Most hybrid cars still use NiMh. Look at Toyota, the most popular maker of hybrids. All of the 2012-2013 Prius models use NiMh except for the plug-in Prius. The big problem with any rechargeable has been battery life. NiMh cells last pretty much forever as long as you run only part of their capacity. The first two Prius generations (1997-2000, 2001-2003) used only 40% of the battery capacity. From 2004 on, they boosted this to 60%.
The full electric cars have largely jumped to Lithium for energy density. But Lithium charging is more complex than NiMh -- cells can't deliver or take as much instantaneous power. So they make much more sense in large packs, but not as much for smaller pack, yet. Much of the work on new Lithium formulations (including the work the now-defunct A123 was doing) is improving the anode and cathode materials, which will increase their peak power/charging capacity, and increase the useful life.
For R/C cars, yeah, Lithium cells exist, but the majority are still using NiMh. It's much the same issue -- serious racers need peak power output, which is fairly small from Lithium cells vs. NiMh (in fact, some even prefer NiCAD, despite the evil memory effects, as they can deliver a higher current peak than a similar NiMh cell). Some of this is addressed in the LiFePO4 cells, which are starting to gain traction.
Another issue with Lithium cells is that it's critical to monitor power levels. Over-discharging can cause a parasitic reaction in the negative terminal, production of LiO in an irreversible reaction. Even without that, there are a number of parasitic effects in most classic Li-ion cells that limit their lifetime, often to about 3 years or less, independent of the battery cycling. That's been a biggie for use in hybrids, and one reason NiMh still dominates -- all of the hybrid or BEV cars out commercially now, with Lithium based cells, are using very new battery designs.
The Blackberry is a great moving telephone, I don' t know what they're talking about. I can reads all my emails too, which is a bonus on a phone these days -- can't do that on the office or home phone. Very rugged, too, I dropped mine while adjusting the rabbit ears on my 24" big screen TV (still can't pull in a signal worth a damn anymore), and it didn't break. I hear you can even surfs the internets with the Blackberry, though I'm not sure just what people see in all that.
Just bought the ASUS Transformer Infinity TF700... same basic class as this Surface tablet -- same flash (64GB), less RAM (1GB vs. 2GB), better display (IPS at 1920x1200), and a much more functional keyboard option. Oh, and a real OS.... I like Android. It already runs real Linux tools... how long would I have to wait for Cygwin and Emacs and G++ to be ported to WinRT... I'm thinking "forever and a day".
One thing I did like.. the Surface Pro has some kind of pen digitizer in addition to the capacitive touchscreen, like the Samsung Galaxy Notes. That's going to help with full Windows desktop on those devices, but it's also good for drawing, or just finer control without busting out the keyboard/trackpad or a mouse (though of course, both are options).
If Microsoft is really transitioning away from making all its money on Windows licensing (and the follow-ons), why not release it to the largest market for mobile devices? Ballmer just said that Microsoft's a Devices and Services company, so it's possible stand-alone software isn't seen as such a big deal anymore, despite it currently being almost all of the income.
Microsoft has a long term question to answer here. If they're phenomenally successful with the Surface itself, iOS and Android will matter less, but so will OEM sales of the OS... in fact, they may get to a point where that stops altogether. And that could be their choice, or it could be like the HD-DVD market that MS did with Toshiba, where the hardware pricing didn't leave any room for other companies to sell hardware. Microsoft is matching Apple and the Android folks here, but other Windows RT companies are at a $75-$100 disadvantage.
And if they're not successful with Surface, will they even be successful with Windows on mobile devices? Keep in mind, Lotus and WordPerfect were once the reigning kinds of Office Automation. They lost that largely by being late to the WIMP party, and allowing Microosoft to claim that ground. I don't really know for a fact that Microsoft is doing Office for either iOS or Android (yeah, seen the rumors), but by claiming those platforms, they're ensuring that Office remains viable in that market. Leaving 97% of the mobile market (and 16% of all consumer personal computing, but growing FAST) without Office is a great way to make people stop caring about it.
And slower than high-end tablets less than ten years ago. My current tablet has a higher resolution display than my current laptop. Less RAM (1GB vs 4GB), about half the storage of the original laptop (128GB vs. 240GB). The 2.4GHz dual Core2 is certainly faster than the quad core 1.7GHz ARM Cortex A9, but then again, I'm not running Windows, so there's efficiencies in the trade off to Linux/Android. The tablet is certainly quite a bit faster than both the previous laptop, and even the desktop (single core AMD64) that I owned at the time I bought the laptop.
It's not just that tablets are fast enough for many, approaching most, consumer needs these days. That pretty much started to happen with PCs about 10-15 years ago. I'm not addressing engineering or other heavy lifting niches here, just the things most consumers and businesses do with their PCs. This is why tablet-derived laptops are already selling in Asia, and desktops may not even be far behind. They're at or about the performance threshold that made the bulk of consumers happy with their PCs, back in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
There are people paid 50% of what I make to do some useful percentage of what I do. They're called "Junior Engineers".
I used to have a Ford Explorer.. now I have a Toyota Tacoma. It does about 75% of what the Explorer could do, at about 33% the cost. Good enough for my current needs (though I still drive the Prius to work).
I have a few different cameras.. two system cameras, thousands spent on bodies and lenses and accessories. And a pocket camera, which does some of the same things, never as well, but perhaps better for the task at hand (gets into concerts without a hassle, fairly damage proof if I drop it, and even it does break, it's cheap to replace). And yet, sometimes I even use the smartphone camera.
There are certainly Junior Engineers who only own the Tacoma (or the Prius) and a P&S camera or even just the phone as their only camera. All of those things are 100% of something, just not 100% of something more expensive/complex/etc.
The tablet's much the same idea. They're not enough personal computer for everyone, all the time. They are certainly enough personal computer for some people, all the time, and for even more people, some of the time.
Well, no. PCs, as in IBM PC Clones, Standard Architecture, whatever you want to call it, is currently a bit over 80% of the whole personal computer market... the rest is made up of tablets, smartphones, etc. Microsoft has about 85% of that 80%, MacOS about 10%... that's installed base, not sales percentage, and I think this study skewed toward the USA, where the MacOS is certainly more popular than anywhere else. But Apple has been gaining a bit on the MacOS front lately, even though Mac PCs are only about 15% of Apple's business these days.
Of the non-PC 20% of personal computing, Apple has about 50%, Android about 25%, and "other" the rest. Of course, these things change very fast, and the numbers referenced here may already be out of date.
69%? I had no idea it had dropped that low. Didn't it used to be 95% relatively recently?
Microsoft hit 95% of the personal computer OS market, and I think most people stopped paying close attention after that. So it's kind of a meme that MS is and always will be at 95%... but they're not. However, to get the 69% number, you have to consider all forms of the personal computer, not just PC(tm) Clones(R). That includes smartphones and tablets, iOS and Android, etc. This is also for personal computing, it doesn't include servers (which would definitely jack up the Linux segment... non-Android Linux is put at about 1.6% on the same study).
When you count Microsoft as 69% of the small-p-c market (rather than PC(tm) Clone(R) market), smartphones and tablets and other non-PC personal computing devices count as part of that same tally.
Things can change, and quickly, too. My tablet actually has the same screen real estate as, well, one of my two desktop PC monitors. Definitely not going to the full extent of 1920x1200 on a 10" screen, but these do plug in to other things, like TVs or monitors. That's pretty much what's going to ensure that mobile devices permanently replace a segment of the PC market -- cheaper, easier for regular folks to use, and will increasingly do the same jobs that most people do with their desktops. I'm not expecting to hook up my 12TB RAID to my tablet anytime soon (hmmm... it does work with USB drives...), or do HD video editing on it. But I already do write on it, and have even programmed in C/C++ on it. They'll only get better at this stuff.
Actually, yeah, both my tablets (current and retired) work with HDMI monitors just dandy. I did start with wired keyboard and mouse, but switched to Bluetooth... and of course, my current tablet is an ASUS Transformer, which has a snap-on keyboard.
Given the number of development tools, IDEs, shells, etc. that run on Android, I'm guessing I'm not the first to notice that "real work" is completely possible on a table. Not that I'd want to do all that much with a touchscreen, but there is the Hacker's Keyboard for Android, which gives you access to all of the glyphs typically missing from iPad-clone keyboards.
I've been intentionally trying to use the tablet rather than a laptop for the last couple of years, and it's working pretty well. Yeah, there are things I can't do on the tablet that sorta-kinda worked on the laptop. But not very well... these were really suited for a desktop: EE-CAD, Video and Audio editing, Photo editing. Less heavy lifting oriented tasks, even programming, works fine on a tablet. Then again, my current one has a higher rez screen than my laptop, and more CPU power, storage, and RAM than any laptop I've owned other than the current one.
First of all, those are flawed numbers. For one, lots of things have changed since 2010. It's difficult to gauge the exact adoption rate of Open/Libre Office. Open Office does report over 98 million downloads as of 2007, 100 million downloads in the first year of OpenOffice.org 3.x, and over 5 million for Apache Open Office. Libre Office reports 7.5 million as of late 2011. A market survey conducted in 2010 estimated Open Office as high as 9% of the office automation market in the US and UK by the end of 2010, and around 20% in Germany, Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe.
And that was then. Today, Microsoft is on just under 70% of personal computers, once you factor in mobile devices. That is down from something very close to 95% at their peak. This WikiMedia tally is based on page visits, but it pretty much tracks the expected installed base of Windows 7 (40.3%), Vista (6.6%), XP (21.3%), and other Windows versions (1.4%). They also have MacOS at 8.5%, iOS at 9.9%, Android at 5.1%, and Linux at 1.6%... obviously, this is not going to include servers or offline PCs. But it's clear: Microsoft is well past peak.
I don't know that Schmidt is correct about Microsoft remaining relevant -- they still have a huge pile of cash, and as demonstrated in the gaming market, they have shown some tenacity in claiming a market, willing to lose billions in the process. So I wouldn't count them out in mobile just yet. As well, they do seem to be ready and willing to completely shake up the PC industry... I mean, Ballmer was saying just last week that he sees Microsoft as a devices and services company, despite the fact that right now, they make very little money on either compared to their software business. But they are trying to reinvent themselves, and it's pretty clear they still haven't gotten over wanting to be Apple. That seems to be driving their choices more than even back in the early days of Windows.
Sure, they can't be Apple. But they might managed to be something similar. The fun there would be, where do all these HW companies go, if Microsoft starts undercutting them on hardware?
Right. A keyboard or mouse is a first-year graduate electronics project, coupled with a good mechanical designer. It ought to be a slam dunk.
The so far is the only phone device directly marketed by Microsoft. And yeah, it was in stores for less than a month, and failed completely. Though that really had nothing to do with the hardware -- it was a complete misunderstanding of the market for such a device by Microsoft.. a far worse crime. MS was trying to build a social networking phone for teens. But it required a full smartphone contract. Most parents don't get their kids a smartphone, due to the monthly costs. And for those that do, they're not going to choose the non-smart phone their kid doesn't want. It was amazing stupidity, and not even the slightest surprise when it tanked.
The only real hardware Microsoft's known for is the X-Box 360, which was developed internally, by MS's own hardware team. Including custom ASICs... this was more of a development effort than either an x86 or ARM tablet would be these days. They don't have manufacturing, but that doesn't stop Apple. If MS wants to be in the HW business, they certainly have the cash for it. And the people... plus, they were hiring a bunch of new HW people this last Spring.
I think they are more likely to get into trouble in other ways. Their hardware will work fine, but will people want something labelled Microsoft? Do they have the branding to compete directly with Apple on price, or do they have to lowball it, and squeeze out their OEMs? It'll be interesting.
Apple makes laptops... and the ancient Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is a dual-socket Xeon machine, so a bit more than a plain old desktop, but it's using CPUs from 2010 and a GPU (ATi 5xxx series) from 2009. Apple was rapidly phasing out all professional users in the latter days of Mr. Jobs. This might be changing... Tim Cook hinted a new Mac Pro might be forthcoming. Still need to fix FCP 10, even if that does happen.
As for the iMac, it's a laptop for the desktop. A very big waste, because next time you upgrade, you have to re-buy your monitor. And it makes using dual or triple matched monitors impossible. It's a desktop for iPhone fans, not for serious computing.
To OEMs, the Windows RT cost is rumored to run $75-$100. This is only available bundled, Windows and Office. And never to end users, only to OEMs. So you'll only see the final product, no retail software boxes. And yeah, this is going to be an issue in the tablet market, since tablets are expected to cost less than full PCs.
Windows RT does actually run the Win32 API... of course, not x86 code. But only Microsoft gets to use it. Third parties can't port their Win32 apps, they can only use WinRT... that's to keep their apps within Microsoft's new walled garden.
Most of the forthcoming Windows tablets are going to based on the Atom Z2760, at least until the Bobcats are out to compete. According to Intel anyway, the Z2760 will basically match a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 on power consumption, and maybe even edge it out on performance per clock cycle. Of course, there are plenty of Android tablets with quad core A9, and newer models based on the Krait or A15 core aren't far off.
The defining feature of a table is all-day performance. If a Windows tablet can't give you 8 hours of sustained use (like the Transformer... you get more once in the keyboard dock, but the basic tablet itself runs long), then it's just a crippled laptop. I'm wondering just what kind of portable life you're getting out of Microsoft's i5 based Surface Pro. The HP tablet, the ThinkPad 2, and others using the Atom will probably deliver dandy battery life. They'll also run those Windows 7 Phone apps fine, and whatever WinRT/Metro apps as show up this fall. And they will run desktop apps, but basically you're talking about Netbook performance levels. Less demanding Win32 programs fine, hardcore ones not to much. Then again, you don' t have the screen, storage, or RAM on a tablet... it's not just the CPU.
And I think this is the one thing Microsoft may not get yet -- desktops and tablets are used differently enough, there's not necessarily a good reason to run the same applications on them.
It's quite possible to undercut Apple on price. The components market is significantly larger than "just Apple". And Apple has high margins... they're among the most profitable companies anywhere in consumer electronics. Apple's been spending money since the 70s building their reputation as a luxury brand. Same reason they can charge twice as much for a laptop of the same performance and build quality of the top tier PC vendors. Great business if you can get it.
But that's Apple. Microsoft does have a problem here, potentially. Every company that's gone strictly head-to-head against Apple on tablets has lost. Many consumers are savvy enough to realize that an entry-level tablet just shouldn't cost $500... and in particular, with Apple functioning as the Mercedes or Godiva of the tablet market, it's hard to sell a tablet at the same price (or more) if you're just a Ford or a Hershey. Microsoft is actually better poised to cash in here in the Windows tablet market, because they're not going to have to pay the $50-$100 software licensing fees that every other Windows 8 tablet vendor will have to pay. At the lower end, Windows RT (ARM) tablets are only shipping with Windows and Office bundled, so the cost concerns are pretty real if they want to compete in the sub-$500 range.
Yes, there are a bunch of super cheap Android tablets on the market... Android makes that possible, given the low-to-zero cost of the software. There are also some, like the Asus Transformer and the Samsung Galaxy Note series, that are comparable to the iPad on fit and finish, and superior in other ways. There's no reason a Windows tablet can't compete here.
Microsoft is also clearly going higher end on the x86 tablet, if the specs about the "Surface Pro" are true. That's using laptop chips, an i5 Ivy Bridge processor, up to 128GB of flash storage. That's not going to be cheap... and that's actually been one of the problems with Windows tablets ever since they debuted, 15 or so year ago. The same reason compact laptops were a small niche item until the Netbook... people generally don't want to pay more something they perceive to be less. Maybe the notion of a tablet is strong enough to be seen as something on par with a laptop, but for the most part, tablets have been seen as something lesser. After all, Apple priced their iPad at half the price of their entry-level laptop.
And it's also curious that Microsoft isn't going with the new Atom processor. If Intel's claims are true about Atom Z2760 "Clover Trail" SOC, this will the first x86 for tablets that really gives the ARM a run. It's supposed to match a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 on power consumption and match or ever-so-slightly beat it on performance per clock cycle. This is going into the Lenovo ThinkPad 2, the new HP tablet, and a bunch of other Windows tablets, which will compete more directly with ARM. Given that they're all expected to primarily run WinRT (and existing Windows 7 Phone) apps, the lack of a desktop-class processor may not be an issue. Of course, these will have Netbook-class performance, so they're not ideal for big desktop applications, but then again, tablets in general aren't ideal for big desktop applications... they lack the necessary storage and RAM, too. This series and the ARMs will potentially put serious price pressure on the whole Windows tablet market... assuming that market actually materializes.
That's 26% less pocket-sizedness, though, when considering a 7"-class tablet. And at least based on the latest rumor mills, less resolution than most current 7"ers as well.
No... MS is delivering the opposite -- tablet and phone apps will run on PCs.
Seen Windows 8 yet -- most have. The goofy squares-based UI (the UI formerly known as Metro) is coupled to the WinRT API, which is awfully close to a whole new OS. That's what Microsoft supports on tablets and phones. They're also using all managed code with VM, so this stuff runs on Phone, ARM-based tablet, PC-based tablet, and regular ordinary PCs.
That's the key to Microsoft's new walled garden -- apps for WinRT/Metro are only available via the Zune, er, Microsoft Store online. Not on phones, but on ARM tablets, Microsoft force-bundled the mobile version of Office with Windows... OEMs can't buy them separately. This is also where they have a big advantage, since that's $75-$100 paid by the OEM to Microsoft... money neither MS nor Apple is paying on their tablets.
Microsoft's already being less fair than Google. For the moment anyway, Google's kept Motorola at arm's length, no obvious special advantage over the other Android licensees. And when they make a Nexus device, it's not Google contract manufacturing it themselves, but their doing a special project with one of the existing OEMs. And until recently, these have been fairly special projects. Nexus devices have occasionally shown up at teleco stores, but most have been direct from Google -- not a volume market. Except maybe the Nexus 7, which was aggressively priced, and seems to be selling very well (this is probably the tablet that pushes Android over-the-top on US tablet market penetration -- a recent report has Android at 48% vs. iOS at 52%, but that doesn't include recent tablets).
But MS is actually designing their own devices, building them at some CM (could be right next to Apple, figuratively anyway, given that Foxconn makes about 40% of the entire world's supply of consumer electronics products). It's possible they're still doing a "Nexus" like thing, building a product that's meant to serve primarily as an example to the market. They might also be taking the Apple approach, trying to be the high end in the Windows tablet (and now Phone) market. The "Surface Pro" suggests that's possible -- they're building a full PC tablet, based on an i5 Ivy Bridge processor, not the Atom that HP and others will be using in their more ARM-comparable tablets.
But there's good reason to reject both premises. For one, every other company that's taken on Apple directly on tablets, based on price, hasn't done well. Apple's one of the only CE companies established as something of a luxury brand. No one pays Mercedes money for a Ford. Given their price advantage, Microsoft could push out their Surface tablets, and eventually phone, at a very competitive cost. And they have a big reason to do this... they clearly think this is the future, thus the risky compromise of the desktop environment and the complete reboot of what a Windows program really is (the greatest change since Windows was launched). They're likely to try and win themselves a chunk of the mobile market, any way possible. Even if they have to trample the OEMs.
Slashdot Mirror
Most hybrid cars still use NiMh. Look at Toyota, the most popular maker of hybrids. All of the 2012-2013 Prius models use NiMh except for the plug-in Prius. The big problem with any rechargeable has been battery life. NiMh cells last pretty much forever as long as you run only part of their capacity. The first two Prius generations (1997-2000, 2001-2003) used only 40% of the battery capacity. From 2004 on, they boosted this to 60%.
The full electric cars have largely jumped to Lithium for energy density. But Lithium charging is more complex than NiMh -- cells can't deliver or take as much instantaneous power. So they make much more sense in large packs, but not as much for smaller pack, yet. Much of the work on new Lithium formulations (including the work the now-defunct A123 was doing) is improving the anode and cathode materials, which will increase their peak power/charging capacity, and increase the useful life.
For R/C cars, yeah, Lithium cells exist, but the majority are still using NiMh. It's much the same issue -- serious racers need peak power output, which is fairly small from Lithium cells vs. NiMh (in fact, some even prefer NiCAD, despite the evil memory effects, as they can deliver a higher current peak than a similar NiMh cell). Some of this is addressed in the LiFePO4 cells, which are starting to gain traction.
Another issue with Lithium cells is that it's critical to monitor power levels. Over-discharging can cause a parasitic reaction in the negative terminal, production of LiO in an irreversible reaction. Even without that, there are a number of parasitic effects in most classic Li-ion cells that limit their lifetime, often to about 3 years or less, independent of the battery cycling. That's been a biggie for use in hybrids, and one reason NiMh still dominates -- all of the hybrid or BEV cars out commercially now, with Lithium based cells, are using very new battery designs.
The Blackberry is a great moving telephone, I don' t know what they're talking about. I can reads all my emails too, which is a bonus on a phone these days -- can't do that on the office or home phone. Very rugged, too, I dropped mine while adjusting the rabbit ears on my 24" big screen TV (still can't pull in a signal worth a damn anymore), and it didn't break. I hear you can even surfs the internets with the Blackberry, though I'm not sure just what people see in all that.
Hey man, settle down there... I know Harry. He's a good guy. Read him here: http://techland.time.com/category/technologizer/, or on G+.
Just bought the ASUS Transformer Infinity TF700... same basic class as this Surface tablet -- same flash (64GB), less RAM (1GB vs. 2GB), better display (IPS at 1920x1200), and a much more functional keyboard option. Oh, and a real OS.... I like Android. It already runs real Linux tools... how long would I have to wait for Cygwin and Emacs and G++ to be ported to WinRT... I'm thinking "forever and a day".
One thing I did like.. the Surface Pro has some kind of pen digitizer in addition to the capacitive touchscreen, like the Samsung Galaxy Notes. That's going to help with full Windows desktop on those devices, but it's also good for drawing, or just finer control without busting out the keyboard/trackpad or a mouse (though of course, both are options).
Only the Surface Pro runs the Windows desktop. The Surface/WinRT machine mentioned is Metro-only.
If Microsoft is really transitioning away from making all its money on Windows licensing (and the follow-ons), why not release it to the largest market for mobile devices? Ballmer just said that Microsoft's a Devices and Services company, so it's possible stand-alone software isn't seen as such a big deal anymore, despite it currently being almost all of the income.
Microsoft has a long term question to answer here. If they're phenomenally successful with the Surface itself, iOS and Android will matter less, but so will OEM sales of the OS... in fact, they may get to a point where that stops altogether. And that could be their choice, or it could be like the HD-DVD market that MS did with Toshiba, where the hardware pricing didn't leave any room for other companies to sell hardware. Microsoft is matching Apple and the Android folks here, but other Windows RT companies are at a $75-$100 disadvantage.
And if they're not successful with Surface, will they even be successful with Windows on mobile devices? Keep in mind, Lotus and WordPerfect were once the reigning kinds of Office Automation. They lost that largely by being late to the WIMP party, and allowing Microosoft to claim that ground. I don't really know for a fact that Microsoft is doing Office for either iOS or Android (yeah, seen the rumors), but by claiming those platforms, they're ensuring that Office remains viable in that market. Leaving 97% of the mobile market (and 16% of all consumer personal computing, but growing FAST) without Office is a great way to make people stop caring about it.
This is the Windows RT device. It's for consumers. No Domains. Not for Enterprise.
All your bases are belong to him, if he wins. All your base pairs too, I rekon... unless Monsanto gets them first.
And slower than high-end tablets less than ten years ago. My current tablet has a higher resolution display than my current laptop. Less RAM (1GB vs 4GB), about half the storage of the original laptop (128GB vs. 240GB). The 2.4GHz dual Core2 is certainly faster than the quad core 1.7GHz ARM Cortex A9, but then again, I'm not running Windows, so there's efficiencies in the trade off to Linux/Android. The tablet is certainly quite a bit faster than both the previous laptop, and even the desktop (single core AMD64) that I owned at the time I bought the laptop.
It's not just that tablets are fast enough for many, approaching most, consumer needs these days. That pretty much started to happen with PCs about 10-15 years ago. I'm not addressing engineering or other heavy lifting niches here, just the things most consumers and businesses do with their PCs. This is why tablet-derived laptops are already selling in Asia, and desktops may not even be far behind. They're at or about the performance threshold that made the bulk of consumers happy with their PCs, back in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
There are people paid 50% of what I make to do some useful percentage of what I do. They're called "Junior Engineers".
I used to have a Ford Explorer.. now I have a Toyota Tacoma. It does about 75% of what the Explorer could do, at about 33% the cost. Good enough for my current needs (though I still drive the Prius to work).
I have a few different cameras.. two system cameras, thousands spent on bodies and lenses and accessories. And a pocket camera, which does some of the same things, never as well, but perhaps better for the task at hand (gets into concerts without a hassle, fairly damage proof if I drop it, and even it does break, it's cheap to replace). And yet, sometimes I even use the smartphone camera.
There are certainly Junior Engineers who only own the Tacoma (or the Prius) and a P&S camera or even just the phone as their only camera. All of those things are 100% of something, just not 100% of something more expensive/complex/etc.
The tablet's much the same idea. They're not enough personal computer for everyone, all the time. They are certainly enough personal computer for some people, all the time, and for even more people, some of the time.
Well, no. PCs, as in IBM PC Clones, Standard Architecture, whatever you want to call it, is currently a bit over 80% of the whole personal computer market... the rest is made up of tablets, smartphones, etc. Microsoft has about 85% of that 80%, MacOS about 10%... that's installed base, not sales percentage, and I think this study skewed toward the USA, where the MacOS is certainly more popular than anywhere else. But Apple has been gaining a bit on the MacOS front lately, even though Mac PCs are only about 15% of Apple's business these days.
Of the non-PC 20% of personal computing, Apple has about 50%, Android about 25%, and "other" the rest. Of course, these things change very fast, and the numbers referenced here may already be out of date.
69%? I had no idea it had dropped that low. Didn't it used to be 95% relatively recently?
Microsoft hit 95% of the personal computer OS market, and I think most people stopped paying close attention after that. So it's kind of a meme that MS is and always will be at 95% ... but they're not. However, to get the 69% number, you have to consider all forms of the personal computer, not just PC(tm) Clones(R). That includes smartphones and tablets, iOS and Android, etc. This is also for personal computing, it doesn't include servers (which would definitely jack up the Linux segment... non-Android Linux is put at about 1.6% on the same study).
When you count Microsoft as 69% of the small-p-c market (rather than PC(tm) Clone(R) market), smartphones and tablets and other non-PC personal computing devices count as part of that same tally.
Things can change, and quickly, too. My tablet actually has the same screen real estate as, well, one of my two desktop PC monitors. Definitely not going to the full extent of 1920x1200 on a 10" screen, but these do plug in to other things, like TVs or monitors. That's pretty much what's going to ensure that mobile devices permanently replace a segment of the PC market -- cheaper, easier for regular folks to use, and will increasingly do the same jobs that most people do with their desktops. I'm not expecting to hook up my 12TB RAID to my tablet anytime soon (hmmm... it does work with USB drives...), or do HD video editing on it. But I already do write on it, and have even programmed in C/C++ on it. They'll only get better at this stuff.
And now Microsoft, for WinRT/Don't-Call-It-Metro applications.
Actually, yeah, both my tablets (current and retired) work with HDMI monitors just dandy. I did start with wired keyboard and mouse, but switched to Bluetooth... and of course, my current tablet is an ASUS Transformer, which has a snap-on keyboard.
Given the number of development tools, IDEs, shells, etc. that run on Android, I'm guessing I'm not the first to notice that "real work" is completely possible on a table. Not that I'd want to do all that much with a touchscreen, but there is the Hacker's Keyboard for Android, which gives you access to all of the glyphs typically missing from iPad-clone keyboards.
I've been intentionally trying to use the tablet rather than a laptop for the last couple of years, and it's working pretty well. Yeah, there are things I can't do on the tablet that sorta-kinda worked on the laptop. But not very well... these were really suited for a desktop: EE-CAD, Video and Audio editing, Photo editing. Less heavy lifting oriented tasks, even programming, works fine on a tablet. Then again, my current one has a higher rez screen than my laptop, and more CPU power, storage, and RAM than any laptop I've owned other than the current one.
First of all, those are flawed numbers. For one, lots of things have changed since 2010. It's difficult to gauge the exact adoption rate of Open/Libre Office. Open Office does report over 98 million downloads as of 2007, 100 million downloads in the first year of OpenOffice.org 3.x, and over 5 million for Apache Open Office. Libre Office reports 7.5 million as of late 2011. A market survey conducted in 2010 estimated Open Office as high as 9% of the office automation market in the US and UK by the end of 2010, and around 20% in Germany, Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe.
And that was then. Today, Microsoft is on just under 70% of personal computers, once you factor in mobile devices. That is down from something very close to 95% at their peak. This WikiMedia tally is based on page visits, but it pretty much tracks the expected installed base of Windows 7 (40.3%), Vista (6.6%), XP (21.3%), and other Windows versions (1.4%). They also have MacOS at 8.5%, iOS at 9.9%, Android at 5.1%, and Linux at 1.6%... obviously, this is not going to include servers or offline PCs. But it's clear: Microsoft is well past peak.
I don't know that Schmidt is correct about Microsoft remaining relevant -- they still have a huge pile of cash, and as demonstrated in the gaming market, they have shown some tenacity in claiming a market, willing to lose billions in the process. So I wouldn't count them out in mobile just yet. As well, they do seem to be ready and willing to completely shake up the PC industry... I mean, Ballmer was saying just last week that he sees Microsoft as a devices and services company, despite the fact that right now, they make very little money on either compared to their software business. But they are trying to reinvent themselves, and it's pretty clear they still haven't gotten over wanting to be Apple. That seems to be driving their choices more than even back in the early days of Windows.
Sure, they can't be Apple. But they might managed to be something similar. The fun there would be, where do all these HW companies go, if Microsoft starts undercutting them on hardware?
Right. A keyboard or mouse is a first-year graduate electronics project, coupled with a good mechanical designer. It ought to be a slam dunk.
The so far is the only phone device directly marketed by Microsoft. And yeah, it was in stores for less than a month, and failed completely. Though that really had nothing to do with the hardware -- it was a complete misunderstanding of the market for such a device by Microsoft.. a far worse crime. MS was trying to build a social networking phone for teens. But it required a full smartphone contract. Most parents don't get their kids a smartphone, due to the monthly costs. And for those that do, they're not going to choose the non-smart phone their kid doesn't want. It was amazing stupidity, and not even the slightest surprise when it tanked.
The only real hardware Microsoft's known for is the X-Box 360, which was developed internally, by MS's own hardware team. Including custom ASICs... this was more of a development effort than either an x86 or ARM tablet would be these days. They don't have manufacturing, but that doesn't stop Apple. If MS wants to be in the HW business, they certainly have the cash for it. And the people... plus, they were hiring a bunch of new HW people this last Spring.
I think they are more likely to get into trouble in other ways. Their hardware will work fine, but will people want something labelled Microsoft? Do they have the branding to compete directly with Apple on price, or do they have to lowball it, and squeeze out their OEMs? It'll be interesting.
Yes, indeed... let us know when you run Google.
Apple makes laptops... and the ancient Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is a dual-socket Xeon machine, so a bit more than a plain old desktop, but it's using CPUs from 2010 and a GPU (ATi 5xxx series) from 2009. Apple was rapidly phasing out all professional users in the latter days of Mr. Jobs. This might be changing... Tim Cook hinted a new Mac Pro might be forthcoming. Still need to fix FCP 10, even if that does happen.
As for the iMac, it's a laptop for the desktop. A very big waste, because next time you upgrade, you have to re-buy your monitor. And it makes using dual or triple matched monitors impossible. It's a desktop for iPhone fans, not for serious computing.
To OEMs, the Windows RT cost is rumored to run $75-$100. This is only available bundled, Windows and Office. And never to end users, only to OEMs. So you'll only see the final product, no retail software boxes. And yeah, this is going to be an issue in the tablet market, since tablets are expected to cost less than full PCs.
Windows RT does actually run the Win32 API... of course, not x86 code. But only Microsoft gets to use it. Third parties can't port their Win32 apps, they can only use WinRT... that's to keep their apps within Microsoft's new walled garden.
Most of the forthcoming Windows tablets are going to based on the Atom Z2760, at least until the Bobcats are out to compete. According to Intel anyway, the Z2760 will basically match a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 on power consumption, and maybe even edge it out on performance per clock cycle. Of course, there are plenty of Android tablets with quad core A9, and newer models based on the Krait or A15 core aren't far off.
The defining feature of a table is all-day performance. If a Windows tablet can't give you 8 hours of sustained use (like the Transformer... you get more once in the keyboard dock, but the basic tablet itself runs long), then it's just a crippled laptop. I'm wondering just what kind of portable life you're getting out of Microsoft's i5 based Surface Pro. The HP tablet, the ThinkPad 2, and others using the Atom will probably deliver dandy battery life. They'll also run those Windows 7 Phone apps fine, and whatever WinRT/Metro apps as show up this fall. And they will run desktop apps, but basically you're talking about Netbook performance levels. Less demanding Win32 programs fine, hardcore ones not to much. Then again, you don' t have the screen, storage, or RAM on a tablet... it's not just the CPU.
And I think this is the one thing Microsoft may not get yet -- desktops and tablets are used differently enough, there's not necessarily a good reason to run the same applications on them.
It's quite possible to undercut Apple on price. The components market is significantly larger than "just Apple". And Apple has high margins... they're among the most profitable companies anywhere in consumer electronics. Apple's been spending money since the 70s building their reputation as a luxury brand. Same reason they can charge twice as much for a laptop of the same performance and build quality of the top tier PC vendors. Great business if you can get it.
But that's Apple. Microsoft does have a problem here, potentially. Every company that's gone strictly head-to-head against Apple on tablets has lost. Many consumers are savvy enough to realize that an entry-level tablet just shouldn't cost $500... and in particular, with Apple functioning as the Mercedes or Godiva of the tablet market, it's hard to sell a tablet at the same price (or more) if you're just a Ford or a Hershey. Microsoft is actually better poised to cash in here in the Windows tablet market, because they're not going to have to pay the $50-$100 software licensing fees that every other Windows 8 tablet vendor will have to pay. At the lower end, Windows RT (ARM) tablets are only shipping with Windows and Office bundled, so the cost concerns are pretty real if they want to compete in the sub-$500 range.
Yes, there are a bunch of super cheap Android tablets on the market... Android makes that possible, given the low-to-zero cost of the software. There are also some, like the Asus Transformer and the Samsung Galaxy Note series, that are comparable to the iPad on fit and finish, and superior in other ways. There's no reason a Windows tablet can't compete here.
Microsoft is also clearly going higher end on the x86 tablet, if the specs about the "Surface Pro" are true. That's using laptop chips, an i5 Ivy Bridge processor, up to 128GB of flash storage. That's not going to be cheap... and that's actually been one of the problems with Windows tablets ever since they debuted, 15 or so year ago. The same reason compact laptops were a small niche item until the Netbook... people generally don't want to pay more something they perceive to be less. Maybe the notion of a tablet is strong enough to be seen as something on par with a laptop, but for the most part, tablets have been seen as something lesser. After all, Apple priced their iPad at half the price of their entry-level laptop.
And it's also curious that Microsoft isn't going with the new Atom processor. If Intel's claims are true about Atom Z2760 "Clover Trail" SOC, this will the first x86 for tablets that really gives the ARM a run. It's supposed to match a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 on power consumption and match or ever-so-slightly beat it on performance per clock cycle. This is going into the Lenovo ThinkPad 2, the new HP tablet, and a bunch of other Windows tablets, which will compete more directly with ARM. Given that they're all expected to primarily run WinRT (and existing Windows 7 Phone) apps, the lack of a desktop-class processor may not be an issue. Of course, these will have Netbook-class performance, so they're not ideal for big desktop applications, but then again, tablets in general aren't ideal for big desktop applications... they lack the necessary storage and RAM, too. This series and the ARMs will potentially put serious price pressure on the whole Windows tablet market... assuming that market actually materializes.
That's 26% less pocket-sizedness, though, when considering a 7"-class tablet. And at least based on the latest rumor mills, less resolution than most current 7"ers as well.
No... MS is delivering the opposite -- tablet and phone apps will run on PCs.
Seen Windows 8 yet -- most have. The goofy squares-based UI (the UI formerly known as Metro) is coupled to the WinRT API, which is awfully close to a whole new OS. That's what Microsoft supports on tablets and phones. They're also using all managed code with VM, so this stuff runs on Phone, ARM-based tablet, PC-based tablet, and regular ordinary PCs.
That's the key to Microsoft's new walled garden -- apps for WinRT/Metro are only available via the Zune, er, Microsoft Store online. Not on phones, but on ARM tablets, Microsoft force-bundled the mobile version of Office with Windows... OEMs can't buy them separately. This is also where they have a big advantage, since that's $75-$100 paid by the OEM to Microsoft... money neither MS nor Apple is paying on their tablets.
Microsoft's already being less fair than Google. For the moment anyway, Google's kept Motorola at arm's length, no obvious special advantage over the other Android licensees. And when they make a Nexus device, it's not Google contract manufacturing it themselves, but their doing a special project with one of the existing OEMs. And until recently, these have been fairly special projects. Nexus devices have occasionally shown up at teleco stores, but most have been direct from Google -- not a volume market. Except maybe the Nexus 7, which was aggressively priced, and seems to be selling very well (this is probably the tablet that pushes Android over-the-top on US tablet market penetration -- a recent report has Android at 48% vs. iOS at 52%, but that doesn't include recent tablets).
But MS is actually designing their own devices, building them at some CM (could be right next to Apple, figuratively anyway, given that Foxconn makes about 40% of the entire world's supply of consumer electronics products). It's possible they're still doing a "Nexus" like thing, building a product that's meant to serve primarily as an example to the market. They might also be taking the Apple approach, trying to be the high end in the Windows tablet (and now Phone) market. The "Surface Pro" suggests that's possible -- they're building a full PC tablet, based on an i5 Ivy Bridge processor, not the Atom that HP and others will be using in their more ARM-comparable tablets.
But there's good reason to reject both premises. For one, every other company that's taken on Apple directly on tablets, based on price, hasn't done well. Apple's one of the only CE companies established as something of a luxury brand. No one pays Mercedes money for a Ford. Given their price advantage, Microsoft could push out their Surface tablets, and eventually phone, at a very competitive cost. And they have a big reason to do this... they clearly think this is the future, thus the risky compromise of the desktop environment and the complete reboot of what a Windows program really is (the greatest change since Windows was launched). They're likely to try and win themselves a chunk of the mobile market, any way possible. Even if they have to trample the OEMs.