you can get a new OEM battery from Toyota for around $1,700+ if you shop around. Some dealerships will price it up around $2,200-$2,400. They will also charge you another $1000+ to R&R the battery and it is the same old battery design with a one year warranty. A place called ReInVolt builds up battery packs from Gen2 packs for around $1,500 and provides instructions for doing the replacement. Same one year warranty. If you can't do the R&R, you should be able to find a shop which can do it for much less since it requires no special tools and the toughest part is getting the battery pack in and out of the vehicle. 2-3 hours total tops but they want you to send your battery in first before they send out the replacement. It means 1 week without the car.
you can find examples of naive Gen 1 Prius owners selling their hybrids far under value because the HV battery is dead. I'm sure someone will pull some of this out and show how this battery stuff effects even hybrids. The funny thing is, replacement batteries are less than $2,000 and should be good for another 10 years. As long as they took care of the oil and fluids in their ICE, that car should good for another 10 years and probably only needs tires and brakes.
I think the 10% figure is a crock and the motivation sinister. Likely funded by the likes of the Automotive Dealership Association of America or some other aspect of the current auto industry. These dinosaur industries have spent millions slowing and preventing innovation in the industry. It's about time these dinosaurs die of natural causes. They should not be kept alive by things like these fake 'research' articles spreading FUD and definitely not kept alive as in how the US government kept GM alive. IMO.
it was said that the Prius replacement battery was going to cost $5,000 but now, you can get replacement batteries for under $2,000. I got mine for around $1,500 and I expect it to be good for more than another 10 years. So where are the Myth Busters when you need them? I call this report BUSTED!
An EV is going to have far fewer of the typical repair items just because it does not have an ICE system. No fuel pump, injectors, exhaust system, alternator, radiator or a large one, etc. Even brake pads are less of a repair item with regenerating braking. But yet some ORG came up with a 10% of cost resale valuation because there is one known cost, the battery pack. I wonder if this 10% number is using the same logic the US Auto Industry used in California to get CARB to end it's zero emission plans? Back then, they hired _experts_ who produced documentation which showed that not only would electric cars have to be _given_ away for free to the consumers, but they would also have to pay them _$15,000_ to take it. That is what they said, or something very close.
I remember when the hybrids where just hitting the market too. Back then, only a year after GM said they would be coming out with hybrids, GM started publishing press releases stating how bad for the consumers hybrid cars were. They ramped that up around the time when Toyota invited a few dozen reporters to see the Prius being manufactured on the same production line as their other cars, ie not custom made like they were the first few years. They also said they were not selling them at a loss.
So, can we really trust this 10% claim when the industry tends to make up this PR data to serve their own anti-innovation desires? I don't believe it. We kept hearing about $5000 or more to replace our Prius battery when we bought it 10 years ago. But you know what? It only cost us ~$1500 to replace it thanks to after-market industries and innovations. No doubt they probably left this kind of information out of their 'research'. "Trust No One" IMO
are you saying that ARM chips can't run an office suit or a full web browser? If so, you might want to try a Beagleboard or one of those Nvidia dual core Tegra boards to see something pretty amazing. But, if you saying that the vendor of those applications you are using does not or can not provide those running on an ARM chip then you are suck with the hardware that vendor supports. Some products provide choice, others not so much and you must accept the limitations of your choices.
they lost a few billion building, supporting, and marketing the 360 so considering they are just now starting to generate positive cashflow from the product, it'll be a few years before they can drop a few billion again. It doesn't help that with their income tied to the PC and the PC very tied to the recession, pulling a few billion out right now won't help them look any better on Wall Street.
I'm surprised its taken them so long to move from 65nm to 45nm since even ARM chips are doing 45nm now and Intel is already into the 32nm space. And going from 65nm to 45nm is a 29% change so that alone accounts for most of the drop in power consumption and my guess is that the original GPU was probably already at 45nm or there probably would have been more than upto 10% saved by moving to 45nm and combining.
You got it, probably another 2+ years in the current version of the 360 unless the PS3 and 3D really start pulling customers away and the current 360 can't keep up. They'll have to invest to keep the market share at that point so there is some hope that it won't be more than 2 years.;-)
that is a tough one because from what I'm seeing from kids who have access to Windows based labs is that they do not learn much other than how to click through Microsoft applications. It could be it is the instruction or it could be that they do not the the freedom to do the same things at home because of the costs of getting the same kinds of computers and software at home are prohibitively expensive. Using Microsoft based labs limits availability at home because of the expense of running such a system at home limits that option to only the well off families.
What I liked about the OLPC method was that it was possible to get and old PC, through a version of Ubuntu on it and the Sugar desktop and the same applications ran for next to nothing. Add a cheap dialup account and the application sharing was enabled.
Teaching students to click their way to creating a Word document gives them next to nothing in the way of skills. Teach them what menus are, what files, folders, dialog boxes, windows, and printing is all about and then they won't have to learn click-here, click-this, click-this when that pops up, etc etc without knowing what they really are doing.
So currently, Windows based computer labs are doing pretty much nothing to help make kids better at using computers. They probably learn more when they are handed a phone and figure it out on their own. IMO
that does not change the fact that Microsoft and Intel both went out of their way to stop the project because its current trajectory did not include their products. And the fact that Bill Gates went out of his way to publicly dismiss it. Gates is not out to save the world, he is still out to make money and protect his money and company.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that there were such restrictions but they mentioned libraries and/or schools. So either your nonprofit affiliate isn't a school or library. I suppose they could have changed their policies but my guess is that you're not talking about a school or library.
Good to hear there is some foundation money going out without strings attached.
ok, it runs on tablets but I'm sorry, the netbooks and tablets it runs on are not as cheap, as light, or as power efficient as they could be without Windows on it. Just look at how the $249 EeePC running Linux ended up in the upper $300 and into the $400 once Microsoft Windows XP was packaged into the deal. They had to add not only more RAM, a spinning disk drive and a larger battery, they had to use a faster CPU also. Vista was no help and Windows 7 didn't help much either.
So yes, Windows runs on tablets and netbooks and if you are willing to pay extra and use a heavier device and possibly even change batteries, it's usable. But, those things are not what most people considering tablets or netbooks want and I would not doubt that they are a major reason why Windows based tablets really didn't go anywhere and why Windows based netbooks aren't as pervasive as they could be. BTW, all the netbooks I've seen in the past couple of years but a couple have been running Linux. Even though they came with Windows and I handed a guy a disk of Linux Mint to try on his Windows 7 based netbook when he asked for it.
And at least there are other CPU options when using Linux for these kinds of devices and it comes with a smaller resource footprint. Maybe in 10 years Microsoft. But I'm glad you have the money and resources to spend on making it work for you.
5 versions of the.Net Framework = what profits? 2 generations and 6+ versions of Xbox = what profits when it cost them billions to create and in one year they had to write of something like $3 Billion just for Ring of Death heating issues. Profits? really? 4 generations of Zune = what profits? Again, nothing. 2 major desktop and 2 major server updates = most of their profits. OK but are you kidding me by counting Vista? Forced OEM pre-loading is all that got but yes, they took in money for that. You can't tell me they are making money off of 4 Mobile/Embedded upgrades when they lost over $10 billions and it's probably close to $15 billion in the last 10+ years of that product. MSN, BING and probably Hotmail all are money losing ventures too.
So their desktop OS, their server OS, along with their desktop OS tied Microsoft Office and Microsoft server based server software( all PC based ) are their income makers. The only new comer was the Sharepoint stuff and they purchased that and it was profitable then IIRC.
From the looks of it, Microsoft is still pretty much tied to the desktop while other companies like Apple and Google have created profitable revenue streams during the recession.
Do investors really want to wait another 10 years to see if Microsoft can come up with something not tied to the desktop and actually make money off it? As you said twice, Microsoft continues to design its software to compete with what others have already invented and created a market for. Following used to work on the desktop because they could throw their weight around and entice vendors to install their software. That does not work outside of the desktop PC world. The world we live in today and into the future. There is no historical data to show Microsoft even has a chance since they've never done that before and made money at it.
I did not say they don't exist, even hydrogen powered cars exist, they are just not widely used for various efficiency issues. The tablet sales you mention are not going to help Microsoft's bottom line much if any. The higher hardware costs make it nice for the hardware vendor you purchased from but I'm sure you're IT people and users would like a device with far less battery weight and lasts for a full day without a battery change.
I just love how people take a side case and try to prove statements are therefore not generally true.
if only you knew how much harm he is still doing but is now using his foundation as his front company. You do know that Bill was publicly blasting the One Laptop Per Child program and not because of what it was doing but because it wasn't using Windows. You also should know that both he and Steve Ballmer went around the world talking to governments and their education leadership down playing the OLPC project and in some cases signing million dollar "support" deals which required them to use Microsoft software and therefore excluded the OLPC device. And lets not forget all those who have said that they've been told that once a school or library accepts money from his foundation, they are not allowed to use open source software.
oh yes, Bill is doing a great job at spreading Microsoft software while he still gets a pat on the back for "doing more good" with his money but who is he really helping? I've got an OLPC and it is an amazing device and while it does run Linux, the software is not like anything on Windows or Linux. But the millions of kids who would have had a chance to get books and learn something about modern technology won't get that chance. Windows could not run on that hardware without added costs and from what I read, they did not want the Windows user interface hidden under the SUGAR UI. Anyways, Gates is not helping anyone and is only feeding his greedy desires to push his own companies products and that is not helping anyone but Bill and his ego. IMO
maybe Gates saw that he lost the ability to control the market like he once used to? When Java was a threat, Bill Gates told Microsoft top brass, "does anybody remember Windows" when they were trying to plan how to create a version of Java better than the others. The result was an incompatible version of Microsoft Java which was pre-loaded on all Windows based computers. Bill liked that kind of market control and used it well. He could call up people in HP, Intel, etc and just his words could shut down projects and bring business back to Microsoft products. The DOJ vs MSFT case exposed all that and I'm sure he felt he lost some control of what he could do at Microsoft without that kind of power to direct customers and get products on the market.
And remember, Windows CE dates back to when Gates was around and in control. Gates was around when the tablet computers were first hitting the market in the early '90s. When the Apple Newton was around and then Palm but Windows never was better than any of those. Gates was able to get versions of Microsoft's products onto all of the hardware OEMs handheld and tablet computers which also had ties to his Windows OS. But once they got the market, Microsoft couldn't keep users or make any money off the products. Without Microsoft funding the sales of these products, they whithered. So really, how good for Microsoft was Bill Gates? They got a great offer from IBM in the '80s, took that into a monopoly position with DOS, and leveraged that power to keep Microsoft products pre-installed on desktop computers. Never have they made a profitable product which didn't rely on leveraging desktop Windows.
He probably left because he couldn't force people to take Microsoft products and therefore make a profit for Microsoft. He's now doing those things with his foundation by giving them money and requiring they use Microsoft software or require that they not use open source software. More of his control freakish nature being applied and it makes him feel good and he even gets interviews and does speeches about his 'good work' at the foundation.
I even once thought, wow, Microsoft actually invented something and it was pretty cool. It was that MS Surface thing but that was short lived too when I found out that others had shown that technology years earlier. Nope, a monopoly can only grow until it fills the market and unless it can grow outside that market, it starts to rot. The recession only shows they are tied to the PC market and are probably starting to rot. IMO
and meanwhile, back at the ranch, Apple is growing like hotcakes during that same recession and has passed up MSFT in market cap.
Microsoft money is and always has been tied to the PC based Windows and they lose billions every year on all those things outside of their reach of control afforded to them by their monopoly position with desktop Windows.
I think it has been said that recessions are when amazing things happen and Microsoft has never had the ability to be part of that. They make their money from their huge position on desktop computers. The recession just means their market, which they have saturated, has slowed down. Apple, Google, Rim to name the obvious are building new product and revenue streams and positive cash flow streams. Microsoft, has never done this so can they, will they start now? It's very doubtful. IMO
at $50/year, 3 or 4 years is $150 or $200 and guess what? People already do drop ~$150-$200 every 3 or 4 years by purchasing new computers. Most businesses have a refresh cycle in that range and how many drop ~$200-$250 every couple of years to have Windows dis-infected or reinstalled. Sure those $$ don't go to Microsoft directly but they keep business who only do Windows running and they help keep Windows sales running.
I think going to an annual sales rental system like you mentioned would expose the cost of using Windows far more than Microsoft wants. All those client access licenses that businesses pay are already being used to show how much in revenue could be recouped by using some open source software instead. The bulk purchases are accepted and aren't thought of so much as a drain like a constant licensing fee type of cost. Wrap up the cost inside a larger hardware/software purchase or project and not realize how much Microsoft is really getting.
the funny thing about his foundation is that while he is still tied to Microsoft via his Board of Directors position and his stock holdings, his foundation is still allowed to pedal Microsoft software. I thought that non-profit orgs could not have these kinds of business ties and associations.
I think his financial advisors are telling him something like, 'while you have plenty of wealth in MSFT stock, it is not growing and looks like it'll stay or drop in the future. It's time to diversify to something with more growth potential now.'
the problem is that they can't scale Windows and that is what is going on now so they can't play in the new markets. Where is Windows on the new smartphones? Windows CE is not Windows and they've lost that market now. Tablets? they tried that in the '80s and failed because Windows couldn't handle the task. They then tried it just 5+ years ago and still couldn't do it because Windows was too bloated and caused the battery life and prices to be too high. They tried on the console and while they did win a good size of the market, it has cost them close to $10 billion or more and the product line is just now crossing the annual break-even mark so is that really a success?
So what new markets do they have to find with a PC operating system which can't scale up or down at all? Nope, they are stuck with the monopoly on the desktop and can continue to declare they are 'king of the world' while everyone else is looking for another ship to ride on.
And look at their history of losing money on attempts to move into new markets. It's pretty bad. The problem is not Gates or Ballmer it is that they can't use Windows to threaten other vendors in markets Windows has no power/strength. Even the Taiwanese manufacturing head said they are all afraid of Microsoft on the PC but on devices like phones and handhelds, not so much. So they can now only exist in their large state if they can keep their current customers constantly purchasing upgrades or replacement products on Windows. Good thing for them, Windows is still so fragile that people will buy new computers every 3-5 years and businesses amortize their hardware in that cycle too. They can only lose market share now and will find some level area down the slope somewhere. IMO
Google only pays Mozilla a percentage of the ad revenue they get from people using the Google search field in the browser. They are not paying them to put a sticker on the box or paying them just to use Google's search. It is tied to revenues generated, directly generated from people using that feature so if nobody used it, Mozilla would get nothing.
There's a big difference between that and paying companies to ship only Windows devices or paying them for putting Windows on devices by taking $15 from them as a licensing fee but paying them $20 for putting a "We recommend Windows" sticker all over their website.
I would like to think you are correct and people would say "why doesn't my laptop work this well?" but from what I've seen of the general population and their computer skills, they'd NEVER be able to connect the two dots. Everybody just knows how to click on things and react with guesses to anything out of the norm.
People already know stuff like their TV, car, micrwave, etc just work and pretty much keep working but you just don't here them questioning what's up with the PC messing up all the time. That is what they know.
I know of and heard of many many Windows PocketPC, Mobile, etc users who have dumped Windows on the handheld device because of how poor the platform is. So those who have tried and paid the price know how poorly they've done in these segments. But, there are millions more who only know Microsoft Windows on the desktop and to most of them, Microsoft is 'the computer' so they are ripe for the picking with the right marketing campaign.
One of the great things about the success of the iPhone has been that people no longer believe the lies that in order to have a usable handheld device, it must be Windows based. I was really sick of hearing that from people and the iPhone showed you did not need to be Windows to be usable. The iPad and Android are adding more fuel to that fire and if ChromeOS is any good, it'll only be a small step for people to realize that the PC is no longer a Windows world.
Slashdot Mirror
you can get a new OEM battery from Toyota for around $1,700+ if you shop around. Some dealerships will price it up around $2,200-$2,400. They will also charge you another $1000+ to R&R the battery and it is the same old battery design with a one year warranty. A place called ReInVolt builds up battery packs from Gen2 packs for around $1,500 and provides instructions for doing the replacement. Same one year warranty. If you can't do the R&R, you should be able to find a shop which can do it for much less since it requires no special tools and the toughest part is getting the battery pack in and out of the vehicle. 2-3 hours total tops but they want you to send your battery in first before they send out the replacement. It means 1 week without the car.
LoB
that's right, for many, if Bill doesn't mention it then it doesn't exist.
LoB
you can find examples of naive Gen 1 Prius owners selling their hybrids far under value because the HV battery is dead. I'm sure someone will pull some of this out and show how this battery stuff effects even hybrids. The funny thing is, replacement batteries are less than $2,000 and should be good for another 10 years. As long as they took care of the oil and fluids in their ICE, that car should good for another 10 years and probably only needs tires and brakes.
I think the 10% figure is a crock and the motivation sinister. Likely funded by the likes of the Automotive Dealership Association of America or some other aspect of the current auto industry. These dinosaur industries have spent millions slowing and preventing innovation in the industry. It's about time these dinosaurs die of natural causes. They should not be kept alive by things like these fake 'research' articles spreading FUD and definitely not kept alive as in how the US government kept GM alive. IMO.
LoB
it was said that the Prius replacement battery was going to cost $5,000 but now, you can get replacement batteries for under $2,000. I got mine for around $1,500 and I expect it to be good for more than another 10 years. So where are the Myth Busters when you need them? I call this report BUSTED!
LoB
An EV is going to have far fewer of the typical repair items just because it does not have an ICE system. No fuel pump, injectors, exhaust system, alternator, radiator or a large one, etc. Even brake pads are less of a repair item with regenerating braking. But yet some ORG came up with a 10% of cost resale valuation because there is one known cost, the battery pack. I wonder if this 10% number is using the same logic the US Auto Industry used in California to get CARB to end it's zero emission plans? Back then, they hired _experts_ who produced documentation which showed that not only would electric cars have to be _given_ away for free to the consumers, but they would also have to pay them _$15,000_ to take it. That is what they said, or something very close.
I remember when the hybrids where just hitting the market too. Back then, only a year after GM said they would be coming out with hybrids, GM started publishing press releases stating how bad for the consumers hybrid cars were. They ramped that up around the time when Toyota invited a few dozen reporters to see the Prius being manufactured on the same production line as their other cars, ie not custom made like they were the first few years. They also said they were not selling them at a loss.
So, can we really trust this 10% claim when the industry tends to make up this PR data to serve their own anti-innovation desires?
I don't believe it. We kept hearing about $5000 or more to replace our Prius battery when we bought it 10 years ago. But you know what? It only cost us ~$1500 to replace it thanks to after-market industries and innovations. No doubt they probably left this kind of information out of their 'research'. "Trust No One" IMO
LoB
are you saying that ARM chips can't run an office suit or a full web browser? If so, you might want to try a Beagleboard or one of those Nvidia dual core Tegra boards to see something pretty amazing. But, if you saying that the vendor of those applications you are using does not or can not provide those running on an ARM chip then you are suck with the hardware that vendor supports. Some products provide choice, others not so much and you must accept the limitations of your choices.
LoB
Carlin was a Prophet, or he was a great smart ass.
LoB
they lost a few billion building, supporting, and marketing the 360 so considering they are just now starting to generate positive cashflow from the product, it'll be a few years before they can drop a few billion again. It doesn't help that with their income tied to the PC and the PC very tied to the recession, pulling a few billion out right now won't help them look any better on Wall Street.
;-)
I'm surprised its taken them so long to move from 65nm to 45nm since even ARM chips are doing 45nm now and Intel is already into the 32nm space. And going from 65nm to 45nm is a 29% change so that alone accounts for most of the drop in power consumption and my guess is that the original GPU was probably already at 45nm or there probably would have been more than upto 10% saved by moving to 45nm and combining.
You got it, probably another 2+ years in the current version of the 360 unless the PS3 and 3D really start pulling customers away and the current 360 can't keep up. They'll have to invest to keep the market share at that point so there is some hope that it won't be more than 2 years.
LoB
that is a tough one because from what I'm seeing from kids who have access to Windows based labs is that they do not learn much other than how to click through Microsoft applications. It could be it is the instruction or it could be that they do not the the freedom to do the same things at home because of the costs of getting the same kinds of computers and software at home are prohibitively expensive. Using Microsoft based labs limits availability at home because of the expense of running such a system at home limits that option to only the well off families.
What I liked about the OLPC method was that it was possible to get and old PC, through a version of Ubuntu on it and the Sugar desktop and the same applications ran for next to nothing. Add a cheap dialup account and the application sharing was enabled.
Teaching students to click their way to creating a Word document gives them next to nothing in the way of skills. Teach them what menus are, what files, folders, dialog boxes, windows, and printing is all about and then they won't have to learn click-here, click-this, click-this when that pops up, etc etc without knowing what they really are doing.
So currently, Windows based computer labs are doing pretty much nothing to help make kids better at using computers. They probably learn more when they are handed a phone and figure it out on their own. IMO
LoB
that does not change the fact that Microsoft and Intel both went out of their way to stop the project because its current trajectory did not include their products. And the fact that Bill Gates went out of his way to publicly dismiss it. Gates is not out to save the world, he is still out to make money and protect his money and company.
LoB
I've seen it mentioned a few times that there were such restrictions but they mentioned libraries and/or schools. So either your nonprofit affiliate isn't a school or library. I suppose they could have changed their policies but my guess is that you're not talking about a school or library.
Good to hear there is some foundation money going out without strings attached.
LoB
ok, it runs on tablets but I'm sorry, the netbooks and tablets it runs on are not as cheap, as light, or as power efficient as they could be without Windows on it. Just look at how the $249 EeePC running Linux ended up in the upper $300 and into the $400 once Microsoft Windows XP was packaged into the deal. They had to add not only more RAM, a spinning disk drive and a larger battery, they had to use a faster CPU also. Vista was no help and Windows 7 didn't help much either.
So yes, Windows runs on tablets and netbooks and if you are willing to pay extra and use a heavier device and possibly even change batteries, it's usable. But, those things are not what most people considering tablets or netbooks want and I would not doubt that they are a major reason why Windows based tablets really didn't go anywhere and why Windows based netbooks aren't as pervasive as they could be. BTW, all the netbooks I've seen in the past couple of years but a couple have been running Linux. Even though they came with Windows and I handed a guy a disk of Linux Mint to try on his Windows 7 based netbook when he asked for it.
And at least there are other CPU options when using Linux for these kinds of devices and it comes with a smaller resource footprint. Maybe in 10 years Microsoft. But I'm glad you have the money and resources to spend on making it work for you.
LoB
5 versions of the .Net Framework = what profits?
2 generations and 6+ versions of Xbox = what profits when it cost them billions to create and in one year they had to write of something like $3 Billion just for Ring of Death heating issues. Profits? really?
4 generations of Zune = what profits? Again, nothing.
2 major desktop and 2 major server updates = most of their profits. OK but are you kidding me by counting Vista? Forced OEM pre-loading is all that got but yes, they took in money for that.
You can't tell me they are making money off of 4 Mobile/Embedded upgrades when they lost over $10 billions and it's probably close to $15 billion in the last 10+ years of that product. MSN, BING and probably Hotmail all are money losing ventures too.
So their desktop OS, their server OS, along with their desktop OS tied Microsoft Office and Microsoft server based server software( all PC based ) are their income makers. The only new comer was the Sharepoint stuff and they purchased that and it was profitable then IIRC.
From the looks of it, Microsoft is still pretty much tied to the desktop while other companies like Apple and Google have created profitable revenue streams during the recession.
Do investors really want to wait another 10 years to see if Microsoft can come up with something not tied to the desktop and actually make money off it? As you said twice, Microsoft continues to design its software to compete with what others have already invented and created a market for. Following used to work on the desktop because they could throw their weight around and entice vendors to install their software. That does not work outside of the desktop PC world. The world we live in today and into the future. There is no historical data to show Microsoft even has a chance since they've never done that before and made money at it.
LoB
I did not say they don't exist, even hydrogen powered cars exist, they are just not widely used for various efficiency issues. The tablet sales you mention are not going to help Microsoft's bottom line much if any. The higher hardware costs make it nice for the hardware vendor you purchased from but I'm sure you're IT people and users would like a device with far less battery weight and lasts for a full day without a battery change.
I just love how people take a side case and try to prove statements are therefore not generally true.
LoB
correct, now where is the edit button?
LoB
if only you knew how much harm he is still doing but is now using his foundation as his front company. You do know that Bill was publicly blasting the One Laptop Per Child program and not because of what it was doing but because it wasn't using Windows. You also should know that both he and Steve Ballmer went around the world talking to governments and their education leadership down playing the OLPC project and in some cases signing million dollar "support" deals which required them to use Microsoft software and therefore excluded the OLPC device. And lets not forget all those who have said that they've been told that once a school or library accepts money from his foundation, they are not allowed to use open source software.
oh yes, Bill is doing a great job at spreading Microsoft software while he still gets a pat on the back for "doing more good" with his money but who is he really helping? I've got an OLPC and it is an amazing device and while it does run Linux, the software is not like anything on Windows or Linux. But the millions of kids who would have had a chance to get books and learn something about modern technology won't get that chance. Windows could not run on that hardware without added costs and from what I read, they did not want the Windows user interface hidden under the SUGAR UI. Anyways, Gates is not helping anyone and is only feeding his greedy desires to push his own companies products and that is not helping anyone but Bill and his ego. IMO
LoB
maybe Gates saw that he lost the ability to control the market like he once used to? When Java was a threat, Bill Gates told Microsoft top brass, "does anybody remember Windows" when they were trying to plan how to create a version of Java better than the others. The result was an incompatible version of Microsoft Java which was pre-loaded on all Windows based computers. Bill liked that kind of market control and used it well. He could call up people in HP, Intel, etc and just his words could shut down projects and bring business back to Microsoft products. The DOJ vs MSFT case exposed all that and I'm sure he felt he lost some control of what he could do at Microsoft without that kind of power to direct customers and get products on the market.
And remember, Windows CE dates back to when Gates was around and in control. Gates was around when the tablet computers were first hitting the market in the early '90s. When the Apple Newton was around and then Palm but Windows never was better than any of those. Gates was able to get versions of Microsoft's products onto all of the hardware OEMs handheld and tablet computers which also had ties to his Windows OS. But once they got the market, Microsoft couldn't keep users or make any money off the products. Without Microsoft funding the sales of these products, they whithered. So really, how good for Microsoft was Bill Gates? They got a great offer from IBM in the '80s, took that into a monopoly position with DOS, and leveraged that power to keep Microsoft products pre-installed on desktop computers. Never have they made a profitable product which didn't rely on leveraging desktop Windows.
He probably left because he couldn't force people to take Microsoft products and therefore make a profit for Microsoft. He's now doing those things with his foundation by giving them money and requiring they use Microsoft software or require that they not use open source software. More of his control freakish nature being applied and it makes him feel good and he even gets interviews and does speeches about his 'good work' at the foundation.
I even once thought, wow, Microsoft actually invented something and it was pretty cool. It was that MS Surface thing but that was short lived too when I found out that others had shown that technology years earlier. Nope, a monopoly can only grow until it fills the market and unless it can grow outside that market, it starts to rot. The recession only shows they are tied to the PC market and are probably starting to rot. IMO
LoB
and meanwhile, back at the ranch, Apple is growing like hotcakes during that same recession and has passed up MSFT in market cap.
Microsoft money is and always has been tied to the PC based Windows and they lose billions every year on all those things outside of their reach of control afforded to them by their monopoly position with desktop Windows.
I think it has been said that recessions are when amazing things happen and Microsoft has never had the ability to be part of that. They make their money from their huge position on desktop computers. The recession just means their market, which they have saturated, has slowed down. Apple, Google, Rim to name the obvious are building new product and revenue streams and positive cash flow streams. Microsoft, has never done this so can they, will they start now? It's very doubtful. IMO
LoB
but they lose billions annually on them so psssst, don't tell anyone who might be an investor.
LoB
at $50/year, 3 or 4 years is $150 or $200 and guess what? People already do drop ~$150-$200 every 3 or 4 years by purchasing new computers. Most businesses have a refresh cycle in that range and how many drop ~$200-$250 every couple of years to have Windows dis-infected or reinstalled. Sure those $$ don't go to Microsoft directly but they keep business who only do Windows running and they help keep Windows sales running.
I think going to an annual sales rental system like you mentioned would expose the cost of using Windows far more than Microsoft wants. All those client access licenses that businesses pay are already being used to show how much in revenue could be recouped by using some open source software instead. The bulk purchases are accepted and aren't thought of so much as a drain like a constant licensing fee type of cost. Wrap up the cost inside a larger hardware/software purchase or project and not realize how much Microsoft is really getting.
LoB
the funny thing about his foundation is that while he is still tied to Microsoft via his Board of Directors position and his stock holdings, his foundation is still allowed to pedal Microsoft software. I thought that non-profit orgs could not have these kinds of business ties and associations.
I think his financial advisors are telling him something like, 'while you have plenty of wealth in MSFT stock, it is not growing and looks like it'll stay or drop in the future. It's time to diversify to something with more growth potential now.'
LoB
the problem is that they can't scale Windows and that is what is going on now so they can't play in the new markets. Where is Windows on the new smartphones? Windows CE is not Windows and they've lost that market now. Tablets? they tried that in the '80s and failed because Windows couldn't handle the task. They then tried it just 5+ years ago and still couldn't do it because Windows was too bloated and caused the battery life and prices to be too high. They tried on the console and while they did win a good size of the market, it has cost them close to $10 billion or more and the product line is just now crossing the annual break-even mark so is that really a success?
So what new markets do they have to find with a PC operating system which can't scale up or down at all? Nope, they are stuck with the monopoly on the desktop and can continue to declare they are 'king of the world' while everyone else is looking for another ship to ride on.
And look at their history of losing money on attempts to move into new markets. It's pretty bad. The problem is not Gates or Ballmer it is that they can't use Windows to threaten other vendors in markets Windows has no power/strength. Even the Taiwanese manufacturing head said they are all afraid of Microsoft on the PC but on devices like phones and handhelds, not so much. So they can now only exist in their large state if they can keep their current customers constantly purchasing upgrades or replacement products on Windows. Good thing for them, Windows is still so fragile that people will buy new computers every 3-5 years and businesses amortize their hardware in that cycle too. They can only lose market share now and will find some level area down the slope somewhere. IMO
LoB
Google only pays Mozilla a percentage of the ad revenue they get from people using the Google search field in the browser. They are not paying them to put a sticker on the box or paying them just to use Google's search. It is tied to revenues generated, directly generated from people using that feature so if nobody used it, Mozilla would get nothing.
There's a big difference between that and paying companies to ship only Windows devices or paying them for putting Windows on devices by taking $15 from them as a licensing fee but paying them $20 for putting a "We recommend Windows" sticker all over their website.
Gawd, another AC no less.
LoB
I would like to think you are correct and people would say "why doesn't my laptop work this well?" but from what I've seen of the general population and their computer skills, they'd NEVER be able to connect the two dots. Everybody just knows how to click on things and react with guesses to anything out of the norm.
People already know stuff like their TV, car, micrwave, etc just work and pretty much keep working but you just don't here them questioning what's up with the PC messing up all the time. That is what they know.
LoB
I know of and heard of many many Windows PocketPC, Mobile, etc users who have dumped Windows on the handheld device because of how poor the platform is. So those who have tried and paid the price know how poorly they've done in these segments. But, there are millions more who only know Microsoft Windows on the desktop and to most of them, Microsoft is 'the computer' so they are ripe for the picking with the right marketing campaign.
One of the great things about the success of the iPhone has been that people no longer believe the lies that in order to have a usable handheld device, it must be Windows based. I was really sick of hearing that from people and the iPhone showed you did not need to be Windows to be usable. The iPad and Android are adding more fuel to that fire and if ChromeOS is any good, it'll only be a small step for people to realize that the PC is no longer a Windows world.
LoB