It is simply, you claimed Nokia was spending some $4 billion on software R&D alone. I said, and provided proof, no, you are wrong, that figure also includes NSN.
It is simple, the figure you provided was wrong. Even the chart you provided proved you were wrong.
Oh you have your underwear in a bunch about that!
You are 100% correct! Nokia's gigantic and profligate R&D spend goes on more than just Symbian.
Symbian "only" requires 6200 people in creating the worst user experience in the world. That's just the largest single engineering investment within Nokia.
It also goes on a ridiculous number of SKUs.
And a network company that has been a constant loss maker.
So obviously the entire mobile computing area is in a massive stage of upheaval, and it's basically impossible to say anything for sure as all we have to go off are rumours and educated guesses. You've covered a bunch of topics so I'll just comment on a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When I say they don't have a plan, it's because all they have is a negative plan. Ballmer said that they would NOT put WP7 on a tablet. If you regard that as a plan, then good luck to them.
As interesting as it would be to see a consumer Zune or Xbox branded WP7/ARM tablet from Microsoft I don't think that would be a good plan, as you've covered yourself....
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But then, MS does have a very big problem which perhaps they recognize. Unlike Apple, with a Unix based iOS, and Google and HP, with a Linux distro, and now RIM, with QNX, all very powerful OS's, MS has CE as the basis of WP7, which is a much simpler phone/embedded OS.
That's my understanding as well. Which brings the next point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's that WP7 likely can't compete as a full powered tablet OS, considering where tablets are headed.
I think this is unfortunately the case. CE is not scalable and it isn't as "componentized" as the Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 code base. It's a testament to the designers and engineers at Microsoft that they have been able to make something as great as WP7 on the CE code base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Their plan to continue to push Windows as a tablet OS is not a plan to integrate smart phones and tablets, which we both agree is required. That's not a plan. It's a continued refusal to recognize that what they're doing isn't working.
This is where we start to diverge.
As I've mentioned Windows 7 is already a very "componentized" OS. By that I mean a lot of features/functionality can be removed or replaced without affecting other features/functionality. A "minimum" W7e installation only requires 300MB or HDD and about 80MB/RAM... and that's supporting all base Windows features.
If they required all apps to be Silverlight/XNA (and thus remove a lot of the legacy support) they could potentially cut this down even more.
With that in mind there is nothing wrong with scaling Windows 8 down to a tablet (or even phone) OS. It's actually not that far removed from what Apple have done (very successfully) with OSX/iOS.
I don't see this as hurting integration between phone and tablet as Microsoft uses the cloud for integration of data and the Silverlight CLR as the application integration platform between devices (i.e. it doesn't really matter what OS or hardware a device has if it's running the same Silverlight CLR).
If I had to guess today (and I tend to change my mind as each new piece of information becomes available ) I would have to say that Windows 8 will come in multiple flavours:
* W8e/ARM/Tablet UI - No native/legacy support - Silverlight/XNA only via App Store. Much like the current iPad.
* W8/x86/Tablet+Standard UI - Silverlight/XNA via App Store as well as native/legacy via PInkoke support in Silverlight 5. Can switch between tablet UI and standard UI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
...where tablets are headed.
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
A major part of the iPad's success is because of its simplicity, however I hear a lot of people that think the iPad will eventually scale up to OSX and the two might even merge.
Yet trying to force a touch UI into a full desktop/laptop is going to lead to the same problems as Microsoft have trying to force a desktop/laptop UI into a touch device.
I'm really not sure where Apple will land on this.
I think Microsoft will support the option of a Touch only UI or both standard Windows and a touch UI (as outlined above) or failing that just the combined touch/standard version. I don't think they would release their version of the iPad and nothing else.
Google I'm much more confident will look to combine the two as there is no benefit for them to sell you multiple devices. Look for Google to implement - as standard Android feature - a ChomeOS based second UI when the phone/tablet is docked.
I've already written way to much so I'm going to leave it at that.
You are 100% correct! Nokia's gigantic and profligate R&D spend goes on more than just Symbian.
Symbian "only" requires 6200 people in creating the worst user experience in the world. That's just the largest single engineering investment within Nokia.
It also goes on a ridiculous number of SKUs.
And a network company that has been a constant loss maker.
C.
You're wasting your time with that guy.
He thinks Intel helped develop MeeGo out of charity to humanity and that they had no intention of selling Atom cpus into the smart phone market.
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
They are not headed towards a recreating a desktop-like experience.
Back when personal computers were being created, much of the thinking was that they would move towards the type of applications we used to see on mainframes. Because that was the only frame of reference that people had for computers.
They were wrong.
My take...
The desktop will move into a niche. Serving only those applications which need a large screen / keyboard and very exacting performance characteristics.
The tablet moves to fulfil most personal computing needs. Communication, entertainment.
The unique element of the tablet is its ability it to transform itself into a purpose built device for specific functions.
I recently went into a car dealership. Every agent had a desk with a PC. They didn't need a desktop computer. They were all running a front-end to the dealership's database. Every one of those PCs could be replaced by a tablet and an app and a server sitting in a back office somewhere.
My guess is that at least 40% of PCs that are deployed in business will be replaced by tablet-like devices in the next 10 years.
Microsoft don't seem well prepared for this transition.
Microsoft don't seem well prepared for this transition.
C.
Depends on your definition of well prepared. They have a more or less fully baked multitouch API built into Win7 in part due to the rather derided MS Surface.
So in your car dealer example a win7 app can be updated today to responds to WM_TOUCH and WM_GESTURE events. WPF 4 user interface elements are touch capable for multi-touch manipulation (like pan, rotate, pinch and zoom).
They have more baked into Win7 than Apple currently has with OS X.
I think their current unpreparedness comes from an assumption that Intel would be more competitive in the tablet market at this point. Ooops. Hence the ARM port for Windows.
Depends on your definition of well prepared. They have a more or less fully baked multitouch API built into Win7 in part due to the rather derided MS Surface.
So in your car dealer example a win7 app can be updated today to responds to WM_TOUCH and WM_GESTURE events. WPF 4 user interface elements are touch capable for multi-touch manipulation (like pan, rotate, pinch and zoom).
They have more baked into Win7 than Apple currently has with OS X.
I think their current unpreparedness comes from an assumption that Intel would be more competitive in the tablet market at this point. Ooops. Hence the ARM port for Windows.
I think the Microsoft's unpreparedness is not about engineering.
It's about a reluctance to saw away at the branch they've been sitting on for 20 years.
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
A major part of the iPad's success is because of its simplicity, however I hear a lot of people that think the iPad will eventually scale up to OSX and the two might even merge.
This is a layman's view of the OS. There is one app(lication) running on OS X - the Finder, which would differentiate it from an IOS device, which instead would run Springboard.
To the user thats a big deal, to OS devs and application devs, it isn't.
You seem to imply that's a laptop and not a tablet that's docked to a keyboard. I could post this in response:
Quote:
Acer also sells an Android tablet.
So? Your statement was:
"Every major Windows PC manufacturer has abandoned Microsoft's tablet strategy."
Acer hasn't abandoned Win7 tablets if they are producing new models.
Quote:
Not for sale yet.
So? Dell hasn't abandoned Win7 tablets if they are announcing new models.
Quote:
Here it is.
<image deleted>
Asus are also doing an Android tablet.
Again, so? That Asus has a win7 tablet means that they have not abandoned MS's tablet strategy.
Quote:
So yes, some OEMs are tentativly releasing some tablet-like devices. But the fact that they are all offering an alternative OS says something.
Not "some OEMs" but the major ones. HP has one too but we can count them out.
Quote:
It says, "we are not convinced that Windows 7 makes a good tablet OS."
We aren't convinced is a far cry from
"Every major Windows PC manufacturer has abandoned Microsoft's tablet strategy."
Quote:
Microsoft has not convinced any manufacturer to exclusively back its Windows tablet software.
10 yard penalty. Illegal movement of goalposts. Still 4th down.
Quote:
I don't think people buying tablets are doing so to run office productivity applications. The tablet is really the first type of personal computer which didn't have office equipment in its DNA.
I think the Microsoft's unpreparedness is not about engineering.
It's about a reluctance to saw away at the branch they've been sitting on for 20 years.
C.
You mean they're following Apple and not dumping OSX in favor of a mobile OS?
Arguably WinCE isn't a horrible foundation either and my preferred one. However, applying the WP7 UI design for a customized Win7 tablet is arguably better.
Apple put a lot of effort into diverging this software technology.
Why on Earth would it want to undo that work and converge them again?
C.
Because you then have one team. They diverged because they had to as the IPhone was not ready for OS X. What they didnt do was replicate their entire team - plenty of sub-teams of OS X, and iOS are the same team. The AppKit team is the UIKit team. The Foundation team is the (um) Foundation team. The xCode team is the xCode team.
In fact from the Foundation level down, you can say the Foo team ( for iOS) os the Foo team ( for OS X).
Merging both and releasing both at the same time, makes sense, and it advertises to the general market that iOS/OS X is a desktop level OS running on all kinds of machines.
Thats a meaningless comparison because Apple aren't using OSX on tablets. They use iOS as you know.
What point are you trying to make?
That MS isn't unprepared for the tablet market but that their strategy differs?
A strategy that depended on Intel having an Atom product more suitable for tablets than they currently do...hence the port of Win7 on ARM.
Win7 on a tablet isn't a horrible choice even if my preference is for WP7. It probably is better to scale down WinNT for the tablet than scale WinCE up given that is what Apple did with OSX.
They would have to fully rewrite them for WP7 - which , unlike iOS/ OS X - has little in common with the desktop.
Hence their port of Win7 to ARM and their unchanging view that Win7 is their tablet strategy...
Most .net apps won't notice the difference and need modification anyway to handle the multi-touch events and UI layout. This isn't a full rewrite unless you've really hosed up your software design.
Again, if you eliminate games you're pretty much left with a bunch of office productivity apps and a scattering of others.
This puts MS in pretty good position given that they have MS Office and XBox to draw on.
You're cherry picking items that match your world view. The majority of iPad usage is web browsing. Facebook, readers, free apps and so on.
The user-interface of Office is really not that great on the desktop. It would be challenging for MS to re-factor it into something that would work on a tablet.
Instead of saying that major manufacturers have abandoned Microsoft. It would be more accurate to say that they are in the process of abandoning. They will certainly stick out a W7 tablet and see how it sells.
But if they discover that Android / WebOS tablets sell more, then abandonment process will be rapidly completed.
To be technical here, all that Apple has to do to make iOS and OS X merge is
1) rename the UKit to Appkit, or vice versa.
2) Add touch events, or click events, depending on which way you went.
That is not a huge engineering effort.
The huge engineering effort for Apple is exactly the same for MS. Revamping desktop apps to take advantage. Currently Apple has ported Pages, Keynote and Numbers. They have iLife to go.
MS has mobile versions of Office but need to port the full versions over for Win7 Tablet.
Visio on a tablet would be nice too. Along with MS Project.
it advertises to the general market that iOS/OS X is a desktop level OS running on all kinds of machines.
I think tablets are heading away from desktops to create a new market, a new set of metaphors, and an a new way of interacting with computers.
The last thing this technology wants is to be shacked to the previous generation of technology. It'd be like inventing the plane and then glueing a car to the bottom.
Comments
good topic
برامج
It is simply, you claimed Nokia was spending some $4 billion on software R&D alone. I said, and provided proof, no, you are wrong, that figure also includes NSN.
It is simple, the figure you provided was wrong. Even the chart you provided proved you were wrong.
Oh you have your underwear in a bunch about that!
You are 100% correct! Nokia's gigantic and profligate R&D spend goes on more than just Symbian.
Symbian "only" requires 6200 people in creating the worst user experience in the world. That's just the largest single engineering investment within Nokia.
It also goes on a ridiculous number of SKUs.
And a network company that has been a constant loss maker.
C.
When I say they don't have a plan, it's because all they have is a negative plan. Ballmer said that they would NOT put WP7 on a tablet. If you regard that as a plan, then good luck to them.
As interesting as it would be to see a consumer Zune or Xbox branded WP7/ARM tablet from Microsoft I don't think that would be a good plan, as you've covered yourself....
But then, MS does have a very big problem which perhaps they recognize. Unlike Apple, with a Unix based iOS, and Google and HP, with a Linux distro, and now RIM, with QNX, all very powerful OS's, MS has CE as the basis of WP7, which is a much simpler phone/embedded OS.
That's my understanding as well. Which brings the next point...
It's that WP7 likely can't compete as a full powered tablet OS, considering where tablets are headed.
I think this is unfortunately the case. CE is not scalable and it isn't as "componentized" as the Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 code base. It's a testament to the designers and engineers at Microsoft that they have been able to make something as great as WP7 on the CE code base.
Their plan to continue to push Windows as a tablet OS is not a plan to integrate smart phones and tablets, which we both agree is required. That's not a plan. It's a continued refusal to recognize that what they're doing isn't working.
This is where we start to diverge.
As I've mentioned Windows 7 is already a very "componentized" OS. By that I mean a lot of features/functionality can be removed or replaced without affecting other features/functionality. A "minimum" W7e installation only requires 300MB or HDD and about 80MB/RAM... and that's supporting all base Windows features.
If they required all apps to be Silverlight/XNA (and thus remove a lot of the legacy support) they could potentially cut this down even more.
With that in mind there is nothing wrong with scaling Windows 8 down to a tablet (or even phone) OS. It's actually not that far removed from what Apple have done (very successfully) with OSX/iOS.
I don't see this as hurting integration between phone and tablet as Microsoft uses the cloud for integration of data and the Silverlight CLR as the application integration platform between devices (i.e. it doesn't really matter what OS or hardware a device has if it's running the same Silverlight CLR).
If I had to guess today (and I tend to change my mind as each new piece of information becomes available
* W8e/ARM/Tablet UI - No native/legacy support - Silverlight/XNA only via App Store. Much like the current iPad.
* W8/x86/Tablet+Standard UI - Silverlight/XNA via App Store as well as native/legacy via PInkoke support in Silverlight 5. Can switch between tablet UI and standard UI.
...where tablets are headed.
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
A major part of the iPad's success is because of its simplicity, however I hear a lot of people that think the iPad will eventually scale up to OSX and the two might even merge.
Yet trying to force a touch UI into a full desktop/laptop is going to lead to the same problems as Microsoft have trying to force a desktop/laptop UI into a touch device.
I'm really not sure where Apple will land on this.
I think Microsoft will support the option of a Touch only UI or both standard Windows and a touch UI (as outlined above) or failing that just the combined touch/standard version. I don't think they would release their version of the iPad and nothing else.
Google I'm much more confident will look to combine the two as there is no benefit for them to sell you multiple devices. Look for Google to implement - as standard Android feature - a ChomeOS based second UI when the phone/tablet is docked.
I've already written way to much so I'm going to leave it at that.
Oh you have your underwear in a bunch about that!
You are 100% correct! Nokia's gigantic and profligate R&D spend goes on more than just Symbian.
Symbian "only" requires 6200 people in creating the worst user experience in the world. That's just the largest single engineering investment within Nokia.
It also goes on a ridiculous number of SKUs.
And a network company that has been a constant loss maker.
C.
You're wasting your time with that guy.
He thinks Intel helped develop MeeGo out of charity to humanity and that they had no intention of selling Atom cpus into the smart phone market.
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
They are not headed towards a recreating a desktop-like experience.
Back when personal computers were being created, much of the thinking was that they would move towards the type of applications we used to see on mainframes. Because that was the only frame of reference that people had for computers.
They were wrong.
My take...
The desktop will move into a niche. Serving only those applications which need a large screen / keyboard and very exacting performance characteristics.
The tablet moves to fulfil most personal computing needs. Communication, entertainment.
The unique element of the tablet is its ability it to transform itself into a purpose built device for specific functions.
I recently went into a car dealership. Every agent had a desk with a PC. They didn't need a desktop computer. They were all running a front-end to the dealership's database. Every one of those PCs could be replaced by a tablet and an app and a server sitting in a back office somewhere.
My guess is that at least 40% of PCs that are deployed in business will be replaced by tablet-like devices in the next 10 years.
Microsoft don't seem well prepared for this transition.
C.
Microsoft don't seem well prepared for this transition.
C.
Depends on your definition of well prepared. They have a more or less fully baked multitouch API built into Win7 in part due to the rather derided MS Surface.
So in your car dealer example a win7 app can be updated today to responds to WM_TOUCH and WM_GESTURE events. WPF 4 user interface elements are touch capable for multi-touch manipulation (like pan, rotate, pinch and zoom).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/gg465116
They have more baked into Win7 than Apple currently has with OS X.
I think their current unpreparedness comes from an assumption that Intel would be more competitive in the tablet market at this point. Ooops. Hence the ARM port for Windows.
Depends on your definition of well prepared. They have a more or less fully baked multitouch API built into Win7 in part due to the rather derided MS Surface.
So in your car dealer example a win7 app can be updated today to responds to WM_TOUCH and WM_GESTURE events. WPF 4 user interface elements are touch capable for multi-touch manipulation (like pan, rotate, pinch and zoom).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/gg465116
They have more baked into Win7 than Apple currently has with OS X.
I think their current unpreparedness comes from an assumption that Intel would be more competitive in the tablet market at this point. Ooops. Hence the ARM port for Windows.
I think the Microsoft's unpreparedness is not about engineering.
It's about a reluctance to saw away at the branch they've been sitting on for 20 years.
C.
....They have more baked into Win7 than Apple currently has with OS X.
.
Thats a meaningless comparison because Apple aren't using OSX on tablets. They use iOS as you know.
What point are you trying to make?
Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?
A major part of the iPad's success is because of its simplicity, however I hear a lot of people that think the iPad will eventually scale up to OSX and the two might even merge.
This is a layman's view of the OS. There is one app(lication) running on OS X - the Finder, which would differentiate it from an IOS device, which instead would run Springboard.
To the user thats a big deal, to OS devs and application devs, it isn't.
1) rename the UKit to Appkit, or vice versa.
2) Add touch events, or click events, depending on which way you went.
That is not a huge engineering effort.
To be technical here, all that Apple has to do to make iOS and OS X merge is
1) rename the UKit to Appkit, or vice versa.
2) Add touch events, or click events, depending on which way you went.
That is not a huge engineering effort.
Apple put a lot of effort into diverging this software technology.
Why on Earth would it want to undo that work and converge them again?
C.
Here's a picture of that "tablet".
You seem to imply that's a laptop and not a tablet that's docked to a keyboard. I could post this in response:
Acer also sells an Android tablet.
So? Your statement was:
"Every major Windows PC manufacturer has abandoned Microsoft's tablet strategy."
Acer hasn't abandoned Win7 tablets if they are producing new models.
Not for sale yet.
So? Dell hasn't abandoned Win7 tablets if they are announcing new models.
Here it is.
<image deleted>
Asus are also doing an Android tablet.
Again, so? That Asus has a win7 tablet means that they have not abandoned MS's tablet strategy.
So yes, some OEMs are tentativly releasing some tablet-like devices. But the fact that they are all offering an alternative OS says something.
Not "some OEMs" but the major ones. HP has one too but we can count them out.
It says, "we are not convinced that Windows 7 makes a good tablet OS."
We aren't convinced is a far cry from
"Every major Windows PC manufacturer has abandoned Microsoft's tablet strategy."
Microsoft has not convinced any manufacturer to exclusively back its Windows tablet software.
10 yard penalty. Illegal movement of goalposts. Still 4th down.
I don't think people buying tablets are doing so to run office productivity applications. The tablet is really the first type of personal computer which didn't have office equipment in its DNA.
Top Grossing iPad apps:
#2 Pages
#4 Keynote
#6 Numbers
#8 QuickOffice
If you eliminate the games category you're left with a bunch of office productivity apps as the iPad top grossing apps...
In terms of top downloads
#4 Pages
#7 Penultimate
#13 Keynote
#14 Numbers
#16 GoodReader
#26 Notes Plus
#28 PrintCentral
#30 QuickOffice
Again, if you eliminate games you're pretty much left with a bunch of office productivity apps and a scattering of others.
This puts MS in pretty good position given that they have MS Office and XBox to draw on.
I think the Microsoft's unpreparedness is not about engineering.
It's about a reluctance to saw away at the branch they've been sitting on for 20 years.
C.
You mean they're following Apple and not dumping OSX in favor of a mobile OS?
Arguably WinCE isn't a horrible foundation either and my preferred one. However, applying the WP7 UI design for a customized Win7 tablet is arguably better.
Apple put a lot of effort into diverging this software technology.
Why on Earth would it want to undo that work and converge them again?
C.
Because you then have one team. They diverged because they had to as the IPhone was not ready for OS X. What they didnt do was replicate their entire team - plenty of sub-teams of OS X, and iOS are the same team. The AppKit team is the UIKit team. The Foundation team is the (um) Foundation team. The xCode team is the xCode team.
In fact from the Foundation level down, you can say the Foo team ( for iOS) os the Foo team ( for OS X).
Merging both and releasing both at the same time, makes sense, and it advertises to the general market that iOS/OS X is a desktop level OS running on all kinds of machines.
#4 Pages
#7 Penultimate
#13 Keynote
#14 Numbers
#16 GoodReader
#26 Notes Plus
#28 PrintCentral
#30 QuickOffice
Again, if you eliminate games you're pretty much left with a bunch of office productivity apps and a scattering of others.
This puts MS in pretty good position given that they have MS Office and XBox to draw on.
They would have to fully rewrite them for WP7 - which , unlike iOS/ OS X - has little in common with the desktop.
Thats a meaningless comparison because Apple aren't using OSX on tablets. They use iOS as you know.
What point are you trying to make?
That MS isn't unprepared for the tablet market but that their strategy differs?
A strategy that depended on Intel having an Atom product more suitable for tablets than they currently do...hence the port of Win7 on ARM.
Win7 on a tablet isn't a horrible choice even if my preference is for WP7. It probably is better to scale down WinNT for the tablet than scale WinCE up given that is what Apple did with OSX.
They would have to fully rewrite them for WP7 - which , unlike iOS/ OS X - has little in common with the desktop.
Hence their port of Win7 to ARM and their unchanging view that Win7 is their tablet strategy...
Most .net apps won't notice the difference and need modification anyway to handle the multi-touch events and UI layout. This isn't a full rewrite unless you've really hosed up your software design.
Top Grossing iPad apps:
#2 Pages
#4 Keynote
#6 Numbers
#8 QuickOffice
If you eliminate the games category you're left with a bunch of office productivity apps as the iPad top grossing apps...
In terms of top downloads
#4 Pages
#7 Penultimate
#13 Keynote
#14 Numbers
#16 GoodReader
#26 Notes Plus
#28 PrintCentral
#30 QuickOffice
Again, if you eliminate games you're pretty much left with a bunch of office productivity apps and a scattering of others.
This puts MS in pretty good position given that they have MS Office and XBox to draw on.
You're cherry picking items that match your world view. The majority of iPad usage is web browsing. Facebook, readers, free apps and so on.
The user-interface of Office is really not that great on the desktop. It would be challenging for MS to re-factor it into something that would work on a tablet.
Instead of saying that major manufacturers have abandoned Microsoft. It would be more accurate to say that they are in the process of abandoning. They will certainly stick out a W7 tablet and see how it sells.
But if they discover that Android / WebOS tablets sell more, then abandonment process will be rapidly completed.
C.
To be technical here, all that Apple has to do to make iOS and OS X merge is
1) rename the UKit to Appkit, or vice versa.
2) Add touch events, or click events, depending on which way you went.
That is not a huge engineering effort.
The huge engineering effort for Apple is exactly the same for MS. Revamping desktop apps to take advantage. Currently Apple has ported Pages, Keynote and Numbers. They have iLife to go.
MS has mobile versions of Office but need to port the full versions over for Win7 Tablet.
Visio on a tablet would be nice too. Along with MS Project.
it advertises to the general market that iOS/OS X is a desktop level OS running on all kinds of machines.
I think tablets are heading away from desktops to create a new market, a new set of metaphors, and an a new way of interacting with computers.
The last thing this technology wants is to be shacked to the previous generation of technology. It'd be like inventing the plane and then glueing a car to the bottom.
C.