Or, looking at it the other way, the only reason you buy Windows is for the applications. Which aren't there yet, on the Windows RT devices. So what's the point?
Two responses.
a) A really good form factor (assuming this is true). That is something priced like a tablet with many of the interface elements of an ultrabook. I think, like lots of other people, Microsoft priced the Surface about $100 too high. The problem they are going to run into is that at around $450 you can pick up a used Macbook air and at around $600 a so / so ultrabook. But imagine it were $100 cheaper....
b) A few years from now assuming Metro is successful they will be there. It is relatively easy for people to move Metro apps from Win8 to WinRT and visa versa. The strategy is move the OS which causes a move in the hardware which causes a move in the applications.
Also, app freedom is a cost of doing business with Apple.
Not for a business that would be using BES. They just get the enterprise SDK and deploy whatever they want.
As for not using iTunes. Lots of applications move data to and from iPhone. If employees need to do this you just deploy anyone of dozens if not hundreds of options.
I highly doubt BB10 will be able to run iOS apps. They would need the entire Cocoa stack to do that. Remember iOS apps are written in Objective C they make all sorts of low level calls routinely.
The business market cut their development budgets after 2001 and they have stagnated on the desktop experience. This is precisely the reason the minis and mainframes lost the enterprise desktop in the 1990s because of the stagnation in the business sector relative to the incredibly active consumer sector of the 80s and early 90s.
I had no problems with google maps on BB either, though the touch screen controls for zooming are very intuitive and faster than the mouse. I've never used the BB in place of a GPS.
Oh boo hoo, how will business proceeed without facebook?
Facebook is kinda important to a lot of business, talk to someone in PR. But more important are things like Linkedin for HR or sourcing. Twitter is becoming a regular source of information. There are also all sorts of business oriented networks like Jive.
Blackberry absolutely crushes android in email messaging and anyone who says otherwise either has odd definitions of usability, or else has never used a blackberry.
I'd agree, for authoring. For viewing I think screen size and pinch to zoom are rather helpful.
Blackberries are still the best device from an IT standpoint; whether the users like them or not SHOULD be irrelevant, because their job isnt to like their business phone, its to do business.
Two comments.
a) The more employees dislike their job the more money they demand to do it. Coal miners, sanitation engineers and police officers get paid a lot more than their skills would demand because of the unpleasantness of their work. Same with people who work for large trading houses, their job sucks but they make a ton of money. Employers because the job market has been soft have been able to get away with not being concerned with employee moral. However employee unhappiness results in turnovers, turnovers cost generally between 3 and 18 mo of salary in terms of lost productivity. Among millennials so far quality of work experience matters a lot to them statistically.
b) Blackberries are great to manage. The other platforms suck but are rapidly getting better. However, the advantages of IT disappear if IT has to implement complex workarounds for missing functionality.
I agree RIM's lockin was nowhere near as great but the fact is that IT departments still don't have a good management strategy for non RIM devices. BBMS had an exclusive. As far as not trained on iOS (I'm saying iOS not OSX deliberately here) on Android I think smartphones are solving that and at this point much less the 2020s Microsoft users will be familiar with those OSes and quite functional in them.
The post was an analogy, what's happening to RIM on phone is what could be happening in a decade to Microsoft on PC. As far as sales I think RIM is about 3:1 over Microsoft.
Which incidentally is exactly why Microsoft is so worried about Android and iOS becoming the consumer standard for desktop / laptop. That is why their Win8 strategy makes sense, they don't want to be in RIM's position in 2022.
You should read the article. It was attacking the functionality of the BB as a business tool as well: mapping, not having all the messaging features, and client's having a low opinion of it. I don't think things are really that bad for BB but this is the NYTimes, so you can't just blow the article off.
That's not universally the case. Some of them have put a more sophisticated Active Directory client out there so that Macs can connect. Many of them have made services which available to desktops at the UNIX level, which allows Macs to connect. Many of them provide instructions for employees on how to use Macs to do various things.
The Sharepoint division does $2b a year in sales. It currently is just shy of 150m licenses. So yes people use it.
BI frequently makes use of rich clients and those are often written in Excel (VBA). As far as the analytics, they are often passed off to Excel for responsiveness. Rich client is not dad.
As far as getting rid of Microsoft dependencies, that's may be true. But Munich has been at it for a dozen years without success. It seems like once you have a Microsoft culture the cost of moving off one means that this has to be a high priority, i.e a major business objective. Even mid priority, as IBM , Sun and Oracle a decade ago proved, doesn't cut it.
BYOD did take off. In 2008 Macs were used in a tiny percentage of companies outside of artistic departments. Today something like 30% have to support Mac. In 2008 companies had RIM smartphones that were centrally purchased. Today they have iPhones and Android often bought with subsidy. In 2008 companies that had tablets had specialized ones. Today over 20% of all companies have to support iPad in a semi-official way.
As for Apple, Apple doesn't want to be an enterprise vendor. They don't want the business.
Loses their business clout to whom? Who is even close to providing the range of services Microsoft provides?
As for the Windows 8 interface it is obnoxious for Win32 apps but does quite nicely for Metro application. And Metro is fine for creating content creation application. The change to Windows 8 just drives a change in hardware design that allows for a change in application design.
It is unsupportable. There isn't going to be meaningful support. When Microsoft first moved into the enterprise with the Windows for Workgroups. IT didn't concern itself with desktops, they worked on the mainframe system. It was only when crucial data began to be on the desktop applications that the company tasked IT, and BYOD disappeared.
Because "joining a doman" is an OS specific way of networking. By having domains a company has already said they don't want OS independent networking but rather what the advantages of an integrated stack of services.
In the 1990s relational databases had just grown powerful enough to take over from the CODASYL / Network databases which allowed for data abstraction and substantially cut development and maintenance costs. In the 2000s relational database had just grown powerful enough to offer additional levels of abstraction: data warehousing and decision support was mostly non existent. In the 2010s it appears we are moving to databases 4-5 orders of magnitude larger than those old CODASYL type. A revolution similar to what happened to accounting in the 1960s when computers first took over. This is data analysis which we never expected to have for hundreds of years.
Yes it is a civil conversation, thank you for that.
I'd differ from you in saying it would take a miracle. I think it is entirely possible that ubiquitous computing is far preferable to multiple platforms for multiple form factors. The explosion in diversity in software and types of machines today is very much the the 1980s. The consolidation of the late 80s though mid 90s on the desktop came because the cost in terms of complexity of infrastructure of maintaining diversity was simply too high.
As web services full of pictures and disappear As it gets increasingly complex to move for family members or coworkers to interchange data with each other if they have different device / software preferences As BYOD means that critical corporate data is available only in formats that IT doesn't support
I believe there is going to be a backlash against choice and diversity just as there was prior to the monoculture. I can easily see this creating an environment where the idea of one set of applications and device interoperability become seen as hugely important features. Apple for cultural reasons is a terrible choice for enterprise. Google lacks the ability to directly control their market, I suspect any choice of direction by Google would fragment Android the way Unix fragmented in the 1980s.
So lets say given the choice between ubiquitous and non ubiquitous with each working equally well, I believe that 80% would prefer ubiquitous. There are in reality going to be big tradeoffs though, in moving away from best in breed like we have today. Further millennials really care about choices, so lets say that cuts the support in half. So 40% chance of ubiquitous winning.
Now the question is the skill of execution between Microsoft vs. Apple and Google in being the builder of the platform. I'm going to say Microsoft 60%, Apple 20% and Google 20%. Apple is beloved and trusted but culturally out of sync with the mainstream. Google has a non customer service culture, while at the same time doesn't partner on technologies. Microsoft has worse execution than Apple, but has proven it can do hundreds of major projects simultaneously. So I'm thinking ballpark 1/4 the Windows 8 strategy wins a monoculture over phones, tablets and computers for another generation. Less than 50/50 but not a miracle.
The 3/4s is really cool. A diverse consumer eco system, an enterprise desktop alternative soon thereafter and a genuine battle for what IT should look like.
Microsoft doesn't disagree. They think they are in real trouble in the home / small business market with the rise of tablets and smartphones. Remember they replaced IBM, DEC, Unisys by owning the small business market and from there crossing over into enterprise. So they understand exactly how much of a threat losing consumer is and they do not want to see Google and Apple do to them in the 2020s what they did in the 1990s.
From their perspective Android and Apple cannot win on enterprise 2012-2017, they aren't remotely close to ready. They are however already taking share and might own the small business / home market by 2020. And then by 2030 they could be a legacy vendor in enterprise, supporting older systems while other companies own the enterprise space.
In the 1990s they made compromises with their OS to win enterprise which were a negative for end users especially home and small business. But they were strong enough that they could maintain their dominance even while pushing an enterprise desktop OS to end users. This time around it is the opposite strategy, they are strong enough in enterprise to allow them to create features which are targeted at home / small business and win back the monoculture.
If they are wrong, they can have plenty of time to change course and focus on defending enterprise before Android is going to be ready as an enterprise desktop.
Yes I did. I also saw the last line about bet the company. That's the point this isn't bet the company. The Windows 8 strategy can fail miserably and Microsoft remains solid in enterprise for years. Given that they are being knocked out of consumer its more like tails we lose a little, heads we win a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, looking at it the other way, the only reason you buy Windows is for the applications. Which aren't there yet, on the Windows RT devices. So what's the point?
Two responses.
a) A really good form factor (assuming this is true). That is something priced like a tablet with many of the interface elements of an ultrabook. I think, like lots of other people, Microsoft priced the Surface about $100 too high. The problem they are going to run into is that at around $450 you can pick up a used Macbook air and at around $600 a so / so ultrabook. But imagine it were $100 cheaper....
b) A few years from now assuming Metro is successful they will be there. It is relatively easy for people to move Metro apps from Win8 to WinRT and visa versa. The strategy is move the OS which causes a move in the hardware which causes a move in the applications.
Huh. Latest comscore numbers:
May 2012: 31.9%
Aug 2012: 34.3%
And that BTW is during the low sales period before the 5 came out. How is that dropping share?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/02/comscore-iphone-moved-up-to-34-percent-us-share-in-august/
Also, app freedom is a cost of doing business with Apple.
Not for a business that would be using BES. They just get the enterprise SDK and deploy whatever they want.
As for not using iTunes. Lots of applications move data to and from iPhone. If employees need to do this you just deploy anyone of dozens if not hundreds of options.
I highly doubt BB10 will be able to run iOS apps. They would need the entire Cocoa stack to do that. Remember iOS apps are written in Objective C they make all sorts of low level calls routinely.
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf
You can disable the camera using the Enterprise management features.
The business market cut their development budgets after 2001 and they have stagnated on the desktop experience. This is precisely the reason the minis and mainframes lost the enterprise desktop in the 1990s because of the stagnation in the business sector relative to the incredibly active consumer sector of the 80s and early 90s.
Sounds to me like you need to move to allowed and supported: https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/enterprise/
BTW if you are a mid or large sized business and want to talk about this seriously I'd be happy to.
I had no problems with google maps on BB either, though the touch screen controls for zooming are very intuitive and faster than the mouse. I've never used the BB in place of a GPS.
Oh boo hoo, how will business proceeed without facebook?
Facebook is kinda important to a lot of business, talk to someone in PR. But more important are things like Linkedin for HR or sourcing. Twitter is becoming a regular source of information. There are also all sorts of business oriented networks like Jive.
Blackberry absolutely crushes android in email messaging and anyone who says otherwise either has odd definitions of usability, or else has never used a blackberry.
I'd agree, for authoring. For viewing I think screen size and pinch to zoom are rather helpful.
Blackberries are still the best device from an IT standpoint; whether the users like them or not SHOULD be irrelevant, because their job isnt to like their business phone, its to do business.
Two comments.
a) The more employees dislike their job the more money they demand to do it. Coal miners, sanitation engineers and police officers get paid a lot more than their skills would demand because of the unpleasantness of their work. Same with people who work for large trading houses, their job sucks but they make a ton of money. Employers because the job market has been soft have been able to get away with not being concerned with employee moral. However employee unhappiness results in turnovers, turnovers cost generally between 3 and 18 mo of salary in terms of lost productivity. Among millennials so far quality of work experience matters a lot to them statistically.
b) Blackberries are great to manage. The other platforms suck but are rapidly getting better. However, the advantages of IT disappear if IT has to implement complex workarounds for missing functionality.
I agree RIM's lockin was nowhere near as great but the fact is that IT departments still don't have a good management strategy for non RIM devices. BBMS had an exclusive. As far as not trained on iOS (I'm saying iOS not OSX deliberately here) on Android I think smartphones are solving that and at this point much less the 2020s Microsoft users will be familiar with those OSes and quite functional in them.
Where you think those kids end up 15 years later?
The post was an analogy, what's happening to RIM on phone is what could be happening in a decade to Microsoft on PC. As far as sales I think RIM is about 3:1 over Microsoft.
Yeah kids never made fun of other kids because of their clothes or bike.
Which incidentally is exactly why Microsoft is so worried about Android and iOS becoming the consumer standard for desktop / laptop. That is why their Win8 strategy makes sense, they don't want to be in RIM's position in 2022.
You should read the article. It was attacking the functionality of the BB as a business tool as well: mapping, not having all the messaging features, and client's having a low opinion of it. I don't think things are really that bad for BB but this is the NYTimes, so you can't just blow the article off.
That's not universally the case. Some of them have put a more sophisticated Active Directory client out there so that Macs can connect. Many of them have made services which available to desktops at the UNIX level, which allows Macs to connect. Many of them provide instructions for employees on how to use Macs to do various things.
To a lesser extent this is true of Android, iOS.
The Sharepoint division does $2b a year in sales. It currently is just shy of 150m licenses. So yes people use it.
BI frequently makes use of rich clients and those are often written in Excel (VBA). As far as the analytics, they are often passed off to Excel for responsiveness. Rich client is not dad.
As far as getting rid of Microsoft dependencies, that's may be true. But Munich has been at it for a dozen years without success. It seems like once you have a Microsoft culture the cost of moving off one means that this has to be a high priority, i.e a major business objective. Even mid priority, as IBM , Sun and Oracle a decade ago proved, doesn't cut it.
But the reality is that BYOD does not take off
BYOD did take off. In 2008 Macs were used in a tiny percentage of companies outside of artistic departments. Today something like 30% have to support Mac. In 2008 companies had RIM smartphones that were centrally purchased. Today they have iPhones and Android often bought with subsidy. In 2008 companies that had tablets had specialized ones. Today over 20% of all companies have to support iPad in a semi-official way.
As for Apple, Apple doesn't want to be an enterprise vendor. They don't want the business.
Loses their business clout to whom? Who is even close to providing the range of services Microsoft provides?
As for the Windows 8 interface it is obnoxious for Win32 apps but does quite nicely for Metro application. And Metro is fine for creating content creation application. The change to Windows 8 just drives a change in hardware design that allows for a change in application design.
What enterprise do you work for? One without:
BI software that integrates with Excel
Exchange
Sharepoint for document management
No universal communications
etc...
It is unsupportable. There isn't going to be meaningful support. When Microsoft first moved into the enterprise with the Windows for Workgroups. IT didn't concern itself with desktops, they worked on the mainframe system. It was only when crucial data began to be on the desktop applications that the company tasked IT, and BYOD disappeared.
Why should I need a specific OS to join a domain?
Because "joining a doman" is an OS specific way of networking. By having domains a company has already said they don't want OS independent networking but rather what the advantages of an integrated stack of services.
Stagnant for decades?
In the 1990s relational databases had just grown powerful enough to take over from the CODASYL / Network databases which allowed for data abstraction and substantially cut development and maintenance costs.
In the 2000s relational database had just grown powerful enough to offer additional levels of abstraction: data warehousing and decision support was mostly non existent.
In the 2010s it appears we are moving to databases 4-5 orders of magnitude larger than those old CODASYL type. A revolution similar to what happened to accounting in the 1960s when computers first took over. This is data analysis which we never expected to have for hundreds of years.
Similarly in areas like networking.
Yes it is a civil conversation, thank you for that.
I'd differ from you in saying it would take a miracle. I think it is entirely possible that ubiquitous computing is far preferable to multiple platforms for multiple form factors. The explosion in diversity in software and types of machines today is very much the the 1980s. The consolidation of the late 80s though mid 90s on the desktop came because the cost in terms of complexity of infrastructure of maintaining diversity was simply too high.
As web services full of pictures and disappear
As it gets increasingly complex to move for family members or coworkers to interchange data with each other if they have different device / software preferences
As BYOD means that critical corporate data is available only in formats that IT doesn't support
I believe there is going to be a backlash against choice and diversity just as there was prior to the monoculture. I can easily see this creating an environment where the idea of one set of applications and device interoperability become seen as hugely important features. Apple for cultural reasons is a terrible choice for enterprise. Google lacks the ability to directly control their market, I suspect any choice of direction by Google would fragment Android the way Unix fragmented in the 1980s.
So lets say given the choice between ubiquitous and non ubiquitous with each working equally well, I believe that 80% would prefer ubiquitous.
There are in reality going to be big tradeoffs though, in moving away from best in breed like we have today. Further millennials really care about choices, so lets say that cuts the support in half. So 40% chance of ubiquitous winning.
Now the question is the skill of execution between Microsoft vs. Apple and Google in being the builder of the platform. I'm going to say Microsoft 60%, Apple 20% and Google 20%. Apple is beloved and trusted but culturally out of sync with the mainstream. Google has a non customer service culture, while at the same time doesn't partner on technologies. Microsoft has worse execution than Apple, but has proven it can do hundreds of major projects simultaneously. So I'm thinking ballpark 1/4 the Windows 8 strategy wins a monoculture over phones, tablets and computers for another generation. Less than 50/50 but not a miracle.
The 3/4s is really cool. A diverse consumer eco system, an enterprise desktop alternative soon thereafter and a genuine battle for what IT should look like.
Microsoft doesn't disagree. They think they are in real trouble in the home / small business market with the rise of tablets and smartphones. Remember they replaced IBM, DEC, Unisys by owning the small business market and from there crossing over into enterprise. So they understand exactly how much of a threat losing consumer is and they do not want to see Google and Apple do to them in the 2020s what they did in the 1990s.
From their perspective Android and Apple cannot win on enterprise 2012-2017, they aren't remotely close to ready. They are however already taking share and might own the small business / home market by 2020. And then by 2030 they could be a legacy vendor in enterprise, supporting older systems while other companies own the enterprise space.
In the 1990s they made compromises with their OS to win enterprise which were a negative for end users especially home and small business. But they were strong enough that they could maintain their dominance even while pushing an enterprise desktop OS to end users. This time around it is the opposite strategy, they are strong enough in enterprise to allow them to create features which are targeted at home / small business and win back the monoculture.
If they are wrong, they can have plenty of time to change course and focus on defending enterprise before Android is going to be ready as an enterprise desktop.
Yes I did. I also saw the last line about bet the company. That's the point this isn't bet the company. The Windows 8 strategy can fail miserably and Microsoft remains solid in enterprise for years. Given that they are being knocked out of consumer its more like tails we lose a little, heads we win a lot.