Brian Tillman said:
Nonsense. I can still access my free hotmail accounts anywhere in the world
and any Internet café without caring what applications are installed on that
PC.
Nonsense to you, perhaps, but not to the millions who regularly accessed
their e-mail primarily from Outlook on their desktops and now cannot!
Nonsense. I've been using Outlook for years without needing to access
Hotmail. I do occasionally, but I am not inconvenienced in any way it I
don't.
'Nonsense' is certainly an understandable response from one who has no need
to access Hotmail through Outlook, but how about the millions who do? Just
because you are not inconvenienced doesn't mean that others are not.
Nonsense. Name one ISP anywhere that doesn't charge a fee.
Again you missed the point. First, just because everyone does it, does not
make it a non-mercenary practice. Second, a different approach could have
accomplished the same end without generating such high levels of frustration
for the consumer. As we indicated, Microsoft could have provided actual
substantive improvements to the service as an incentive to upgrade, rather
than crippling the current services. Likewise, if the above strategy failed
to meet their economic needs, then it might have appeared less mercenary, and
likely been less problematic, to simply notify users of the need to eliminate
free services in favor of a purchased plan.
Do you really think MSN will care? You're dreaming if you do. Boycotts
never work.
Who's dreaming? You live with hundreds of environmentally sensative
products that are the result of boycotts or other lawful activist efforts.
You are also free of thousands of unsafe products because individuals chose
to silently boycott them at the check-out stand by not purchasing them. You
also enjoy thousands of product improvements for the same reason. According
to your theory, we should probably never vote either, since our single voice
is meaningless. In actual fact, every voice does count, and when it results
in a general public concensus it will rock even the largest of corporations.
The only voice that doesn't count is the one that doesn't speak out.
I agree with this. And you (and I, for that matter) changing to a
non-Microsoft mailer will have zero impact on Microsoft, so that's the
point. How does that "register" any displeasure whatsoever? With whom
would it register?
Again, we disagree. Every choice makes a statement, and when any large
corporate entity's bottom line begins to vanish due to popular demand for a
competitors solutions, then the consumer's displeasure is registered "loud
and clear."
Again, nonsense. Do you complain that Netscape, AT&T, British Telecom,
Tascali, or any of the other ISPs charge for their mail services? Hotmail
access is CHEAP. Evey Hotmail Premium costs only US $10 per month. Hotmail
Plus costs even less: US $20 per YEAR. You can use either and access it
with Outlook.
What do you mean, nonsense? It appears we actually agree here. Our point
was that cost is not the issue. As you adeptly point out, such services are
extremely affordable. The problem is the inconvenience and frustration, not
the cost of services. Microsoft should have either eliminated the free
service or left the service intact, versus leaving a crippled service that
frequently frustrates existing users. There are at least three current
threads on this issue in this forum alone, it seems to me that their
approach, not the cost, has, indeed, created frustration amongst existing
customers.
You paid the car dealer for your automobile. Does that mean they should pay
for your gasoline as well?
We could make just as ridiculous of an argument. If the dealer gives you
free car mats, is it okay for him to come take them away from you later?
Either way, both our arguments are irrelevant to the real issue. Of course,
we pay for gasoline and, of course, we expect to pay for internet usage.
However, if Microsoft cannot afford to put a service in the public domain,
don't place it there. Again cost is not the issue, the issue is that
crippling the service, versus eliminating it, is going to ultimately generate
frustration for existing users. How hard is it to understand that not being
able to access e-mail from Outlook is an unwanted frustration to users,
regardless of the reason. It gives the impression that Outlook cannot
perform as advertised. Furthermore, it requires users to take extra action
to cancel, change ISP, re-subscribe, or relocate a long-standing e-mail
address so that it can again be accessed from Outlook. Many users do not
want to be forced to access e-mail through two different methods and in two
different locations. They want all communications consolidated in one place
and accessible through a simple, intuitive common interface. When you
disrupt that concept, or desire, you generate user FRUSTRATION. So before
someone offers a free service that is going to automatically incorporate
frustation down the road, maybe they had better weigh the benefits of the
plan against the frustration ultimately placed upon loyal customers, before
deciding to actually introduce such a free service.
It's only been public knowledge since September of 2004. Where have you
been?
Yea, the error said "You need a subscription". Obviously NOT clear enough.
Obviously you were not sitting at our computer! The error said, "Unknown
Error" and the notice you refer to was hidden in a 'Detail' link for later
versions of the error dialog. Which link, not surprisingly, is seldom
accessed by may non-techno users who do not have the time to research dozens
of non-descriptive Windows errors. Furthermore, many of the more descriptive
error messages regarding this issue have been of 'recent' vintage and only
introduced in recent service packs.
This isn't really true either. None of the MVPs work for Microsoft.
Not working for Microsoft does not mean their is not a vested interest in
the company nor a bias of opinion.
I'm not an MVP and I agree with them. PAY for what you use.
Sure you do, but several thousand others, including myself, do not! You,
like them, still miss the point. Just like you, we are all willing to pay
for the services we request, no one is demanding a perpetual entitlement of
free services. But what we also pointed out, was that the aggravation on
behalf of customers is actually not being generated by the need to purchase
services, but by the poor implementation of policy that has eliminated
features, complicated e-mail access, undermined the convention of a common
depository for all communications, and disrupted delivery of ongoing services.
Another topic altogether that has nothing to do with MSN or Hotmail.
The thread was not limited to MSN or Hotmail, but also incorporated the
limitations introduced into Outlook.
I've always felt that the Hotmail servers were fraught with frequent
problems, so I can't disagree.
Thanks, it is nice to stand on common ground finally. The free Hotmail
issue is really a dead issue for everyone anyway. I think that everyone
realizes that, while it created a ton of frustrations for thousands of users,
we all need to make the proper adjustments and move on. On the other hand,
this and other issues, are truly troubling. After posting dozens of
questions to MSN, Hotmail, Office support, discussion groups, and hours of
knowledgebase research, we still cannot find out why large attachments cannot
be downloaded on our computer without terminating the connection after about
one minute. These are paid MSN accounts and should not be aborting
attachment downloads that many of our other associates continue to download
without incident. Unfortunately, it is often too hard to find solutions to
problems, even when the solution is often very, very simple. We really hope
that Windows Vista can overcome some of the technical handicaps of
troubleshooting system and application breakdowns.
Name one application for which this isn't true. Word, for exmaple, does not
do a very good job of typesetting. Publisher is better at it.
Yes, so if you need to publish you buy Publisher. But what if you buy
Publisher and it still cannot typset very well? Or what if Word used to
typset extremely well, but cannot typset anymore? As pointed out many times,
the frustration results from an application that can no longer provide a
service it once provided. Regardless of the justification for the current
handicap, it still boils down to a perceived handicap.
The very nature and essence of capitalism. I'm all for it.
That same capitalistic essence has also proven that non-mercenary companies
of integrity rise like cream to the top of the barrell. Microsoft is where
it is today because of it's original willingness to provide comprehensive
solutions to the public at affordable prices. Unfortunately, most companies
eventually lose sight of the key to their original successes. IBM who could
never envision themselves cutting their profit margins are now enjoying the
sparse fruits of their mercenary endeavors. On the other hand, Sam's,
Costco, and Walmart each enjoy huge successes and immense consumer loyalty
based on a corporate policy to avoid opportunities of outright mercenary
behavior.
Microsoft has lost a drop in the ocean, you mean. Do you really even notice
the side spray when being hit by a fire hose?
Hey, someone had better take note when their fire hose starts spraying out
the side, instead of the nozzle. No matter how slight, it means there is a
problem developing. You continaully assume that everyone else has pledged an
absolute allegiance to Microsoft. You also assume that Microsoft can do no
wrong, customer opinions will never change, and that no other competitor will
ever arise to meet the voids generated by Microsoft. I'm not so confident.
While I admire Microsoft for the wonderful technical progress they have
authored, I also trust that the same capitalistic currents that placed
Microsoft at the top, can also place another in their stead, if they fail to
maintain the integrity of their original focus.
