or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by UIGuy

Most issues can be fixed.  Being out of focus is not one of those issues.
Keep in mind this is a filing, not an issue...     At the same time, I am pretty sure they should go and look at the trove of patents from Kodak...  Am betting they'll find one just like this somewhere in there...   Just sayin'
Um, yeah.  That whole RT designation.  Dumb.   I am not certain how a group within MS becomes so insulated as to believe this was actually a good idea.     That someone from Dell had to point it out to them should only serve as a case and point and irrefutable evidence.
I am hoping someone can offer an explanation here...   I have been under the impression that FRAND is used to describe Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms.  As mentioned above, the terms must be the same for everyone.   OK. With that in mind, I was also under the impression that technology had to be established in FRAND terms before it could become part of an approved technical standards.  This is basic economics.  I get to take a little from...
I am at a loss...   What is the difference between a ploy and a strategy?   Part of me hopes that MS is wildly successful in this space.  Tighter integration between hardware and software can lead to a better product.  Score.   Unfortunately, I am also aware of the MS track record in this space.  Yes I know about the XBOX - but one hot day doesn't make a summer.  Plus, that whole team was insulated from the rest of the company - which pretty much means the HW...
/sigh.   Microsoft designs by committee.  Most big companies do.  Or they will actually outsource the design to some high priced design group that is going to get paid regardless of whether the product succeeds or fails.   Apple is the exception.  Jonathan Ives holds the keys to that kingdom.   MS has the opportunity to have a competitive offering here - tablet ids are functionally screens - but that ship is getting ready to sail...    1.  Naming...
The reviewer cited in this article seemed to do a pretty decent job.  Seems like the ONLY downside was the price.  By definition, that is simply a well-designed highly desirable product.   Most reviewers because they can't do must criticize the efforts of those who can.
A large horde of cash makes you a target. Regardless. If you look at the numbers, there isn't much they could afford yesterday that they can't afford now. Remember, that is 45B over 3 years. Just above spitting in the pond. The officers do have an obligation to the shareholders, and if there is nothing in 'THAT' price range, returning some value to investors comes off as looking pretty responsible (yes, I know all about the MSFT dividends discussion - we'll see...
I am confused here. In my view of product development - if you build a superior product / support a superior experience, you get to charge a superior price. If you make superior profits, good for you. If, on the other hand, your product is virtually indistinguishable from 10 others on the market, well then, your per product margins are likely to be lower. If you can't turn a nice profit, I don't care how many of them you sell. If you can turn a nice profit and you...
Actually, there is some good evidence that they do. Providing that quantity of content required by instant and continuous news means the village idiot, once ignored, is now all of a sudden 'interesting'.
New Posts  All Forums: