From a business perspective, given past track records, anything that Ballmer touches turns to a giant steamy pile. So go the opposite direction, and you'll make money.
Again, they need to stick with perfecting their OS. It's only been 26 years since its launch, and yet its still a POS.
MS thanks the digital Gods each day for monopolies, or they would have gone the way of the Zune and Windows phone a long time ago.
Translation: we're at least distantly aware of the fact that we don't have a viable tablet strategy, so we're hoping the market evolves towards what we do have, instead of us having to move towards the market.
Also, we'll undoubtably be in charge of some indeterminate future where our vague notions of how "people" want to "interact" with "technology" are blissfully free of irritating details like actual shipping product. We seem to have sold a lot Kinects, so god willing everyone will use that. For, um, computing stuff.
And this mentality is why M$ never has been and never will be innovative. They consistently look back rather than forward. They copy rather than create. Windows PCs might still dominate but they will never inspire. Big ideas like "the room is the computer" need a roadmap for taking you there and Apple has a clear roadmap. The iPad and future iterations may be temporary but then, so are smartphones and desktop computers for that matter. There is always something more innovative coming down the pipes. If tablets are still a big part of the tech landscape in 10 years, I will be disappointed. The point is, Apple's iPad, Apple TV, etc. are all part of a greater strategy, and that strategy will evolve over time. The iPad doesn't need to be the future... it just needs to take us there.
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but what is with the "uncomfortable" part of the post-PC era?
Uncomfortable for companies and people whose businesses and careers revolve around PCs. Kinda like a successful horse and buggy salesman seeing the first Model T drive by.
In fact, Kinect is probably the first truly brilliant development ever by Microsoft. It's only fair to give kudos where they are due, if we want to be credible.
Nope. They bought it. Just like DOS. They deserve credit for buying it and turning it into a successful product.
Microsoft may want to check it's vetting process for "Chief Strategy and Research Officer" ... shouldn't the chief of strategy and research kind of know whether tablets will be viable long term?
So I suppose he doesn't see the iPad being used in thousands of hospitals, doctor's offices, warehouses, factory floors, etc. not to mention average consumers, all of whom are downloading and running ... what's the count, 65,000+ apps now?
Ya, I'm sure it's a fad ... approaching sales of 20 million devices ... sure, a fad.
I don't think quoting sales numbers is a good way to say if something is a 'fad' or not. case in point, the netbook, which many of us (myself included) consider a 'fad' sold over 30 million units in 2009 IIRC.
Well, this is why market share means squat. They may have sold a gazillion netbooks. But what was the margin on those things? As was stated in a story here earlier, even Acer is moving away from the market share approach.
Apple doesn't only sell a lot of iPhones and iPads, they bring in a ton of revenue and profit with them, as well. I'm not sure what the margin is on the iPad2, but I'm guessing it's pretty ok. And I know that the iPhone has a high margin.
As I've said before, I'd rather sell 10 units at $50 margin than sell 50 units at $5 margin.
Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer recently said he's not sure that devices like Apple's iPad will last, because he sees the smartphone as the true successor to the traditional PC.
Craig Mundie made the comments in Sydney at a lunch held by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Mundie said there is a question as to whether tablets like Apple's iPad will "remain with us or not."
Following on from Andy Lark addressing the technical press in Australia, Mundie was speaking to some committee also in Australia. Why? I believe they are trying to position Dell and MS in the mindset in Australia for the day, should it arrive, that the national broadband network is rolled out (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/na...adband_network).
The Commonwealth government and many departments in Australia whore after Dell and MS and are populist followers. (Please forgive me if you are amongst the enlightened in Australia, you know who you are!) Fortunately, the Australian population as a whole couldn't give a fig what these idiots have to say.
To add my two cents, semiconductor technology might have a role in the post-human condition that is the destination for humanity and technology. However, it won't be in the form of mobile phones! It will be fabulously low-powered and powerful, on occasions assembled in-situ in the body and pioneered by forward looking individuals and companies, neither of which describes Dell or MS.
Our progeny will look upon the mobile phone in a similar way perhaps to the way we view the fob watch or one day, wireless radio.
After the Dell guy now the micro$oft guy has some "insightful" prediction???
What he means to say is that he hopes that this tablet stuff is some nightmare he can wake up from, because they don't even seem capable to copy this one any time soon, even a bad copy that no one will laugh at! While WP7 looks more promising than the nerdroid OS its still Niche and beginning to look like the zune! LOL
While I love my iPad, I am not so sure that it represents a paradigm shifting device everybody thinks it is...
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
I don't think Microsoft has any grandiose vision to bank on, but at the same time, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the future will hold.
I wasn't saying Kinect isn't a viable product or relatively good at it's form of human-computer interaction. My point was that it isn't as visionary as he billed it. Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened, ergo, it is Microsoft's very late to the game answer to what Nintendo somewhat "forced" them to do to stay relevant/competitive.
Did you know the comments Mundie made about "a world where the room is the computer" and "there'll be a successor to the desktop [PC], it'll be the room" were actually made two years ago, not in the same context as the other comments made in this article?
Did you know Microsoft has been working on the "natural user interface" since the inception of Surface a decade ago?
Did you know the "touch screen" on the original Surface wasn't actually a "touch screen" but a matrix of cameras, and worked in a similar way that Kinect does?
Did you know that the interface in "Minority Report" (2002) that people often refer to when looking at Kinect actually came from the Microsoft Surface team? (they worked with Spielberg on the movie)
It's crazy to say "Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened" when it has been on their radar for pretty much the last decade.
The main point is that MS has not really figured out how to turn any of this into a successful and profitable long term strategy.
With the iPad, Apple clearly is developing an entirely new platform that is not directly dependent on the legacy of the personal computer. MS has no clear strategy or new platform paradigm that is not directly dependent on the legacy of the personal computer.
MS needs to stop messing around and release MS Office for iOS. That is where MS really makes the bulk of its money.
I would believe that the Kinect wasn't a response to the Wii, if the Kinect had come before the colossal success of the Wii.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Did you know the comments Mundie made about "a world where the room is the computer" and "there'll be a successor to the desktop [PC], it'll be the room" were actually made two years ago, not in the same context as the other comments made in this article?
Did you know Microsoft has been working on the "natural user interface" since the inception of Surface a decade ago?
Did you know the "touch screen" on the original Surface wasn't actually a "touch screen" but a matrix of cameras, and worked in a similar way that Kinect does?
Did you know that the interface in "Minority Report" (2002) that people often refer to when looking at Kinect actually came from the Microsoft Surface team? (they worked with Spielberg on the movie)
It's crazy to say "Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened" when it has been on their radar for pretty much the last decade.
While I love my iPad, I am not so sure that it represents a paradigm shifting device everybody thinks it is...
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
I don't think Microsoft has any grandiose vision to bank on, but at the same time, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the future will hold.
Whether or not it's a paradigm shift of real significance or not, you're right: we won't know for a while.
But I know that, for me, in the short time I've had my iPad2, it's already changed a lot of how I operate on a daily basis. Just one example: I wanted to read "Jane Eyre" before the movie comes out. Instead of going to the library or to Borders (which is closing anyways, any day now), I clicked on iBooks, searched for the title, downloaded it, and was sitting there with a vodka on the rocks, reading away within a couple minutes.
Microsoft has been trying to create a market for tablet computes for over a decade. Now that Apple has actually managed to do so, they want to claim that there is no future for tablet computers. Meanwhile they are trying to get their partners to build tablet computers with the tablet version of their OS.
Microsoft has been trying to create a market for tablet computes for over a decade. Now that Apple has actually managed to do so, they want to claim that there is no future for tablet computers. Meanwhile they are trying to get their partners to build tablet computers with the tablet version of their OS.
Microsoft has been trying to create a market for tablet computes for over a decade. Now that Apple has actually managed to do so, they want to claim that there is no future for tablet computers. Meanwhile they are trying to get their partners to build tablet computers with the tablet version of their OS.
Nice and succinct summary of Microsoft's stance. It must burn them up inside, one would imagine.
I disagree and say the iPad is the paradigm shift everyone thinks it is. The shift has only begun.
We have to use some physical device to access the information in the cloud. What would replace tablets and smart phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
While I love my iPad, I am not so sure that it represents a paradigm shifting device everybody thinks it is...
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
The main point is that MS has not really figured out how to turn any of this into a successful and profitable long term strategy.
That's not the "main point" at all, it's a totally different point.
We can talk about how much money Kinect is going to make Microsoft (probably not very much - long term) or we can talk about Kinect and the WiiMote being the same thing (they aren't).
Comments
Again, they need to stick with perfecting their OS. It's only been 26 years since its launch, and yet its still a POS.
MS thanks the digital Gods each day for monopolies, or they would have gone the way of the Zune and Windows phone a long time ago.
Translation: we're at least distantly aware of the fact that we don't have a viable tablet strategy, so we're hoping the market evolves towards what we do have, instead of us having to move towards the market.
Also, we'll undoubtably be in charge of some indeterminate future where our vague notions of how "people" want to "interact" with "technology" are blissfully free of irritating details like actual shipping product. We seem to have sold a lot Kinects, so god willing everyone will use that. For, um, computing stuff.
That was awesome.
And this mentality is why M$ never has been and never will be innovative. They consistently look back rather than forward. They copy rather than create. Windows PCs might still dominate but they will never inspire. Big ideas like "the room is the computer" need a roadmap for taking you there and Apple has a clear roadmap. The iPad and future iterations may be temporary but then, so are smartphones and desktop computers for that matter. There is always something more innovative coming down the pipes. If tablets are still a big part of the tech landscape in 10 years, I will be disappointed. The point is, Apple's iPad, Apple TV, etc. are all part of a greater strategy, and that strategy will evolve over time. The iPad doesn't need to be the future... it just needs to take us there.
Good say man
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but what is with the "uncomfortable" part of the post-PC era?
Uncomfortable for companies and people whose businesses and careers revolve around PCs. Kinda like a successful horse and buggy salesman seeing the first Model T drive by.
In fact, Kinect is probably the first truly brilliant development ever by Microsoft. It's only fair to give kudos where they are due, if we want to be credible.
Nope. They bought it. Just like DOS. They deserve credit for buying it and turning it into a successful product.
So I suppose he doesn't see the iPad being used in thousands of hospitals, doctor's offices, warehouses, factory floors, etc. not to mention average consumers, all of whom are downloading and running ... what's the count, 65,000+ apps now?
Ya, I'm sure it's a fad ... approaching sales of 20 million devices ... sure, a fad.
I don't think quoting sales numbers is a good way to say if something is a 'fad' or not. case in point, the netbook, which many of us (myself included) consider a 'fad' sold over 30 million units in 2009 IIRC.
Well, this is why market share means squat. They may have sold a gazillion netbooks. But what was the margin on those things? As was stated in a story here earlier, even Acer is moving away from the market share approach.
Apple doesn't only sell a lot of iPhones and iPads, they bring in a ton of revenue and profit with them, as well. I'm not sure what the margin is on the iPad2, but I'm guessing it's pretty ok. And I know that the iPhone has a high margin.
As I've said before, I'd rather sell 10 units at $50 margin than sell 50 units at $5 margin.
Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer recently said he's not sure that devices like Apple's iPad will last, because he sees the smartphone as the true successor to the traditional PC.
Craig Mundie made the comments in Sydney at a lunch held by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Mundie said there is a question as to whether tablets like Apple's iPad will "remain with us or not."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Following on from Andy Lark addressing the technical press in Australia, Mundie was speaking to some committee also in Australia. Why? I believe they are trying to position Dell and MS in the mindset in Australia for the day, should it arrive, that the national broadband network is rolled out (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/na...adband_network).
The Commonwealth government and many departments in Australia whore after Dell and MS and are populist followers. (Please forgive me if you are amongst the enlightened in Australia, you know who you are!) Fortunately, the Australian population as a whole couldn't give a fig what these idiots have to say.
To add my two cents, semiconductor technology might have a role in the post-human condition that is the destination for humanity and technology. However, it won't be in the form of mobile phones!
Our progeny will look upon the mobile phone in a similar way perhaps to the way we view the fob watch or one day, wireless radio.
What he means to say is that he hopes that this tablet stuff is some nightmare he can wake up from, because they don't even seem capable to copy this one any time soon, even a bad copy that no one will laugh at! While WP7 looks more promising than the nerdroid OS its still Niche and beginning to look like the zune! LOL
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
I don't think Microsoft has any grandiose vision to bank on, but at the same time, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the future will hold.
I wasn't saying Kinect isn't a viable product or relatively good at it's form of human-computer interaction. My point was that it isn't as visionary as he billed it. Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened, ergo, it is Microsoft's very late to the game answer to what Nintendo somewhat "forced" them to do to stay relevant/competitive.
Did you know the comments Mundie made about "a world where the room is the computer" and "there'll be a successor to the desktop [PC], it'll be the room" were actually made two years ago, not in the same context as the other comments made in this article?
Did you know Microsoft has been working on the "natural user interface" since the inception of Surface a decade ago?
Did you know the "touch screen" on the original Surface wasn't actually a "touch screen" but a matrix of cameras, and worked in a similar way that Kinect does?
Did you know that the interface in "Minority Report" (2002) that people often refer to when looking at Kinect actually came from the Microsoft Surface team? (they worked with Spielberg on the movie)
It's crazy to say "Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened" when it has been on their radar for pretty much the last decade.
With the iPad, Apple clearly is developing an entirely new platform that is not directly dependent on the legacy of the personal computer. MS has no clear strategy or new platform paradigm that is not directly dependent on the legacy of the personal computer.
MS needs to stop messing around and release MS Office for iOS. That is where MS really makes the bulk of its money.
I would believe that the Kinect wasn't a response to the Wii, if the Kinect had come before the colossal success of the Wii.
Did you know the comments Mundie made about "a world where the room is the computer" and "there'll be a successor to the desktop [PC], it'll be the room" were actually made two years ago, not in the same context as the other comments made in this article?
Did you know Microsoft has been working on the "natural user interface" since the inception of Surface a decade ago?
Did you know the "touch screen" on the original Surface wasn't actually a "touch screen" but a matrix of cameras, and worked in a similar way that Kinect does?
Did you know that the interface in "Minority Report" (2002) that people often refer to when looking at Kinect actually came from the Microsoft Surface team? (they worked with Spielberg on the movie)
It's crazy to say "Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened" when it has been on their radar for pretty much the last decade.
While I love my iPad, I am not so sure that it represents a paradigm shifting device everybody thinks it is...
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
I don't think Microsoft has any grandiose vision to bank on, but at the same time, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the future will hold.
Whether or not it's a paradigm shift of real significance or not, you're right: we won't know for a while.
But I know that, for me, in the short time I've had my iPad2, it's already changed a lot of how I operate on a daily basis. Just one example: I wanted to read "Jane Eyre" before the movie comes out. Instead of going to the library or to Borders (which is closing anyways, any day now), I clicked on iBooks, searched for the title, downloaded it, and was sitting there with a vodka on the rocks, reading away within a couple minutes.
Make sense to anyone?
Microsoft has been trying to create a market for tablet computes for over a decade. Now that Apple has actually managed to do so, they want to claim that there is no future for tablet computers. Meanwhile they are trying to get their partners to build tablet computers with the tablet version of their OS.
Make sense to anyone?
Apparently, it makes sense to the execs at MS.
Microsoft has been trying to create a market for tablet computes for over a decade. Now that Apple has actually managed to do so, they want to claim that there is no future for tablet computers. Meanwhile they are trying to get their partners to build tablet computers with the tablet version of their OS.
Nice and succinct summary of Microsoft's stance. It must burn them up inside, one would imagine.
We have to use some physical device to access the information in the cloud. What would replace tablets and smart phones?
While I love my iPad, I am not so sure that it represents a paradigm shifting device everybody thinks it is...
It seems all the "players" are hell bent moving everything to a cloud-centric universe where nothing is physically owned by anyone anymore, devices like the iPad could very well be a fad a couple of years from now.
The main point is that MS has not really figured out how to turn any of this into a successful and profitable long term strategy.
That's not the "main point" at all, it's a totally different point.
We can talk about how much money Kinect is going to make Microsoft (probably not very much - long term) or we can talk about Kinect and the WiiMote being the same thing (they aren't).