The comparisons won't make much real-world sense until the evaluation is done using Intel's compiler for the Itanium tests. The GNU compiler is just not up to snuff at optimizing for Itanium's EPIC instruction set.
Actually the tests will make a lot of sense because in real life all programs in some Linux distribution are compiled with gcc. But of course nobody stops Intel from putting their tricks into gcc, which would help them move some Itaniums, too.
By this reasoning, Xbox would have been smashing the PS2 for the last two years.
No, when the PS2 was released nobody knew about XBox and everybody was buying PS2s. Also 2 years is a bit too long to wait. You might be willing to stall that console purchase for a months or a year, but hardly 2 years.
Also MS was the newcomer and will not be able to generate a similar hype as Sony could. The Playstation-hype could easily destroy the Dreamcast, but an XBox1 hype would have hardly have any effect on PS2.
If a console launches early with must-own titles, it will find a base. Developers are asking for more power from the consoles (so they can, you know, do cooler things, so suckers will buy their games and they'll make money), so any developer that wants to get a jump start on the market will start developing for the next generation leader. If that's Microsoft, then so be it.
Well, since all consoles will be backwards-compatible, that factor isn't as important as it used to be. PS2 was bought like crazy even though there weren't many PS2-games for it at the beginning.
As far as release dates go, I think for XBox it would be smartest to either release at roughly the same time as Playstation or at completely different times (like 3 years before and after each PS-release).
Yes, because at the same price, the PS2 performs so much better than the Xbox. That is, if you like long load times and graphics that are no better than Dreamcast's.
Of course I was talking about production prices, not retail prices.
Man, I think I'm still whirling from all that spin you just put out. Let me get this straight, are you seriously suggesting that being first to market now is a disadvantage?
It always was, just look at Dreamcast. The marketing of the PS2 destroyed them. Everybody was waiting for PS2 and then decide which to buy. And of course the newer console looks better. The same will happen with XBox2 and PS3. Only when the other console is still years away, it won't have an effect on the released one, IMO. For example XBox didn't have a negative effect on the PS2-launch because at that time nobody knew MS is going to make a console. Also it was much longer than one year.
And somehow I just know if MS delays the Xbox Next to 1 year after the PS3, you'll just be saying how does MS expect to beat PS3 while being beaten to the market again?
That would be much smarter, first because releasing some months after the competitor is better IMO and second because the XBox1 is still very young and Microsoft will piss off many people (resellers, game makers, gamers) by making it obsolete in such a short time.
So is the only way for MS to act effectively to base all of their release dates strictly around their competitor's and come out at the exact same time or something?
As a newcomer MS is of course facing an uphill-battle. From a marketing POV, the best thing to do IMO would be to release about 3-4 years after and before PS-releases. That way, the XBox could develop without being disturbed by the huge hype around every PS-release.
You don't understand the situation, I think. XBox has much more to fear from the Playstation than vice versa.
Yes, but put yourself into Microsoft's boots: The thing that really matters is Windows and Office. If XBox can be used as an PC-alternative, the huge profits from Windows/Office are jeopardized.
Just imagine Dell no longer pushing Windows whenever they can and instead take a neutral position. Imagine them even pushing towards Linux. Imagine them offering the same hardware with and without Windows (with price passed on).
And without the profits from Windows/Office, XBox is dead as well.
I don't think it's a wise move. First, they are dumb by announcing price drops. Now everybody will wait for the drop and resellers will take a hit for XBoxes rotting away on shelfes.
Then, by releasing the XBox2 shortly afterwards, those who have just bought the XBox1 (and causing huge losses for Microsoft) most likely won't buy a XBox2.
IMO, it would have been much smarter if they would have waited for XBox2 and waste billions on XBox2, not on XBox1.
But of course it remains somewhat questionable wether Microsoft is willing to lose billions on XBox forever and without huge cash-transfusions the platform will die anyway. So IMO an even smarter move would be to discontinue the whole XBox-moneypit ASAP.
ASAIK the XBox is supposed to pave the way for homes to get all manner of services from Microsoft and partners, but I don't see much evidence of that.
Yes, I also think that. Also Microsoft has to be very careful not to piss off their PC-hardware partners, I think they changed the USB-connector for exactly that reason: PC-makers shouldn't be afraid it could be used as a PC-replacement.
They release far too often. The whole point of a console is that you buy it and not have to worry about updates, the thing becoming obsolete, etc.
Also if XBox couldn't beat the PS2 with a 2-year technical advantage and huge losses, how do they expect to beat the PS3 being 1 year behind? When the PS3 comes out, it will be faster, have more games and be cheaper than XBox2.
Also MS made the mistake of choosing PC-components which is the reason why XBox will always have a worse price/performance ratio than the Playstation. Of course as long as Microsoft is willing to lose 1 billion/year on XBox, you don't see the price in the stores...
XBox2 seems to me an even bigger moneypit than XBox1. Also XBox faces the constant danger of being discontinued when the Office and Windows profits no longer grow, it is a product that cannot survive on it's own merit, it needs constant and huge flow of cash, which isn't really a good long-term strategy.
As someone who has already seen projects getting abandoned by the original developers and being barely run by other people, I think it's entirely possible that Microsoft has assigned all IE-developers to other projects and by now has nobody who really understands the codebase.
I mean really. "Fixing" stuff by taking out the functionality. That's a bad sign.
The question is rather: "Why do Microsoft-sponsored TCO-studies never include the cost of viruses, worms, security holes and/or countermeasures against viruses, worms and security holes?"
You listed a conclusion ("very strong potential") with some statements which look like Microsoft-PR ("superior applications") but you later pretended that they don't have anything to do with the "very strong potential", which of course opens up the question why you have thrown in the "superior apps" argument at all.
I have posted several reasons why there isn't any potential, never mind very strong potential for MS in the cellphone market.
I even quoted what you said. The worst part is when you wanted to sell a feature everybody has: "The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs" as a big pro-MS feature. It's like claiming that the new Nissan Primera will sell like crazy because it has a steering wheel. It's true, it does, but it's not a distinguishable feature and trying to hype it up as the greatest thing in the world makes you look like a salesman, not like a serious discussion partner.
What I did say was that there was potential.
"very strong potential", to be exact. On what is your religious believe in their "potential" based?
You just said that it isn't superior apps. I guess you will also retract that synching to Outlook is a unique MS-cellphone feature because it's just so obviously wrong. So what's left? What great advantages make you believe in Microsoft's great cellphone potential?
It can't be money either. Nokia alone is bigger than Microsoft and cellphones is their core-business so any sum Microsoft will invest in MS-smartphones is likely to be dwarfed by Nokia's investment in their's even more so when you take all the other cellphone makers into account.
So. If you think there is "very strong potential" (quote), you should have a reason. If you don't have a reason, it's just blind faith. If it is no longer magically appearing "superior" apps, if it is no longer Outlook-synchability, what is it?
You tried to introduce the delusion that people are buying cellphones based on the OS, in your case "Microsoft instead of Nokia's or Motorola's" and OS openness is irrelevant.
However, reality of course is reversed. People do care about OS-openness because that 20$ royalties translate to about 30$-100$ increase in retail price depending on how expensive the sales channel is.
If the consumer has to choose between two roughly equivalent cellphones and one costs 30-100$ more than the other, which one will they take? Especially if the cheaper one can run thousands of Java-apps and the other can't?
Added to that is the uncertainaty about royalties (= can go up anytime) and about the general product (= can be discontinued just like Windows on Alpha which disappeared with just one week(!) warning) which makes it pretty unattractive for cellphone makers and is the cause that usually there is no MS-based cellphone to choose from in the first place...
I didn't post that as anti-Linux or pro-MS propoganda.
I already posted 4 points clearly illustrating that you did.
Either comment on that 4 points (unlikely) or spread your FUD elsewhere (much more likely, the Winlots always avoid serious fact-based discussion. "They will create superior apps" is not fact-based discussion, FYI. That's sales-talk.) but please don't try to insult me personally with phrases like "Grow up. Seriously." or I can't believe how some people get their panties in a bunch when things are put into perspective..
What "perspective" are you talking about anyway? Because so far every MS-based cellphone was a complete failure in the marketplace your "perspective" surely isn't reality, your perspective is Microsoft's wishful thinking, nothing more.
I know that MSFT-holders have been trained to believe that Microsoft cannot lose and will always win in the end. The fact that XBox sold less than half of what Microsoft projected in the first 6 months was played down. The fact that in the latest reports the XBox division has created less revenue and more losses is ignored. Now MS has stated so often that XBox is a huge succes that most people started to believe it. The fact that every adventure to non-x86 platform miserably failed is also played down. The fact that Hailstorm which was supposed to revolutionize the net dissappeared overnight is forgotten.
NanoGator: Face the facts. Face reality. Accept the possibility that your beloved company might not win.
That has already been tried, and people didn't buy them.
Why?
For one they are more expensive (pretty stupid for Microsoft to think they can break into a market with a more expensive product), then they are unreliable and buggy (as often reported with Orange's Microsoft-based cellphones) and they don't come with a quality brand like Nokia.
So your constant scenarios about people buying MS-smartphones like crazy is just wishful thinking on your part.
I didn't say Microsoft would win. I was intentionally neutral
Not really:
You completely ignored Symbian. If you argue about how hard it is to break into the cellphone market, Symbian is the clear winner, NOT Microsoft
You completely ignored that all of Microsoft's attemts at cellphones failed miserably. Many times the product was so buggy that the network carrier refused to even offer it! (as was the case with T-Mobile which should have offered a Microsoft-powered phone in mid-2003 but was "delayed" because of "quality concerns". Still haven't heard about it, seems that after over 6 months we can safely say that by now the project has been cancelled completely and not delayed.)
With the phrase "The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs" you wanted to create the illusion that Symbian or Linux couldn't do exactly the same - which they do and (in case of Symbian) did for years. Actually I don't believe you on that matter, this looks rather like a weak try to willingly spread unfounded FUD.
With the phrase [Microsoft] still have a very strong potential in the marketplace. If their apps are superior to the others in the customers' eyes, [..] you try to create the illusion that Microsoft has some magic key to create better apps. You cleverly packed that assumtion in an "if"-sentence, but because you claim without any proof that they "still have a very strong potential" and give only one reason for that strong potential (superior apps), the "if" is really a "because". Sorry to introduce you to the hard reality. But again, Nokia and Symbian have much better chances at creating "superior apps" because they already make phones for many years. And unlike Microsoft they also sell them in reasonable quantities.
To make a long story short you sound like a scared MSFT-shareholder who desperatly tries to spread as much anti-Linux FUD as possible. Although you seem to be much more clever than the average Winlot, I must give you that (The trick to replace the "because" with an "if" and later claim neutrality is really admirable. You are either very clever or had serious rethoric education)
I hate to rain on your parade, but Symbian, not Microsoft is holding the market right now. If you argue pro-established ("people don't want to change", "the apps are there", "they have more experience", "think about the training costs!", etc.) Symbian is the winner.
If you argue pro-change ("cheaper", "faster", "easier to develop for", etc.) then Linux is the winner because it is cheaper than Symbian and Microsoft isn't.
It must be a though break for you, but there is absolutely no way Microsoft can win on cellphones.
But you all should remember that Microsoft is the least open and most expensive desktop OS out there, and it's well ahead of everybody else on the desktop.
Completely wrong. The Microsoft/PC combination has been much more open than anything else for almost 2 decades. That was Microsoft's success secret: Let all the hardware companies work hard and ride on their success wave.
Let's face it: PC hardware has become so good that even with Microsoft's crappy OS, it has become superior to any other product for mainstream desktop use, be it Apple, Sun or SGI.
Only since KDE2 (IIRC 1999) the world has got a desktop that is both more open and technically superior to Windows - but unfortunately still lacks most of the apps which is the only reason why Microsoft still dominates the desktop.
However on cellphones, that advantage doesn't exist. Symbian has the advantage of being established, Linux has the advantage of being gratis and open, but Windows doesn't have a compelling advantage.
If history tells us any lession is that openness wins. Just like VHS vs. Beta where VHS was successful because it was a multi-vendor standard (Sony opened up Beta, but much too late) and the openness of the PC-platform was Microsoft's biggest asset. With the advent of Linux that has changed and Microsoft more and more sounds like a doomed Unix-vendor in the late 90's, putting out dubious TCO-studies and unproven claims about productivity.
All top Asian embedded systems companies have already started a project to create a common development base for Linux.
There is no need for lobbying. There is no need for marketing.
Most companies already use Linux for non-cellphone embedded systems, standardizing on Linux for cellphones is the natural thing to do and is loved by the management because management loves standardizing wether it makes sense or not.
Couldn't really lock the market because most development is done in Java, not natively in Symbian
Linux pros
Easily developed on PC
Easily modified
More secure because the codebase has been tested on the Internet in production environments for years
A big software library (through Java) and a even bigger library on the PC that can maybe be modified to run on the smartphone (depending of course on the application
No license costs and also no license hassles. What many Winlots forget is that one of the big advantages of Linux is that you can start right away you don't have to buy and wait for development kits/licenses.
Linux is already used in the majority of embedded-systems projects that use an OS. Since many cellphone-makers also make embedded systems, standardizing on Linux could offer benefits.
cons
Relatively new on the market.
Microsoft - pros
It's from Microsoft, so it gets loads of gratious advertising, marketing and hype from everybody including Slashdot
cons
Since Microsoft's stance toward Java is very uncertain and doubtful, you have pretty much no native applications at all
Microsoft's Java (aka.NET) hasn't been established on the market at all, there aren't many applications on the market. And the few that have been written are for the most part web-driven database frontends, not really anything that could be useful on a cellphone.
Currently all cellphones running with Windows/Stinger/whateveritscalledtoday have either been shut down before market introduction because of quality problems or haven't sold very well because of quality problems
Because of the general weakness of Microsoft cellphones, Microsoft is likely to discontinue them in a couple of years, just like Windows/Alpha, Hailstorm, the HomeR project and many many other Microsoft projects. We are not talking about IBM which supports their products virtually forever. Microsoft has shown many times that they don't care when their customers are stranded on an unsupported platform
To sum up, the outlook for Linux looks very bright. Because most advanced cellphone apps are Java-apps and not Symbian-apps, Linux will be able to replace Symbian cellphones without much problems. Even if that weren't the case, the smartphone market is still young and small, Linux also could prosper without Java-compatibility.
Microsoft doesn't releease any studies about cellphones because they are doing so badly that even a biased study makes them look like the band of incompetent losers that they are.
Maybe I'm not as easily entertained as the average Slashdot moderator, but I really don't understand why the same old jokes get modded up to 4 or 5 "funny" for months or even years.
2002: Post "In Soviet Russia" joke - +5 Funny guaranteed
2003: Post "I for one welcome.." joke - +5 Funny guaranteed
And now the SCO-699$ licensing jokes... in every thread even remotely related to Linux. Maybe even several times...
comments like that are the kind of thing Darl and his minions use as evidence
Yeah, right, I can imagine it right now: "Your honor, we will now present our evidence: On January 27 2004 alone, a user on Slashdot with the name 'Anonymous Coward' has posted 13 death threats. Therefore IBM has pay us 1 billion dollas please"
Yea but you have to think about this from a business point of view,
You mean that MS also saves millions of taxes?
Storing software anywhere is going to generate overhead(costs), so even if they were to store them in bill's pants it would cost money to put them there(employees pay, cost of the pants, space that there taking up). In business every has some kind of cost or benifit.
The costs of storing the software is certainly a lot lower than the tax benefits MS gets out of this deal and also below 1 million.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the tests will make a lot of sense because in real life all programs in some Linux distribution are compiled with gcc. But of course nobody stops Intel from putting their tricks into gcc, which would help them move some Itaniums, too.
No, when the PS2 was released nobody knew about XBox and everybody was buying PS2s. Also 2 years is a bit too long to wait. You might be willing to stall that console purchase for a months or a year, but hardly 2 years.
Also MS was the newcomer and will not be able to generate a similar hype as Sony could. The Playstation-hype could easily destroy the Dreamcast, but an XBox1 hype would have hardly have any effect on PS2.
If a console launches early with must-own titles, it will find a base. Developers are asking for more power from the consoles (so they can, you know, do cooler things, so suckers will buy their games and they'll make money), so any developer that wants to get a jump start on the market will start developing for the next generation leader. If that's Microsoft, then so be it.
Well, since all consoles will be backwards-compatible, that factor isn't as important as it used to be. PS2 was bought like crazy even though there weren't many PS2-games for it at the beginning.
As far as release dates go, I think for XBox it would be smartest to either release at roughly the same time as Playstation or at completely different times (like 3 years before and after each PS-release).
Yes, because at the same price, the PS2 performs so much better than the Xbox. That is, if you like long load times and graphics that are no better than Dreamcast's.
Of course I was talking about production prices, not retail prices.
It always was, just look at Dreamcast. The marketing of the PS2 destroyed them. Everybody was waiting for PS2 and then decide which to buy. And of course the newer console looks better. The same will happen with XBox2 and PS3. Only when the other console is still years away, it won't have an effect on the released one, IMO. For example XBox didn't have a negative effect on the PS2-launch because at that time nobody knew MS is going to make a console. Also it was much longer than one year.
And somehow I just know if MS delays the Xbox Next to 1 year after the PS3, you'll just be saying how does MS expect to beat PS3 while being beaten to the market again?
That would be much smarter, first because releasing some months after the competitor is better IMO and second because the XBox1 is still very young and Microsoft will piss off many people (resellers, game makers, gamers) by making it obsolete in such a short time.
So is the only way for MS to act effectively to base all of their release dates strictly around their competitor's and come out at the exact same time or something?
As a newcomer MS is of course facing an uphill-battle. From a marketing POV, the best thing to do IMO would be to release about 3-4 years after and before PS-releases. That way, the XBox could develop without being disturbed by the huge hype around every PS-release.
You don't understand the situation, I think. XBox has much more to fear from the Playstation than vice versa.
Just imagine Dell no longer pushing Windows whenever they can and instead take a neutral position. Imagine them even pushing towards Linux. Imagine them offering the same hardware with and without Windows (with price passed on).
And without the profits from Windows/Office, XBox is dead as well.
So that everytime you buy a game, you pick up a XBox, too?
Microsoft has a lot of money, yes, but they would go bankrupt on a scheme like that.
Then, by releasing the XBox2 shortly afterwards, those who have just bought the XBox1 (and causing huge losses for Microsoft) most likely won't buy a XBox2.
IMO, it would have been much smarter if they would have waited for XBox2 and waste billions on XBox2, not on XBox1.
But of course it remains somewhat questionable wether Microsoft is willing to lose billions on XBox forever and without huge cash-transfusions the platform will die anyway. So IMO an even smarter move would be to discontinue the whole XBox-moneypit ASAP.
Yes, I also think that. Also Microsoft has to be very careful not to piss off their PC-hardware partners, I think they changed the USB-connector for exactly that reason: PC-makers shouldn't be afraid it could be used as a PC-replacement.
Also if XBox couldn't beat the PS2 with a 2-year technical advantage and huge losses, how do they expect to beat the PS3 being 1 year behind? When the PS3 comes out, it will be faster, have more games and be cheaper than XBox2.
Also MS made the mistake of choosing PC-components which is the reason why XBox will always have a worse price/performance ratio than the Playstation. Of course as long as Microsoft is willing to lose 1 billion/year on XBox, you don't see the price in the stores...
XBox2 seems to me an even bigger moneypit than XBox1. Also XBox faces the constant danger of being discontinued when the Office and Windows profits no longer grow, it is a product that cannot survive on it's own merit, it needs constant and huge flow of cash, which isn't really a good long-term strategy.
I mean really. "Fixing" stuff by taking out the functionality. That's a bad sign.
But as long as there are some remains of free speech we also have the right not to believe said studies and publicly announce our disbelief.
You listed a conclusion ("very strong potential") with some statements which look like Microsoft-PR ("superior applications") but you later pretended that they don't have anything to do with the "very strong potential", which of course opens up the question why you have thrown in the "superior apps" argument at all.
I have posted several reasons why there isn't any potential, never mind very strong potential for MS in the cellphone market.
I even quoted what you said. The worst part is when you wanted to sell a feature everybody has: "The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs" as a big pro-MS feature. It's like claiming that the new Nissan Primera will sell like crazy because it has a steering wheel. It's true, it does, but it's not a distinguishable feature and trying to hype it up as the greatest thing in the world makes you look like a salesman, not like a serious discussion partner.
What I did say was that there was potential.
"very strong potential", to be exact. On what is your religious believe in their "potential" based?
You just said that it isn't superior apps. I guess you will also retract that synching to Outlook is a unique MS-cellphone feature because it's just so obviously wrong. So what's left? What great advantages make you believe in Microsoft's great cellphone potential?
It can't be money either. Nokia alone is bigger than Microsoft and cellphones is their core-business so any sum Microsoft will invest in MS-smartphones is likely to be dwarfed by Nokia's investment in their's even more so when you take all the other cellphone makers into account.
So. If you think there is "very strong potential" (quote), you should have a reason. If you don't have a reason, it's just blind faith. If it is no longer magically appearing "superior" apps, if it is no longer Outlook-synchability, what is it?
However, reality of course is reversed. People do care about OS-openness because that 20$ royalties translate to about 30$-100$ increase in retail price depending on how expensive the sales channel is.
If the consumer has to choose between two roughly equivalent cellphones and one costs 30-100$ more than the other, which one will they take? Especially if the cheaper one can run thousands of Java-apps and the other can't?
Added to that is the uncertainaty about royalties (= can go up anytime) and about the general product (= can be discontinued just like Windows on Alpha which disappeared with just one week(!) warning) which makes it pretty unattractive for cellphone makers and is the cause that usually there is no MS-based cellphone to choose from in the first place...
I already posted 4 points clearly illustrating that you did.
Either comment on that 4 points (unlikely) or spread your FUD elsewhere (much more likely, the Winlots always avoid serious fact-based discussion. "They will create superior apps" is not fact-based discussion, FYI. That's sales-talk.) but please don't try to insult me personally with phrases like "Grow up. Seriously." or I can't believe how some people get their panties in a bunch when things are put into perspective..
What "perspective" are you talking about anyway? Because so far every MS-based cellphone was a complete failure in the marketplace your "perspective" surely isn't reality, your perspective is Microsoft's wishful thinking, nothing more.
I know that MSFT-holders have been trained to believe that Microsoft cannot lose and will always win in the end. The fact that XBox sold less than half of what Microsoft projected in the first 6 months was played down. The fact that in the latest reports the XBox division has created less revenue and more losses is ignored. Now MS has stated so often that XBox is a huge succes that most people started to believe it. The fact that every adventure to non-x86 platform miserably failed is also played down. The fact that Hailstorm which was supposed to revolutionize the net dissappeared overnight is forgotten.
NanoGator: Face the facts. Face reality. Accept the possibility that your beloved company might not win.
That has already been tried, and people didn't buy them.
Why?
For one they are more expensive (pretty stupid for Microsoft to think they can break into a market with a more expensive product), then they are unreliable and buggy (as often reported with Orange's Microsoft-based cellphones) and they don't come with a quality brand like Nokia.
So your constant scenarios about people buying MS-smartphones like crazy is just wishful thinking on your part.
Not really:
To make a long story short you sound like a scared MSFT-shareholder who desperatly tries to spread as much anti-Linux FUD as possible. Although you seem to be much more clever than the average Winlot, I must give you that (The trick to replace the "because" with an "if" and later claim neutrality is really admirable. You are either very clever or had serious rethoric education)
I hate to rain on your parade, but Symbian, not Microsoft is holding the market right now. If you argue pro-established ("people don't want to change", "the apps are there", "they have more experience", "think about the training costs!", etc.) Symbian is the winner.
If you argue pro-change ("cheaper", "faster", "easier to develop for", etc.) then Linux is the winner because it is cheaper than Symbian and Microsoft isn't.
It must be a though break for you, but there is absolutely no way Microsoft can win on cellphones.
Completely wrong. The Microsoft/PC combination has been much more open than anything else for almost 2 decades. That was Microsoft's success secret: Let all the hardware companies work hard and ride on their success wave.
Let's face it: PC hardware has become so good that even with Microsoft's crappy OS, it has become superior to any other product for mainstream desktop use, be it Apple, Sun or SGI.
Only since KDE2 (IIRC 1999) the world has got a desktop that is both more open and technically superior to Windows - but unfortunately still lacks most of the apps which is the only reason why Microsoft still dominates the desktop.
However on cellphones, that advantage doesn't exist. Symbian has the advantage of being established, Linux has the advantage of being gratis and open, but Windows doesn't have a compelling advantage.
If history tells us any lession is that openness wins. Just like VHS vs. Beta where VHS was successful because it was a multi-vendor standard (Sony opened up Beta, but much too late) and the openness of the PC-platform was Microsoft's biggest asset. With the advent of Linux that has changed and Microsoft more and more sounds like a doomed Unix-vendor in the late 90's, putting out dubious TCO-studies and unproven claims about productivity.
All top Asian embedded systems companies have already started a project to create a common development base for Linux.
There is no need for lobbying. There is no need for marketing.
Most companies already use Linux for non-cellphone embedded systems, standardizing on Linux for cellphones is the natural thing to do and is loved by the management because management loves standardizing wether it makes sense or not.
Symbian - pros
- Large user base
- already established on the market
- large software library (but mostly via Java)
cons- Licensing costs
- Couldn't really lock the market because most development is done in Java, not natively in Symbian
Linux pros- Easily developed on PC
- Easily modified
- More secure because the codebase has been tested on the Internet in production environments for years
- A big software library (through Java) and a even bigger library on the PC that can maybe be modified to run on the smartphone (depending of course on the application
- No license costs and also no license hassles. What many Winlots forget is that one of the big advantages of Linux is that you can start right away you don't have to buy and wait for development kits/licenses.
- Linux is already used in the majority of embedded-systems projects that use an OS. Since many cellphone-makers also make embedded systems, standardizing on Linux could offer benefits.
cons- Relatively new on the market.
Microsoft - pros- It's from Microsoft, so it gets loads of gratious advertising, marketing and hype from everybody including Slashdot
consTo sum up, the outlook for Linux looks very bright. Because most advanced cellphone apps are Java-apps and not Symbian-apps, Linux will be able to replace Symbian cellphones without much problems. Even if that weren't the case, the smartphone market is still young and small, Linux also could prosper without Java-compatibility.
Microsoft doesn't releease any studies about cellphones because they are doing so badly that even a biased study makes them look like the band of incompetent losers that they are.
2002: Post "In Soviet Russia" joke - +5 Funny guaranteed
2003: Post "I for one welcome.." joke - +5 Funny guaranteed
And now the SCO-699$ licensing jokes... in every thread even remotely related to Linux. Maybe even several times...
-1 Redundant, please guys.
Yeah, right, I can imagine it right now: "Your honor, we will now present our evidence: On January 27 2004 alone, a user on Slashdot with the name 'Anonymous Coward' has posted 13 death threats. Therefore IBM has pay us 1 billion dollas please"
Why not just use Mozilla? There aren't any known security issues, actually there haven't been any serious security issues at all with it.
You mean that MS also saves millions of taxes?
Storing software anywhere is going to generate overhead(costs), so even if they were to store them in bill's pants it would cost money to put them there(employees pay, cost of the pants, space that there taking up). In business every has some kind of cost or benifit.
The costs of storing the software is certainly a lot lower than the tax benefits MS gets out of this deal and also below 1 million.