Slashdot Mirror
Can Microsoft Survive If Windows Doesn't Dominate?
Nerval's Lobster writes "In his latest Asymco blog post, analyst Horace Dediu suggested that Windows' share of the personal-computing market is declining at a faster rate than many believe, once Microsoft's cash cow is put in direct competition with Android, iOS, and other platforms built for tablets. In that context, Windows' share of the personal-computing market has dipped past 60 percent on its way to 50 percent. The big question is whether it'll keep plunging. 'If Windows tablets start growing as fast as the tablet market overall then Windows could stabilize in share,' Dediu wrote. 'But if Android and iOS tablets follow their phone brethren in growth then it will be far harder for Microsoft to maintain share.' Yet despite that gloomy scenario, Dediu doesn't necessarily see a market-share dip as a cause for concern on Microsoft's part: 'Even if Windows dips to only 20 [percent] of the world's computing market it will still be perfectly 'viable' for some time to come,' he wrote. But even if Windows can perpetuate, will its decline fatally undermine Microsoft as a company? All that Windows (and Office) money also allows Microsoft to launch projects that lose money for years before they gain traction. Without that monetary base, for example, it's possible that the Xbox (which bled money for the first few years of its existence) wouldn't have survived long enough to become a viable platform from a financial perspective—much less the center of Microsoft's future plans for living room domination."
Microsoft owns both gaming and workplace PC's. Nothing is going to take that from them. Tablets aren't meant to replace PC's, they're just too different kind of devices. Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
And how well does office run on tablets/touch devices like microsoft is pushing? And what if native windows/.NET isn't a commercially viable target for consumer applications? How well will Visual Studio sell then?
They're not doing so well on the other fronts either. I think Ballmer needs to go - if Microsoft is to survive. ;)
Businesses have been flirting with Linux desktops for a decade. Another decade and they'll work up the nerve to ask for a date. They're like nerds that way.
What else would businesses run?
Wine.
Should Microsoft's market share decline, developers of applications for businesses that want to sell to businesses running GNU/Linux or Mac OS X will port the applications to GNU/Linux or Mac OS X. This could involve making Wine a supported variant of the Windows platform alongside Windows, just as they supported Windows 98 and Windows NT/2000/XP in parallel.
What is stopping MS from creating an Android and/or Linux distro? Their own phone (running Android)? XBox seems to be doing well - we'll see how XBox One does.
Mice. Keyboards. Legacy support for Windows.
MS has lot's of life in them yet.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
And how well does office run on tablets/touch devices like microsoft is pushing?
That depends on how the public reacts to Microsoft's new "Surface: The tablet that runs Office" ad campaign.
Not to mention the Server & Tools Division that sells Windows Server, IIS, SQL Server,Lync Exchange, Visual Studio etc. keeps getting record revenue every quarter.
From http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/20/with-19b-in-revenue-microsofts-server-and-tools-chief-says-hes-just-getting-started-interview/
Meet Satya Nadella, president of Microsoft’s server and tools division, a division that builds and runs the company’s computing platforms, developer tools, and cloud services. Nadella leads a team of over 10,000 employees, and his group alone makes $19 billion in annual revenue – which is more than the combined revenues of Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Zynga, Netflix, and a few others in the Valley.
That doesn't even include Office and Azure recently became a one billion dollar business by itself. Microsoft is pretty well diversified, unlike Apple with it's reliance on iPhone and iPad and Google with 95% of revenue from ads. As usual, Asymco comes with shortsighted analysis that mistakes the trees for the forest.
That's why the people with their own money on the line are buying up MSFT (stock went from $27 to $35 due to the last earnings report) instead of the air-headed armchair analysis that we see on here of 'lol my grandma ditched her PC and got an iPad so that means M$ is dying'.
Windows will not succeed in the tablet space because of its barrier to entry. Users will look at it and see that not only will they incur an additional cost
Windows RT has "an additional cost". The iPad also has "an additional cost", yet it succeeded. Could you explain the difference?
A real challenge to the Microsoft hegemony would squeeze out the idiocy and arrogance that currently dominates the company. Forced to pay attention to users and developers, Microsoft would never have created a disaster like windows 8, or the developer-hostile policy of allowing languages and platforms to "dead end."
Heck, someone at Microsoft might actually wake up and figure out that the policies and strategies that benefit Microsoft in the long run are those that benefit users and developers, not the marketing department, or upper management bonuses.
I joke. I joke. Of course this will never happen.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Microsoft makes more money on Xbox & business licensing than in the consumer market.
Consumer MS has been declining for a while now.
Doesn't stop some dumbass author from writing an article, or an editor who can't distinguishing between Windows desktop OS and Windows Server, from "predicting"/praying for the death of Microsoft via their lynx browsers.
By reapplying the term "Operating System" to include on-premise and in-cloud environments, Microsoft is redefining Windows to simply become an operating environment -- we all know this, but they're making their direction rather crystal.
This redefinition actually increases the potential of the Windows brand and Microsoft is currently assuring its long-term survival by calling their hosted platform as Windows Azure. By running their Office, Xbox, Server, and Development tools in their Azure cloud, they are helping organizations still exploit the benefits of any Microsoft investment without necessarily being locked into the hassles of device-specific nuances.
If I were starting a business today, I would probably go with the Office 365 offerings (which run on Azure) and develop against their tools Services. Then, I would simply BYOD to become my computational gateway -- be it an Android, iPad, Berry, or Win8/WinPhone8. Ostensibly, the UI is programmed in HTML5 (with localStorage), the data-sync occurs via APIs, and the business rules engine (BizTalk) is as sophisticated as my business actually needs.
Of course msft can survive.
But, can msft continue to dominate the industry the way they do today? Can msft continue to vendor lock everybody? Can msft continue to force so-called "upgrades?" Can msft enforce their proprietary documents format?
Sure msft can survive, but will they be anything like the msft of today?
Next question.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Subject: Windows will always have a place...
in the hearts of people that like to play video games on the PC.
That depends on to what extent Valve is able to bring Steam to GNU/Linux through various Steam boxes. With Steam Box and Sony's opening of PlayStation platforms to more indie developers, it could very well end up that every Windows game that isn't ported to PlayStation 4 is ported to GNU/Linux.
Sometimes i wonder whether we might come to a point, like 10-15 years from now, where it might make more economical sense for MS to just rely on the Linux kernel (perhaps contributing just some resources to it, the way that other companies do) instead of having to develop and maintain their own. That could free up resources to do other things, and potentially help to gain some share in the mobile device market, where it looks like NT-based kernels might never be as efficient as Android or Macs.
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Take a non-creative office drone. These days a huge percentage of their job will just be putting some information in some web-based application. The rest of the time will be doing something involving Microsoft office.
Now, assuming that it's not a shitty web ap that need IE 5 to run (big assumption, mind you) all you need is Microsoft Office and then the Android desktop becomes viable for your employees that aren't actually doing heavy work.
If Microsoft ports Office to Android they slit their own throats.
Long term the trend is going to be to move away from Microsoft. Businesses just aren't there yet. But if I can sell my bosses on dropping in Samba 4 instead of AD Domain controllers, and we no longer use Exchange for communication because we've chenged to web based mail. Microsoft's days as a major driver in business are numbered. People talk about support and Microsoft and how they're amazing, but the reality is Microsoft doesn't support businesses with Windows deployments. Only third party vendors really provide support for Microsoft Products. Microsoft themselves are heinously expensive to get paid support from. $50+ per phone call outside of their licensing division. I see the future for Microsoft as being a slow downward spiral especially if they can't make a credible alternative to windows 8. They should split the product line into Windows Tablet and Windows Desktop. Their attempts at product diversification obviously haven't worked. They should try to spin off their diversification efforts into seperately managed companies that don't report to Microsoft's management chain directly. The management within Microsoft is horribly broken and unable to adapt to the rapidly changing market and needs to be sidestepped completely.
In my opinion, the whole "PCs are dying, everyone will be on tablets and in the cloud by 2017" meme is a little overhyped. It's true that PCs are no longer the only computing devices available, and tablets are definitely getting good enough to replace PCs for most "read only" tasks. However, even with suitable Bluetooth keyboards and other accessories, creating documents and content on a tablet is still very difficult. I'm sure it will continue to be this way until some new UI paradigm pops up like 100% fluent voice recognition, wildly gesturing to type, etc. For writing software, messing with spreadsheets and even playing high end games, PCs still have a place. It's just not 99% of the market anymore. A good example of this is the Surface. It's amazing to have almost a full fledged PC in a tablet form factor and lets you build some really cool applications that the previous Tablet PC form factor didn't address well. But I wouldn't use it to write anything longer than an SMS, tweet or quick email...it's just not built for huge gorilla hands. :-) On the other hand, it's great for watching movies, surfing the web, and other Millenial-approved social media tasks.
Microsoft seems to have missed this fact with Windows 8, probably because they were panicked about Apple and Android dominating the tablet market. Or their marketing department came in and said "zomg Millenials and hipsters are chooing a tablet-first approach to computing, we must capture this market." And that makes sense -- people of a certain age have been raised with Facebook and smartphones, so they're used to it. However, they also have jobs, and probably use PCs and laptops at these jobs to create content. Windows 8.1 appears to be backtracking on their tablet bet a little bit, but not totally -- the Metro "app" ecosystem is here to stay. (As a side note, my primary complaint with Windows 8 was not the Start screen, though it's nice they're bringing the button back -- it was the awful 2-D Windows 2.0 user interface, and it looks like they're not bringing back Aero in Win8.1, so that sucks.)
Microsoft will continue to have decent market share in workplaces. Desktop PCs will most likely fade out as laptops get more powerful, but the idea that the tablet form factor works for every situation is crazy. Even when hardware begins shipping with touch screens by default, some people will prefer not to use them. Windows Server 2012 (and Windows 8 under the hood) are actually very good products. But they do need to listen to corporate customers. How hard would it have been to bring back the classic Start menu for companies who are deploying on desktops and laptops? Why wouldn't you allow your customers who were happy with Windows 7 to keep most of what they liked while having the option to use the new stuff? In my mind, not listening to corporations who buy millions of licenses will make them less relevant, not the rise of the tablet.
Hypothetically speaking, Windows tanks, MS will still do just fine with their business and solutions.
...after they port them to Linux or Mac OS X? Because, hypothetically speaking, if Windows tanks, you won't have a system to run those installation packages.
Ezekiel 23:20
Most of Android is under the Apache License. If Microsoft customizes Android for its own hardware and distributes it, Microsoft becomes a "Contributor", and a Contributor gives up some power to assert its patents against other distributors of the software.
Few people know all of the products and services that the Microsoft empire creates. The trouble is that Office and Windows are the big money spinners. If the twin wells were to dry up, how will all the other losing propositions be financed?
In the early '90s, everyone said that IBM couldn't survive. Look where they are now.
In the late 80's, everyone said that DEC would crush IBM. Look what happened to them.
So I guess it could go either way:
Megasoft Business Services . . . ?
. . . or iSoft . . . a division of Apple Galactic Life Systems . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Microsoft owns both gaming and workplace PC's. Nothing is going to take that from them.
In the short run you are quite correct. In the long run though the picture is far less clear. Microsoft has viable competitors in gaming both in hardware and software which they have been unable to drive from the market. While not likely, it's hardly inconceivable they could lose their grip on the gaming market in time. The biggest source of Microsoft's dominance in the work place isn't Windows, it is Office. Specifically the Office file formats (.xls and .doc especially) are the main source of their dominance. That isn't going to change in the near future but history shows that office product dominance doesn't always last. Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc used to rule the office and eventually they were pushed out of the way. There are some very real threats to the Office monopoly (Openoffice, Google docs, etc) out there. Whether any of them will eventually push Office out of the way I honestly cannot predict but it isn't impossible in the long run.
Tablets aren't meant to replace PC's, they're just too different kind of devices,
You forgot the key word "yet". No, tablets don't compete directly with PCs now but in time they unquestionably will. Remember that PCs didn't compete directly with mainframes back in the day either but eventually they did. There is no fundamental reason a tablet couldn't be put in a dock and used as an office computer and in time the probably will be. A tablet is just a general purpose computer which focuses on a touch interface rather than a keyboard/mouse interface. I think it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to adapt them for office work.
I would love the ability to plug my phone into a dock at my office (possibly with some extra processing horsepower/storage and connection to the office phone system) and have it be my work PC as well. Think something along the lines of a Mac version of OSX when docked and IOS when undocked. Done well that would be hugely useful.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
What else would businesses run?
Uh, Android, Apple, or anything with a web browser. SaaS, Cloud, etc. Not to say that works for every use case, but every use case used to be a windows pc. Plenty of work environments are using tablets (ipads) now as either replacements for pc's or supplements to them, making the pc less important. And the whole point of the article is that the demotion of the ms based pc is a pretty significant trend. Does MS go away completely? Of course not. Are they earning significant less than they would have if things were going their way? Surely. Are they the dominant player across the board that they once were?
What is stopping MS from creating an Android and/or Linux distro?
Margins. It would be quite impossible for MS to create a differentiated product from Android and/or linux. Basically they would be at Google's mercy at that point. If MS were to ever do what you suggest it would be as a MUCH smaller company, probably post bankruptcy or buyout. There would be little value in yet another Android/linux distro from MS.
MS has lot's of life in them yet
No question. I can't conceive of any scenario whereby MS isn't a huge player for at least the next 10 years. There are some serious threats to them out there but their installed base will carry them at least that far. Beyond that who can really say?
os x just needs to remove the hardware locks and or have a $800-$1500 desktop system. With at least 1 X16 dual wide slot + X4 (X16 size), maybe X8 X8 in a X16 slot. as well. at least 2 HDD bays + 1 least one ODD bay, 4 or more ram slots, gig-e or faster. USB 3.0 as well. Maybe firewire or have a X1 firewire add in card.
Thunderbolt can be down with a on board video chip + add in video card in a X16 slot.
Anything. It really depends on the business. Either the application that your business needs is available or not. If it is, then you're free to use whatever works best. If it's only available on Windows, then you're going to run Windows.
If your railroad rails are held to ties with tiny hard-disk screws, then a screwdriver is the right tool for the job. If your your aluminum aircraft is held together with railroad spikes, then a sledgehammer is the right tool for the job. Don't argue, just get by and hope whoever made the silly decision gets replaced some day.
I think some people think that included within the applications needed by a business, are Word and Excel. That is definitely not true, for many businesses. (I was going to say 90%+ but I'm not really sure about that.) You can get a word processor and spreadsheet on pretty much any OS. So it's just a question of whether or not your particular business is one of those who is required to be able to read (or write!!) the proprietary format of these applications' documents when interacting with others. If you just use your word processor as a word processor, then Windows is irrelevant. If you use your word processor as a document conversion tool, practically as though it were part of your email system, then Windows is necessary. But theoretically, groups of people could share a Windows machine (or VM) for that. Do your work at your real computer, then send the file over to the Windows machine to be converted to Word before you email it along to some other company that has to do that same thing. ;-) Sounds like a pain in the ass but it's theoretically doable.
FWIW, I've found that LibreOffice does an ok job of usually reading MS-proprietary documents, and you can send standard formatted documents to Windows users without the noticing or caring that you did it their way. The other company's users never realize they're looking at RTFs rather than a DOCX. But in some cases you might need to ask someone to resend their troublesome document in a standard format, so there can be delays and humans-doing-things. LibreOffice isn't completely trouble-free in the "read" case. That was the big surprise: write is easier than read, because no one really needs to be able to write Word format.
The way I see it, there are no really good answers to the questions in the original article. Will MS market-share keep plunging? A *lot* of that hinges on the long-term popularity of the trend of people using tablet devices in place of computers.
If you're the type who likes to bet on future results based on current trends? Then yes, you have a lot of statistical data in your corner. "John Q. Public" and "Jane Doe" who were never really very good with computers to begin with absolutely LOVE devices like the iPad, or smartphones. All they were ever trying to do to begin with was surf the net, check their email, and maybe type up a few letters to print out. The letter writing part, long argued a weak spot for mobile phones or tablets, is largely overcome with a bluetooth wireless keyboard.
The kids and teens who only wanted the computers to play video games? That market is splitting down the middle too. A lot of them are pretty satisfied playing the ever-increasing number of titles on the Android or iOS devices. (Heck, they were playing devices like the Gameboy before that, and stuck paying much higher prices for the game cartridges.) Just as many consider that a non-starter, because they want to play bigger, more demanding titles like World of Warcraft or the Call of Duty series.
I'm not sure how long this trend will continue though? My experience with tablet computing is, you generally get only a "lite" version of a given application, compared to what's done on a full-fledged PC or Mac. If nothing else, it's sorely lacking in local storage capabilities compared to a computer. I think computer sales to the public may have permanently declined a bit, because people figured out there are good alternatives now if they don't really want or need everything a PC can do. But I suspect we're quickly reaching the saturation point there.
If Microsoft could come up with some new, compelling reason to use a Windows based computer ... something clearly impossible to do on a tablet or phone that a whole lot of people would REALLY like to be able to do? They're right back in the game.
They can survive just like any other non-dominate company. They could resize to moms basement size and just give support to grandma and her friends and survive.
The real question is if they WANT to do that.
Most likely at some point they rather sell then resize.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Microsoft earns a lot of money for each android tablet.
They may have the money, but at some point the shareholders will do something. That "something" is undefined, but could effectively destroy MS in an instant, metaphorically speaking. Apple has double MS's bank account, Google is only a little behind MS. Both of them own huge shares of the high growth areas of devices. Apple also owns an increasing share of MS's core business, nearing 10% marketshare with PCs alone. Even with that pile of cash, MS has failed multiple times in attempting to gain a notable foothold in something other than software. Even the XBox hasn't been that successful, and I'm not sure it's actually all that profitable. Beating the PS3 is not all that noteworthy. In fact, Sony might be a forewarning for what can happen to MS in a few short years. They had a stockpile of cash and attempted to bash their way into a number of markets while making some major PR missteps (root kits on CDs, removing the alt OS on their PS3s, etc) and currently they're bleeding cash and are a shell of their former selves even 6 years ago. Time will tell.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Well for android with hdmi out and a keyboard and mouse it can become a device that is in many ways both a desktop and tablet.
You are comparing very old Apple technology, to very old Microsoft technology.
I am not sure if that proves anything about the current state of either technologies.
Ya know, I have to give Microsoft some credit on one thing: they were not always big in gaming, nor did they leverage their way into it, from what I've seen. That's a pretty recent phenomenon. Back when people were complaining about their PC coming with a "free" copy of Windows 3.1 that they didn't want, and which just provided a counter-incentive for upgrading to OS/2 or whatever, Microsoft wasn't in the console business. They had a few games, but were overall very easy to ignore. You didn't even have to run their OS; there was a time when an x86 box with MSDOS was pretty much only good for playing Doom 1.
By the time the XBox came along, many of us had only just recently gotten out of having to use Windows for business. I realize not everyone did, so Microsoft's position in the two different markets could seem contemporary, but they're not. You're talking about two different (but overlapping) eras.
It's pretty amazing MS built that from nothing, or amazing that we let them, as we all knew it would have to be unhealthy for everyone, long-term.
Things come and go. They used to look unbeatable in business, and nowdays there's nothing weird about a business which contains not a single Microsoft license of any kind.
That means Microsoft can be beat in gaming too, but beware, for it also means they could use their immense assets to quickly buy a lead position somewhere else. Who knows, maybe in 2023 we'll all be bitching about their unbeatable position in automobiles or nonalcoholic beverages or electricity or wheat or tribbles or Harry Potter prequel TV episodes.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Let's rewind to a previous millennium long ago swept away in the sands of time. Let's go way back to . . . 1990.
Then the sudden realization hit. IBM's PCs were priced at monopoly prices and people were not buying them. The company was in crisis and had to reinvent itself. It got new management. Times got leaner. And they weren't committed to past management decisions.
By 2000 we had a much nicer IBM that was focused on its profitable mainframes and was friendly to both Linux and Java.
After Microsoft reinvents itself, it will have retreated to and focus on its profitable business. Microsoft has a very profitable and serviceable business with its Enterprise software Windows, Outlook, Exchange, Office, SQL Server, etc. Like IBM before it, Microsoft has already begun embracing open source (Apache, PHP, etc etc) that enabled its enterprise customers to do what they do.
Like IBM, Microsoft won't go away. Probably ever. But it will become a smaller and gentler Microsoft without the nastiness and bullying once it has been de-fanged of its monopoly power.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Would be a bad thing? If MS stop forcing manufacturers to include windows with most things with a keyboard, and they start pushing i.e. something functional enough but free like i.e. Ubuntu and Libreoffice, and maybe more software (and drivers) vendors make linux version of their products, Microsoft won't be making as much profit are doing now, but still will be able to sell a lot. Will be enough for them to survive? Will be up to them to adapt to the new reality.
Most is in the web now, the desktop if well keeps being relevant, what runs on it not that much.If they focus in the cloud, enterprise software, and services, they should survive.
I have a PC running Windows. My household has a 100% Windows marketshare.
I buy a tablet and a phone. Suddenly my Windows only has 33% marketshare, while Android went from 0 to 67%!
But I still have a PC running Windows. So does a billion other people.
Gotta love 'em analysts.
If the motorcycle were suddenly invented today, we would have a similar effect. A certain group of people would find the motorcycle very appealing. Compared to the car, they are small, more fuel efficient, and less expensive. So the set of people not needing an enclosed vehicle with room for passengers and cargo would all run out and buy one. In those first few years motorcycle sales would spike relative to cars, and probably displace some car sales.
Anyone looking at the sales figures and marketplace trends in those days would proclaim that the days of the automobile were nearing the end and that the car was doomed. After all, all motor vehicles are the same, right.
Actually, in hindsight, it might have been a good time to invest in cars.
My how that sounds like IBM in 1990 saying that mainframe business applications work just fine on IBM microcomputers like the AS/400. I see no problems with mainframe software on an AS/400 microcomputer. Hey everyone . . . stop it . . . stop it I say! Stop rewriting business applications for these other pesky microcomputer toys. If you don't stop I'm going to hold my breath!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Agreed.
Skills around tehcnical Innovation and coming up with products that people actually like/want to buy rather than are forced to has been so undervalued at Microsoft its now a lost art there. They have no other way to stay alive than to keep blackmailing people now.
> Microsoft earns a lot of money for each android tablet.
Not forever. Anyone that thinks that is a strategy for saving Microsoft is . . . well, beyond delusional.
Another good strategy: Start looking through the furniture cushions for loose change.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Consumer MS has been declining for a while now.
Doesn't stop some dumbass author from writing an article, or an editor who can't distinguishing between Windows desktop OS and Windows Server, from "predicting"/praying for the death of Microsoft via their lynx browsers.
Synerg1y, what you're seeing is a troll who is paid by slashdot to post insubstantial stories with provocative headlines that will drive page views. Everything "Nerval's Lobster" submits is posted by the editors, and every submission links to a slashdot "Business Intelligence/Datacenter/Cloud" article, nearly always written by "Slashdot editor" Nick Kolakowski.
I've noted this numerous times, as have others, and the readership's gradual recognition that Nerval's Lobster submissions are trolling for pageviews has resulted in a significant drop in the number of comments on stories submitted by him. As a result, he has started posting throwaway links to random stuff (like the blog posting in this case) in addition to his own content to make the self-promotion less obvious.
Bottom line: Don't feed the troll. Don't comment on stories "submitted" by Nerval's Lobster.
To those who say "we should feed the troll, because slashdot must be in danger of failing if the editors are pushing this": I remind you of the Nerval's Lobster issue to praise slashdot, not to bury it. The evil that trolls do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their posts. So let it not be with slashdot.
I've thought a lot about this exact point. I, too, would like to see Apple come out with less expensive and expandable systems. I think the main reason they maintain their tight lock is they don't want the plague of problems that Windows users experience due to IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Anyone can make hardware that works, to varying degree, with MS OS, and MS will try to support it. And sometimes fail. And most frustratingly, fail intermittently. Apple maintains extremely tight control to try to minimize the IDIC problem and improve the user experience through higher reliability and fewer crashes.
There's no way Microsoft can fully test their products against the infinite combinations of hardware, old and new and forthcoming, that are possible in the world outside of their labs. Users are going to pay for this in the form of crashes and problems, it's unavoidable.
Apple, OS-X, iOS, etc., is not perfect. It has problems, but in my experience much fewer than Windows. I've used MS operating systems professionally since Dos 1.0 through Win 7 and currently use it, but I'm infinitely happier with my Mac equipment like the Air that I'm typing this on. OS-X has its limitations and problems, and though Win 7 is a very good product, I'm still a lot more frustrated with it than I think I should be. We pay a higher price for hardware, and it's fairly high-end hardware and lasts a long time. I would really like less expensive and expandable hardware, I'm just not sure that fits Apple's culture.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
That's why the people with their own money on the line are buying up MSFT (stock went from $27 to $35 due to the last earnings report) instead of the air-headed armchair analysis that we see on here of 'lol my grandma ditched her PC and got an iPad so that means M$ is dying'.
The time constants of slashdotters discussing future of MSFT and the traders are vastly different. Slashdotter think 1 year is short term, 5 years is medium term and 10 years is long term. People buying MSFT @ 35 think 1 quarter as short term, 1 year as medium term and 3 years as long term. And the hedge fund honchos think 1 micro second as ultrashort term, 1 second as short term, and 1 minute as medium term and 1 hour as long term. And these hedge fund honchos will happily risk 1 trillion dollars for 1 micro second to pursue a possible profit of 25 dollars. And they will happily do it 1000 times a second. No wonder we are hosed.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Presumably before Windows hit a low enough share to kill the apps, the apps divisions would start clamoring to begin porting their software. If the Microsoft executive team at that time is not completely delusional, they will approve that.
Think about it this way, Microsoft got started in the OS business by being an app provider whose apps a lot of people liked. They then leveraged that and the money to build an OS and then used the app business to build on their OS value. It was only later that the OS and the apps flipped in value, with the OS dominating everybody.
There is no reason they couldn't port to other apps and revive the fortunes of a humbled Windows by making really good apps and then bundling a (hopefully much improved) Future Version of Windows with their apps for maximum compatibility. While it is unlikely that Microsoft could pull the same trick twice and rise to unrivaled dominance again, they could still become quite profitable again on a second try.
Of course, that assumes the end of executives with thought processes like what produced Windows 8. If they remain that out-of-touch, their fall could come faster than anyone might expect.
Can we mod the OP as a troll?
Saying that the market share of windows is declining while increasing the size of the market with devices that widows was a never a factor on is misleading and manipulative.
I'm by no means an MS evangelist or anything but the argument in the OP is sort of like saying that Ford is losing market a share when you include lawn mowers and tractors into the market. They simply aren't relevant, when windows begins to lose market share in the PC market at the rate described above, then you can pose the question. Until then it just sounds like you're trying to start a fight.
But I think the numbers are misleading. Yeah ok Microsoft has gone from neat total dominance of the PC market to 50%. But the "Personal Computer market" now includes cell phones, smart phones, etc. Microsoft still dominates the traditional "computer" market, and has a very slim share of all the new stuff. But that's more due to the rapid growth of that sector than actual failure by Microsoft. If you want to count that way you also have to be sure to mention how successful Android and iOS have been at growing their share of the traditional "Microsoft" market - the PC. Not too many PC's running Android or Mac software. Probably more are running some linux distro.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Or they did. For decades.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
One of them is the abundance of smartphones and dead-cheap computers running any non-Microsoft OS: people will start to see that other manufacturers can make decent OSes. And if you want to make a dead-cheap computer you can't afford to pay Microsoft any money, so you use eg Linux.
The other thing Microsoft must think about is the fastest computers. The kind of computer that appears on top500.org. Linux, Unix and various versions of BSD have a crushingly large market share here, whereas Windows is hardly noticeable. (I can't seem to get any numbers from the site right now, so I am quoting from my memory of the last time I checked).
Since a large portion of supercomputers run something other than Windows, I think things will trickle down from them: you might buy a second-hand supercomputer for your company, and find that it comes with BSD. Or you notice that the computer lab you use to crunch numbers for you will give you a better experience if you use Linux to connect to it. Or some other event makes you realize there are other OSes than Windows. Whatever the reason, some people will sooner or later realize that it is cheaper for them to convert their entire organisation to something other than Windows than to convert their newly-bought servers/supercomputer.
With these two things I think Microsoft will be feeling pressure from the cheapest computers and from the number-crunching monsters. Given enough time they will have to do something to counter these threats, or they will find themselves reduced to one competitor among many. And the transition could potentially be very quick: Altavista disappeared in a matter of years because Google offered something better. Microsoft could end up the same way, though I don't think it could ever be that fast.
there is a lot more money in the Enterprise market than the consumer market. Enterprise customers are much less likely to change platforms than consumers are. If an individual wants to change from an iPhone to an Android phone it's no big deal. If a company with thousands of employees wants to switch from Windows to, say, OSX, it's a much bigger deal and much less likely to happen.
Apple has done very well in the consumer market and enjoys healthy margins on their products but that is starting to get squeezed a bit. Microsofts lack of success in the consumer market is well documented but they are still very profitable overall. Would MS like to have better success with consumers? Sure but it's not the end of the world for them.
Things tend to change slowly in the Enterprise market so for the foreseeable future Microsoft is going to be just fine.
Meanwhile there are lots of people with real work to do.
Android and iOS devices are gradually becoming gaming platforms. Nothing happens overnight. It's a gradient. A gradual shift in color. But when you are at the other side of the gradient, you suddenly recognize that things have changed from where you started. Just as IBM didn't take microcomputers seriously. Then they didn't take seriously that they were losing their monopoly. Just as Microsoft ignored the internet until it was too obvious to ignore. Then continued to ignore what people wanted in computers. Netbooks should have been a warning that the ever declining price of hardware was going to create a paradigm shift in personal computing.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Tell that to the millions playing games on their Android phone. Young people are the future consumers, and young people are not buying Microsoft products or PCs.
Of course they can survive. They can decide they want to make the Xbox touch-screen only and still have cash in the bank. It will take many years, of year-on-year Windows 8 style decisions for Microsoft to fall. Even then, they will see the end coming a long way off and be able to steer away from the edge.
year upon year of windows 8 style decision?
killing zune
vista
ribbon ui
bing (on this list becaus its a money sink not about market share)
metro
win32 x86 only forcing arm to use metro only
"ending service packs" for windows seven
killing the Courier tablet
killing the dev group that created the courier tablet
anyone care to add to the list?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
IMO the real problem with Apple's desktop hardware is they don't offer a mid-range tower, so you lose out on a lot of flexibility. They've only got the all-in-one iMac, the ultra-expensive Mac Pro, and the Mini which is basically just a laptop without a monitor.
Even if there was something like the Mac Pro that used consumer hardware (e.g. not Xeons!) but was a bit more expensive than what you'd pay from most other vendors or if you built it itself it would at least be worth a look. But at the moment for me, an Apple desktop is just out of the question.
is the falling margins on desktops and the pressure on desktop users to find cheaper alternatives to Windows on desktops.
Microsoft is doomed. Not this year. Not next year. In the next ten years: yes, probably.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Maybe if Microsoft had less money, they wouldn't spend it frivolously redesigning the Windows GUI every release.
MS: You are are always boasting about how innovative you are... so keep the teams doing the innovation, and slim down the GUI-redesign efforts. GUI redesign is not innovation, it is throwing money at a solved problem, hoping that the novelty value will boost sales. Clue-bat: tablets are WAY more novel than anything you're going to put in a Windows GUI. So you've already lost that. You've lost half the market, can you really afford to make every other release a throwaway experiment? You already have a GUI that is rock solid, functional, and has broad acceptance: Windows 7. So stop throwing money at novelty, make every release a home run. Windows' value is in business productivity, and in home productivity/gaming. Stick to what you already have that works, slim down the GUI design team, and focus your money and brainpower on being the best, most boring, most powerful productivity and gaming environment you can. Focus on quality instead of pixels. When I boot windows the last thing I want is a surprise.
Tablets cannot kill windows, but Microsoft can fumble the gun and shoot itself in the head. There is no way that tablets can replace desktop productivity, not for years to come. But competition could, instead of killing Microsoft, be one of the best things that ever happened to the company.. by forcing it to slim down, focus on its strengths, be leaner and stronger and healthier and more agile.
When Bill Gates first discovered the Internet in the mid-1990s, he spent three hours on line, and wrote in a memo "I didn't see a single Microsoft file format". Microsoft's dominance has relied heavily on proprietary file formats. But now, if it won't work on a tablet or phone, it's useless. This reduces Microsoft's control.
download caps and high roaming costs will kill the cloud as well things like ATT's $10 fee to an tablet that does not add any data to your overall cap.
Perhaps not even that. You betrayed the Duke, you took his wife, stole his castle. Now no one trusts you. You're not the one, Uther. (from _Excalibur_)
I mean yes... I mean... Help me Lord Betteridge!
I get the impression that Microsoft really wants the XBox to fail. The new XBox is going to a DRM heavy no used games model [http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-always-on-drm-used-games-faq/]. I'm sure they could have run a few focus groups and realized how much they are going to destroy their relationship with gamers, so I can only surmise that they really just don't care about continuing dominance in the game market.
Seeing them treat one of their bigger successes in this way really leaves me dumbfounded when it comes to their long term strategy.
If Microsoft ports Office to Android they slit their own throats.
I disagree. Tablets are becoming the new laptop for home and casual use, and as Bring Your Own Device becomes more popular, there will be a huge need for Android and iOS based solutions for manipulating office documents. Either Microsoft will provide it, or the gap will be filled by the likes of LibreOffice or its ilk. Since that would give open source a foothold towards establishing LibreOffice as an alternative to MSOffice on the corporate PCs, I think Microsoft would be slitting their own throat if they failed to port Office to Android.
Not to mention that OneNote (for which there is no open source clone) could be a killer app on a tablet.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Weirdly, I don't think I've ever seen anything to say that Mac OS X or Linux were growing significantly against Windows.
Everything I've read says that Android and iOS are gaining share against Windows.
I think some people are missing the point. PC sales in general could be in significant decline because of tablets emerging. Or it could just be that most people already have a workstation and they don't need an amazing machine to replace their existing one every year (phones on the other hand are getting constantly replaced).
I'd be really surprised to see MS port their software to Mac OS or Linux down the line. Heck, I'm assuming the reason why they don't port software to iOS and Android is because they don't want to give Google and Apple any kind of momentum.
Charging for an operating system no longer makes any sense. Across time, all stable software systems diminish in cost. Much new software, essential for the OS (like drivers for new hardware, or browsers filled with web tech) appears 'free' to the end user anyway.
Every component in Microsoft Windows is third-rate compared to the best of the free alternatives. Obviously, Windows strength is not the quality of its individual components, but the reliable coherence of the whole, but please do not make the laughable claim that when you pay for Windows 8, you are paying for excellence in software engineering- nothing could be further from the truth.
Clearly by now a giant the size of MS should have switched its business model entirely to 'services' that people wish to pay for on a monthly/yearly basis. It is a telling fact of Microsoft's incompetence that MS is ranked about last when compared to other major competitors in the 'services' industry. Think of Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Google etc, and THEIR relationship with their customers. Microsoft hangs on to exorbitant pricing for its mediocre Office and OS products because it has totally failed to move to a modern way of doing business.
What happens when Google finally creates a desktop version of Android, with a standard shell better than Windows 7, while getting behind Libre/Open-Office in a big way? Remember, desktop ARM is almost here, and when it arrives no business is going to want to continue paying the Wintel tax.
Microsoft killed all possibility of tablet success with its ruinous pricing for the Microsoft tablet OS (and it is notable that Microsoft killed of two previous generations of tablet projects for fear they would lead to erosion of pricing for Microsoft's key software products). Microsoft even sabotaged multi-monitor use of Windows for the longest time for fear that two monitors would equal two simultaneous users per one copy of Windows.
It is too late for Microsoft now. When Android first made its success apparent, Microsoft should have released a free ARM based version of Windows that focused on XP like technology with a state-of-the-art shell rather than useless silverlight gimmickry. Real code environments will always have long tern success over high-fashion junky hyper-abstracted low performance environments (outside the browser, that is). The browser already exists to provide convenience over performance.
Android is a proper OS, and supports all sensible low-level coding concepts under the hood. It already allows for desktop shell environments, but like Linux in general, would benefit from a unified sensible practical modern windows shell that provides one target for applications that wish to take specific advantage.
Microsoft is clearly in long term decline, and nothing now can stop this. The best versions of Office, Visual Studio, and the OS now lie in Microsoft's past. Today's versions are bloated, inefficient, slow (at even basic tasks like scrolling through a 'large' document) and require insane hardware specs to perform even acceptably.
Internally, Microsoft is nothing but power-wars overseen by a mentally-deficient dictator, concerned only with holding on to his own position as supreme leader. Few people know, for instance, that Windows for ARM was supposed to be released as a full version of Windows (complete with standard desktop shell), but late in the project Intel partnered with an opposing Microsoft faction to ensure the ARM version was ruinously crippled, supposedly to push Metro- leading to the triple marketing disaster of Windows 8, Metro, and Windows on ARM. Of course, Windows ARM tablets do have full Windows, but you have to hack them to gain access, something the tiny marketplace of users can't be bothered to support.
For those of you that still don't get it, look at the fiasco of the Xbox One. Putrid name from third rate PR company (of course, MS had to reject the well established community name, Xbox 720). Half the games power of Sony's PS4 (yes HALF- Microsoft dedicates more th
Windows can't be used to crash Android apps that compete with Microsoft's.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Think about it this way, Microsoft got started in the OS business by being an app provider whose apps a lot of people liked. They then leveraged that and the money to build an OS and then used the app business to build on their OS value. It was only later that the OS and the apps flipped in value, with the OS dominating everybody.
What the.... ?!@#$ parallel universe history are you talking about!??? Microsoft started as a language vendor (not typically considered an "app") selling BASIC, then got into the O/S business by buying QDOS and selling it at a ridiculous markup to IBM, who just wanted something quick for their (they though) ill-fated "personal computer".
They later used the profits from their DOS O/S to build "app"lications like Word to outcompete Word Perfect and Excel to outcompete Lotus 1-2-3. In the future, please take the time to have some clue what you are talking about before posting...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
There is a reason why typical tablets are 7 to 10 inches and typical desktops are 15 to 23 inches.
And there is no reason why you cannot attach a tablet to a bigger screen or keyboard or mouse should the need arise. (it doesn't work the other way around though)
People get much to focused on the current limitations of tablets to see where they eventually are headed. Tablets will subsume much of the PC market the same way that smartphones took over the point and shoot camera market. There is only one important reason why tablets haven't taken over more market share - namely that the software hasn't been developed yet to make them work well on a desktop. Yet. Both Apple and Microsoft are working on the problem. It won't happen overnight but I assure you that much of what we use laptops for will be taken over by tablets in due time.
Let's hope not!
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Microsoft would just release their own Linux distro; the only distro 'Office 20XX for Microsoft Linux' works properly with.
Explain how an iPad or Android tablet with a bluetooth keyboard is functionally different than a laptop running Windows?
less ram, less drive space, weaker prossesor, less powerful video card, less control of the system. thats how.
So functionally, that is, with regards to function, there's no difference. For the tech geek, huge difference, but how many of them are there.
Microsoft got started in the OS business by being an app provider whose apps a lot of people liked.
Incorrect. Microsoft started writing BASIC interpreters for early minicomputers like Commodore, Apple, etc. That was their main business until Gates, whose parents were lawyers for IBM, got a chance to provide the OS for IBM's new microcomputer, the IBM PC. The fact that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" is what got them started, and it snowballed after Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS.
They couldn't write popular apps for almost two decades. In the '80s and most of the '90s, Lotus 123 ruled the spreadsheet world, Wordstar followed by Word Perfect ruled word processing, dBase ruled PC DBMSes. Microsoft couldn't sell Access, the only way it became dominant was buy buying FoxPro, who had made a better dBase than dBase. Access only thrived after Microsoft ruined FoxPro to the point it was even more of a pain in the ass than Access.
Microsoft was never good at starting stuff that took off. The BASIC language was itself developed outside MS in a university setting. PC-DOS was a modified CP\M they bought and modified. They kind of stole Stacker's Doublespace, they were late to the browser market, late to the GUI market, late with mice... in fact, the only times they were first at anything they failed at it, like with tablets. Microsoft has only survived because of their OS domination. If they lose that, they're toast.
Microsoft will pretty much continue to dominate where it matters the most to them, financially, in the business market. The sad thing is that they are completely open to being taken down even there, but no one seems ready to compete with them at the point. Apple left the business and server industry, and has even set aside the professional industry (content creators) by not at all keeping up with their desktop options.
Active Directory is still king in most companies, and it's also probably the hardest single thing to migrate away from. As long as that doesn't change (meaning someone releases a viable competitor that can seamless replace it), Microsoft will stay profitable.
They can drop the ball on Windows stuff all they want and it won't make much difference in their revenue. Now, Office is another story...
As I read through the comments, I'm struck by how many people keep screaming that tablets aren't a replacement for PCs. I think the fundamental detail being missed here is how many laptops and home computers were purchased specifically for tasks that are exactly what people use tablets for. Microsoft seems to share this confusion with their failure to release a version of Windows 8 that actually makes some kind of sense for a business desktop, and a separate tablet/phone interface. Or at least a way to switch between these two very different usage types.
If anything takes Microsoft out of the business world, it will be Windows 8. Not MacOS, not Linux, not Chrome OS or Firefox OS.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Owns gaming? Ciation?
The problem some people site is 'too much choice', but pick one set and be happy. GTK+ or Qt for GUI as an example where there is choice but the developer doesn't have to think about it if they don't want.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Hypothetically speaking, Windows tanks, MS will still do just fine with their business and solutions.
In that scenario, I would actually imagine history repeating itself. Microsoft OSes once were considered suitable *only* for trivial, non-critical home purposes and *real* work were done exclusively on Unix workstations and servers. Because of their overwhelming presence in the homes of workers, it managed to get into businesses even before they were *really* ready. No reason to think that the same hypothetical that destroys Windows on the desktop won't pull the same manuever as MS in the workspace, in before actually being ready, but *mostly* growing into it.
I personally do not share the enthusiasm for Visual Studio. The main thing is being from the same company that controls the APIs, so there is no risk of the APIs running away from the IDE that generally dings other IDE scenarios. If MS is in the boat of supporting third party OSes/APIs as the norm rather than the exception, I think Visual Studio is likely to lose a great deal of what makes it the product of choice for MS platform development.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I've never seen it on any other operating system.
You have been blessed then. I have seen modal dialogs on every platform, despite how horribly evil it is.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I don't think Apple cares about edge case midtowers or workstations. Witness the cold shoulder they've given to MacPros over the years. They're targeting a specific demographic, a lucrative demographic. Not the average Slashdot reader. They even seem happy to cede pro graphics to Windows - most big graphics companies run either Win7 or, for the really heavy lifting, Linux based proprietary solutions.
Apple wants to stay in it's groove which is high volume consumer appliances.
I'm going to bet that this years mythical refresh of the MacPro will be one of the last. Put some Haswell based Xeons it them, sell it for a couple of years and then announce it's the end of the line.
Going to piss a number of people off, but that's the Apple Way.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Not only that the all-in-one iMac makes it hard to get to the HDD VS the pc aill in ones.
And they even pull BS like high fans if you use a non Apple HDD as well makeing you pay full price to upgrade the HDD right now it's $150 to go from a 1TB to a 3TB you can buy a 3TB drive for about $150 now.
The thing is tablets and even some of the larger form factor cellphones compete with personal computers for many use cases. Most office and clerical workers today can do their work with just a browser and many of the novel PC users which have been developed since the Internet became popular are browser oriented. Android and iOS also have a quite vast application library for many kinds of niche applications including casual gaming.
Ill bet his universe has Unicorns in it.
And loose women.
Sigh, sucks to be us, I suppose.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'd say that the rumours of Microsoft's death have been greatly exaggerated. The phone, with help from Elop's Nokia is doing pretty well now, at least in Europe. http://www.wpcentral.com/new-data-shows-microsoft-doubling-its-smartphone-market-share-uk
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
OneNote already is a killer app on tablets. I have it on my Surface Pro. I never used it before I got the Surface, but now I use it all the time on all devices I can. For me it's one of those, "how did I live before this?" things.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
Please, oh please God, let Ballmer remain in control of Microsoft until controlled flight into terrain.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
My secret wish is that Microsoft would replace the Windows GUI with Onenote, and redefine applications to be a "notebook" within OneNote.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Stop thinking legacy. The most important OS is the one you use to do what you need to do. No more, no less. If that OS is iOS or Android (Soon to have 1 billion activations) then that is the dominant OS. The Apps follow the OS people are using. Right now, the relevance of Windows is fading and the relevance of Android is increasing (Along with web apps). If MS loses the battle for dominant OS (which is apparently happening) they lose developers and relevance and profit. How can they lock people in if they do something sinister like build web apps, or chrome based ones? MS relies on Windows as a the primary link in their chains.
I agree, immediately, they have nothing to worry about. However as sales, and the new Haswell chip release this past week have been showing, the trend is from Desktop machines to laptop machines. Heck even at my work over the last say 10 years, I would say grown in laptops over traditional laptops is a factor of x10. I need a serious desktop for some of my work functions, but the truth is, most do not need the power.
The difference between a tablet and a laptop, particularly some of the variations on a laptop, like the "Ultrabook" and the "Netbook" narrow the margin of definition between the two. This will likely continue to occur as tablets get more power. The more people that use say tablet or phone devices using different OS (which is why Win8 failure or no), the less brand is locked into Windows. Then you see OS "creep" from between devices. Case in point "Chromebooks".
I mean really the big thing Windows has had is that everyone knows how to use them, and no one (or only very specialized users) knows how to use the alternatives, hence their monopoly more less. As soon as casual users start being able to use other OS, and those other OS start to have a code base (and now they mostly share fundamentals anyway), it is going to start to become easier and easier to switch. Which is what MS should be afraid of. Won't happen immediately, but in 5 or 10 years.... who knows. As for Apple, they are just intentionally elitist with their walled garden and incompatibility with everyone else. MS will never really have to worry about a niche product like that. That is their business model, and I don't see that changing. Seems to be working for them as they are very profitable.
I've thought a lot about this exact point. I, too, would like to see Apple come out with less expensive and expandable systems.
This.
Something between the mini and the pro where it's possible for us geeks to replace or upgrade drives and memory would be nice.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Microsoft started as a language vendor (not typically considered an "app") selling BASIC, then got into the O/S business by buying QDOS and selling it at a ridiculous markup to IBM, who just wanted something quick for their (they though) ill-fated "personal computer".
DOS wasn't Microsoft's only successful entrant in the OS business at that time.
Xenix was Microsoft's version of Unix intended for use on microcomputers.
Microsoft purchased a license for Version 7 Unix from AT&T in 1979, and announced on August 25, 1980 that it would make it available for the 16-bit microcomputer market.
Xenix varied from its 7th Edition origins by incorporating elements from BSD, and soon (for a time) possessed the most widely installed base of any Unix version due to the popularity of the inexpensive x86 processor.
Xenix
Microsoft promised to deliver a serviceable 16 bit CP/M clone to IBM in time for the scheduled release of the new IBM micro --- with a full suite of development tools soon to follow. It proposed a non-excusive deal for a product that would hit the streets at an unprecedented $50 retail list.
This was not what IBM was hearing from Digital Research.
There was nothing "ill-fated" about the IBM PC.
The basic form factor of console - external keyboard - and "80 column" monitor has changed little in over thirty years.
Support for standardized third party plug-in cards meant that improvements in graphics, sound and other capabilities would emerge very quickly. The port from CP/M was easy, with most software niches being filled by some very familiar names within a year or two.
There is a part of Microsoft's business that is all-but-guaranteed for decades: From companies heavily invested in their platform for internal operations (enterprise apps, corp databases). Anybody who's worked in corp IT knows how deep the lock-in runs for these things. Microsoft will make ongoing money from this, just as IBM makes ongoing money from mainframe computing and AS/400.
The longer-term question for Microsoft is will they be a part of any big future growth trends. I don't see it on the consumer side, with the possible exception of gaming (but gamers are fickle). On the business side they could build a great business on their cloud platform. CIOs hate to run their own infrastructure, and meanwhile the other big cloud providers (Amazon, Google) aren't focusing on the Fortune 500 use case.
Microsoft is slowly exiting the desktop market. They are doing this by developing an app market and moving their business apps to the cloud and pushing them hard. There is a very strong rumor that Office 2013 is the last desktop Office (Office Web Apps Server works extremely well for most use cases and is the basis fro Office 365).
They are doing fantastic in the enterprise apps market (Dynamics, Exchange, SharePoint, Lync) and Server 2012 is a stunningly good server OS with Azure being a heck of a platform, too. They don't need nor want the desktop OS market; they want the desktop APPLICATION market... it's where the money is.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Yes
Honestly the windows RT table works fine. I like having more inputs. The model they have has a laptop keyboard that attaches. With the two pieces together the table is like a touchscreen netbook.
Except that unlike my Dell netbook, a Windows RT tablet runs only applications from the Windows Store, and according to Windows 8 app certification requirements, Microsoft would not approve some of the applications that I use daily. Some of these violate sections 3.9 and 4.5 by their very nature.
If you have crappy wireless, you will hate it. The tablet needs to be online to get everything.
Despite having no wireless at all when I use my Dell netbook on the bus for up to an hour at a time, I manage to get stuff done because Xubuntu applications are more commonly designed for offline first.
No.
Long Answer: For a while maybe. But as Android & Linux continue dominating in the mobile/server spaces and Linux Mint keeps gaining on the desktop then long term they are screwed. They don't have the best OS. They don't have the cheapest OS. In fact, other than market dominance I can't think of a single reason anyone is using their OS. The last good OS they put out was XP SP3. That was over a decade ago. They are the walking dead at this point. Steam client for Linux is the first bell toll of their inevitable demise.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
1) Microsoft isn't well known for being a Unix vendor, you know? They sold it, and even made some money at it but nothing like DOS/Windows.
2) IBM thought the PC was "ill fated". Note that I did forget a "t" at the end of "IBM though"...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Even if they vanished tomorrow it would still take years for a lot of applications to be ported to anything else, and the applications are what people actually care about. That means the only platform those applications run on is safe for years.
The funny thing is I work with linux machines and not MS Windows because nobody got around to porting a large commercial geophysics suite running on *nix to that new MS Windows thing, and it's only on that new linux thing because not much had to be changed.
> 'If Windows tablets start growing as fast as the tablet market overall then Windows could stabilize in share,'
Man. Ow. I just about popped a vein trying to suppress laughter just then. How is that supposed to work? How are those overproduced commercials working out for you?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Yeah, it is. PC sales have been flat to negative since the iPad came out.
PC isn't really dead. It's just that the people who never needed a traditional Computer to begin with now have other options.
If you want to watch movies, you don't need a a screen with a keyboard in front and a mouse. And for internet shopping, and browsing, and "liking", and youtube commenting you don't need a dedicated work space either.
But people who work with office or engineering programs, design, develop, or work with longer texts will still use something like a PC. And that could also be a laptop, form factor isn't the point.
The PC-for-everyone age is over and PCs are becoming business machines again, the public is happy with clickedyclick and swipe.
The market is splitting. Apple is in the consumer products market, Oracle makes money with stuff most people never even heard of, and Microsoft hasn't decided yet, but they might be big enough to do servers as well as phones and set top boxes.
The problem with Microsoft is now they are in the position that Linux was many years ago. They are the underdog trying to gain market share. However, the issue is, unlike the situation years ago, Android costs $10 per device, and Windows $30-60 per device. On top of that, Microsoft is generally viewed negatively by it's users, which causes further issues in it's attempts to dominate mobile. Will it seem some success? Maybe, however, so will Blackberry. Will it be the top dog? It takes more than tiles to be on top. All it'd take is a desktop version of android to finish Microsoft once and for all. Disclaimer: I own stock in Microsoft and none in Google :(.
Seriously... at $45 a copy for Windows (probably being the average thanks to OEM licensing) was there ever money there to begin with? Let's face it, Windows licenses in a server/workstation virtualization environment is all that really matters with regards to operating system sales. In addition, they have that other little cash cow called Office which probably yields them 10 times as much per user as Windows does.
/etc directory is a different format and most changes require restarting services or applications. Could it be done... I guess so, but where would you find the workforce to maintain it. There's no standard place to learn anything about Linux. There's the CompTia certs... but those really only exist to have something to laugh at.
But you're probably suggesting that Android or Mac or Linux could take market share on that. Let's be honest, there is no centralized administration for Mac or Android. Linux has it in about 10,000 different versions, but there's no one size fits all solution. Try adding one. How many different decentralized configuration management systems are there now? Last I checked, almost every file in the
In short, this is just silly.
Mac OS X also has modal dialogs. Try printing a document.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
I'd like to see that happen in a slightly different manner, where the phone acts as some kind of central storage system, and allows you to access you data either via the phone itself, or via the PC you connect it to
That could work too. The main drawback I can see is that if it is just a storage device you have less control over the applications installed on the system you connect to. Not a huge problem though. Maybe some sort of portable apps for critical applications you need that might not be readily available. The other wrinkle is that storage can be based in the so called cloud. With a fast enough network connection it is unclear how much local storage makes sense. Varies by user and location I suppose.
In any case my main point was that people are WAY too wrapped up in the current hardware limitations of tablets and aren't thinking hard enough about their potential. What I want is a device that adjusts the interface based on how I need to use it. Smartphones are just a tablet with a small screen that can make calls. Both tablets and smartphones are PCs with a touch optimized interface. Aside from the software there is no fundamental difference between a PC and a tablet and a smartphone and thus I'm rather confident that over time they will converge. It's a little unclear exactly what form that convergence will take but I don't really see any credible argument against it happening.
I know there have been several of the "tablet that attaches to a keyboard" Windows 8 machines.
Yeah, they're trying. The initial offerings aren't especially good but that's not unusual. The first laptops were pretty crappy. Same with digital cameras. Same with smartphones. Eventually someone will figure out a product that really works. Microsoft is obviously working on this. I'm pretty sure Apple is too and I'd be shocked if Google isn't as well. I've already seen sales reps come to our office using an ipad with a bluetooth keyboard as a laptop and it's working well for them. I've seen medical offices doing the same thing. Relatively clumsy still but the concept is solid in my opinion. Microsoft is (rightly) getting beaten up for their clumsy implementation of Windows 8 but the fundamental concept of what they are doing is actually a pretty good idea. I see Apple doing similar things integrating bits of IOS into OSX. I don't pretend to know what the best approach is but that is pretty obviously the direction we're headed.
The beauty of software is you can configure it to adjust to how you are using the machine. If I need something optimized for keyboard/mouse when sitting at a desk or optimized for touch when sitting on the couch, there is no reason that cannot be done. It's going to be interesting to watch.
They are fundamentally computing devices. Where they differ is in power potential. A tablet CPU now is as fast as a PC CPU 7-10 years ago.
And it used to be that laptops were a generation or two behind desktop machines. That gap has mostly been erased. You're conflating current technology status with trajectory. Tablets are slower now mostly due to battery limitations and heat issues. Those are not immutable limitations.
Desktop-class PCs will always have the advantage of space, power, and cooling. They will always be faster.
And they have the disadvantages of not being portable. As for speed, I suspect in time that except for consumer and light office grade uses you'll find the performance gap will greatly diminish in a few years. I'm typing this on a PC built in 2005 which works just fine and isn't much faster than a lot of tablets on the market today. I do accounting, light graphics, work instructions, some pretty heavy spreadsheet work and more and there is no reason a tablet with a few peripherals attached could not do all the same stuff.
Except, of course, all those things are tied to Windows programming model
Not really, no. VS2012 with ASP.NET MVC/Nancy is reasonably close in "joy" to Ruby/Rails/Sinatra as a web development platform, and for me a very decent number two for this (Ruby being number one if that was unclear). There is nothing "Windows programming model" about that. Also, the cost for Microsoft to port the XAML/C#/MSIL stuff to other platforms would probably also be quite low, and again, there is nothing "Windows programming model" over XAML/C#/MSIL either. In fact, XAML/C#/MSIL is basically "Java the way Java could have been had it not been murdered by incompetent committee BS" (TM).
They'd be completely lost without the modal dialog box, an invention they must hold the patent to because I've never seen it on any other operating system
I am sorry for your long-term blindness and/or complete lack of exposure to computers. Is there anything we/I can do to help?
Don't forget the Kin debacle.
My 2011 Mini is more powerful than my 2005 Mac Pro. There aren't many people who need a desktop computer with more guts than the Mac Mini.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)#Sales_standings, XBox 360 is second in overall sales with 78 million sold behind Wii (100 million) and ahead of PS3 (70 million). They're background noise in the smartphone & tablet markets at this point, which is where the momentum is. Win 8 cost them standing and probably accelerated tablet adoption. And with BYOD in the business market, the Exchange/Office lock-in becomes a barrier to entry instead. They're not turning off the lights next week, but they're losing the ability to dictate the market. The recent announcement of Halo for WinPhone is a desperate attempt to pump their dismal standing in phones using their biggest success in the gaming space.
My 2011 Mini is more powerful than my 2005 Mac Pro. There aren't many people who need a desktop computer with more guts than the Mac Mini.
They currently max out at 16GB of RAM and have an Intel graphics chip.
There are a lot of people for whom that is a show stopper, yet don't want to dish out over $2000 for a mac pro.
But the only thing between the mini and the pro is the macbooks.
Something about the size of a Shuttle but with the expected Apple quality and slightly more flexability for parts and priced at say twice the price of a mini would prevent me from having to solve that equation with a PC.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Thanks but this is not owning the industry. Probably PS4 will overtake XBox One since it's been generally hated by most gamers.