I don't think it is a cold turkey cutover. Cold turkey is when Win32 compatibility isn't out of the box and you need another OS to get it. And then when it just becomes a guest OS. But it sends a clear message of the direction.
And when the general public becomes aware that not all tablets can run their apps, the only thing they will see is that you will have "non" expensive tablets that are crippled in their eyes and expensive tablets that can run their apps. Not a positive image for Microsoft.
I'm not so sure about that. Microsoft has had a change of strategy they need to start driving up their hardware costs to have more innovative hardware. They were willing to forgo the bottom 1/3rd of the market. Why is it so bad to send the message that cheap hardware doesn't do what you want if your intention is to start raising hardware costs and thus opening up a low end: Android, iOS, Linux void?
Lets try a different number. You are an enterprise and have spend $3200 per employee times 30k employees on Microsoft infrastructure plus another $2m or so in setup and configuration.
I don't agree with you on degrading customer experience. The customer experience on Windows is bad.
For enterprise end users have under powered locked down machines with limited software selection and low flexibility. For home end users have under powered machines with terrible input devices loaded with crapware that are hard to maintain.
I'd have a hard time arguing that's not a degraded experience.
Leveraging their monopoly.... hmmm interesting argument. It would certainly be a stretch of leveraging to say that using a monopoly in one area to just convince customers to buy a product or make available a service.... don't know if that one is winnable or not.
I don't think Metro UI works worse for the desktops / laptops of the future. It doesn't work well for old fashioned keyboard, mouse, large screen setup but that's not what they want desktops in the future to work like. They want touch, they want even desktops to be using more complex controls like trackpads.
Yes, Windows 8 is designed to start migrating the whole ecosystem.
You can run iOS apps on Mac. The iOS emulator is included in XCode. Which nicely sends the message: this is not going to be user friendly and is intended for developers.
Microsoft has loads of experience with marketing and branding, so the real mystery here is why they have committed to such an obviously confusing strategy.
Because they want the drama to put pressure on developers. Think about the world around 2014.
You have Windows phones, Windows tablets, Windows servers and Windows desktop / laptops. Metro apps move seamlessly from one platform to the next. Win32 apps only work on desktops and laptops and use a confusing legacy interface that doesn't work very well. Customers don't like Win32 apps and demand Metro versions
As a developer are you going to continue to write to the old WinXP codebase or are you at the very least going to make sure to compile up Metro versions?
Their goal is ubiquitous computing. All applications respond to the form factor they are being run in and are capable of automatically upgrading is larger form factors become available.
They need to conflate their tablet and their PC product just to be competitive but that's going to ultimately cause some people to be disappointed.
Remember their goal is to conflate their tablet and PC product completely not just in name but in fact. The disappointment will help to push developers to support that objective.
Microsoft is trying to kick both developers, OEMs and consumers. They need to get their platform to advance.
Windows 8 creates an OS so now hardware partners can start selling more innovative hardware that will work with the OS. Window 8 RT allows for arm systems, i.e. high battery life and somewhat lower costs. Which is an example fo the kind of diversity they want. Developer moving to Metro helps to break things that will hold the platform back like non scalable graphics.
Microsoft is assuming a leadership position, the sort of thing they did during the migration to Windows and again during the Enterprise migration but not much since.
Well first off that's not the system we have. And I'm not talking just LD here, any LEC to LEC call works that way. So more or less outside your county will run into that setup. The carrier's cost are associated for port, that is volume of peak calling (or other high quality data) from or to most LEC. That's their cost. For a small percentage, low volume high distance LECs line is the big expense.
The carriers could care less how many subscribers they LEC has, they care how much data the LEC is asking them to push.
For a LEC the cost of the actual phone call is the peak cost of the port connection (unless they are far away in which case line is the dominant cost) from their carrier. That's tens of thousands per month or more but it is inclusive of everything they sell.
For the carrier it is mostly the cost of calls, though again peak port is their main cost.
But you keep switching perspectives here. There are 4 entities:
a) The originator's LEC b) The originator's carrier c) The recipient's carrier d) The recipient's LEC.
The recipient's LEC is charging the recipient's carrier for the call, What you are saying is that because the originator's LEC's gets fixed monthly bill the carrier's shouldn't worry about fees they are paying the recipient's LEC.
Those costs are known. It is about $.007 / min lock stock and barrel to run a phone call, that includes things like line maintenance and excludes the 4-6% of the country that has the lowest population density, where fully loaded cost can be $.03 on up. That number is going up as the volumes of POTS calls are going down.
Accounting is more or less free, though variable billing and collections might not be.
Oh OK good. Then what I was suggesting is just raise that initial connection fee while dropping the per minute fee. I'm assuming most robocalls aren't worth much money.
In any case Z, the neighboring country which is at least semi-legitimate, can handle the enforcement and tell Y to drop W.
Lets assume we have the carrier Y internationally originating calls from country X. Lets assume that Y's internal system has no ability to get calls. Lets assume that Y passes off to Z who passes off to Verizon USA, who passes it off to Verizon LEC who delivers via. PSTN. Verizon's knows they got the call from Z. They charge a fee. Say $.03 / to connect plus $.01 / min to Z. They don't accept the handoff from Z without having a way to get that fee. They also know a lot about where's Z's calls are coming from. Moreover they only accept calls from Y via. Z.
I'm not sure of the problem. Z needs to authenticate with Y, because otherwise they are going to owe Verizon a lot of money. Z ends up doing the enforcement on Y and in particular won't let anyone spoof Y.
I understand that. But monthly service doesn't cover the cost of a constant connection. The more calls I get the more it is costing the LEC. There is no reason low call volume people should be subsidizing high call volume people.
Someone has to pay for connection costs. You are treating this like it is free.
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken. Thank you for the correction.
I don't think it is a cold turkey cutover. Cold turkey is when Win32 compatibility isn't out of the box and you need another OS to get it. And then when it just becomes a guest OS. But it sends a clear message of the direction.
As of Windows 8 they will run on only a fraction of the hardware base, in an interface not too different from a guest OS. Yeah that's legacy.
And when the general public becomes aware that not all tablets can run their apps, the only thing they will see is that you will have "non" expensive tablets that are crippled in their eyes and expensive tablets that can run their apps. Not a positive image for Microsoft.
I'm not so sure about that. Microsoft has had a change of strategy they need to start driving up their hardware costs to have more innovative hardware. They were willing to forgo the bottom 1/3rd of the market. Why is it so bad to send the message that cheap hardware doesn't do what you want if your intention is to start raising hardware costs and thus opening up a low end: Android, iOS, Linux void?
Lets try a different number. You are an enterprise and have spend $3200 per employee times 30k employees on Microsoft infrastructure plus another $2m or so in setup and configuration.
I don't agree with you on degrading customer experience. The customer experience on Windows is bad.
For enterprise end users have under powered locked down machines with limited software selection and low flexibility.
For home end users have under powered machines with terrible input devices loaded with crapware that are hard to maintain.
I'd have a hard time arguing that's not a degraded experience.
Leveraging their monopoly.... hmmm interesting argument. It would certainly be a stretch of leveraging to say that using a monopoly in one area to just convince customers to buy a product or make available a service .... don't know if that one is winnable or not.
I don't think Metro UI works worse for the desktops / laptops of the future. It doesn't work well for old fashioned keyboard, mouse, large screen setup but that's not what they want desktops in the future to work like. They want touch, they want even desktops to be using more complex controls like trackpads.
Yes, Windows 8 is designed to start migrating the whole ecosystem.
And that's fine with Microsoft. Windows Vista moved the OEM's from one driver model to another which allowed for the improvements in Windows 7.
You can run iOS apps on Mac. The iOS emulator is included in XCode. Which nicely sends the message: this is not going to be user friendly and is intended for developers.
Right and when they see apps run under Windows 8 they run is this very counter intuitive way. Like a guest operating system.
I think it is going to send a very strong message to developers.
Microsoft has loads of experience with marketing and branding, so the real mystery here is why they have committed to such an obviously confusing strategy.
Because they want the drama to put pressure on developers. Think about the world around 2014.
You have Windows phones, Windows tablets, Windows servers and Windows desktop / laptops. Metro apps move seamlessly from one platform to the next. Win32 apps only work on desktops and laptops and use a confusing legacy interface that doesn't work very well. Customers don't like Win32 apps and demand Metro versions
As a developer are you going to continue to write to the old WinXP codebase or are you at the very least going to make sure to compile up Metro versions?
Well funny enough:
Final Cut Pro
Final Cut Pro X
Don't run the same scripts and don't have the same feature set.
Their goal is ubiquitous computing. All applications respond to the form factor they are being run in and are capable of automatically upgrading is larger form factors become available.
This is what they are aiming for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0
And they both run Metro apps.
So when an app doesn't work, "well its old legacy Win32 not Metro. The app needs to updated"
They need to conflate their tablet and their PC product just to be competitive but that's going to ultimately cause some people to be disappointed.
Remember their goal is to conflate their tablet and PC product completely not just in name but in fact. The disappointment will help to push developers to support that objective.
Microsoft is trying to kick both developers, OEMs and consumers. They need to get their platform to advance.
Windows 8 creates an OS so now hardware partners can start selling more innovative hardware that will work with the OS.
Window 8 RT allows for arm systems, i.e. high battery life and somewhat lower costs. Which is an example fo the kind of diversity they want.
Developer moving to Metro helps to break things that will hold the platform back like non scalable graphics.
Microsoft is assuming a leadership position, the sort of thing they did during the migration to Windows and again during the Enterprise migration but not much since.
Well first off that's not the system we have. And I'm not talking just LD here, any LEC to LEC call works that way. So more or less outside your county will run into that setup. The carrier's cost are associated for port, that is volume of peak calling (or other high quality data) from or to most LEC. That's their cost. For a small percentage, low volume high distance LECs line is the big expense.
The carriers could care less how many subscribers they LEC has, they care how much data the LEC is asking them to push.
For a LEC the cost of the actual phone call is the peak cost of the port connection (unless they are far away in which case line is the dominant cost) from their carrier. That's tens of thousands per month or more but it is inclusive of everything they sell.
For the carrier it is mostly the cost of calls, though again peak port is their main cost.
But you keep switching perspectives here. There are 4 entities:
a) The originator's LEC
b) The originator's carrier
c) The recipient's carrier
d) The recipient's LEC.
The recipient's LEC is charging the recipient's carrier for the call, What you are saying is that because the originator's LEC's gets fixed monthly bill the carrier's shouldn't worry about fees they are paying the recipient's LEC.
Those costs are known. It is about $.007 / min lock stock and barrel to run a phone call, that includes things like line maintenance and excludes the 4-6% of the country that has the lowest population density, where fully loaded cost can be $.03 on up. That number is going up as the volumes of POTS calls are going down.
Accounting is more or less free, though variable billing and collections might not be.
Person A does 3000 min / mo
Person B does 100 min / mo
If it is just initial fees they paid the same. Which means B is highly profitable and is subsidizing the losses on A.
Oh OK good. Then what I was suggesting is just raise that initial connection fee while dropping the per minute fee. I'm assuming most robocalls aren't worth much money.
In any case Z, the neighboring country which is at least semi-legitimate, can handle the enforcement and tell Y to drop W.
http://www.payphone-directory.org/
If the customers are business they know who is making the calls.
If the aggregator is legitimate then they respond to request to terminate.
If they aren't no access to the PSTN handoff.
That you, that is clear.
I think this doesn't present a problem .
Lets assume we have the carrier Y internationally originating calls from country X. Lets assume that Y's internal system has no ability to get calls. Lets assume that Y passes off to Z who passes off to Verizon USA, who passes it off to Verizon LEC who delivers via. PSTN. Verizon's knows they got the call from Z. They charge a fee. Say $.03 / to connect plus $.01 / min to Z. They don't accept the handoff from Z without having a way to get that fee. They also know a lot about where's Z's calls are coming from. Moreover they only accept calls from Y via. Z.
I'm not sure of the problem. Z needs to authenticate with Y, because otherwise they are going to owe Verizon a lot of money. Z ends up doing the enforcement on Y and in particular won't let anyone spoof Y.
I understand that. But monthly service doesn't cover the cost of a constant connection. The more calls I get the more it is costing the LEC. There is no reason low call volume people should be subsidizing high call volume people.
Someone has to pay for connection costs. You are treating this like it is free.