peddling products that no one wants -- How's that working for you?

    > It seems your only area of expertise or self worth was threatened, and
    > you were so upset you couldn't actually form any coherent arguments
    > and had to resort to exceptionally weak abuse based on wildly
    > innaccurate assumptions.
    >
    > Don't worry, I won't hurt your precious any more.
    >


    Don't leave on my account -- I'm enjoying this little exchange, salesman.
    impossible, Oct 31, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 1, 10:51 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Don't leave on my account -- I'm enjoying this little exchange, salesman.


    Of course you would, endless twisting contradictions and silly name
    calling without any real argument seems to be right up your alley. And
    you've amply established that you don't have anything beyond that.

    But unfortunately for your hobby, everyone else just gets too bored
    with that. You'll have to go pick another one of your pointless
    playground fights in another thread.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 31, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?QlNhbmRpYQ==?=

    Pull Subscription Continues to Run Indefinitely

    =?Utf-8?B?QlNhbmRpYQ==?=, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
  2. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,155
    David Matthew Wood
    Jan 30, 2008
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dimdows decline

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 1, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    542
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Apr 2, 2008
  4. Ian B

    rec.photo.digital decline....

    Ian B, Nov 5, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    691
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    368
    John Turco
    Mar 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page