No I mean the same software running on multiple types of devices with device appropriate look and feels. The same binary. That's the distinction between say BlackBerry / Windows model where you had apps sharing data but having entirely different properties.
As for the name, that came from Microsoft that's their title for it and was used in the industry prior to Microsoft's adoption.
That's not the norm. There have been all kinds of views for Office documents for years on mobile. People seem to want some sort of light editing. Something like what Apple has with editing features downgrading but not disappearing as the form factor gets smaller.
As to not having the same apps. That's Apple's model. If that's the case that people don't mind a diverse application ecosystem then Microsoft is done. Applications will thrive in the Android environment, grow to handle more uses and slowly begin to displace Microsoft Windows. That is Google will do to them what Microsoft did to DEC, IBM, Unisys.... They haven't missed that scenario they are just fighting hard to avoid it.
2013 they did slightly over $10b in sales from the app store. $3b in non-pass through revenue with expenses. Probably closer to about $2b after credit card fees and hosting fees. That's not very much.
For music they did $3.4b last year so likely under $4b for 2013.
I agree with you long term that may be huge. But 2013 it is still not a huge money maker.
2013 they did slightly over $10b in sales $3b in non-pass through revenue with expenses. Probably closer to about $2b after credit card fees and hosting fees. That's not very much.
a) People are keeping their PCs, they could even be buying some more if they didn't come with Windows 8.
The fall off in sales started about 5-6 years ago. It wasn't Windows 8 that caused the drop.
b) See a). If they have to abandon the interface they are used to, they'll go to some that they don't despise.
There is no evidence that people despise the Metro interface contrasted with Android. Much the opposite. On similar hardware they tend to prefer Metro. There is evidence that people don't like Metro on machines it was never designed for, Windows 7 computers.
c) and d) are the same reduntant option, repeated for your enlightment. Yes, people want that, but they are not easily convinced that you supply it.
Security and reliability are not the same thing at all. Many systems are highly secure and unreliable. Many systems are highly reliable and terribly insecure.
If you mean that the application will dynamically recreate its window, adding or removing controls, or adding and removing functionality, depending on the screen size,
Yes that's what I mean.
. To begin with, all functions must be available to all users.
Apple has already disproven this. Keynote, Pages and Numbers for iPhone, iPad and computer had very different functionality and they thrived. Evernote's desktop client is much richer than their phone client and their web client is in between.
Rewriting forms for screens of different size is too expensive; it would be easier to separate business logic and the GUI, and make ten applications with ten different GUIs.
That's essentially what you might do, have a variety of GUIs that the system picks from depending on where it is being run. But all / most of the GUIs are in the same binary however
It is not at all obvious to me this answer is related to the original question. If I buy a mobile handset how does this effect my desire to not have to buy a new laser printer to continue to print something on my PC after upgrading the operating system?
I'd assumed the question was about laptop choice. As for laser printers the major formats: pcl, postscript, pdf, afp, ipds... have been out for decades. If people cared about being able to use the same printer they would have bought support for these formats and not even be worried.
___
As for security there are secure systems and less secure systems people go for less secure. Email and SMS for example are far less secure than other protocols that are less used. ___
. Do you suppose this "vision" is any closer to reality today than it was a decade ago now that each vendor is using wildly different incompatible technologies and locking down means of execution to walled off silos?
No they don't. Windows already has size/DPI information about a monitor. It also knows the speed of rendering. So the application just makes reasonable assumptions based vector graphics and how they would perform.
You mean, the ability to run touchscreen apps designed for 5" phones full-screen on a 24" 1920x1080 display with a mouse and keyboard?
Sort of. I mean the ability to run an application designed to automatically scale between a 24" display that has keyboard, mouse and likely touch controls and also the ability to scale down to a 3" phone. Part of the theory is that applications are designed around multiple form factors.
Who exactly was asking for that 'feature', again?
Microsoft Office users for well over a decade who wanted access to their Enterprise Office (Office / Sharepoint, Dynamics...) suite while mobile.
They are going to try but likely yes it will be breaking compatibility somewhat. They are following Apple's lead in driving their applications infrastructure faster. They may not be able to ever achieve 1 year cycles but 3 year cycles are a reasonable target. Certainly the idea of 20 year cycles has been very bad for Microsoft.
Ubiquitous computing. The ability to run the same applications on a huge range of form factors and have the applications adjust to the form factor.
Is it provide major new capabilities, change the user interface, help Microsoft, or what?
Major new capabilities and a shallower learning curve.
Users want a) compatibility with all of their existing hardware and software, b) familiar interface, c) reliability, d) security, e) access to new hardware and software protocols, f) minimal cost.
a) Obviously not. Users are buying mobile handsets and tablets in numbers far outstripping their x86 numbers b) See (a). Also we know young people in particular are very unhappy with the Windows interface which they find confusing. c) Windows 8 is slightly more stable d) I'm not sure that's true. They want easy security but won't sacrifice much for security and don't buy security options when they are offered. e) Windows 8 does that. f) That's a problem. Microsoft is trying to drive up the cost of x86/Windows hardware to help it create distance from the ARM/Android and iOS ecosystem.
The killer feature is for hardware manufacturers. It gives them an OS to target.
The other killer feature is dropping the elements of legacy interfaces that evolved slowly as DOS/Windows transitioned from a dual floppy based character system to a modern GUI with SSD and cloud services.
No they don't care much about the app store. The purpose of Windows 8 is ubiquitous computing, applications that can seamless transform from small form factors (like phones) through tablet interfaces through to desktops.
They don't want that. What they want is that desktop gradually retreats to acting more like a guest OS / GUI on a Metro based system. Moreover that is really suboptimal even now. Far better is:
Companies aren't a line they are complex web of competing interests more like a society. Lots of people have enough authority to bypass or get special permission for security policies but don't have the power to change them for the whole company or fire the IT security manager.
Remember that RedHat used to be a workstation / desktop distribution. Then it moved into server. With server there was a desire for much longer support windows, more stability.... In general all the big Linux vendors (Ubuntu being an exception) moved towards server (or embedded) and away from desktop. Making Fedora open gave them a way to experiment without polluting the (now) server brand with unreliable software. Honestly it makes a lot of sense. I never found it suspicious.
As long as we are on the topic of Cent. Anyone know the popularity / status... of Scientific Linux. Scientific Linux has some differences in RPMs so it is a bit further away but I'd think that they would want to support it if they offering a support / conversion service. Anyone have any insight?
That's fragmentation and fairly standard like what happened with Apache 1 to Apache 2. That's not really an idealogical split. Are there people who think Python 3 sucks and want to stay on Python 2 for new projects?
You mean there were no US military in Afganistan before 2001?
Yes.
We didn't take advantage of the civil war in the 1980s & 1990s?
There was no Taliban then. And that wasn't an invasion, that was CIA and mostly in Pakistan. We were on the side of the Islamic militants against the Russians.
Slashdot Mirror
No I mean the same software running on multiple types of devices with device appropriate look and feels. The same binary. That's the distinction between say BlackBerry / Windows model where you had apps sharing data but having entirely different properties.
As for the name, that came from Microsoft that's their title for it and was used in the industry prior to Microsoft's adoption.
That's not the norm. There have been all kinds of views for Office documents for years on mobile. People seem to want some sort of light editing. Something like what Apple has with editing features downgrading but not disappearing as the form factor gets smaller.
As to not having the same apps. That's Apple's model. If that's the case that people don't mind a diverse application ecosystem then Microsoft is done. Applications will thrive in the Android environment, grow to handle more uses and slowly begin to displace Microsoft Windows. That is Google will do to them what Microsoft did to DEC, IBM, Unisys.... They haven't missed that scenario they are just fighting hard to avoid it.
2013 they did slightly over $10b in sales from the app store. $3b in non-pass through revenue with expenses. Probably closer to about $2b after credit card fees and hosting fees. That's not very much.
For music they did $3.4b last year so likely under $4b for 2013.
I agree with you long term that may be huge. But 2013 it is still not a huge money maker.
2013 they did slightly over $10b in sales $3b in non-pass through revenue with expenses. Probably closer to about $2b after credit card fees and hosting fees. That's not very much.
The fall off in sales started about 5-6 years ago. It wasn't Windows 8 that caused the drop.
There is no evidence that people despise the Metro interface contrasted with Android. Much the opposite. On similar hardware they tend to prefer Metro. There is evidence that people don't like Metro on machines it was never designed for, Windows 7 computers.
Security and reliability are not the same thing at all. Many systems are highly secure and unreliable. Many systems are highly reliable and terribly insecure.
Yes that's what I mean.
Apple has already disproven this. Keynote, Pages and Numbers for iPhone, iPad and computer had very different functionality and they thrived. Evernote's desktop client is much richer than their phone client and their web client is in between.
That's essentially what you might do, have a variety of GUIs that the system picks from depending on where it is being run. But all / most of the GUIs are in the same binary however
That's exactly the analogy they are moving towards Desktop moves towards the DOS box in Windows XP.
Why would they do that? They want you switching towards Metro.
I'd assumed the question was about laptop choice. As for laser printers the major formats: pcl, postscript, pdf, afp, ipds... have been out for decades. If people cared about being able to use the same printer they would have bought support for these formats and not even be worried.
___
As for security there are secure systems and less secure systems people go for less secure. Email and SMS for example are far less secure than other protocols that are less used.
___
Yes the widget sets are a much better fit.
No they don't. Windows already has size/DPI information about a monitor. It also knows the speed of rendering. So the application just makes reasonable assumptions based vector graphics and how they would perform.
I don't buy that. The app store isn't that profitable for either Apple or Google.
Sort of. I mean the ability to run an application designed to automatically scale between a 24" display that has keyboard, mouse and likely touch controls and also the ability to scale down to a 3" phone. Part of the theory is that applications are designed around multiple form factors.
Microsoft Office users for well over a decade who wanted access to their Enterprise Office (Office / Sharepoint, Dynamics...) suite while mobile.
They are going to try but likely yes it will be breaking compatibility somewhat. They are following Apple's lead in driving their applications infrastructure faster. They may not be able to ever achieve 1 year cycles but 3 year cycles are a reasonable target. Certainly the idea of 20 year cycles has been very bad for Microsoft.
Ubiquitous computing. The ability to run the same applications on a huge range of form factors and have the applications adjust to the form factor.
Major new capabilities and a shallower learning curve.
a) Obviously not. Users are buying mobile handsets and tablets in numbers far outstripping their x86 numbers
b) See (a). Also we know young people in particular are very unhappy with the Windows interface which they find confusing.
c) Windows 8 is slightly more stable
d) I'm not sure that's true. They want easy security but won't sacrifice much for security and don't buy security options when they are offered.
e) Windows 8 does that.
f) That's a problem. Microsoft is trying to drive up the cost of x86/Windows hardware to help it create distance from the ARM/Android and iOS ecosystem.
The killer feature is for hardware manufacturers. It gives them an OS to target.
The other killer feature is dropping the elements of legacy interfaces that evolved slowly as DOS/Windows transitioned from a dual floppy based character system to a modern GUI with SSD and cloud services.
No they don't care much about the app store. The purpose of Windows 8 is ubiquitous computing, applications that can seamless transform from small form factors (like phones) through tablet interfaces through to desktops.
From 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0
They don't want that. What they want is that desktop gradually retreats to acting more like a guest OS / GUI on a Metro based system. Moreover that is really suboptimal even now. Far better is:
large screen = desktop
small touch screen = metro
True, there can be a totalitarian / political aspect to it often as well even when there is a clear hierarchy.
Companies aren't a line they are complex web of competing interests more like a society. Lots of people have enough authority to bypass or get special permission for security policies but don't have the power to change them for the whole company or fire the IT security manager.
Remember that RedHat used to be a workstation / desktop distribution. Then it moved into server. With server there was a desire for much longer support windows, more stability.... In general all the big Linux vendors (Ubuntu being an exception) moved towards server (or embedded) and away from desktop. Making Fedora open gave them a way to experiment without polluting the (now) server brand with unreliable software. Honestly it makes a lot of sense. I never found it suspicious.
As long as we are on the topic of Cent. Anyone know the popularity / status... of Scientific Linux. Scientific Linux has some differences in RPMs so it is a bit further away but I'd think that they would want to support it if they offering a support / conversion service. Anyone have any insight?
That's fragmentation and fairly standard like what happened with Apache 1 to Apache 2. That's not really an idealogical split. Are there people who think Python 3 sucks and want to stay on Python 2 for new projects?
Yes.
There was no Taliban then. And that wasn't an invasion, that was CIA and mostly in Pakistan. We were on the side of the Islamic militants against the Russians.
How were we invading Afghanistan before the attack?
To change regimes, yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
By what measure?
Terror organizations can and have been defeated militarily. The idea that ideas can't be killed through violence is undermined by history.