Slashdot Mirror
Will Microsoft Extend Surface Model And Manufacture Windows Phones?
Nerval's Lobster writes "A day after Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8, a company executive explained why the company never implemented native code in Windows Phone 7, declined to say whether Windows Phone 7.x would be upgraded beyond version 7.8, and said Microsoft has no plans to acquire an OEM to manufacture smartphones in-house. Of course, in theory that wouldn't stop Microsoft from building its own hardware in-house, similar to what Google did with the Nexus One. In any case, Microsoft's decision to construct its hardware and software in-house for the Surface tablet project has led to some chatter that it could do the same for smartphones."
because no one will buy them anyway.
HTC designed and manufactured it, Google just rebranded it.
Don't see why not. The dev tools are the same, the OS at least at the app layer is identical or nearly so. Assuming people like Surface I'm sure a Surface Phone version wouldn't be that hard to fire out.
isn't that what a Nokia branded Windows Phone is?
Say in a foreign country well-known for its mobile business which was teetering after having been dealt a big blow by the iPhone. It would need to somehow persuade them to ditch their current production runs and software stacks in favour of their own. It would have to install one of their own men at the top to oversee all this. Then it would have to ensure there is no chance of this business recovering by publicly announcing a new line of software which is totally incompatible with the line it promised to save them with, thus ensuring via the osborne effect none sell at all. Bankrupt, this mobile business could then be picked up for a song, and its patents would really come in handy too. The trouble is, everyone in the business would see this coming if they tried that. Wouldn't they?
I think a reference model is a good way to go. Works for many hardware vendors that also license their technology out(notably video card vendors, of course), works for showing what Android can do for Google, etc. No frills, no contract, just a piece of hardware that shines at showing what the base software can do without having all that other crap(Beats Audio, Dolby Surround, ginormous screen, etc) tacked on.
Given that they've just stiffed OEMs by announcing that literally EVERY unsold phone in the channel is now abandonware, they may NEED to start making their own. Who on earth would want to lose *more* money on phones that almost certainly won't sell?
Looks like they always have to talk, even if they don't have the vaguest idea if there is even the smallest element of truth to it.
Word.
Rampantly unfounded speculation for nerds.
they outsource manufacturing.. and in a lot of cases, even the design and development is outsourced... the "company" that sells whatever it is just slaps their name on it.
the largest electronics manufacturer in the world does not have a household name (except for when they make the news for employer-employee issues). it sells very few products at retail of its own. they are the lowest bidder that makes products for other companies.
apple is a software and design house. they outsource manufacturing. they basically exploit the cheap asian labor of foxconn. foxconn and apple have roughly the same gross revenues, but apple's net is over 10 times higher. foxconn has over a million employees while apple 'only' has about 60k. foxconn net revenue per employee is about $2,200.. apple's is over $425,000.
Microsoft is an excellent hardware manufacturer
Their keyboards an joysticks are the best (mid-range) hardware I've come across.
one coomon goal - All servers. Comin6 members' creative
this falls under the "why buy the cow when the milk is on sale?" tab. Nokia is sliding down the chute, and they're still spending a billion bucks to buy an outfit they're partnering with for camera technology they can't use in their WinPhone.
you get better value by burning the billions of dollars on cable TV in a pay-per-view.
there are 30 phone makers in china nobody has heard about that are making unlicensed clones for pennies on the dollar. give any of them a chance to bid on a million WinPhones with Microsoft writing the check, and they can have 'em for ten bucks each.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Ballmer's a cornered animal, with all the analysts gunning for him. he'll do anything at this point. that's what we're seeing in Surface and WinPhone8. just because big corporations got shook down for 10 years with "oh, it won't upgrade your existing machines well, but we won't support that old OS, you have to buy it all new" doesn't mean anybody is eating that crap any more. certainly corporations aren't. consumers want all the blingy new shiny without spending anything, just ask the MAFIAA.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I knew they'd throw the Finn's under the bus, but I didn't know they would do it so soon. Microsoft really is a treacherous business partner.
I guess it's only taken this long for MS to pick clean all the IP they're after, and build a list of employees to poach.
I know a lot of people won't agree with what I have to say, but we've seen it before. This is Microsoft's SOP in these sorts of situations. (Plays for sure, anyone?)
Or Clippy Mobile as a competitor for Siri.
I do hope that Microsoft make's hardware for each area there Operating Systems run.
1 - Microsoft would actually "own" their brand and products. Microsoft would sell what actually works correctly for their OS and give their brand a positive reflection instead of relying on questionable PC manufacturers who have caused a lot of Microsoft's brand to decay over the years.
2 - Each sold unit comes with Microsoft's store to upgrade and purchase. This makes the Microsoft eco system viable to others and we all see more competition and probably more Applications as a result, developers engage again to do what they once did to make in building their brand.
3 - They have core OS running across multiple devices and a strategy to interconnect all of them into a healthy full featured "experience" within the corporation and at home e.g. tabletop, desktop, laptop, tablet, mobile device, "glass, pixelsense" or "surface" consumers at all levels get more and can do more seemlessly.
4 - If Microsoft competed on the hardware end, we might see hardware venders build better products, start to innovate instead of copy.
5- Perhaps just maybe a company like HP might do more to bolster their Operating System to compete against Microsoft and Apple. Heck hardware vendors upset with Microsoft might actually sit down and take a hard look at Linux, doing improvements like Apple did to Berkeley Standard Distribution and help Linux connect with end users through interface and usability. Not just selling pre installed Linux, but building on it like Apple did with BSD.
When I look Microsoft being in the hardware business, what comes to mind is how they might be enabling some healthy competition, whether that competition means hardware vendors stepping up and developing the types of products people want and can rely on using a Windows operating system or their going out and making their own operating system that competes head to head, we the consumers are all better off for it. So from my viewpoint, Microsoft please, be in the hardware business, make products to exemplify your brand positively and shake up the OEMs who have become complacent for so many years.
To whom? Magical manufacturing pixies?
The companies that do the outsourcing outsource to, guess what, companies that do manufacturing. It is true that very frequently the companies that specialize in branding products and marketing them to consumers aren't the same companies that specialize in manufacturing the products, but it is very much not the case that companies don't make stuff anymore.
Maybe nothing. Nokia, assuming due dilligence was done, would not have blindly entered into a sole source relationship with Microsoft as software vendor without securing some sort of non-compete clause or at least a Most-favored-nation type deal for access to the software in the future. My guess is that Nokia will not find iiself competing against MS on phones.
On the other hand, maybe Nokia is just that stupid.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"ust because big corporations got shook down for 10 years with "oh, it won't upgrade your existing machines well, but we won't support that old OS, you have to buy it all new" doesn't mean anybody is eating that crap any more."
I agree. That's why my company doesn't buy any Apple products. But, we're still happily using Windows XP that was released 11 years ago.
They could play off nostalgia and make the default screen color blue.
Some here bleat on about 'Google bought Motorola for the patents'. Nevertheless, Motorola is in the doldrums as far as stealing back market share from the likes of Samsung.
Either Google closes down Moto's manufacturing division or they start pumping out Nexus models to revive them.
It's cool how all of slashdot's IT lifers are arm chair executives. Tell us more visionary one!
"Finnish him!"
Help stamp out iliturcy.
There seems to be one thing worse than being Microsoft's enemy. That is being their partner.
1: Elop takes over, and Osbournes them by announcing the switch to Windows Phone with no Windows Phone actually coming anytime soon.
2: Microsoft announces that Win8 will have a new Kernel and that currently for sale phones (Nokia Phones) won't be upgrading to new kernel, thus killing desire for current Nokia phones.
3: Microsoft starts making it's own Windows phones.
Step 3 is hypothetical at this point, but looks like it might be enough to kill already weakened Nokia.
"First they laugh at you. Then you fail. Then they laugh at you again."
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No. They'll just get their ass handed to them by Apple and Google. They sell into an extremely price-conscious segment of the market. Apple sells premium products to people who have the cash (and even then, Microsoft can't compete with them on price because it doesn't benefit from being the largest component purchaser in the world like Apple). Google gives their products away to then in turn sell eyeballs to advertisers. When they buy Motorola, assuming they keep the hardware business, they can still sell their product subsidized with ad revenues.
What can Microsoft subsidize their product with? App sales? But their customers are cheapskates who don't like to pay for anything, there aren't actually any RT apps worth paying for, and there won't be for another year or so (good apps with native experience take time to build). Ads? But their ads business sucks ass. It's a tough spot they've painted themselves into, and their unwillingness to fully embrace the ARM "pure tablet" form factor, and insistence on calling everything "Windows" will hurt them pretty bad.
Maybe?
Its tech - won't affect my career or salary so I don't care to speculate, or care about the product. Go learn something instead.
If they are smart, they will subsidize it with Windows and Office. Last I checked Microsoft wasn't exactly broke...
I see a lot of crapware, but nothing decent. Even the Kindle Fire is crapware at $200. Only good as an e-reader and to purchase stuff from Amazon. For everything else, it is horrendous ... even streaming movies is a pain ... and the quality of the display is poor.
Updates are released months or even years after 1st reported. They still have unfixed bugs and vulnerabilities that were reported since Windows 2000.
The fact that you see a path a few days after a vulnerability is publicized does not mean that MS just learned about it. It only means that that is when it became publicly known.
Dalvik by itself is a resource hog and the response to user input is VISUALLY SLUGGISH (please don't deny it ... it is very visible even with a quad-core). Add X support and you will have the most unresponsive mobile device in history. X is not lightweight ....
Not the cheap "skin" (Samsung is actually worst) .... it is the piss poor battery life.
The RAZR had a decent battery life .... for about 6 months. Then it degraded rapidly to a point that by the end of the 1st year you need to replaced it.
Microsoft can 'subsidize' their product with Corporate data-center integration.
Do you seriously think businesses want to give their employees smartphones that they can download games onto from App Stores. If Microsoft finally does it right and integrates their business apps (Office, Exchange, etc.) it won't matter what other smartphone vendors offer. Corporate IT will tell people what they are getting. And when said people realize how well their Outlook works, they'll be satisfied.
I don't believe that Microsoft Extend Surface Model And Manufacture Windows Phones. They want to eat the cake?
I really love club dresses ,
The employees will want to carry two devices?
If email is the only thing the device will support, why bother with a smartphone at all? There are feature phones that have that, or at least there were in the past.
These days BYOD is huge, companies don't want to pay for, support and insure/replace all these devices.