What innovators are knocking Apple off their perch?
Based on iPhone 5 sales and iPad Mini sales, Apple doesn't seem to be hurting per se.
I think they've made some mistakes recently -- Maps isn't what it should have been (but is less bad than the media hype) and I think the Lightning connector introduction was handled very poorly (3 months after iPhone 5 was released, there are very few accessories available that use it).
Philosophically, I disagree with some of the constraints placed on it (no removable storage, no bluetooth mouse support) and design goals (ie, thinner and lighter seems valued over battery capacity).
But it's hard to call Samsung an "innovator" knocking Apple off their perch -- the OS they get from Google, and their hardware isn't obviously superior to Apple's (without getting into an argument as to whether phone screen size is a technology or a design). They mainly are a big company, capable of integrating top-line technologies vs. coming up with any kind of innovation.
The iPhone 5 is not innovative. It has some different features, but nobody is going to claim that the iPhone 5 is going to change how people do anything. Same thing for the iPad mini. It is just a small iPad to compete against Android which has/had a lock on the 7" tablet market. The iPod was innovative. The iPhone was innovative. The iPad was innovate. But unless Apple keeps innovating, they will just be another tech company among a number of tech companies.
Nobody said Samsung was being innovative, either. That's the point, though. Once the innovators stop innovating, the regular competition can catch up and be a viable alternative.
When that happens, then maybe it really will be the year of the linux on the desktop!
Don't you mean Windows on the Tablet/Phone.
No, Elop has already screwed up the phone for Nokia, if he were in charge of Microsoft, he would just screw up the remaining strongholds, dwindling as they are. It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is betting on tablets, but in the process of releasing Windows 8, they appear to be abandoning desktops. That leaves an opportunity for somebody else in the desktop market. Unless Apple is going to release OS X for non Apple hardware, it might as well be linux. Granted, the future desktop market will be smaller than in the past, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be profitable. Too bad IBM dropped Lotus Symphony right at the time that Microsoft was switching to a pay as you go system. Corporate America could probably be convinced to use an open source office suite backed by IBM. Same with an open source OS (besides, they already do support it on their server installations).
The real problem with Balmer and Elop is that unlike Gates, they don't have the vision. Apple needs to worry about that, too.
They became #1 and got complacent and lazy with only half hearted efforts to push and market anything that wasn't a feature phone and with half finished OS's running on them. They could have been Samsung if they weren't too busy counting their money when Apple brought out the iPhone and had pulled their fingers out and produced a serious competitor.
Actually, that is called the "fat cat" syndrome and many leaders in their field go through it, particularly tech fields. When companies worry more about protecting their existing profits and product lines instead of innovating, others can come up and knock them off their perch. Happened with IBM, Microsoft, now it looks like Apple might be going through it, plus a myriad of other companies. It isn't just for tech companies, either. The US auto industry went through it in the 60s and 70s and now play second fiddle to Honda and Toyota.
To remain a leader in a field, one has to continually lead. To use an american football analogy, once you sit back in a prevent defense, you might protect against the big play, but you enable your competitors to chip away at you until they no longer need a big play, just a short play.
Fat cats either have to go on a diet and become lean, like IBM did, or they simply starve and die, like most others do.
I still mostly like Nokia hardware, except for some minor quibbles. Unfortunately it got itself hitched to one platform. The current CEO should get voted out.
Its half off-topic, but I was watching cnbc "Ballmer another Mcicrosoft Fail" http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000136311&play=1 and interesting right at the end it Ed Maguire says "ther have been discussions of stephen elop as a successor. ". I spat me coffee.
When that happens, then maybe it really will be the year of the linux on the desktop!
There's a reason programmers - even marginally competent ones - are paid well above $100/hour on contract.
I thought the reason was that they are individual contractors, not employees, so that they are responsible not only for income taxes, but self-employment tax, their own health insurance, their own retirement and any other "benefits." But then, I could be wrong. I'd also question that above $100/hour figure, at least in the midwest portion of the US. $60/hour seems more like it (which is nothing to scoff at, but after withholding all of the things mentioned above, it isn't a lucrative as it sounds).
I guess that is a matter of opinion. They perform the same functions, activated with similar (or the same) methods. Of course the start menu isn't live, has limited area to pin applications, is forced to being in a single list rather than multiple categorized lists/groups, and eats up task bar space that could be used for better things.
I don't know about you, but my start menu is pretty well organized into categories and groups instead of one long list. It is also much easier to navigate and find things than scrolling horizontally through numerous screens of tiles. And it takes up exactly the width of one icon on the task bar versus the entire desktop for the metro page.
The metro page only makes sense for limited sized screens, just like on phones and tablets. The fact that you can move tiles around to different pages of it doesn't change that.
No it doesn't. A start menu would mean a menu that allows you to start applications. No more than that. Are you trying to say that if the start menu in Windows had a start button, and when you clicked it that it took you automatically to the Windows XP style "All Programs" that covered your entire screen that it would no longer be a start menu? Do you realize how silly that sounds because that is the way it started in XP.
Yes, I would say that is not a start menu, at least not the traditional style used by Windows, which is what the discussion is about. Even in XP, there were always folders for subgroups. Why? Microsoft, at the time stated it was too difficult to scan through everything to find just what you were looking for. Of course with metro, they have now implemented what they once deemed too difficult.
You do realize that after you click on the program to start, it will start on the desktop, just like it would have if you launched it from Windows 7, right? Are you somehow typing credentials into a program before launching it, like Run As or something odd?
Yes, of course I realize that. What Windows 8 doesn't do, however, is respect window positions like Windows 7 and earlier version did, so things are now covered up that once were not. Technically, that is probably not related to the actual start menu, but just the poor implementation of the desktop metaphor.
But, then maybe Microsoft is right, it makes sense to leave the desktop (or cover it up) to go search through a bunch of large tiles to find an application you want to open next. Of course, by their own admission, the desktop metaphor is just a stop-gap until they get most things converted over to metro.
A start menu would mean that I could have a word document open on my screen and hit the start menu to open another app, without losing site of the word document that might actually contain the credentials I need to enter into the other program.
And as soon as you click that app, it brings you back to the desktop with your Word document. Wait, you aren't actually using Metro apps, are you? (I won't even ask why you keep credentials in Word files...)
I can't help what format people choose to send me things in.
Well, if the population being measured does not include the 'tech-savvy', the results suggest a pretty successful transition.
Let's face it, the most conservative grouches who most venomously oppose anything new in UIs and desktop environments are usually the "tech savvy" and them nerdier they are the more potent the venom. Just take one look at the angry tirades over Gnome 3.... Ok, so they changed Gnome, learn to like the new UI or fork the old one, it's not the end of the world. I'm a Mac user but I actually kind of like the new Windows UI, it's different and innovative. Microsoft deserves some credit for not taking the path of least resistance and aping somebody else's UI like Google did.
If you think putting a UI designed for a smart phone on a desktop is innovative and worthy of credit, then that is your opinion. However, unlike Gnome 3, where it is still possible to get work done, just differently, Metro is quite clumsy on a desktop. Picture a legal department in a large corporation or any place where the employees need to multi-task on several different projects, not just consuming data, but actually creating it. How does Windows 8 fit into that environment? It doesn't and neither would iOS.
What makes an OS successful is that the UI is tailored for the form factor of the device and the expected use. Windows 8 has the expected use of data consumption, not creation. That means it is fine for the xbox, tablets and phones, but it doesn't work well on dekstop/laptops. It is also designed for small screen touch devices, which again implies tablets and phones (and even xbox as they uses such large character sets, they are effectively small screens). Again, this doesn't bode well for desktop/laptops.
The desktop/laptop market is mature, there isn't going to be a lot of innovation there. All the growth right now is in the tablet and phone market. To compete there, Microsoft needed to do something to get the attention away from iOS and Android and Windows 8 does that. But to write off the desktop market seems foolish. It would seem a much better approach for Windows 8 would have been something like KDE did by having a common infrastructure but a replaceable UI on top of it (desktop, netbook and the new active). That way, Microsoft would have had Windows 8 desktop edition Windows 8 tablet edition and Windows 8 phone edition, but they would all have the same basic code base.
All they've done now is assumed that their corporate users will continue to buy Windows, but assumptions are dangerous and if Windows falters, so do sales of Office, which is their real cash cow. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a major IT company could offer a thin client solution not based on Windows but accessing a Windows Terminal Server. That is, of course, unless Microsoft plans on giving up on the server business and implementing their server products all on windows 8, too.
The Start Menu is still there. It's just full screen now. And you can fit more than 10 applications to launch on it (or fewer, if you prefer). I've read one complaint that the Start Menu hides the desktop, but I don't care about looking at the desktop when I'm starting a new app. Why would I? And the Start Menu still appears and disappears quickly.
It really not much of a change if you stay away from metro apps (those are good for 'leisure mode')..
There is no start menu. There is the metro page, but that is hardly the same thing. A start menu would mean that I could have a word document open on my screen and hit the start menu to open another app, without losing site of the word document that might actually contain the credentials I need to enter into the other program. With the metro page, you are jumping back and forth from entirely different screens and then scrolling looking for the proper square on the metro tab.
Maybe that is more efficient on the Minority Report, but it in reality it seems much less efficient than click-click.
"Personally I keep a list of the top 10 applications I launch (Chrome, Visual Studio, a screen capture utility, etc) right at the very top level of the "Start" menu so I can get to them quickly"
So put them on the metro page. Functions in a similar way: press the windows key and you'll see all your pinned apps for quick and easy access as well as be able to just type the name of any given app you may want.
Prior to the release of Win8, I was highly, highly critical. Thought it was the dumbest thing MS had ever done. As someone who went through the pain of WinME, that's saying a lot. But I've gotten used to it. Still spend almost all my time in the desktop, but I've grown to like the metro apps for things like easy access for my kids. I still think MS made a mistake by not at least making a full-desktop-mode option, but I can live with Metro and find it beneficial in some ways. I certainly haven'y been hampered by it at all.
So put them on the Metro page, WTF? That way, I can jump back on forth from the metro page to the pseudo desktop without the start menu everytime I need to open an app. How efficient is that? Why not allow apps that require the pseudo desktop to have a menu entry on the desktop, unless your fear is that nobody will use the metro apps or the metro page?
In other words, Microsoft made Dell another offer they couldn't refuse by not shipping other operating systems. It's not the first time, but with the public's acceptance of Windows 8, it could be the last.
The better question is what's the difference between a consumer and enterprise computers, except software? Nothing. My employer-issued smart phone is a regular Android phone, they've just set it up with policies like wiping itself if you enter the PIN incorrectly a few times. There's also a use agreement which says I can't let anyone else gain knowledge of the PIN or operate it - no letting your kids play on it folks - and I'm bearing the full risk of what any non-IT approved application could do to their data. It's a pretty safe bet I won't be installing any.
Actually, most smart phones are handled like enterprise models of computer systems, where the model doesn't change during its life cycle. If you buy a Galaxy III when it first came out or a year later, it is still the same hardware. Likewise, with business or enterprise computers, the manufacturer normally guarantees that each model off the line has the same hardware and component specs. On the other hand, consumer grade computers, even if they are the same model number very often have different components and component specs.
Deploying 1000 business class computers over 18 months is relatively straight forward. Once you get one set up and working as desired, you just create a base image and apply it to each one after that. On the otherhand, consumer grade need to each be set up manually as they very often require different drivers, etc., even if they arrived in the same shipment. In a small office, it doesn't make much difference, but in a medium size to large size business, it makes a huge difference.
This could really backfire on Apple. If Microsoft refused to release Office for the Mac, it could be argued as an abuse of power because of their dominance in the office suite market. However, that is not the case here. Microsoft is willing to release the product, but Apple is requiring a 30% cut. Microsoft does not have to agree to that (nor does any developer). If Apple's policy shuts Microsoft out of the platform, that isn't Microsoft using its market power. What happens when Android supports Office 365 but iOS doesn't?
Others have suggested that Microsoft just raise the price to offset the fee and that is a possibility, but leads to the same scenario, Office 365 would cost 42% more to make up for the 30% Apple developer fee. How will that play with users?
When Apple was the only game in town, they could get away with mistreating developers. While I am no fan of Microsoft, they are big enough to challenge the status quo with Apple's developer extortion.
You are mixing various issues and then lumping them all on Canonical's doorstep. I do agree that we need "to stop..this attitude of apathy towards having everything about you and your mother be accessible to every corporation." But that is not specifically a Canonical problem but pretty much a problem with anything now associated with the web.
Like you, I too am disturbed at all of the intrusions on one's privacy that is occurring. However, with regards to this/. article, I am only trying to keep the discussion focused on Canonical's contribution to the overall problem. Right now they (Canonical) are just following what everybody else is doing in that space, albeit somewhat clumsily.
That said, though, Canonical has publicly stated they are trying to attract the consumer market, so if you or I chose to use their flagship product not as a consumer, but instead as a useful technical tool, that is our choice, but we can't fault Canonical for being true to their plan. For my purposes, Ubuntu is not the best choice, the search lenses are just one part of why that is. So, I don't use Ubuntu and just as I am free, to choose whatever distro I want, Canonical is free to point Ubuntu in whatever direction they want. For instance, Redhat/Fedora only wants to ship free software, so no codecs and proprietary drivers. That's fine, it is their decision. I can either a) agree with it and use it like the developers plan on it being used, b) disagree with it and add the proprietary stuff myself, or c) chose not to use it at all.
As for Canonical being a leader, well in all fairness to them, they are in some areas, but then so is Redhat, Suse, Mint, etc. It's not that Free Software is decentralized and there are no leaders, it is that it is such a large scope that there are many leaders in their own fields or areas of interest.
Finally, as for RMS, I've known him since my MIT days.
Umm... you're deliberatly submitting your search to google, a 3rd entity. Nice strawman, but it does not follow the same principles. People like you shold stop labeling this as "thinking like geeks" because it has nothing to do with it. It's a smear at best to derail the issue. But that was probably your intent in the first place, wasn't it? Shill.
I think the actual strawman argument is what RMS is saying. I respect the man's opinion, but he is drawing conclusions where there isn't evidence to support it. As for your argument that google is different because it is a 3rd entity, well, so is Ubuntu, which you deliberately submitted your search. Ubuntu makes no effort to try and hide the searches and none of your identifiable data is sent to third parties unless you click on one of their links that is presented -- a deliberate action you must take.
If you view the Ubuntu lenses and scopes as a limited browser, then it is functioning exactly the same way that Google, Yahoo, Bing, iOS, Android and many others do, plus it allows you to find local files that meet your criteria. The only tangible difference is that Ubuntu is not storing cookies on your computer, well that and Ubuntu lets you easily turn it off. If you are going for an always on cloud connected device, why would it not be reasonable to expect that your searches are going through the cloud?
I am no lover of Ubuntu, but they have been pretty up front about what they are wanting to do with their new search and making changes as their community provides useful feedback.
There is no strawman here. If Ubuntu, or any other distro, does something you don't like, exercise your freedom and switch. If you choose to stay in spite of what you don't like, well, then you have made your decision. In the case of Ubuntu's new search, you don't even have to switch, just turn it off. But this ABU (anything but Ubuntu) attitude needs to stop.
That's one thing I've been wondering... DOES Mint actually go through and take out the stupidity Canonical puts in? I imagine they ditched the phone-home search, since it's gotten so much open hate, but do they change anything else other than the UI?
It still boggles the mind that every time I set up Ubuntu server, I still have to remove that stupid resolvconf daemon. What idiot thought a tool for bouncing between networks on a laptop needed to be in the default install for a goddamn server, I can't even guess.
Since the "phone home" search is part of Unity, Mint, or Kubuntu or Xubuntu or even Gnome-Ubuntu don't have it. Other than that, most of Ubunutu's infrastructure is still intact in Mint because Mint uses Ubuntu's repositories (or at least remains compatible with them).
The point is that they're marketing to the uninformed masses, without informing them of it.
And that is different from any other search engine, how? If I do a google search for widgets, the next thing you know, just about every page I go to has advertising for widgets on it. Sure, I can install something like adblock, but why should I have to? Is it just because Ubuntu does this without you first having to open a browser that has everybody upset?
Personally, I can see some advantages to their approach, at least in a heavily connected environment where things are stored locally and online. If you are looking for the latest song or video and its not in your own collection, well, look, here, you can get it from xyz (kind of like iTunes does).
People should stop thinking like geeks and think like the consumer market that Canonical is directing Ubuntu towards. Like iOS and Android, all of your searches and queries bring up online information along with any local information. This "feature" just seems like a logical step given what direction Canonical has been moving Ubuntu towards. At least Canonical lets you disable it (unlike iOS or Android).
Note, I am not saying I like the online search - heck, I don't even use Ubuntu, but it seems like a consumer feature in a consumer oriented distro. No more or less.
Kubuntu is not sponsored by Canonical, so I'm not sure what large corporation you are refering to? I assume Blue-Systems, which is their sponsor, but then again, they also sponsor KDE itself.
Nothing wrong with Debian Testing, but Canonical is pushing Ubuntu at the consumer market and that is not where Debian is directed at.
If anything, I think Canonical's being a tad bit childish. They lock us out of alpha/beta test to develop in "secret", and are in the process of turning their OS into a shopping cart. What next?!? Close source the project? It's the very reason I'm typing this from my Kubuntu machine and loving it.:-)
Nobody is locked out of anything with Ubuntu. The stopped the artifically set alpha/beta releases because there are daily releases. Most people agreed that the move was good as it allowed more flexibility for the developers to get fixes in place by removing artifical freezes.
As for Kubuntu -- great distro, that pretty much sums it up.
When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.
IMHO, if they don't like Unity, it should have been an "exodus" to Kubuntu...
If you haven't tried it, please do. It's beautiful.
CJ
Not only beautiful, but stable, up to date, fast and configurable. Plus you have access to all of the Ubuntu repositories including third party vendors.
When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.
And thanks to Ubuntu's newest decisions, the Mint userbase is destined to grow even further.
At least according to distrowatch's bogus page hit counter. However, if you look at the number of forum users, forum posts, thrid party support, or any number of other metrics, it is hard to substantiate that Mint is #1. I don't say this to disparage Mint, they do a great job, but #1? hardly.
It is not a big issue itself, it's a big signal though: those who sell user data without a fricking "I agree" dialog are not very trustworthy. I had already lost Canonical when they decided a 50 meg tomboy app was to stay in an installation cd and gimp had to go.
This is not spreading FUD, this is being in FUD and telling others.
The ease of solving the problem posed by Canonical choices is a BIG advertisement to FOSS philosophy. Ultimately the user is free. Free to hop to another distro without losing documents, or even configuration files. To remove the unwanted feature.
This is nothing new. Apple and Microsoft along with most major hardware manufacturers, Facebook, Google, etc., have been doing this for years. The fact that Canonical has decided to join them, while unfortunate in my opionion, is just them following the existing trend.
Their data shows that most consumer oriented users like those types of features, so they added them. It is no big deal. But if people think it is, then don't use Ubuntu. It is as simple as that.
You should not have to disable anything. On the contrary, this "feature" should be deliberatly enabled by the user. No one is arguing over the triviality of how to disable it. You said it yourself, this is a distribution that works out of the box. It stands to reason that the majority of its users do not understand the issue nor its implications. Therefore it's plausible that they will not be able to recognize the real need to disable this "feature". This put's Ubuntu against the spirit of the entire community within which they've setup shop. No one here is really arguing that Ubuntu should not be free to operate as they see fit to make a profit, however, they are now stepping on the toes of the giants on which they are shouldered. A completely dickhead attitude that isn't going to lend them any credit for the spirit of freedom.
While I agree with you in principle, Ubuntu is marketing their distro to the masses and it seems that most non-techie people like all of those "features" that we, here on slashdot, are complaining about. So, for the market they are after, they should have the "features" enabled, whereas other users than their targeted market can disable them.
I don't use Ubuntu, but I don't fault them for trying to cater to a specific audience when most of their tech savy users don't go with the default installs in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it was designed to measure the IQ of Canadians, so maybe right there, that is the problem with their findings.
What innovators are knocking Apple off their perch?
Based on iPhone 5 sales and iPad Mini sales, Apple doesn't seem to be hurting per se.
I think they've made some mistakes recently -- Maps isn't what it should have been (but is less bad than the media hype) and I think the Lightning connector introduction was handled very poorly (3 months after iPhone 5 was released, there are very few accessories available that use it).
Philosophically, I disagree with some of the constraints placed on it (no removable storage, no bluetooth mouse support) and design goals (ie, thinner and lighter seems valued over battery capacity).
But it's hard to call Samsung an "innovator" knocking Apple off their perch -- the OS they get from Google, and their hardware isn't obviously superior to Apple's (without getting into an argument as to whether phone screen size is a technology or a design). They mainly are a big company, capable of integrating top-line technologies vs. coming up with any kind of innovation.
The iPhone 5 is not innovative. It has some different features, but nobody is going to claim that the iPhone 5 is going to change how people do anything. Same thing for the iPad mini. It is just a small iPad to compete against Android which has/had a lock on the 7" tablet market. The iPod was innovative. The iPhone was innovative. The iPad was innovate. But unless Apple keeps innovating, they will just be another tech company among a number of tech companies.
Nobody said Samsung was being innovative, either. That's the point, though. Once the innovators stop innovating, the regular competition can catch up and be a viable alternative.
When that happens, then maybe it really will be the year of the linux on the desktop!
Don't you mean Windows on the Tablet/Phone.
No, Elop has already screwed up the phone for Nokia, if he were in charge of Microsoft, he would just screw up the remaining strongholds, dwindling as they are. It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is betting on tablets, but in the process of releasing Windows 8, they appear to be abandoning desktops. That leaves an opportunity for somebody else in the desktop market. Unless Apple is going to release OS X for non Apple hardware, it might as well be linux. Granted, the future desktop market will be smaller than in the past, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be profitable. Too bad IBM dropped Lotus Symphony right at the time that Microsoft was switching to a pay as you go system. Corporate America could probably be convinced to use an open source office suite backed by IBM. Same with an open source OS (besides, they already do support it on their server installations).
The real problem with Balmer and Elop is that unlike Gates, they don't have the vision. Apple needs to worry about that, too.
They became #1 and got complacent and lazy with only half hearted efforts to push and market anything that wasn't a feature phone and with half finished OS's running on them. They could have been Samsung if they weren't too busy counting their money when Apple brought out the iPhone and had pulled their fingers out and produced a serious competitor.
Actually, that is called the "fat cat" syndrome and many leaders in their field go through it, particularly tech fields. When companies worry more about protecting their existing profits and product lines instead of innovating, others can come up and knock them off their perch. Happened with IBM, Microsoft, now it looks like Apple might be going through it, plus a myriad of other companies. It isn't just for tech companies, either. The US auto industry went through it in the 60s and 70s and now play second fiddle to Honda and Toyota.
To remain a leader in a field, one has to continually lead. To use an american football analogy, once you sit back in a prevent defense, you might protect against the big play, but you enable your competitors to chip away at you until they no longer need a big play, just a short play.
Fat cats either have to go on a diet and become lean, like IBM did, or they simply starve and die, like most others do.
I still mostly like Nokia hardware, except for some minor quibbles. Unfortunately it got itself hitched to one platform. The current CEO should get voted out.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/nokias-elop-hints-more-lumia-windows-phones-verizon/2012-12-18
Its half off-topic, but I was watching cnbc "Ballmer another Mcicrosoft Fail" http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000136311&play=1 and interesting right at the end it Ed Maguire says "ther have been discussions of stephen elop as a successor. ". I spat me coffee.
When that happens, then maybe it really will be the year of the linux on the desktop!
There's a reason programmers - even marginally competent ones - are paid well above $100/hour on contract.
I thought the reason was that they are individual contractors, not employees, so that they are responsible not only for income taxes, but self-employment tax, their own health insurance, their own retirement and any other "benefits." But then, I could be wrong. I'd also question that above $100/hour figure, at least in the midwest portion of the US. $60/hour seems more like it (which is nothing to scoff at, but after withholding all of the things mentioned above, it isn't a lucrative as it sounds).
I guess that is a matter of opinion. They perform the same functions, activated with similar (or the same) methods. Of course the start menu isn't live, has limited area to pin applications, is forced to being in a single list rather than multiple categorized lists/groups, and eats up task bar space that could be used for better things.
I don't know about you, but my start menu is pretty well organized into categories and groups instead of one long list. It is also much easier to navigate and find things than scrolling horizontally through numerous screens of tiles. And it takes up exactly the width of one icon on the task bar versus the entire desktop for the metro page.
The metro page only makes sense for limited sized screens, just like on phones and tablets. The fact that you can move tiles around to different pages of it doesn't change that.
No it doesn't. A start menu would mean a menu that allows you to start applications. No more than that. Are you trying to say that if the start menu in Windows had a start button, and when you clicked it that it took you automatically to the Windows XP style "All Programs" that covered your entire screen that it would no longer be a start menu? Do you realize how silly that sounds because that is the way it started in XP.
Yes, I would say that is not a start menu, at least not the traditional style used by Windows, which is what the discussion is about. Even in XP, there were always folders for subgroups. Why? Microsoft, at the time stated it was too difficult to scan through everything to find just what you were looking for. Of course with metro, they have now implemented what they once deemed too difficult.
You do realize that after you click on the program to start, it will start on the desktop, just like it would have if you launched it from Windows 7, right? Are you somehow typing credentials into a program before launching it, like Run As or something odd?
Yes, of course I realize that. What Windows 8 doesn't do, however, is respect window positions like Windows 7 and earlier version did, so things are now covered up that once were not. Technically, that is probably not related to the actual start menu, but just the poor implementation of the desktop metaphor.
But, then maybe Microsoft is right, it makes sense to leave the desktop (or cover it up) to go search through a bunch of large tiles to find an application you want to open next. Of course, by their own admission, the desktop metaphor is just a stop-gap until they get most things converted over to metro.
A start menu would mean that I could have a word document open on my screen and hit the start menu to open another app, without losing site of the word document that might actually contain the credentials I need to enter into the other program.
And as soon as you click that app, it brings you back to the desktop with your Word document. Wait, you aren't actually using Metro apps, are you? (I won't even ask why you keep credentials in Word files...)
I can't help what format people choose to send me things in.
Well, if the population being measured does not include the 'tech-savvy', the results suggest a pretty successful transition.
Let's face it, the most conservative grouches who most venomously oppose anything new in UIs and desktop environments are usually the "tech savvy" and them nerdier they are the more potent the venom. Just take one look at the angry tirades over Gnome 3.... Ok, so they changed Gnome, learn to like the new UI or fork the old one, it's not the end of the world. I'm a Mac user but I actually kind of like the new Windows UI, it's different and innovative. Microsoft deserves some credit for not taking the path of least resistance and aping somebody else's UI like Google did.
If you think putting a UI designed for a smart phone on a desktop is innovative and worthy of credit, then that is your opinion. However, unlike Gnome 3, where it is still possible to get work done, just differently, Metro is quite clumsy on a desktop. Picture a legal department in a large corporation or any place where the employees need to multi-task on several different projects, not just consuming data, but actually creating it. How does Windows 8 fit into that environment? It doesn't and neither would iOS.
What makes an OS successful is that the UI is tailored for the form factor of the device and the expected use. Windows 8 has the expected use of data consumption, not creation. That means it is fine for the xbox, tablets and phones, but it doesn't work well on dekstop/laptops. It is also designed for small screen touch devices, which again implies tablets and phones (and even xbox as they uses such large character sets, they are effectively small screens). Again, this doesn't bode well for desktop/laptops.
The desktop/laptop market is mature, there isn't going to be a lot of innovation there. All the growth right now is in the tablet and phone market. To compete there, Microsoft needed to do something to get the attention away from iOS and Android and Windows 8 does that. But to write off the desktop market seems foolish. It would seem a much better approach for Windows 8 would have been something like KDE did by having a common infrastructure but a replaceable UI on top of it (desktop, netbook and the new active). That way, Microsoft would have had Windows 8 desktop edition Windows 8 tablet edition and Windows 8 phone edition, but they would all have the same basic code base.
All they've done now is assumed that their corporate users will continue to buy Windows, but assumptions are dangerous and if Windows falters, so do sales of Office, which is their real cash cow. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a major IT company could offer a thin client solution not based on Windows but accessing a Windows Terminal Server. That is, of course, unless Microsoft plans on giving up on the server business and implementing their server products all on windows 8, too.
The Start Menu is still there. It's just full screen now. And you can fit more than 10 applications to launch on it (or fewer, if you prefer). I've read one complaint that the Start Menu hides the desktop, but I don't care about looking at the desktop when I'm starting a new app. Why would I? And the Start Menu still appears and disappears quickly.
It really not much of a change if you stay away from metro apps (those are good for 'leisure mode')..
There is no start menu. There is the metro page, but that is hardly the same thing. A start menu would mean that I could have a word document open on my screen and hit the start menu to open another app, without losing site of the word document that might actually contain the credentials I need to enter into the other program. With the metro page, you are jumping back and forth from entirely different screens and then scrolling looking for the proper square on the metro tab.
Maybe that is more efficient on the Minority Report, but it in reality it seems much less efficient than click-click.
"Personally I keep a list of the top 10 applications I launch (Chrome, Visual Studio, a screen capture utility, etc) right at the very top level of the "Start" menu so I can get to them quickly"
So put them on the metro page. Functions in a similar way: press the windows key and you'll see all your pinned apps for quick and easy access as well as be able to just type the name of any given app you may want.
Prior to the release of Win8, I was highly, highly critical. Thought it was the dumbest thing MS had ever done. As someone who went through the pain of WinME, that's saying a lot. But I've gotten used to it. Still spend almost all my time in the desktop, but I've grown to like the metro apps for things like easy access for my kids. I still think MS made a mistake by not at least making a full-desktop-mode option, but I can live with Metro and find it beneficial in some ways. I certainly haven'y been hampered by it at all.
So put them on the Metro page, WTF? That way, I can jump back on forth from the metro page to the pseudo desktop without the start menu everytime I need to open an app. How efficient is that? Why not allow apps that require the pseudo desktop to have a menu entry on the desktop, unless your fear is that nobody will use the metro apps or the metro page?
In other words, Microsoft made Dell another offer they couldn't refuse by not shipping other operating systems. It's not the first time, but with the public's acceptance of Windows 8, it could be the last.
The better question is what's the difference between a consumer and enterprise computers, except software? Nothing. My employer-issued smart phone is a regular Android phone, they've just set it up with policies like wiping itself if you enter the PIN incorrectly a few times. There's also a use agreement which says I can't let anyone else gain knowledge of the PIN or operate it - no letting your kids play on it folks - and I'm bearing the full risk of what any non-IT approved application could do to their data. It's a pretty safe bet I won't be installing any.
Actually, most smart phones are handled like enterprise models of computer systems, where the model doesn't change during its life cycle. If you buy a Galaxy III when it first came out or a year later, it is still the same hardware. Likewise, with business or enterprise computers, the manufacturer normally guarantees that each model off the line has the same hardware and component specs. On the other hand, consumer grade computers, even if they are the same model number very often have different components and component specs.
Deploying 1000 business class computers over 18 months is relatively straight forward. Once you get one set up and working as desired, you just create a base image and apply it to each one after that. On the otherhand, consumer grade need to each be set up manually as they very often require different drivers, etc., even if they arrived in the same shipment. In a small office, it doesn't make much difference, but in a medium size to large size business, it makes a huge difference.
This could really backfire on Apple. If Microsoft refused to release Office for the Mac, it could be argued as an abuse of power because of their dominance in the office suite market. However, that is not the case here. Microsoft is willing to release the product, but Apple is requiring a 30% cut. Microsoft does not have to agree to that (nor does any developer). If Apple's policy shuts Microsoft out of the platform, that isn't Microsoft using its market power. What happens when Android supports Office 365 but iOS doesn't?
Others have suggested that Microsoft just raise the price to offset the fee and that is a possibility, but leads to the same scenario, Office 365 would cost 42% more to make up for the 30% Apple developer fee. How will that play with users?
When Apple was the only game in town, they could get away with mistreating developers. While I am no fan of Microsoft, they are big enough to challenge the status quo with Apple's developer extortion.
You are mixing various issues and then lumping them all on Canonical's doorstep. I do agree that we need "to stop..this attitude of apathy towards having everything about you and your mother be accessible to every corporation." But that is not specifically a Canonical problem but pretty much a problem with anything now associated with the web.
Like you, I too am disturbed at all of the intrusions on one's privacy that is occurring. However, with regards to this /. article, I am only trying to keep the discussion focused on Canonical's contribution to the overall problem. Right now they (Canonical) are just following what everybody else is doing in that space, albeit somewhat clumsily.
That said, though, Canonical has publicly stated they are trying to attract the consumer market, so if you or I chose to use their flagship product not as a consumer, but instead as a useful technical tool, that is our choice, but we can't fault Canonical for being true to their plan. For my purposes, Ubuntu is not the best choice, the search lenses are just one part of why that is. So, I don't use Ubuntu and just as I am free, to choose whatever distro I want, Canonical is free to point Ubuntu in whatever direction they want. For instance, Redhat/Fedora only wants to ship free software, so no codecs and proprietary drivers. That's fine, it is their decision. I can either a) agree with it and use it like the developers plan on it being used, b) disagree with it and add the proprietary stuff myself, or c) chose not to use it at all.
As for Canonical being a leader, well in all fairness to them, they are in some areas, but then so is Redhat, Suse, Mint, etc. It's not that Free Software is decentralized and there are no leaders, it is that it is such a large scope that there are many leaders in their own fields or areas of interest.
Finally, as for RMS, I've known him since my MIT days.
Umm... you're deliberatly submitting your search to google, a 3rd entity. Nice strawman, but it does not follow the same principles. People like you shold stop labeling this as "thinking like geeks" because it has nothing to do with it. It's a smear at best to derail the issue. But that was probably your intent in the first place, wasn't it? Shill.
I think the actual strawman argument is what RMS is saying. I respect the man's opinion, but he is drawing conclusions where there isn't evidence to support it. As for your argument that google is different because it is a 3rd entity, well, so is Ubuntu, which you deliberately submitted your search. Ubuntu makes no effort to try and hide the searches and none of your identifiable data is sent to third parties unless you click on one of their links that is presented -- a deliberate action you must take.
If you view the Ubuntu lenses and scopes as a limited browser, then it is functioning exactly the same way that Google, Yahoo, Bing, iOS, Android and many others do, plus it allows you to find local files that meet your criteria. The only tangible difference is that Ubuntu is not storing cookies on your computer, well that and Ubuntu lets you easily turn it off. If you are going for an always on cloud connected device, why would it not be reasonable to expect that your searches are going through the cloud?
I am no lover of Ubuntu, but they have been pretty up front about what they are wanting to do with their new search and making changes as their community provides useful feedback.
There is no strawman here. If Ubuntu, or any other distro, does something you don't like, exercise your freedom and switch. If you choose to stay in spite of what you don't like, well, then you have made your decision. In the case of Ubuntu's new search, you don't even have to switch, just turn it off. But this ABU (anything but Ubuntu) attitude needs to stop.
That's one thing I've been wondering... DOES Mint actually go through and take out the stupidity Canonical puts in? I imagine they ditched the phone-home search, since it's gotten so much open hate, but do they change anything else other than the UI?
It still boggles the mind that every time I set up Ubuntu server, I still have to remove that stupid resolvconf daemon. What idiot thought a tool for bouncing between networks on a laptop needed to be in the default install for a goddamn server, I can't even guess.
Since the "phone home" search is part of Unity, Mint, or Kubuntu or Xubuntu or even Gnome-Ubuntu don't have it. Other than that, most of Ubunutu's infrastructure is still intact in Mint because Mint uses Ubuntu's repositories (or at least remains compatible with them).
The point is that they're marketing to the uninformed masses, without informing them of it.
And that is different from any other search engine, how? If I do a google search for widgets, the next thing you know, just about every page I go to has advertising for widgets on it. Sure, I can install something like adblock, but why should I have to? Is it just because Ubuntu does this without you first having to open a browser that has everybody upset?
Personally, I can see some advantages to their approach, at least in a heavily connected environment where things are stored locally and online. If you are looking for the latest song or video and its not in your own collection, well, look, here, you can get it from xyz (kind of like iTunes does).
People should stop thinking like geeks and think like the consumer market that Canonical is directing Ubuntu towards. Like iOS and Android, all of your searches and queries bring up online information along with any local information. This "feature" just seems like a logical step given what direction Canonical has been moving Ubuntu towards. At least Canonical lets you disable it (unlike iOS or Android).
Note, I am not saying I like the online search - heck, I don't even use Ubuntu, but it seems like a consumer feature in a consumer oriented distro. No more or less.
Kubuntu is not sponsored by Canonical, so I'm not sure what large corporation you are refering to? I assume Blue-Systems, which is their sponsor, but then again, they also sponsor KDE itself.
Nothing wrong with Debian Testing, but Canonical is pushing Ubuntu at the consumer market and that is not where Debian is directed at.
If anything, I think Canonical's being a tad bit childish. They lock us out of alpha/beta test to develop in "secret", and are in the process of turning their OS into a shopping cart. What next?!? Close source the project? It's the very reason I'm typing this from my Kubuntu machine and loving it. :-)
Nobody is locked out of anything with Ubuntu. The stopped the artifically set alpha/beta releases because there are daily releases. Most people agreed that the move was good as it allowed more flexibility for the developers to get fixes in place by removing artifical freezes.
As for Kubuntu -- great distro, that pretty much sums it up.
When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.
IMHO, if they don't like Unity, it should have been an "exodus" to Kubuntu...
If you haven't tried it, please do. It's beautiful.
CJ
Not only beautiful, but stable, up to date, fast and configurable. Plus you have access to all of the Ubuntu repositories including third party vendors.
What another good linux distro?
When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.
And thanks to Ubuntu's newest decisions, the Mint userbase is destined to grow even further.
At least according to distrowatch's bogus page hit counter. However, if you look at the number of forum users, forum posts, thrid party support, or any number of other metrics, it is hard to substantiate that Mint is #1. I don't say this to disparage Mint, they do a great job, but #1? hardly.
Yeah, well, having to go out of your way to disable stuff is great motivation to move to another distro that actually respects its users.
It is far less annoying to disable this stuff than it is to get other distros working with multimedia codecs, fonts, etc. To each their own.
It is not a big issue itself, it's a big signal though: those who sell user data without a fricking "I agree" dialog are not very trustworthy. I had already lost Canonical when they decided a 50 meg tomboy app was to stay in an installation cd and gimp had to go.
This is not spreading FUD, this is being in FUD and telling others.
The ease of solving the problem posed by Canonical choices is a BIG advertisement to FOSS philosophy. Ultimately the user is free. Free to hop to another distro without losing documents, or even configuration files. To remove the unwanted feature.
This is nothing new. Apple and Microsoft along with most major hardware manufacturers, Facebook, Google, etc., have been doing this for years. The fact that Canonical has decided to join them, while unfortunate in my opionion, is just them following the existing trend.
Their data shows that most consumer oriented users like those types of features, so they added them. It is no big deal. But if people think it is, then don't use Ubuntu. It is as simple as that.
You should not have to disable anything. On the contrary, this "feature" should be deliberatly enabled by the user. No one is arguing over the triviality of how to disable it. You said it yourself, this is a distribution that works out of the box. It stands to reason that the majority of its users do not understand the issue nor its implications. Therefore it's plausible that they will not be able to recognize the real need to disable this "feature". This put's Ubuntu against the spirit of the entire community within which they've setup shop. No one here is really arguing that Ubuntu should not be free to operate as they see fit to make a profit, however, they are now stepping on the toes of the giants on which they are shouldered. A completely dickhead attitude that isn't going to lend them any credit for the spirit of freedom.
While I agree with you in principle, Ubuntu is marketing their distro to the masses and it seems that most non-techie people like all of those "features" that we, here on slashdot, are complaining about. So, for the market they are after, they should have the "features" enabled, whereas other users than their targeted market can disable them.
I don't use Ubuntu, but I don't fault them for trying to cater to a specific audience when most of their tech savy users don't go with the default installs in the first place.