I understand what mean about it not being part of Microsoft's DNA, but it seems like you're trying to blame Microsoft's poor web presence on its age. How do you then rationalize other pre-Web companies like IBM and Apple who have managed to successfully embrace it?
IBM and Apple each have a more homogeneous audience.
IBM is a consulting company and courts mid- to upper-level manager types with purchasing authority. After few seconds on the page you are invited to speak with a sales consultant via a popup.
Apple is focused exclusively on the (premium) consumer space.
Both companies represent top-down totalitarianism (I say this without value-connotation): IBM suggest corporate command and control, Apple has a well-curated walled garden.
Microsoft's site reminds me of one of the more effective university websites.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with any of those companies except as a consumer. My iPhone is my favorite toy.
I've said it before, but I feel Microsoft's problem is that they cannot say no to things.
This serves them well in the Enterprise, where every installation requires customisations (and people can afford to pay for the maintenance of those customisations) but spills over into everything they do, meaning they cannot keep things simple.
The dozens of different Windows versions, the fact that their new flagship tablet ships in two versions with incompatible instruction sets, where one will only run "Windows 8 style" applications, and that the operating system itself has two completely different user interfaces that doesn't interoperate well. Actually taking the Kin to product launch instead of killing it off internally and refocusing efforts at a time when Windows Mobile was losing market share.
>Actually taking the Kin to product launch instead of killing it off internally and refocusing efforts at a time when Windows Mobile was losing market share.
The Kin is a case study in everything that's wrong with Microsoft as a company.
In-fighting and turf wars, discarding products they bought up (e.g., Danger) to shoehorn in Microsoft technologies while failing to leverage their own technologies in places where they'd make sense, lack of a cohesive corporate vision, the list goes on.
Ars had a pretty decent post-mortem of the project.
While its probably correct to say that Microsoft does not have a homogenous audience and that that is why their online presence lacks the clarity of, say, Apple. I think the lack of clarity is a bad thing and Microsoft only really have themselves to blame for their audience.
If you're going to go after a very varied audience you should probably think carefully about whether you need to have lots of sub brands (e.g. Proctor & Gamble) so that your customers simply google for the sub brand, or whether you actually can attach some core values onto the parent brand that will be meaningful in all these different markets (e.g. Virgin or Disney). It's no good having a scatter gun product strategy then neglecting your branding and online presence because you sell to everyone everywhere.
Apple sold 18.65M iPhones in Q2 2011, that's iPhone alone, I think calling Apple's audience homogeneous is ridiculous, and falls under the same as "mac is for designers" old-fashion statement.
Is it a poor web presence? You haven't made a case for that, the only thing that's been stated is that the visual style is inconsistent between major areas. Is that a bad thing?
