It's kind of hard to do this when Apple and Google have hired away all your best people. RIM, MS, and Nokia are all in the same boat - lots of interesting ideas but not enough talented people to deliver.
I think the decision comes down to having "day one" this year or next year. They are already in a big hole in the tablet space and if they were to wait another year, their predicament would be even worse. I believe it's the same reason why they still have a desktop in Win RT. AFAIK, only Office can run on the desktop. They are working on a Metro Office, but it isn't ready yet.
Microsoft has a history of taking two or three releases to get something worthwhile out there.
Corporates? I think you mean IT departments in corporations. I don't know very many users that want this and recently the users have been winning more often than they used to.
All of the scenarios you have laid out are much better served with a laptop. I don't know anybody who seriously wants to do remote desktop type stuff on their tablet. It's an awesome capability for those occasional times when you forgot something, but nobody wants to work for long like that.
Don't think of the iPad as a laptop replacement. Think of it more as an email and messaging machine (not unlike a Blackberry) because that's the main usage model I've seen so far. There are also some very nice sketching apps coming out and that's something that a laptop doesn't do very well.
In the past couple of years, there's been lots of people replacing their Blackberry phones with iOS and Android phones. Do your productivity, ux, support, and infrastructure predictions apply to that as well, or are smartphones somewhat interchangeable inside corporations?
I personally think there's a lot of opportunity here and people are going to find that they are doing different things with tablets, not just replicating old stuff on new devices.
You're deluded if you think the preference for iOS and OSX products is simply one of fashion. A lot of OSX machines are used simply because they are the most versatile in that they can run Mac, Windows, and Unixy software. The fact that they are built well and look nice is just a productivity bonus.
You can't allow an employee owned Windows/Mac laptop to have access to information subject to privacy laws.
Yes you can. Just because the device was purchased by a corporation doesn't magically make it safe to use with sensitive data. There are some environments with strict controls that absolutely do dictate the hardware/software environment, but that isn't typical.
I think you are forgetting user preferences. The days when IT could dictate the hardware and software environment are mostly over, except perhaps for the most mundane jobs. People want to use an iPad. They have it with them everywhere, they are fun to use, and they work great. Overcrowded WiFi isn't a huge problem because email and light word processing doesn't require much bandwidth.
The iPad is attractive and people like using it. That matters and it's a need the PC doesn't satisfy. (see stuff written by Don Norman, Virginia Postrel, and lots of other people for arguments supporting my assertion).
All of this matters because it's very difficult to find great people these days. When you have somebody you want to keep, you change your IT policy to accommodate them when you can. If your employees are fungible, you can be more dictatorial.
This is a model that I've seen as well. Basically all communication-related activities have moved to the iPad. The PC is there for heavy lifting (Office Apps) and dealing with custom software which is typically IE6 + ActiveX stuff. Other than the Office apps, the PC are devolving back to terminals. The exceptions are in engineering and marketing departments where they use CAD and Photoshop type stuff.
The overall trend is increased taxation and spending.
You're going to have to say what time frame you are looking at for me to believe it. Spending is certainly up, but taxation is at historically pretty low levels (my time frame is the last 100 years).
That's not true. Lots of places put temporary taxes in place. For example, Multnomah County (Portland, OR) ballot measure 26-48 created a 3 year 1.25% income tax. There have been others as well.
What about companies that create powerful and effective advertisements aimed at children to get them to drink poison and smoke fiberglass particles? You see no problem with this?
It's easy to blame the consumer and they certainly deserve lots of blame, but it isn't 100% their fault. The companies selling this stuff spend an awful lot of money figuring out how to manipulate people into consuming stuff they know they shouldn't.
I believe that one day, food company executives are going to be appearing in court just like tobacco company executives and they are going to end up paying out far more than the tobacco companies ever did. For now, I think the only thing saving them is their political clout.
It may be their choice but they should have to pay for their choice and not make everyone else pay.
They can't afford to pay. Should we just turn our backs on them? I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society like that.
Maybe. I think it's a worth experimenting with. Create the tax, but have it expire after 15 years or so. Call in the epidemiologists and find out if the generation of kids that grew up with costlier soda and better parks are healthier or not.
This is a huge problem for the US. I'd like to see somebody try something.
You should pay for all that stuff because whether you realize it or not, you benefit when the community you are a part of is healthy, happy, and well educated.
The problems of obesity are far more than just increased health care. HBO just ran a mini-series about this and they talked about the productivity costs of a fat society.
So a fat individual might not really be a big deal, but a fat population is.
I firmly believe that it's not the apple or the snake that is at fault... it is not the tempters, it is us.
That's the problem. There's a kind of battle going on between manufacturers and consumers and consumers are seriously outgunned. People give in to temptation, have done so from the beginning of time, and that isn't going to change. Manufacturers know this and have developed incredibly effective ways of manipulating weakness in human behavior
Since the playing field is seriously slanted in favor of food companies, what's wrong with changing the rules of the game to acknowledge this? Even if I were to agree that adults are on their own, I think marketing towards kids is different and may deserve special rules.
But it's certainly not within the government's purview to TELL ME I can't have those things.
In this case, the government isn't telling you that you can't have a giant soda, it's restricting vendors on the formats they can sell. You are still free to buy all the soda you want. Governments do this all the time with alcohol, why not with soda?
I think the restrictions might work and is worth experimenting with. Maybe enact strict regulations in NewYork for the next 10 years and compare the health of the population with the health of Illinois residents. Then switch the rules for the next 10 years and see if obesity rates vary. Or maybe we should restrict the sale (but not consumption) of soda to people 21 or older for the next 10 years in eastern NY counties, but not in western NY counties.
What's wrong with blaming McDonald's and Coca Cola for the consequences of their actions? The way they package and advertise their goods definitely is effective at increasing consumption or they wouldn't be doing it. They are especially good at targeting kids. Their products consumed at current levels are harming the public and yet they continue to try to sell even more. Isn't that somewhat evil?
Slashdot Mirror
It would be very sad if Nokia ends up as nothing more than a patent troll.
I believe it's because they built a phone for consumers rather than for carriers.
I wonder if the endgame for Microsoft is to acquire rights to all the IP?
It's kind of hard to do this when Apple and Google have hired away all your best people. RIM, MS, and Nokia are all in the same boat - lots of interesting ideas but not enough talented people to deliver.
Another round or two like this and the company will be all executives, no workers. That should help get them going in the right direction.
I think the decision comes down to having "day one" this year or next year. They are already in a big hole in the tablet space and if they were to wait another year, their predicament would be even worse. I believe it's the same reason why they still have a desktop in Win RT. AFAIK, only Office can run on the desktop. They are working on a Metro Office, but it isn't ready yet.
Microsoft has a history of taking two or three releases to get something worthwhile out there.
Why do they assume everybody wants Office? I sure don't.
I don't think that was part of any strategy other than picking the features to ship with. AD will come soon enough either from MS or third parties.
Corporates? I think you mean IT departments in corporations. I don't know very many users that want this and recently the users have been winning more often than they used to.
I bought two pairs of Monoprice 8323's and I think they are fantastic. I keep one at home and the other at work.
I've never been disappointed with anything I've bought from Monoprice.
These same headphones are available from other people (Kicker and others) for significantly more money.
All of the scenarios you have laid out are much better served with a laptop. I don't know anybody who seriously wants to do remote desktop type stuff on their tablet. It's an awesome capability for those occasional times when you forgot something, but nobody wants to work for long like that.
Don't think of the iPad as a laptop replacement. Think of it more as an email and messaging machine (not unlike a Blackberry) because that's the main usage model I've seen so far. There are also some very nice sketching apps coming out and that's something that a laptop doesn't do very well.
In the past couple of years, there's been lots of people replacing their Blackberry phones with iOS and Android phones. Do your productivity, ux, support, and infrastructure predictions apply to that as well, or are smartphones somewhat interchangeable inside corporations?
I personally think there's a lot of opportunity here and people are going to find that they are doing different things with tablets, not just replicating old stuff on new devices.
You're deluded if you think the preference for iOS and OSX products is simply one of fashion. A lot of OSX machines are used simply because they are the most versatile in that they can run Mac, Windows, and Unixy software. The fact that they are built well and look nice is just a productivity bonus.
Yes you can. Just because the device was purchased by a corporation doesn't magically make it safe to use with sensitive data. There are some environments with strict controls that absolutely do dictate the hardware/software environment, but that isn't typical.
I think you are forgetting user preferences. The days when IT could dictate the hardware and software environment are mostly over, except perhaps for the most mundane jobs. People want to use an iPad. They have it with them everywhere, they are fun to use, and they work great. Overcrowded WiFi isn't a huge problem because email and light word processing doesn't require much bandwidth.
The iPad is attractive and people like using it. That matters and it's a need the PC doesn't satisfy. (see stuff written by Don Norman, Virginia Postrel, and lots of other people for arguments supporting my assertion).
All of this matters because it's very difficult to find great people these days. When you have somebody you want to keep, you change your IT policy to accommodate them when you can. If your employees are fungible, you can be more dictatorial.
This is a model that I've seen as well. Basically all communication-related activities have moved to the iPad. The PC is there for heavy lifting (Office Apps) and dealing with custom software which is typically IE6 + ActiveX stuff. Other than the Office apps, the PC are devolving back to terminals. The exceptions are in engineering and marketing departments where they use CAD and Photoshop type stuff.
Plus all the fuel to heat up deep fryers.
You're going to have to say what time frame you are looking at for me to believe it. Spending is certainly up, but taxation is at historically pretty low levels (my time frame is the last 100 years).
That's not true. Lots of places put temporary taxes in place. For example, Multnomah County (Portland, OR) ballot measure 26-48 created a 3 year 1.25% income tax. There have been others as well.
What about companies that create powerful and effective advertisements aimed at children to get them to drink poison and smoke fiberglass particles? You see no problem with this?
It's easy to blame the consumer and they certainly deserve lots of blame, but it isn't 100% their fault. The companies selling this stuff spend an awful lot of money figuring out how to manipulate people into consuming stuff they know they shouldn't.
I believe that one day, food company executives are going to be appearing in court just like tobacco company executives and they are going to end up paying out far more than the tobacco companies ever did. For now, I think the only thing saving them is their political clout.
They can't afford to pay. Should we just turn our backs on them? I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society like that.
Maybe. I think it's a worth experimenting with. Create the tax, but have it expire after 15 years or so. Call in the epidemiologists and find out if the generation of kids that grew up with costlier soda and better parks are healthier or not.
This is a huge problem for the US. I'd like to see somebody try something.
What makes you think it's the same people advocating for pot and against cigarettes?
You should pay for all that stuff because whether you realize it or not, you benefit when the community you are a part of is healthy, happy, and well educated.
The problems of obesity are far more than just increased health care. HBO just ran a mini-series about this and they talked about the productivity costs of a fat society.
So a fat individual might not really be a big deal, but a fat population is.
That's the problem. There's a kind of battle going on between manufacturers and consumers and consumers are seriously outgunned. People give in to temptation, have done so from the beginning of time, and that isn't going to change. Manufacturers know this and have developed incredibly effective ways of manipulating weakness in human behavior
Since the playing field is seriously slanted in favor of food companies, what's wrong with changing the rules of the game to acknowledge this? Even if I were to agree that adults are on their own, I think marketing towards kids is different and may deserve special rules.
In this case, the government isn't telling you that you can't have a giant soda, it's restricting vendors on the formats they can sell. You are still free to buy all the soda you want. Governments do this all the time with alcohol, why not with soda?
I think the restrictions might work and is worth experimenting with. Maybe enact strict regulations in NewYork for the next 10 years and compare the health of the population with the health of Illinois residents. Then switch the rules for the next 10 years and see if obesity rates vary. Or maybe we should restrict the sale (but not consumption) of soda to people 21 or older for the next 10 years in eastern NY counties, but not in western NY counties.
What's wrong with blaming McDonald's and Coca Cola for the consequences of their actions? The way they package and advertise their goods definitely is effective at increasing consumption or they wouldn't be doing it. They are especially good at targeting kids. Their products consumed at current levels are harming the public and yet they continue to try to sell even more. Isn't that somewhat evil?
You and I obviously fall on different sides of the Citizen's United decision that turned corporations into people.