Slashdot Mirror
The Fall of Wintel and the Rise of Armdroid
hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review is running a very interesting article on how this year's CES marked the end of the Wintel platform's dominance. Their argument is that tablets are going to disrupt the PC, and these tablets are predominantly going to be running on Google's Android powered by ARM processors — 'Armdroid.' Quoting: 'Both Microsoft and Intel have suffered from the same problem that most successful companies face when dealing with disruption. They cannot find a way to profitably invest in low-end offerings. Think about it from Microsoft's point of view: now that Windows 7 has been developed, to sell another copy, they don't have to do a single thing. Because of this, it becomes very hard for any executive to advocate the complete development of a low cost OS that will run on tablets: not only would it cost Microsoft a lot to develop, but it would result in cannibalization of its core product sales. Intel has the exact same issue. Why focus on Atom, or an even lower-end chip, when there is so much more margin to be made by focusing on its multi-core desktop processors?'"
Their tablet should have been about disrupting the PC market with something light, cheap and simple. Instead, Microsoft tried to make it do everything.
Okay, so we establish that tablets have a subset of functionality as PCs. I agree with this, I don't do software development, word processing or gaming on a tablet. But then the article notes that tablets herald the end of PCs. So are we expecting the software makers to bridge that gap that prevents me from playing World of Warcraft, writing a book in Word or LibreOffice, coding in Radrails, etc? I just don't see that happening. I think there's a fundamental hardware issue with capacitive touch. I am not certain it will ever get to the point where I feel comfortable doing serious work or serious gaming using a glassy surface as my input device. Maybe I'm getting old but I just have never been impressed with even the latest cellphone displays and their response.
I would speculate that most tablet users are first PC users at home and at the office. The tablet is a subset of the desktop computer and it's hard to reach all levels of functionality with only a tablet. So I would almost argue that tablets will bite into the PC market only in markets with people who just need a computer to surf the internet, play casual games and maybe e-mail. In my opinion, it's highly likely that Wintel and Armdroid will continue to coexist for many years with different functional targets.
this year's CES marked the end of the Wintel platform's dominance
There's potential but if you counted all the Wintel machines in use right now and all the Armdroid devices in use right now, I would bet Wintel would retain dominance in numbers. It's fun to get exited when it makes sense to you that this should happen but the reality is that Wintel still sits comfortably above a throne of untouchable marketshare.
My work here is dung.
Maybe the much-awaited Linux surge isn't going to be in desktops but on mobile devices. Increasingly, people have become resigned to the fact that their portable computing devices aren't going to (and don't have to) look like the PC at work.
Android and Meego (when it finally ships) are harbingers of the trend.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
The first rule of technology is that "If you don't canabalize your own business, someone else will do it for you". This is the classic tech product/company dilemna and we have lots of examples of dominant #1's who ignored this rule and are gone. Digital? Wang? Visicorp? Borland?
It would require comparatively radical changes(and possibly a cut to precious, precious margins); but it seems to me that both companies have a potential major asset that they could rely on in this "Post-PC" environment:
.NET/Silverlight/XNA, which is theoretically cross platform/cross architecture, and(while Apple would never touch that with somebody else's 10 foot pole), a few modifications would produce something that could be licenced to makers of Android gear that would allow it to run(nearly unmodified) .NET/Silverlight/XNA applications, produced in quantity by MS's generally well regarded developer tools. Not their preferred solution, of course, since selling OSes is more lucrative than selling runtimes(Hey Adobe, how's that "flash lite" licensing revenue working out for you?); but nothing in the relevant licenses would forbid the production of "Android for Enterprise", which takes a more or less stock build of Android; but has support for CLR software and a few interface layers to the android UI/notifications/address book. They've made money selling application software to Mac users for years, so this wouldn't be the world's most shocking departure, if Windows on tablet/phone doesn't really pan out...
For intel's part, their chip designs at the low-power end are mediocre and not as profitable as their Xeons and soak-the-gamers parts. However, their fabs are among the best. Were they to announce that some lucky ARM SoC maker could(for a large pile of quite public cold cash and some quiet restrictions designed to keep their product in tablets and away from Intel's bread and butter) be the only one in the industry to be fabbing their otherwise pedestrian wares on one of the smallest, lowest-power processes in the industry... Doing this would, of course, pretty much scotch their attempts to compete in the area with Atom parts, since their plan has been to die-shrink those until they can compete, so offering the competition matching die-shrinks means that that will take forever; but offering the competition die-shrinks will mean a profit per tablet/phone/whatever now, not in "just a few quarters from now, when cargo pants come back into style".
For Microsoft's part, it remains to be seen how well "Windows Phone 7" will end up doing; but, if nothing else, they have
I had high hopes for the Toshiba AC-100 but the reviews all say the same thing great hardware (with some odd keyboard decisions) badly let down by the Android implementation and self rolled App Store.
I don't understand why the OEMs seem so averse to taking a nice ARM netbook and partnering with one of the large and popular Linux distributions rather than rolling their own poor to unterley crap install or partner with some no name distribution, both of which fail to deliver a decent consumer experience or community.
ARM have been promising "ARM based laptops/netbooks will be out soon" for the last three years, so far their licensees and the OEMs have failed to deliver.
I'd say the market is there, I wonder now though if they'll just continue to chase Apple believing locked down tablets to be the market to chase rather than getting back to those of us who are waiting for a decent ARM netbook/laptop.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
A bubble is likely, but tablets are also a complementary market to the PC. Tablets might have an impact on PC/laptop sales, but they aren't going to spell the death of the platform anymore than Netbooks did.
And like the mighty tablet, Netbooks were predicted to deliver the death blow for PC's by pretty much every tech blog/zine. They ended up having a slight negative impact on PC sales, and then were banished to the land of the unhip the moment usable, inexpensive tablets hit the market. Netbooks failed to deliver on the hype because they were complementary technology, not replacement technology. Tablets are much the same.
Windows CE is a piece of shit and it is not even a contender except in the form of Windows Phone which by Microsoft's own statements will be superseded on future devices by Windows 8. So in fact you are talking from the wrong orifice. I've owned multiple WinCE devices; right now I have an iPaq H2215, a Digital Tech Dt366, and two Magellan GPSes (one of which I have hacked to run other stuff.) They are fucking garbage at all levels but especially the software. Actually, my Dt366 now runs Debian... and I have run Familiar on my H2215 (I hope to get Android working on it eventually, but I'm not trying very hard. OpenEmbedded steadfastly refuses to build a bootable system for me, every time I try someone has broken some different package. No testing is apparently built into the process of new package submission for OpenEmbedded or, by extension, Angstrom. It's a miracle when you get a build.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Something that the tech journalists who get infatuated with tablets seem to fail to consider is that they are lousy devices for content creation. They are good for passive experiences. If you want to surf the web or maybe watch a video (though a TV is better for that) they work great. However the more interactivity that is called for, the less useful they are. When you get to content creation, and by this I mean even simple things like writing an e-mail, they are not very good. They CAN do it, but not near as well as a regular PC.
A tablet can't match a keyboard, mouse, and monitor for entering information. This is because the keyboard is an efficient means of entry, and has tactile feedback, and you can be looking at what you are doing without your hands occluding part of your view.
So a tablet is fine as a toy, and for some special productivity purposes, but it lousy for most general work related things. That alone means that computers aren't going anywhere. Even if homes became 100% tablet, offices wouldn't because you need to get shit done there. Managers are not at all going to be interested in moving over to tablets and then have everything slow to a crawl as people's typing speed (among other things) goes through the floor.
I don't see computers doing anywhere any time soon, particularly not in favour of tablets. We've got a few people at work that have iPads and they amount to nothing but toys. They all crow about how wonderful they are, but all they do with them were things they already did with their laptops, and none of them have gotten rid of their laptops and kept just the tablet. That's all well and good, but it is quite clear tablets are not something that is allowing them to dump traditional computers.
The gadgets are fun to putz around with, don't get me wrong, but the fact that I still can't save an attachment from a gmail to my Android device without loading on some third party software means that there is a long way to go.
I can save gmail attachments to my Evo, no problem without any third party software. Now, if I want to open those attachments or even find them, then, yes, I will need third party apps. A file browser for example.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There is no end to the speculation of what certain things mean to the future of "the industry." Yes, tablets of varying sizes are extremely popular. They have been popular for a VERY long time starting with the Palm Pilot and some might argue even before that. But unquestionably, Palm (hand held computing) has proven to be a virtually addictive form of computing.
I don't recall, but I wonder if after the introduction and immense popularity of the Palm Pilot series of devices led people to speculate "the end of the PC as we know it?" Clearly that was not the case regardless of any speculation that may have occurred. But now we are looking at really souped up handheld devices that do a great deal more than their forerunners. A lot more of the desktop/laptop functionality is being copied into handheld devices now. But so far I see the following factors as cause not to believe that handheld computing will replace desktop computing:
1. Keyboards
2. Displays
3. General comfort
These factors all have one thing in common -- how the user interfaces with the device to make use of it. A full-sized keyboard is a must for any serious amount of data entry. It would take me four times as long or more to enter this comment from my android phone. Display sizes and positions also contribute to the comfort the user experiences. A good sized display at an appropriate elevation makes all sorts of computer use more comfortable. With handhelds, you can comfort your arms by holding the device low resulting in a "prayer" like position. (I have heard it called a "blackberry prayer" often enough) If the handheld were closer to eye level, then the arms would get tired pretty fast not to mention that the display would likely be held rather far from the user's face making it even more difficult to see the tiny displays. And if it were an iPad display, now you are dealing with an entirely different set of limitations and issues though iPad's display size is pretty optimal in my opinion though it means you can't put it into a small pocket.
The general comfort item was included to fill in the remaining gaps. But the fact is, the way handheld devices are used, they can't really be used for hours on end in comfort. Nothing really replaces the mouse. Nothing seems to overcome the need for a separate numeric keypad. (Though interestingly, since I started on things like C64 and TRS80 CoCo, it took some doing to get used to the 10-key at all... and I still don't use it so much personally -- I just say that people in general make a great deal of use of the 10-key portion of a keyboard even if I don't) To have your hand lower, your arms rested and your head vertical at once is a human ergonomic requirement that cannot be overcome without extreme technological improvements such as display "glasses" or projectors.
While there is unquestionably a revival in the popularity of handheld computing and data devices, I don't see it "replacing" the desktop PC just yet and it has little to do with their power and capacity and everything to do with how it is used. (These are details that gadget engineers tend to forget while they are taking advantage of ever more powerful things in ever more tiny packages.)
Someone at Intel needs to read Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma".
CompanyA is the leader in the high-end market. They see upstart CompanyB, who has a new (disruptive) technology that is targeting a new sub-market with lower profit margins. CompanyA says "Why do I want to compete with B at lower margins in an untested market, my customers don't want that product, and I am already in competition in my existing market. They can have those customers".
So CompanyB takes the new market with the new technology with ProductB and CompanyA keeps making ProductA. But over time, process improvements in B begin to outpace A; Intel's CISC are too much for hand-helds, but an ARM may someday become powerful enough (multicore perhaps) to become a desktop processor. Technology A is already at the height of it's S-curve, while B climbs and intersects the capabilities of A. At that point, products A & B are equal in the eyes of the customer, but B is cheaper and soon nibbles at A's customers. CompanyA is non-existent in the new market which is now growing at unforseen rates. CompanyA is now in a position where it *must* switch to technology B, but it is years behind, and making B's canibalizes CompanyA's existing customers. History has shown that the CompanyAs soon hopelessly fall behind and thus die off.
...yet another ignorant car analogy.
Ford "displaced" Mercedes Benz. Ferrari is something entirely else here. They are a speciality brand that came along later to exploit a speciality niche in a mature market.
It's Benz that represents the "older and better" tech here.
Contemplate that for a bit and pay attention to the other cars on the road next time you're driving. ...cause Benz never went anywhere.
Mindless hyperbole not required.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Microsoft's next-generation operating system has abandoned Intel exclusively for the first time." I had to go and read the article, which seemed like normal "tech news" crap. Then I read this line and it rubbed me the wrong way so badly. While technically it might be true, about Windows 8, it sounds like it's implying the NT OS has only ever been on Intel chips. That would be so very wrong, Comptia A+ learning guide's version of Windows history style of wrong.
I wrote my first program in 1970
;-)
I have used ICL, Burroughs, IBM, Univac, TI, DEC operating systems, VMS, nix, CP/M, MS DOS, win x, Apple OS etc etc
I have a wintel desktop which I use for devlopment activities, I carry an iPad, I have donated my laptops to nephews and nieces.
If I did not work in the IT 'space' I would happily use just my iPad.
If something better than that comes along I'll move on.
The world moves on, wintel was mainstream, it is becoming niche, I for one, have spent my career in technology because I love the excitement of new things and concepts coming along.
In my experience it is the wintel crowd who seem unable to look forward, and behave as though wintel has some sort of divine right to its previous dominance.
The most important development I have seen in my lifetime has been the internet, connectivity to it, html and the browser. For MOST people, that is how they do most of their computing, oh yes, and lightweight, non bloat, function specific 'apps'. Sadly, I will have to continue to use wintel on a daily basis as I have a server farm, rather than farmville.
J
Imagine being the guy they hire to manage an ARM port at Microsoft. Could there be a worse job at Microsoft?
Imagine how the ARM guy has to go around and convince various development, marketing and management fiefdoms built on x86 since day 2 to make an ideological shift to include or even imagine an ARM port.
-The costs will be blown sky-high if only to keep things just as they are right now.
-The resource constraints will be retold as enormous
-The market research will cast the ARM market as "bad" for all kinds of crazy reasons.
This ARM guy will probably quit if he has a brain in his head, or get fired for non-performance.
Meanwhile tiny non-x86 devices will eat away at Microsoft's business until they can't pretend any more and the 'business' collapses.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Something that the tech journalists who get infatuated with tablets seem to fail to consider is that they are lousy devices for content creation.
Only for a limited definition of content. For drawing they are far superior to laptops.
Even for writing they can be better, because they are so compact. I prefer taking short notes on a tablet.
For longer writing, you can attach (wirelessly or wired) a keyboard. How many times do you have to write something really long? For most people that is not a common case.
People like you are putting on rather large blinders pretending that tablets are not for content creation. The best tool for creation is one you have with you...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley