Windows 8 Fails To Impress PC Buyers

12/24/12 12:36PM EST

In the past, the launch of a new Windows operating system most certainly accompanied a strong surge in PC sales as consumers rushed out to get the newest version of Windows. Thus far, the same can’t be said for the new Windows 8. According to the New York Times, consumers continue to balk the new Microsoft Surface RT tablet and overall PC sales this holiday season have been disappointing. Consumers continue to choose tablets running iOS and Android, while PC sales remain weak.

I think everybody would have hoped for a better start,” Stephen Baker, an analyst at research firm NPD, told the New York Times. “The thing is, this market is not the same market that Windows 7 or Vista or even XP launched into.

In fact, the Times estimates that 13 percent fewer Windows devices were sold in the United States from the time Windows 8 launched in late October through the first week of December compared to sales of Windows 7 devices during the same period in 2011.

There was not a huge spark in the market,” Acer Americas division president Emmanuelle Fromont told the Times, citing the unfamiliar design of Windows 8 that may make consumers more cautious in choosing it. “It’s a slow start, there’s no question.

Part of the lag may have nothing to do with Windows 8, but the PC’s status decline in the computing world. When previous versions of Windows were released, the PC was without a doubt the staple product in home computing. In the past few years, consumers have turned to smartphones and tablets for their casual computing needs and the PC has lost significant market share. Analysts believe that people will still keep PCs, but postpone replacing older models.

“What you’re seeing is not a retirement of PCs, but a push-out in the replacement cycle,” A. M. Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, told the Times. “If people used to buy PCs every four years and are now buying them every five years, that could lower PC sales by 20 percent over time. That’s substantial.”

Microsoft shares slipped 1.5 percent in midday trading after the Times released its report on Windows 8.

[Image via bobfamiliar/Flickr]


The arguments of this article sounds pretty weird.....

1. Benefiting the singles doesn't mean to penalize the married. Can we say that giving out tax cut and tax return to the married households is to punish the singles and force them to be married? No! There is always a particular class of people who can benefits the most from a particular policy. 

2. No insurance out there is always guaranteed that the premium will not go up and always stay the same. If it goes up and beyond people can afford, people sign off and that's it.

3. I don't know what were you implying. Were you implying medical reimbursement rate needed to be reviewed? Or, you were implying we shall call off the Obamacare and kick those Americans who could not afford medical attentions before back to where they belong so that the system can be back to "normal" again?

4.  I am not the expert at this matter but Im wondering if there is any option other than having ACOs in promoting such a national-wide scheme of health care thing. 

5. In the employers' eyes, anything makes them pay more in business motivates them to cut costs including employees' hours. Corporate tax does that, minimum wage does that, insurance for workplace does that and now Obamacare might do that too.  The question is it is worth doing it or not. The way I see it is, it protects more working class people from health related issues and frees them from saving money for future medical expense, which results to a greater productivity in workplace and more consumption spending in economy. They are the intangible benefits you'll miss if you only look at the small picture.