Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Sneak Attack On Apple: SkyDrive, Not Surface

New submitter curtwoodward writes "Microsoft won't become a hardware company — unless you count mice and keyboards, former Microsoftie Charlie Kindel argues — because that would mean competing with Apple on its terms. But Kindel says Microsoft may be embarking on a totally new business model by seeding its connected software services across all platforms. You saw more evidence this week with the release of SkyDrive for Android. 'For that to work, it can't just be Windows,' he says. 'As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices.'"

150 comments

  1. Not a hardware company? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They really don't think of the Xbox as hardware?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not a hardware company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or Surface (Either the old Big-Ass-Table, or new Tablet things). But that's missing the author's point. Those are afterthoughts, ways of getting the software out there.

      Apple is a hardware company that uses software to move their hardware.

      Microsoft is a software company that's now making hardware to move its software.

    2. Re:Not a hardware company? by greeze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they think of the Xbox as a platform for which they sell licensing, content, and advertising space. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd be surprised if they're making much money on sales of the Xbox hardware alone.

    3. Re:Not a hardware company? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the distinction lies in where and how the company is making money. Apple, despite taking a cut 30% cut on apps and all its iTunes sales, still makes the vast majority of its profits through physical hardware sales. Microsoft still makes the vast majority of its money through software sales and services. With the Xbox in particular, the opportunity for revenue lies in software and media services, especially as the console is starting to transition into more of a general living room entertainment device rather than a gaming device. Even Microsoft is experimenting with selling the hardware as cheap as possible and subsidizing it with an Xbox live subscription, which hopefully leads to future media purchases.

      And as for the surface, I think it's already done its job. The majority of the tablets revealed over the past week by Asus, Samsung, and Sony are all very Surface-like (in that they all focus on hybrid design for work rather than pure content consumption slates), as opposed to being iPad clones like the earlier Android tablet generation. To me, Surface appears to be Microsoft's attempt to steer the tablet space in a different direction rather than an attempt to claim the tablet space with their own hardware.

    4. Re:Not a hardware company? by deltaromeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      They really don't think of the Xbox as hardware?

      No, they were thinking outside of the x box

    5. Re:Not a hardware company? by samkass · · Score: 1

      I think they think of the Xbox as a platform for which they sell licensing, content, and advertising space. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd be surprised if they're making much money on sales of the Xbox hardware alone.

      In fact, they're still pretty far in the red even if you include everything, according to their accumulated quarterly statements since they created the division.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:Not a hardware company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Surface (Either the old Big-Ass-Table, or new Tablet things). But that's missing the author's point. Those are afterthoughts, ways of getting the software out there.

      Apple is a hardware company that uses software to move their hardware.

      Microsoft is a software company that's now making hardware to move its software.

      That's incorrect. Apple is a Systems company.

    7. Re:Not a hardware company? by lilfields · · Score: 1

      Xbox turns profitable a few years ago, but the entertainment division is being drug down by Zune and Windows Phone...but Zune is being merged into Xbox and Windows Phone 8 looks pretty promising.

    8. Re:Not a hardware company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it Experience?

    9. Re:Not a hardware company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird...I've never seen a Microsoft Tablet...I've seen a Samsung and Asus Tablets running Microsoft software...I'm just saying.

    10. Re:Not a hardware company? by hackula · · Score: 1

      It would be a laugh if Surface turned out to be 100% vaporware just to get the OEMs to actually do something. More like a "design standard" than an actual product.

    11. Re:Not a hardware company? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, people do tend to associate MS as a sw house even when typing things MS keyboards. the hw is seen just as a tack on to sell the sw experience.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Not a hardware company? by trancemission · · Score: 1

      Thank you - I was loosing the will to live after reading this article and comments.

    13. Re:Not a hardware company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it would be funny, but a good business move. There's no point in competing with the OEMs but there's a great incentive to motivate them to move in the right direction.

    14. Re:Not a hardware company? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      It would be a laugh if Surface turned out to be 100% vaporware just to get the OEMs to actually do something.

      It's called a "queen's duck".

      And you're right, Microsoft marketing loves them. They announce some controversial feature, reap millions of dollars worth of free online discussion, and then get to announce that they listen to their customers when they remove the "feature".

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    15. Re:Not a hardware company? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 0

      Or Surface (Either the old Big-Ass-Table, or new Tablet things). But that's missing the author's point. Those are afterthoughts, ways of getting the software out there. Apple is a hardware company that uses software to move their hardware. Microsoft is a software company that's now making hardware to move its software.

      Sure, that's why Steve Jobs often quoted Alan Kay in saying, “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”

      Because he wanted to hide the "fact" that "Apple is a hardware company that uses software to move their hardware". Sure.

      Think about this: do people complain that Apple has too many software or hardware patents?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re:Not a hardware company? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Are you intentionally dense? This was even covered on fucking Slashdot.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    17. Re:Not a hardware company? by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      Turning profitable doesn't magically mean your division still isn't in the red. That was an awfully deep hole dug with the originally Xbox to the point that a Sony exec commented that Microsoft's Xbox could bleed money forever and it wouldn't matter to the company while Sony needed PlayStation to be profitable.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    18. Re:Not a hardware company? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Maybe he lives with the old attitude that; just because someone shows a powerpoint it doesn't mean they have a product. Microsoft very decisively didn't let anyone actually know the specifications or play with the hardware for more than a few minutes. That doesn't count as "having" a product.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    19. Re:Not a hardware company? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They demonstrated a working model too. The fact that it crashed when they opened IE is irrelevant.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    20. Re:Not a hardware company? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      They demonstrated a working model too.

      They allowed journalists to use a product mock up in one given room. None of those jouralists could see inside; none of them could do anything serious with it. You have no idea if it had mobile network hardware or not; it could have just been working over WiFi. You have no idea how long the battery would last (it could be as low as 1 hour). You have no idea how much of it was implemented in the device and how much was actually running on a remote server. The fact that IE crashed is; as you say, a complete irrelevant distractor.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    21. Re:Not a hardware company? by allo · · Score: 1

      the xbox is a "me too" product.

    22. Re:Not a hardware company? by MonkeyOfRage · · Score: 1

      Who complains about hardware patents?

    23. Re:Not a hardware company? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Apple is a FUD company.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    24. Re:Not a hardware company? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The fact that IE crashed says a great deal. It wasn't ready when they demo'd the thing, and each passing day, Google (via Samsung) and Apple are pulling ahead. It is like WP7 vs Android and iPhones, it is clear that these are "me too" devices trying to stay relevant.

      Microsoft has painted themselves into the "Windows" corner they are in. Windows 8 is nothing more than "me too" for tablets.

      I'll tell you who the winner will be as soon as I see the following. Consumer Tablet that can be managed by a Corporate MDM* that is polished and supported end to end. If Google made a MDM for Android, it would be game over for Apple and Microsoft.

      Give me a MDM where I can push all the documentation, allow for Forms Signing, integration into Enterprise Systems, enabling signed applications that are Pushed onto devices etc etc etc. I wish I could be Project Manager for something like that, I'd have beta out in a year, and full 1.0 version in 18 Months with Feature adds every quarter.

      *MDM = Mobile Device Manager. Allows Enterprise control over devices, namely tablets and phones.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re:Not a hardware company? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And as for the surface, I think it's already done its job. The majority of the tablets revealed over the past week by Asus, Samsung, and Sony are all very Surface-like (in that they all focus on hybrid design for work rather than pure content consumption slates), as opposed to being iPad clones like the earlier Android tablet generation.

      The majority of tablets you're talking about were not actually revealed last week - e.g. all the Asus line-up was announced before Surface, it just used codenames back then (google for Tablet 610 and Tablet 810). Similarly, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba all had convertible offerings announced before Surface.

      It really doesn't take Surface to understand that the ability to work well on a convertible device like that is the biggest differentiator that Win8 has to offer when compared side-by-side with iOS.

  2. Ohrly? by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

    So what happens when it starts doing "too well" and gets banned from the AppStore for violating it's guidelines?

    1. Re:Ohrly? by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lawsuits and probably retaliatory banning of itunes from all Win devices. MS isn't some shoestring app. developer.

    2. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

      So what happens when it starts doing "too well" and gets banned from the AppStore for violating it's guidelines?

      The DoJ will start looking at Apple for anti-competitive behavior. It's one thing to screw over a bunch of tiny App developers with your capricious and arbitrary rules, but quite another to screw over the second largest technology company in the world.

    3. Re:Ohrly? by dnaumov · · Score: 2

      'As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

      So what happens when it starts doing "too well" and gets banned from the AppStore for violating it's guidelines?

      The DoJ will start looking at Apple for anti-competitive behavior. It's one thing to screw over a bunch of tiny App developers with your capricious and arbitrary rules, but quite another to screw over the second largest technology company in the world.

      Anti-competitive behavior is perfectly legal, abusing monopoly powers isn't and Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones (you could argue they do have a monopoly on tablets though). In fact, App Store guidelines specifically state that apps that directly re-implement a feature already offered by Apple are forbidden. The fact that there are popular apps on the App Store that do this simply means that Apple either hasn't had a pressing need or the guts (due to potential backlash) to shut them down, but they absolutely and definately can and it would be perfectly legal.

    4. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is not a monopoly; antitrust law doesn't apply.

    5. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in tablets, thus they apply.

    6. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a monopoly has nothing to do with engaging in Monopolistic behaviors. You can be a monopoly and not get an antitrust suit. You can also be a player in a saturated market and get an antitrust suit.

    7. Re:Ohrly? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Look up the word Monopoly sometime.

    8. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is anti-competitive behavior legal? Every antitrust suit that has been filed was for anti-competitive behavior.

    9. Re:Ohrly? by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't have to have a monopoly to be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft didn't have one, nor Nintendo when for "blocking competitive software from being sold" on the NES.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it won't get banned. the app simply won't be accepted nor rejected
      it'll instead remain in the forever limbo of "please revise"
      ask any app developer about their fear of this limbo

    11. Re:Ohrly? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      yeah? 5 years later and the court sides with Apple and demands Apple reinstate Office 2012 on their new 2017 range of devices. Apple shrugs its shoulders and reluctantly complies.....

      I can see it being a total lose-lose scenario for Apple...

    12. Re:Ohrly? by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Since when is anti-competitive behavior legal? Every antitrust suit that has been filed was for anti-competitive behavior.

      If all anti-competitive behaviour was illegal, the first wave of suits would come directly at the federal goverment of the USA, since various subsidies, protectionism, tariffs and quotas all qualify as anti-competitive behaviour.

    13. Re:Ohrly? by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      You don't have to have a monopoly to be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft didn't have one, nor Nintendo when for "blocking competitive software from being sold" on the NES.

      Except that Microsoft DID have a monopoly and afaik, Nintento won that suit.

    14. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or what happens if it does "too well" and apple hires bank robbers to steal all of microsoft's money.

      (this comment has a much basis as the parent)

    15. Re:Ohrly? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You can also be a player in a saturated market and get an antitrust suit

      How? (Assuming saturated means no dominant player)

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Ohrly? by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits and probably retaliatory banning of itunes from all Win devices. MS isn't some shoestring app. developer.

      How is Windows going to keep me from installing an application - iTunes or not?

      (Disclosure: I don't have iTunes installed anywhere and I'll never install it. But I insist on being able to install even iTunes if I feel like it.)

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    17. Re:Ohrly? by chakan2 · · Score: 0

      Windows 8 likely can if you are on an RT version. (If I remember correctly, all RT apps must be metro and must come through the Windows app store).

    18. Re:Ohrly? by Stalks · · Score: 1

      Okay.

    19. Re:Ohrly? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Anti-competitive behavior is perfectly legal, abusing monopoly powers isn't

      You seem to have the opposite grasp of anti-trust laws than is reality.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    20. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-trust laws.

    21. Re:Ohrly? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft did not have a monopoly. They did not have 100% of the OS market as there were other options at the time (Mac, Amiga, ST, OS/2, ...). And Nintendo lost the suit, and was forced by the courts to reveal the lockout code so other manufacturers like Atari & Sega could sell games on the NES.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:Ohrly? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Go look up the meaning of antitrust. Monopoly conduct is only part of it - also covered is anti-competitive actions by any company, even in a saturated market.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    23. Re:Ohrly? by spongman · · Score: 1

      not now, but down the line, maybe by win9, the non-metro, non-store-requiring 'desktop experience pack' will be only available in the 'pro' versions, or for an addition price.

      developers will take their time to port stuf to metro initially, but they'll be pushed to do this eventually if they want to take advantage of the full windows user-base.

      Apple is doing the same thing with gatekeeper. it's not mandatory, but it's enough of a pain that it encourages developers to use the App store.

      both MS and Apple pushing developers towards their respective stores will end, eventually, in the death of the existing open distribution model we have today.

    24. Re:Ohrly? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      How is Windows going to keep me from installing an application - iTunes or not?

      That's easy when you sell a black box.

      If alternatives to the wintel monopoly weren't so strong you'd see that card played much more often. And you will see it if you let MS or Apple or Google own too much of your computing infrastructure.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    25. Re:Ohrly? by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      You can install anything you like but that doesn't mean it will work. Microsoft famously broke QuickTime more than once on purpose because they didn't like that installing QuickTime associated all media files with it. This is why all media applications now request which media files you would like to associate with it--has nothing to do with giving consumers choice.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    26. Re:Ohrly? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits and probably retaliatory banning of itunes from all Win devices. MS isn't some shoestring app. developer.

      Whatever caused this to happen would be a good thing, even if it involved the sacrifice of babies and the rule for a thousand generations of the legions of Hell..

      And I think Apple are just rich and cocky enough now to risk it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Ohrly? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Anti-competitive behavior is perfectly legal

      It's always a good day when you get to read technically accurate legal information on slashdot. Sadly, today is not one of those days.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft did not have a monopoly. They did not have 100% of the OS market

      You don't need 100% of a market in order to be called a monopoly...

      And Nintendo lost the suit, and was forced by the courts to reveal the lockout code

      Citation needed. The only suit that I can think of that you would be trying to refer to is Galoob vs Nintendo. Now I am not a lawyer, so it's possible it is buried in legalese, but nothing immediately stands out as requiring Nintendo to handover their lockout codes. But I would love to know more about which court case you are referring to, and which part forces Nintendo to hand over their lockout codes. Care to enlighten us? From your posting history, I suspect that you don't want to enlighten us at all, and would prefer us to just trust your word. But I figure it can't hurt to ask.

    29. Re:Ohrly? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      For regular Intel Win32/Win64 apps, yes, Windows isn't going to stop you installing iTunes any time soon.

      However, you cannot run software Microsoft hasn't approved in the Metro environment, or on ARM. So going forward, there are certainly ways in which Microsoft can tighten the noose around any application it doesn't like. At the very least, Microsoft can make running iTunes on Windows tablets a painful experience, and use the death of a thousand API cuts to make running iTunes under Desktop Windows an experience not dissimilar to running a Win16 app under Windows 7.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    30. Re:Ohrly? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can also be a player in a saturated market and get an antitrust suit

      How? (Assuming saturated means no dominant player)

      Off the top of my head, by being part of a cartel that artificially fixes prices amongst its members, none of whom individually have a monopoly.

      This is probably more common than being a sole monopoly in fact.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Ohrly? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They did have a monopoly, it just wasn't a monopoly in the OS market. The strict definition of Microsoft monopoly for the purpose of the United States v. Microsoft trial was the very first thing that was defined by the plaintiffs, and the definition was "Intel-based personal computers".

    32. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting how you have your own version of the English language and everyone else is always wrong. Even when someone corrects you, you reply without bothering to make a single Google search. You do this so often, that I regularly say to my office mate, "Hey! You know that guy on Slashdot who is always wrong? Guess what he said today?" It doesn't even make sense for the definition of a monopoly to be 100%. That's pretty much an impossible requirement. If that was the definition, the word would be entirely useless. I'd expect someone of average intelligence to figure that you.

    33. Re:Ohrly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does too well, then Apple risks losing all their customers who were happily using Skydrive by banning it. Their best course of action would be to block it pre-emptively so their customers don't get used to it in the first place.

  3. Hotmail for storage? by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Informative

    not sure I need that

    1. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't but it's a big market for a lot of players. Either you've been asleep or you're just another knee-jerk troll who screams anytime MS is mentioned.

    2. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Dan667 · · Score: 0, Troll

      based on microsoft's track record I don't think I would trust them with my data, both reliability and privacy. And I am not sold on the new marketing "cloud". Mainframes have their place, but all the problems with them did not go away just, because they renamed then "the cloud". No on cares about your data as much as you do.

    3. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm having a hard time figuring out how they could expect people to want or trust their cloud services.
      The concept seems to go against instinct.

      http://gigaom.com/2009/10/10/when-cloud-fails-t-mobile-microsoft-lose-sidekick-customer-data/

      http://www.webmonkey.com/2008/04/microsoft_kills_playsforsure__screws_over_loyal_customers/

    4. Re:Hotmail for storage? by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>based on microsoft's track record I don't think I would trust them with my data, both reliability and privacy.

      But you would trust Google or Apple to keep your stuff private? Hahahahahahahahaahahaha! And let's not forget it was Google who suffered a major crash that lost people's emails, so you can't truth them on reliability either.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's why:

      o People are cheap: they don't want to buy a NAS or even a 2nd HD

      o People can't do math: they can't figure out that x/month eventually costs more than xxx right now

      o People are lazy: they want someone else to take responsibility for their stuff

      o People are gullible: they think that big companies will take good care of their data

    6. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The first one was a Microsoft subsidiary (Danger - ironic), and most sane people who aren't looking for knee-jerk reasons to hate the parent company recognise that this does not actually reflect to the same extent on the actions of the parent company. The second is completely fucking irrelevant.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate? No. Microsoft just seems increasingly irrelevant except for the annoyance of the current spam/hype. I think many perceive Microsoft attitude as much like what you showed with the citations, shrugging off responsibility and seemingly not caring for grief customers experience.

      As for most feeling mistrust, I think indifference and reckless disregard was shown by MS during those decades of buggy security design and coding that resulted in billions in damages, and man-hours lost adding up to lifetimes wasted. Many known issues weren't addressed until after damage was already occurring.

      Of course you'll probably blame the customers.

      With a track record that includes numerous flops, any trust in new MS products has to be earned. Flooding sites like this with stories won't generate love. It's offensive.

    8. Re:Hotmail for storage? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      you need to lookup what a straw man argument is. This is a very nice example.

    9. Re:Hotmail for storage? by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget it was Google who suffered a major crash that lost people's emails, so you can't truth them on reliability either.

      The accounts were restored. Don't take my word for it, read the Wall Street Journal.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  4. Memo to Microsoft by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

    Yes, please. Try fixing MS Office and Outlook for Mac before embarking on a SkyDrive project.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone let Apple know, that Itunes on windows is garbage.

    2. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Someone let Apple know, that Itunes on windows is garbage.

      Is barely worse than iTunes on Mac OS.

    3. Re:Memo to Microsoft by BLToday · · Score: 1

      They already know, it's part of the plan.

    4. Re:Memo to Microsoft by FitForTheSun · · Score: 1

      "As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

      Seriously. Microsoft should concentrate on the "work really well" part, and then after that work on the "Apple devices" part.

    5. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what GP was saying. It's garbage.

    6. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices."

      Yes, please. Try fixing MS Office and Outlook for Mac before embarking on a SkyDrive project.

      I don't know about Office, or Outlook software on OS-X, but I do know the newest update to the Outlook Web Access works GREAT and looks the same on IE, Safari, and Firefox. ...Even Firefox on Linux. It's still Outlook, but at least it WORKS now, where it never did before, so it is no longer totally reliant on Active-X plug ins. Microsoft Outlook still sucks, but this is major progress for them.

    7. Re:Memo to Microsoft by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

      Someone let Apple know, that Itunes on windows is garbage.

      iTunes seems to work fine for me on windows as well as OS X. Maybe you are doing something wrong. Are you trying to run it on a machine with less than 4GB of memory on Windows 7? Two GB of ram is the bare minimum for Windows 7 let alone running other applications. Even with 2 GB or ram, it runs reasonably well in windows with a fairly large library.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    8. Re:Memo to Microsoft by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's depressing. Apple usually puts so much effort into its software. iTunes is a key user interface, not just for the music store but also for the iPhone, its big money-maker.

      I knew the Windows version sucked. I thought it was because they didn't want to put too much effort into porting it. But it's weird to think that such a crucial piece of software isn't better on its home turf.

    9. Re:Memo to Microsoft by lilfields · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should just bite the bullet and license the ability to sync iPhones and iPods on their Xbox Music service...if that's possible anymore, I know for the longest time you could sync music with Winamp, etc. The Zune program is stellar though, such a good media player.

    10. Re:Memo to Microsoft by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Is there a better piece of software to hold up as an example?

      Make sure it does *everything* iTunes does.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Memo to Microsoft by jfengel · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure if there really is an alternative for *everything* iTunes does. It exists to support a particular proprietary device. But that doesn't mean that the application can be slow, unresponsive, and clunky, as it is in Windows.

      I assumed that "slow" and "unresponsive" were due to a mismatch in the threading model, and that "clunky" was just "unfamiliar to a Windows user". (For a long time it was also crash-prone, though that's been fixed, at least for the ways I use it.) But I've heard from multiple Mac users that it's no more familiar to them; it has idiosyncratic ways of doing things that don't match up with their expectations from other Mac software.

      I use it because it does the one thing I rely on it to do very well: it downloads podcasts and automatically (more or less) syncs them to my iPod. But it remains slow and unresponsive, and the iTunes Music Store interface for seeking out new podcasts remains barbaric.

      Part of the problem may well be that it does *everything* that it does, and that the whole thing needs to be refactored into orthogonal applications. But that's up to them; I don't use most of its features.

    12. Re:Memo to Microsoft by SQLGuru · · Score: 2

      The current (soon to be dead [sadly]?) Zune software does a good job. Plenty of reviews (even by sites that favor Apple product) have said as much. And it has parallel features to almost every feature in iTunes (I don't use iTunes, so there may be some obscure ones that it can't match -- but the major features are covered).

    13. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      You should see Safari. On OS X, you have a 50/50 chance of it simply vanishing when you open a new tab. Most unstable piece of shit I've encountered on the Mac. It doesn't hang as often as iTunes though.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    14. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You know the ActiveX control in question was XMLHTTPRequest right? As in, the FIRST XHR? It was kind of necessary at the time, and thank fuck that standards bodies and other browser vendors actually picked up on that and made it happen in a cross-platform fashion.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    15. Re:Memo to Microsoft by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Can't Microsoft just wait Apple out. Seriously, the iPhone and iPad are out of steam and new tricks they can do. Android has caught up. Surface + Windows RT/8 will completely end the Bring Your Own Toy problem in the corporate world, and probably knock it out of the park with consumers.

      Apple's decline will start in earnest in a little over 12 months. Stock price will begin to nosedive a couple quarters after that. There are not any new tech fields they can push into either to get themselves out of this which will be out of academic research for another 24-48 months (flexible displays, wearable computing, implants, etc...).

      The possible exception is Apple's clone of Google Glass, but I suspect without anything truly novel to add to the version of iOS it would run, that Android and Windows RT goggles will both beat them to market and be incredibly cheaper and more complete.

    16. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Steve, is that you? What did I tell you about posting on /.? Get back into your cage before Mongo gets the cattle prod...

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    17. Re:Memo to Microsoft by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the only reason you could sync ipods with winamp was that the protocol was reverse engineered/hacked. apple never wanted people to use anything else than itunes, because they want you to buy your shit with itunes.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone let M$ know, that winblows is garbage.

      FTFY

      --
      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
      Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

    19. Re:Memo to Microsoft by not+flu · · Score: 1

      Doing everything that iTunes does is part of the problem. Why would you want that?

      Not that iTunes's bloat and suck can be attributed just to having too many features.

    20. Re:Memo to Microsoft by not+flu · · Score: 1

      Safari 5.1.7 is rock solid on OS X 10.6.8 in my experience. Not that I use it as the default browser anyways, maybe I should...

    21. Re:Memo to Microsoft by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that Apple has stopped supporting 10.6, and that Safari on it will not be getting further updates. That version of Safari is outdated and contains over a hundred security holes. It is not a safe browser to be using. You can get infected simply by opening a malicious site.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    22. Re:Memo to Microsoft by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Apple's not really a software company (if they were they would have gone out of business approximately 300 years ago).

      Now that iPhones/Pods/Pads don't need to use iTunes to set themselves up, I'm sure Apple will soon abandon the whole hideous piece of bit-vomit as soon as they legally can.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Memo to Microsoft by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So your solution is what? To have 7 apps?

      1. Music player/manager/recommendation system
      2. Video player/manager/recommendation system
      3. Device manager
      4. App manager
      5. Music purchase
      6. Video purchase
      7. App purchase

      What would you cut out while still keeping it simple for *everyone* to manage their devices/music/video/apps/etc.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    24. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure it does *everything* iTunes does.

      Apple have $100 BILLION in the bank right now. Actual hard cash in the bank.

      With that amout of money to fund development, there is NO EXCUSE for crap software from that company. They could fund 100 internal projects to rewrite iTunes and throw away the 99 crappest ones and NOT EVEN NOTICE the cost.

    25. Re:Memo to Microsoft by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yeah. this is 10.8 Mountain Lion. Almost regret that upgrade.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. Madness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means finally shifting away from its legacy business of licensing operating systems, and instead sprinkling consumer and productivity apps across the new computing ecosystems

    It's important to remember that Microsoft didn't start out as an OS vendor. But would you buy a MS app for your iDevice?

  6. Constructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, a constructive focus. Well done!

  7. Re:Ohrly? Simple: by mujadaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft sues for anti-trust.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  8. Oh, the irony by killmenow · · Score: 1

    Apple's new internal motto: Mac OS X isn't done until SkyDrive won't run.

    1. Re:Oh, the irony by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Apple's new internal motto: Mac OS X isn't done until SkyDrive won't run.

      Given Microsoft's long and storied history of writing software for platforms that aren't theirs .. they may do that on their own.

      Other than Office for the Mac, which last I heard is largely neglected and not well maintained, I'm not sure I can think of a single application Microsoft ever wrote from scratch with the intent of supporting operating systems other than their own. And definitely not multiple platforms with the same thing.

      I'm sure there are examples I just don't know of, but Microsoft hasn't traditionally made a practice of writing code for other environments. I'm sure they have the resources for it, but they don't really have a history of doing it.

      I fear in the end they might end up just buying someone who has already taken a stab at it and getting them to retool to their protocols. But, hey, they might surprise us and do something really cool.

      But there might be a large percentage of people with Apple devices who ask themselves "why on Earth would I want this from Microsoft?". In which case, this might be doomed to indifference.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Oh, the irony by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      The problem with Office for Mac is that, even if it's neglected and not maintained, it works better than Office for Windows. More stable, follows OS user interface guidelines better than Office for Windows (or, in fact, most Apple software). Better file compatibility between versions and systems. Faster. Less crashing.

      Weird.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Oh, the irony by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      What are you even talking about? Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is largely recognised as the largest third party Mac developer in the world. Where you get "hasn't made a practice of writing code for other environments" I'll never understand.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:Oh, the irony by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      At least some time ago, that may have been become Office for Mac developers were in California with the rest of the company in Washington. So they may have been less affected by the stench of strange practices and ideology.

  9. Exactly so. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    They need to embrace non-windows platforms cause that's where the action is right now.

    Once they've destroyed all semblance of competition, THEN they can tighten the noose and force everyone onto Windows.

  10. "work really well on all devices" by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    So I take this as a threat by Microsoft to make something that "works really well"? How about getting the "works really well" part first, then maybe the "all devices" part.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:"work really well on all devices" by lilfields · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure Microsoft has a skydrive surprise in store around their Xbox music launch.

  11. Too bad by falcon5768 · · Score: 2

    Google beat them to the punch with Google Drive. Likewise with reports that after the Samsung spat Google and Apple are talking about sharing their IPs with each other, I dont think Apple has anything to fear with Redmond anymore.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    1. Re:Too bad by DaHat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too bad Microsoft beat them all (Google Drive & iCloud) with Live Mesh back in 2008.

    2. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you retarded? skydrive is 5 years old.

    3. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did? Skydrive was out a really, really long time before Google Drive. Skydrive's desktop sync app was out before G-Drive's (and works better- far fewer resources). The 2013 Web Apps (Word, Excel, PPT, Onenote) are substantially more advanced than Google Docs.

    4. Re:Too bad by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      Beat them to what punch? Skydrive has been around longer and offers more storage (way more if you've been a user for a while. My account has 25 GB for free), extra space is cheaper, it integrates with more mobile platforms, it integrates with a cloud and desktop office suite... I can't see any reason I would want to use Google Drive over Skydrive.

    5. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MobileMe and iDrive easily pre-dates Live Mesh.

    6. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What punch. Skydrive offers phenomenal storage (especially for older users) and very potent web apps. Dropbox has its API which makes it useful where Skydrive falls short. Google Drive has... neither? And as for my favorite 'Cloud' implementation - that would be Live Mesh. Which MS sadly seems to be ignoring. Customizing individual folder sync settings is so much more useful than a tree... (great for keeping things like settings, save games, and other tidbits synced - you could symlink them - but it just lacks that 'convenience' feeling)

    7. Re:Too bad by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

      Only if July 9, 2008 (MobileMe/iDrive) predates April 23, 2008 (Live Mesh Beta [it never exited beta]). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mesh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileMe#MobileMe

    8. Re:Too bad by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I can't see any reason I would want to use Google Drive over Skydrive.

      So Google can do a better job of datamining your life and serving relevant ads?
      /snicker

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic fail on your part. I suggest you actually read the links you post. iDisk was available in iTools dating back to Mac OS 9 in the 2000-2002 time frame.

    10. Re:Too bad by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Informative

      The AC referenced the wrong services, but an Apple service did pre-date Live Mesh.

      The MobileMe service replaced .Mac, which replaced iTools. The first version of iDisk was part of iTools, and came out January 2000 (as noted further up the second page you linked to).

      The AC inadvertently mentioned a service that preceded even iTools: i-drive launched its online storage service in August 1999.

    11. Re:Too bad by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Check the start date of SkyDrive. It wasn't very good back then, but it was available back in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skydrive

    12. Re:Too bad by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      Skydrive offers phenomenal storage (especially for older users) and very potent web apps.

      I am almost forty years old. What does it get me?

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    13. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google beat them to the punch with Google Drive. Likewise with reports that after the Samsung spat Google and Apple are talking about sharing their IPs with each other, I dont think Apple has anything to fear with Redmond anymore.

      Sorry,Skydrive has been around a lot longer.

    14. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skydrive offers phenomenal storage (especially for older users) and very potent web apps.

      I am almost forty years old. What does it get me?

      So am I. What does it get me? Lots of laughs. Yep, store all your files in "the cloud"....... HA! idiots, someones gonna learn you good.

  12. "Seeding" Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeding their services on all platforms.. .. Diluting the market, driving competitors out of business, and finally closing said services on all non-microsoft platforms once the competition is gone. (Probably closing some of those platforms too)

    Microsoft enters markets to dilute and destroy, not to compete.

  13. Re:Ohrly? Simple: by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft sues for anti-trust.

    After all, they have irony clad arguments to do that!

  14. Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when Apple decides that the M$ distribution toy is no longer welcome on its devices, what then?

  15. And when it rains, it pours. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > by seeding its connected software services across all platforms

    Cloud needs mist.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Microsoft has no advantage in the cloud market by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

    The fundamental problem is that if Microsoft "[moves] away from its licensed operating system business model", it is throwing away its primary competitive edge – the whole multi-billion-dollar Windows ecosystem – in favor of other markets where competition is fiercer, profit margins are lower, and (most importantly) Microsoft doesn't have a massive legacy advantage. Businesses pay billions of dollars collectively for licenses to Windows and Office because: (1) they need them to run legacy programs and read legacy documents; (2) all their employees already know how to use them; and (3) everyone *else* is using them, so they need to do the same thing for interoperability. Steve Ballmer doesn't seem to understand these basic facts, so he is undercutting the core business of Microsoft to chase after newer, sexier markets.

    1. Re:Microsoft has no advantage in the cloud market by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Nah. It's just a new generation of embrace, extend, extinguish.

      They're only at embrace right now.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Microsoft has no advantage in the cloud market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. not true by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices.

    Of course, if you flip it around and look at how amazingly bad iTunes is on the PC, you'll notice how that statement is complete BS. In fact, anyone anywhere knows that Apple became popular by creating the fake image that if you buy an Apple device, you can show off and tell your friends you're better than them. Now that too many people have Apple products, that fell apart so they've resorted to lying about being better at graphics and video editing and suing their competition.

    Back to the original article's point, all that they need to beat Apple's iphone and ipad is the keyboard. EVERYONE who types over 30WPM on a standard keyboard hates typing on ipads and iphones. They could put up a giant banner at Best Buy with the Microsoft Surface tablet on it and just put "It has a physical keyboard" and that's all that's necessary. Or they could really drive up the score by adding another banner under it that says: "Screw skydrive, Screw iCloud, this has a USB port." People do know how to use flash drives these days and my flash drive worked just fine last February 29th, unlike some clouds.

    1. Re:not true by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      You seem to be unaware that iOs devices work great with Bluetooth keyboards...just like the Surface keyboard. Anybody that wants one is free to use one.

    2. Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's look at this way: OP suggests advertising "this thing has a keyboard" and your claim is that any* bluetooth kb can work with iPad.

      Now let's get the "tiny" detail why OP makes sense and you almost makes sense: Surface's "smart cover" includes the keyboard.

      That's the key difference- most people carry their iPad with smart cover and even sleeves (heck, I do that) but they don't carry a kb all the time. If your keyboard is in your smart cover in a way that it's not obtrusive and, if you want, it's there: I can definetely see a winning point.

      Obviously- we're still talking about Win8 whcih we know how it's going to be but no real-world stats to back it up. Let's see how the market behaves.

      After the Sammy vs Apple trial and the interesting behavior reported by a few that people are looking into Samsung stuff as opposed to the already owned Apple stuff, maybe that crowd can actually be swayed.

      I won't obviously. I do indeed like my iPad/iPhone and will replace them when they actually break- at that point, maybe a Win8 phone? Who knows

      AC because I'm moderating :\

  18. Uh, yeah right by BurfCurse · · Score: 2

    Windows couldn't make Windows Live Mesh run on their own platform. What makes you think they can make Windows SkyDrive work on someone else's?

    1. Re:Uh, yeah right by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they can make Windows SkyDrive work on someone else's?

      The fact that it already does? iOS app has been there for several months now.

  19. Subscription Model? by Mitaphane · · Score: 1

    I've been hearing for years that Microsoft is moving to a subscription model for all its software products. I'm still not buying that this is the heart of any strategy.

    Perhaps I can see a complete subscription model working in the Enterprise segment, but the consumer segment? I don't see it. I don't doubt that MS plans on building out services that they hope to attract subscription revenue. They have XBox Live and it's working pretty well. After that, what else is there? They have Office 365 which is competitive but I'm sure it doesn't make up for the revenue lost on traditional Office licenses. Windows? Forget it. I don't see the average consumer getting on board with a subscription tied to the computer unless the computer is subsidized to a free price point. SkyDrive? That's another crowded market with Google Drive, iCloud, Dropbox, etc. Azure? Amazon, Google, Rackspace...I don't think there's any web service that MS can offer that would be a "sneak attack."

    Nope, MS is a behemoth company. As such, it's doing many different things at the same time just like Google & Apple. It has web services like Google. It has hardware like Apple. And all of them are vying to be the center of everyone's computing ecosystem to the point that the barrier of exiting is nearly insurmountable. It's that simple.

    MS wants to be on the Desktop, in the cloud, on your mobile device, in your living room, and on your tablet. The question is if they can pull all their disparate teams together to provide something that excels in what Apple & Google has already done.

    1. Re:Subscription Model? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They have Office 365 which is competitive but I'm sure it doesn't make up for the revenue lost on traditional Office licenses. Windows? Forget it.

      Don't forget that Office ships free with Windows RT.

  20. At least apple didn't censor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    files on my iDisk if it had pictures like this on the drive.
    http://www.comon.dk/galleri/Skydrive

  21. Microsoft not only attacking Apple with SkyDrive by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Perhaps TFA has overlooked the other elephant in the room - Google

    Microsoft's SkyDrive attack is not only aimed at Apple, but also Google as well

    I have to agree that the move is sneaky, but then, business is business

    Google better sits up and takes notice, and do something about this
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  22. Au contraire... by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    'As a matter of fact, to beat Apple, it has to work really well on Apple devices.'" ?

    Seems to me it has to be killer apps the do NOT work on apple at all.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  23. android patent fees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    M$ gets enough patent royalties from Android.

    So, why not increase it's popularity and get more monies without much effort.

    That pennies can be used to fund WinMobile r&d and platform...

    What is Apple's contribution to M$ ? Some snark comments on copying their designs ? After Win8 M$ wants to forget it all.

  24. Storage & Aggregation by obscuro · · Score: 1

    Ultimately cloud storage itself is a commodity. In fact, it's a commodity that loses a LOT of value if its a walled garden. Microsoft will have to compete on the value that sits on top of that storage. Just like Google and Apple have to compete on that plain. There are a bunch of aggregators coming on the scene that are proving this out. I work for one. It's called Otixo.com and it pulls together 21 different services including Skydrive, GoogleDrive, DropBox, etc and WebDAV and FTP into one big online harddrive and WebDAV share.

    We are really careful not to step on the toes of these providers so we try to identify what their value is beyond storage and enhance it or at least stay out of the way. Ultimately, SkyDrive makes it easy to collaborate with the Office Suite and to eventually store XBox stuff. Microsoft's value prop is still Office, Sharepoint, MSSQL & it's Analysis Services, .NET and XBox. I think it's hard for them to break out of that even when there are contenders beating up on it daily. SkyDrive is a path to greater presence in the cloud which they sorely need but it's not a strategy in and of itself and it won't save them.

    What Microsoft has needed for at least the last 10 years is to build bridges to Linux and Apple. They needed to make it as easy as possible for all boats to float. It's probably too late for that now....

    --
    Every rule has more than one consequence.
  25. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fsck AAPL