The only reason Microsoft bought Nokia is they were worried that either Nokia would go under or go Android. And it's also a diversion that gets the media talking about something other than Ballmer's failed leadership. They've pretty much hamstrung whoever the new CEO is. He/she is stuck integrating Nokia and pushing this functional reorg.
TLDR: The OS-centric model has *not* gone away, there are just 3 of them now.
"Lickspittle" - had to look that one up.
I have a slightly different reading of history, based on the premise that "Software is harder to do than hardware."
In the age of 16-bit micros (Amiga, Atari etc) the OS was quite simple and anyone could do one, so there was a lot of competition. But as humanity's software needs became more complex, operating systems started to include literally thousands of software libraries and millions of lines of code, and not all these companies had the software chops to make a compelling product any more. Apple had good enough software people (after all they marketed the first GUI), but these other companies didn't, so they turned to Microsoft or died.
Now, is anything different today? Surely humanity's software needs are even *more* complex, shouldn't MS be even stronger? I would argue that yes, the power still lies with He Who Has the OS. And what has changed in not integrated has taken over, it's that now 3 companies have an OS instead of 1.
It's telling that in the ad you embedded as marking the return of integrated products, it is an ad about connecting to the Internet. Because that's how Google got their OS: the Internet commoditised a lot of core OS software, allowing them to catch up with MS. Apple got there through Steve Job's (and his team) genius in creating the Next OS. There is not some great sea change back to integrated, there is just 2 big companies catching up with Microsoft finally.
That's right. Apple makes more from Google's advertising on iOS than Google itself.
If Google had not betrayed SJ's trust and stabbed Apple in the back Google would be making a fortune out of mobile computing, with Apple's 700 million affluent, big spending iOS users directing their searches through Google rather than Siri and Bing and using Google maps and other services. Google would also have had the inside track to Apple iTune radio. All of this adds up to rapidly mounting, countless billions of dollars revenue of lost clicks on Google supplied adverts.
Instead Google have made an enemy of their former partner who would have made Google by far the dominant force in mobile advertising.
Is that wishful thinking or do you have any evidence that Apple would not ever stab Google in the back? I have serious doubts that Apple would've stood idly by and let Google rake in big bucks from it's users.
You say "vertical strategy of Apple has had little to do with their success." Then you contradict yourself by pointing out the the benefits of Apple's tight integration of software and hardware which makes their devices so much better:
* "iPod - great interface with revolutionary scroll wheel was miles ahead of the clunky buttons ...."
* "iPhone - capacitive touch screen and snappy performance coupled with an ingenious interface and the first mobile browser that actually worked."
* "iPad - very much the same benefits of the iPhone but having the added benefit of an established developer community and a way to make apps work across platforms."
I agree with the OP, the hardware is what gets people to buy a device, but the vertical integration is what keeps them.
I would argue that nothing has changed. Phones, games consoles, portable music players, pda's have always had an os made by the guy that makes the hardware. Even Microsoft never tried to license the xbox os to another hardware company.
The only thing thats happen is Apple managed to move into Sonys territory and make a lot more profit and Microsoft so far has failed to follow. Even with the halo effect of iPhone sales leading to Mac sales, after 10 years of ipod, iphone and ipad sales the percentage of macs being sold still isnt that large, there far from beating windows. In the server market osx has done even worse.
So in the end like in the 90s generic pcs are still proving the licensing model works, and more specific devices where the look of the device is more important the whole thing from one company works best.
MS may now be starting to make there own hardware, but is that a result of thinking it works better, or just the fact that the only way they can sell more copies of windows is world population growth. If they can why not get the hardware partners cut of the profits? What competition do they really have?
The DED's been on holidays, a rest & rejuvenation well deserved, and with new resolve is back in fighting style, renewed and vigilant in his quest for truth, honesty and etc. The heavy sword of justice is well tempered and fighting sharp. So endeth my rant.
Poetry Section So much what the DED writes rings true with memories forgot, With able lance to deceptive heart or silliness, sharp is his shot. Down the latrine hold beggars, liars, their kin 'n kith be dropped, Along with MS, fairy dowagers FacsimileSam & Goolies to rot.
Acknowledgement So pleased to see so many showing appreciation for our Crowned Knight of the Kingdom that is Apple in his dash ahead, full bent to thrashing stewards of imitation.
A Seer's Note Regarding Goolies, that eunuch had Apple's faith until it turned coattail with maps and secrets shared by Apple. Apple would have happily continued to support the Great Deceiver in its quest for profits through search but now its deception shall be the downfall of that warbling castrato. FacsimileSam will eventually find that the field of refrigerators and cheap knockoff televisions is its mind best furrowed.
And now I must return to re-read this great article and lucid opinions of all AI good members-in-standing. To the BLOCKed trolls, "I squish your head, I squish your head".
Interesting read, thanks. One of the reasons I check AI daily.
The question I have: If the days of broadly licensed OSes are over, what then? Will every vendor cook up their own OS? Samsung OS? Dell OS? LG OS? HTC OS? Apart from being an expensive task with a high risk of failing (see: Windows Phone, BlackBerry), I'm doubtful they have the human resources and knowledge to pull it off. Maybe with a mobile OS but certainly not with a desktop OS.
Personally, I love Apple and their ecosystem but the idea of Windows/Android isn't bad, it's the execution that's lacking.
Is that wishful thinking or do you have any evidence that Apple would not ever stab Google in the back? I have serious doubts that Apple would've stood idly by and let Google rake in big bucks from it's users.
Yes, there is a possibility that Apple might have stabbed Google in the back - but that is highly unlikely because Apple's business is primarily selling its hardware and they were, and are still, making a lot of money from Google by iOS users using Google search and other Google services. This money goes straight Apple's bottom line. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars a year of additionl profits for Apple and it would not have made commercial sense for Apple to break the arrangement.
On the other hand by stabbing SJ and Apple in the back Google turned a remote possibility into an absolute certainty. The fact is that Google, by their greed and unethical practices, have turned a friendly win-win relationship with Apple into bitter rivalry, lose-lose-lose situation.
By antagonising Apple, Google are already losing billions of paid for clicks every year, and those losses will increase every year. They have foolishly turned Apple, the world's riches company with immense resources and the most successful company in mobile computing, into a major competitor who are increasingly going to compete head on with Google, with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system, with that number growing rapidly.
Added to which Google is losing money hand over fist by having to subsidise Android. They have also paid $12.5 billion for Motoroal which may never turn a profit. And they have huge mounting legal bills and royalties and compensations bills to pay.
To cap it all Android is not serving Google primary purpose to lock in custmoers to their search and other services, with an increasingly large proportion of Android users using forked versions of Android which don't contribute a cent to Google's advertsing revenue.
This article totally fails to address the reason why Android exists in the first place: to ensure Google's relevance as a service provider.
Remember, in the early iPhone days, Google provided most of the online/cloud services used by iOS. Remember how Steve Jobs felt so betrayed when he realized Google was developing Android?
Google could have saved money and allowed Apple to take the whole smartphone market and in the end Apple may have decided to develop competing services, thus pushing Google completely out of the mobile space. Apple, of course makes their money on hardware, so perhaps they would have been just as happy to retain a mutually beneficial relationship where they used Google's services across their devices and held 99% of the mobile market. Facebook or Microsoft could have later swept in and offered Apple a better deal, thus shoving Google right out of the market. In the end Google couldn't take the risk and so they developed Android to ensure they stay relevant.
Furthermore, Google can afford to lose billions on Android development, botched mergers, and poor hardware sales. None of those represents Google's core business. How can the author fail to see that? Google is a service company and every move they make is to ensure they dominate in services. Goggle is and always will be an advertisement and service company. Plain and simple.
"This myopic, willful ignorance and excuse-centric, platitude-barfing flattery of Microsoft's every misstep might have made sense in the 1990s, but by 2010 the kowtowing tech media's fawning over Microsoft was as unnecessary as the lickspittle sycophants of the royal court after the revolution had beheaded their monarchs. "
This incredibly long sentence is the most hilarious (in a good way) of the piece. How does DED create a sentence like that? You have to reread it several times to take it all in. With writing like that I'm surprised he has to work for AI (no offense intended) rather than a major media outlet.
Steve Jobs greatest contribution was not allowing nerdy programmers and engineers to put out "good enough" SW/HW.
Unlike MS, Google, HP, Dell, Samsung, BB, Motorola, Nokia, Adobe, etc., etc., which seem to only put out plasticky HW and clunky SW!
Thanks Stevo. Thanks to you my digital life will consist of a new iPhone 5c or 5s, an iPad Mini, an ATV and an 8 yr. old orig. Intel iMac, iCloud and a TimeCapsule. Oh, a Flat screen TV and a hardly used $100 Brother MFC printer.
Yes, there is a possibility that Apple might have stabbed Google in the back - but that is highly unlikely because Apple's business is primarily selling its hardware and they were, and are still, making a lot of money from Google by iOS users using Google search and other Google services. This money goes straight Apple's bottom line. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars a year of additionl profits for Apple and it would not have made commercial sense for Apple to break the arrangement.
On the other hand by stabbing SJ and Apple in the back Google turned a remote possibility into an absolute certainty. The fact is that Google, by their greed and unethical practices, have turned a friendly win-win relationship with Apple into bitter rivalry, lose-lose-lose situation.
By antagonising Apple, Google are already losing billions of paid for clicks every year, and those losses will increase every year. They have foolishly turned Apple, the world's riches company with immense resources and the most successful company in mobile computing, into a major competitor who are increasingly going to compete head on with Google, with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system, with that number growing rapidly.
Added to which Google is losing money hand over fist by having to subsidise Android. They have also paid $12.5 billion for Motoroal which may never turn a profit. And they have huge mounting legal bills and royalties and compensations bills to pay.
To cap it all Android is not serving Google primary purpose to lock in custmoers to their search and other services, with an increasingly large proportion of Android users using forked versions of Android which don't contribute a cent to Google's advertsing revenue.
SO SO SO STUPID.
1. 700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind.
2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.
Here's what the article didn't mention. Apple can get away with releasing one type of high profile product per year. Nobody else in the game can do that. Apple has that type of pedigree . MS bought Nokia, what a joke. What will MS do with all that tech glut over at Nokia? LOL! Nokia has too many models IMHO and changing that will mean pissing off a lot of employees. You can get an iPhone 4s for free with a two year contract and it as you know it blows the entire Nokia Catalog out the water. ONE DAMN PHONE! So you think MS is going to go that route? Hell no! Hell to the nth power of no! And what would happen if MS told their licensees to f*** off? IMHO the US government would intervene because MS would undoubtedly destroy them if they couldn't use their OS. The lawsuits would bankrupt MS. Apple FTW!
The DED's been on holidays, a rest & rejuvenation well deserved, and with new resolve is back in fighting style, renewed and vigilant in his quest for truth, honesty and etc. The heavy sword of justice is well tempered and fighting sharp. So endeth my rant.
Poetry Section
So much what the DED writes rings true with memories forgot,
With able lance to deceptive heart or silliness, sharp is his shot.
Down the latrine hold beggars, liars, their kin 'n kith be dropped,
Along with MS, fairy dowagers FacsimileSam & Goolies to rot.
Acknowledgement
So pleased to see so many showing appreciation for our Crowned Knight of the Kingdom that is Apple in his dash ahead, full bent to thrashing stewards of imitation.
A Seer's Note
Regarding Goolies, that eunuch had Apple's faith until it turned coattail with maps and secrets shared by Apple. Apple would have happily continued to support the Great Deceiver in its quest for profits through search but now its deception shall be the downfall of that warbling castrato. FacsimileSam will eventually find that the field of refrigerators and cheap knockoff televisions is its mind best furrowed.
And now I must return to re-read this great article and lucid opinions of all AI good members-in-standing. To the BLOCKed trolls, "I squish your head, I squish your head".
TLDR: The OS-centric model has *not* gone away, there are just 3 of them now.
"Lickspittle" - had to look that one up.
I have a slightly different reading of history, based on the premise that "Software is harder to do than hardware."
In the age of 16-bit micros (Amiga, Atari etc) the OS was quite simple and anyone could do one, so there was a lot of competition. But as humanity's software needs became more complex, operating systems started to include literally thousands of software libraries and millions of lines of code, and not all these companies had the software chops to make a compelling product any more. Apple had good enough software people (after all they marketed the first GUI), but these other companies didn't, so they turned to Microsoft or died.
Now, is anything different today? Surely humanity's software needs are even *more* complex, shouldn't MS be even stronger? I would argue that yes, the power still lies with He Who Has the OS. And what has changed in not integrated has taken over, it's that now 3 companies have an OS instead of 1.
It's telling that in the ad you embedded as marking the return of integrated products, it is an ad about connecting to the Internet. Because that's how Google got their OS: the Internet commoditised a lot of core OS software, allowing them to catch up with MS. Apple got there through Steve Job's (and his team) genius in creating the Next OS. There is not some great sea change back to integrated, there is just 2 big companies catching up with Microsoft finally.
Alan Kay, the genius behind all the shiny things (the GUI but mostly smalltalk which is the grandfather of Obj-C) at PARC that gave us macs had it in a simple sentence :
"
Remember, it's all software, it just depends on when you crystallize it.
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
"
Was true then and still is. When you do only software on a varierty of hardware in the responsability of others, you have a very big problem which will either lead to fragmentation or non optimal use of saidhardware.
Windows and Androïd most glaring failure is exactly that , and in this mobile era, the dismal batteries durations are a direct result.
being partly integrated wont solve the problem either as they still need to make accomodations.
1. 700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind.
2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.
1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)
2. Google launched an OS to prevent anyone (Apple and MS) from domination. However, Google does everything in its power to be the dominant force in whatever it does. Stabbing allies in the back by Apple I have not read about happening. Would like to see some 'facts' to support this statement. MS, Goolies and FacsimileSam have proven their skills well in the game of backstabbing. Apple is/was in hardware sales. Now the field is open for it to go into search (Siri via vocals) and possibly its own search engine to compete with the Goofle, as well its venture into advertising. The games, in earnest, are begun and Apple had/has no choice in the matter after what the Claim to No Evil began.
1. 700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind.
2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.
Then the comments would've been "well Google saw what was going on, why didn't they develop their own mobile platform?". In the long run it would've been more damning if they didn't develop Android. They simply thought it was too risky to rely heavily on Apple.
"This myopic, willful ignorance and excuse-centric, platitude-barfing flattery of Microsoft's every misstep might have made sense in the 1990s, but by 2010 the kowtowing tech media's fawning over Microsoft was as unnecessary as the lickspittle sycophants of the royal court after the revolution had beheaded their monarchs. "
This incredibly long sentence is the most hilarious (in a good way) of the piece. How does DED create a sentence like that? You have to reread it several times to take it all in. With writing like that I'm surprised he has to work for AI (no offense intended) rather than a major media outlet.
That was good but, for it's perfect evocation of the essence of Windows I preferred "... it forcibly fed Windows down its throat like a unlucky duck being raised for foie gras."
Comments
The only reason Microsoft bought Nokia is they were worried that either Nokia would go under or go Android. And it's also a diversion that gets the media talking about something other than Ballmer's failed leadership. They've pretty much hamstrung whoever the new CEO is. He/she is stuck integrating Nokia and pushing this functional reorg.
TLDR: The OS-centric model has *not* gone away, there are just 3 of them now.
"Lickspittle" - had to look that one up.
I have a slightly different reading of history, based on the premise that "Software is harder to do than hardware."
In the age of 16-bit micros (Amiga, Atari etc) the OS was quite simple and anyone could do one, so there was a lot of competition. But as humanity's software needs became more complex, operating systems started to include literally thousands of software libraries and millions of lines of code, and not all these companies had the software chops to make a compelling product any more. Apple had good enough software people (after all they marketed the first GUI), but these other companies didn't, so they turned to Microsoft or died.
Now, is anything different today? Surely humanity's software needs are even *more* complex, shouldn't MS be even stronger? I would argue that yes, the power still lies with He Who Has the OS. And what has changed in not integrated has taken over, it's that now 3 companies have an OS instead of 1.
It's telling that in the ad you embedded as marking the return of integrated products, it is an ad about connecting to the Internet. Because that's how Google got their OS: the Internet commoditised a lot of core OS software, allowing them to catch up with MS. Apple got there through Steve Job's (and his team) genius in creating the Next OS. There is not some great sea change back to integrated, there is just 2 big companies catching up with Microsoft finally.
Is that wishful thinking or do you have any evidence that Apple would not ever stab Google in the back? I have serious doubts that Apple would've stood idly by and let Google rake in big bucks from it's users.
I agree with the OP, the hardware is what gets people to buy a device, but the vertical integration is what keeps them.
The only thing thats happen is Apple managed to move into Sonys territory and make a lot more profit and Microsoft so far has failed to follow. Even with the halo effect of iPhone sales leading to Mac sales, after 10 years of ipod, iphone and ipad sales the percentage of macs being sold still isnt that large, there far from beating windows. In the server market osx has done even worse.
So in the end like in the 90s generic pcs are still proving the licensing model works, and more specific devices where the look of the device is more important the whole thing from one company works best.
MS may now be starting to make there own hardware, but is that a result of thinking it works better, or just the fact that the only way they can sell more copies of windows is world population growth. If they can why not get the hardware partners cut of the profits? What competition do they really have?
Poetry Section
So much what the DED writes rings true with memories forgot,
With able lance to deceptive heart or silliness, sharp is his shot.
Down the latrine hold beggars, liars, their kin 'n kith be dropped,
Along with MS, fairy dowagers FacsimileSam & Goolies to rot.
Acknowledgement
So pleased to see so many showing appreciation for our Crowned Knight of the Kingdom that is Apple in his dash ahead, full bent to thrashing stewards of imitation.
A Seer's Note
Regarding Goolies, that eunuch had Apple's faith until it turned coattail with maps and secrets shared by Apple. Apple would have happily continued to support the Great Deceiver in its quest for profits through search but now its deception shall be the downfall of that warbling castrato. FacsimileSam will eventually find that the field of refrigerators and cheap knockoff televisions is its mind best furrowed.
And now I must return to re-read this great article and lucid opinions of all AI good members-in-standing. To the BLOCKed trolls, "I squish your head, I squish your head".
Interesting read, thanks. One of the reasons I check AI daily.
The question I have: If the days of broadly licensed OSes are over, what then? Will every vendor cook up their own OS? Samsung OS? Dell OS? LG OS? HTC OS? Apart from being an expensive task with a high risk of failing (see: Windows Phone, BlackBerry), I'm doubtful they have the human resources and knowledge to pull it off. Maybe with a mobile OS but certainly not with a desktop OS.
Personally, I love Apple and their ecosystem but the idea of Windows/Android isn't bad, it's the execution that's lacking.
Is that wishful thinking or do you have any evidence that Apple would not ever stab Google in the back? I have serious doubts that Apple would've stood idly by and let Google rake in big bucks from it's users.
Yes, there is a possibility that Apple might have stabbed Google in the back - but that is highly unlikely because Apple's business is primarily selling its hardware and they were, and are still, making a lot of money from Google by iOS users using Google search and other Google services. This money goes straight Apple's bottom line. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars a year of additionl profits for Apple and it would not have made commercial sense for Apple to break the arrangement.
On the other hand by stabbing SJ and Apple in the back Google turned a remote possibility into an absolute certainty. The fact is that Google, by their greed and unethical practices, have turned a friendly win-win relationship with Apple into bitter rivalry, lose-lose-lose situation.
By antagonising Apple, Google are already losing billions of paid for clicks every year, and those losses will increase every year. They have foolishly turned Apple, the world's riches company with immense resources and the most successful company in mobile computing, into a major competitor who are increasingly going to compete head on with Google, with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system, with that number growing rapidly.
Added to which Google is losing money hand over fist by having to subsidise Android. They have also paid $12.5 billion for Motoroal which may never turn a profit. And they have huge mounting legal bills and royalties and compensations bills to pay.
To cap it all Android is not serving Google primary purpose to lock in custmoers to their search and other services, with an increasingly large proportion of Android users using forked versions of Android which don't contribute a cent to Google's advertsing revenue.
SO SO SO STUPID.
Remember, in the early iPhone days, Google provided most of the online/cloud services used by iOS. Remember how Steve Jobs felt so betrayed when he realized Google was developing Android?
Google could have saved money and allowed Apple to take the whole smartphone market and in the end Apple may have decided to develop competing services, thus pushing Google completely out of the mobile space. Apple, of course makes their money on hardware, so perhaps they would have been just as happy to retain a mutually beneficial relationship where they used Google's services across their devices and held 99% of the mobile market. Facebook or Microsoft could have later swept in and offered Apple a better deal, thus shoving Google right out of the market. In the end Google couldn't take the risk and so they developed Android to ensure they stay relevant.
Furthermore, Google can afford to lose billions on Android development, botched mergers, and poor hardware sales. None of those represents Google's core business. How can the author fail to see that? Google is a service company and every move they make is to ensure they dominate in services. Goggle is and always will be an advertisement and service company. Plain and simple.
This incredibly long sentence is the most hilarious (in a good way) of the piece. How does DED create a sentence like that? You have to reread it several times to take it all in. With writing like that I'm surprised he has to work for AI (no offense intended) rather than a major media outlet.
Steve Jobs greatest contribution was not allowing nerdy programmers and engineers to put out "good enough" SW/HW.
Unlike MS, Google, HP, Dell, Samsung, BB, Motorola, Nokia, Adobe, etc., etc., which seem to only put out plasticky HW and clunky SW!
Thanks Stevo. Thanks to you my digital life will consist of a new iPhone 5c or 5s, an iPad Mini, an ATV and an 8 yr. old orig. Intel iMac, iCloud and a TimeCapsule. Oh, a Flat screen TV and a hardly used $100 Brother MFC printer.
1. 700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind.
2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.
Totally true.
But the Nexus line is far from being crap. It's awesome, actually.
Yes, it's awesome... when it works.
Said many bonafide Android critics.
pedigree .
MS bought Nokia, what a joke. What will MS do with all that tech glut over at Nokia? LOL!
Nokia has too many models IMHO and changing that will mean pissing off a lot of employees.
You can get an iPhone 4s for free with a two year contract and it as you know it blows the entire Nokia Catalog out the water. ONE DAMN PHONE!
So you think MS is going to go that route? Hell no! Hell to the nth power of no!
And what would happen if MS told their licensees to f*** off?
IMHO the US government would intervene because MS would undoubtedly destroy them if they couldn't use their OS. The lawsuits would bankrupt MS.
Apple FTW!
You are nuts. Please seek help.
TLDR: The OS-centric model has *not* gone away, there are just 3 of them now.
"Lickspittle" - had to look that one up.
I have a slightly different reading of history, based on the premise that "Software is harder to do than hardware."
In the age of 16-bit micros (Amiga, Atari etc) the OS was quite simple and anyone could do one, so there was a lot of competition. But as humanity's software needs became more complex, operating systems started to include literally thousands of software libraries and millions of lines of code, and not all these companies had the software chops to make a compelling product any more. Apple had good enough software people (after all they marketed the first GUI), but these other companies didn't, so they turned to Microsoft or died.
Now, is anything different today? Surely humanity's software needs are even *more* complex, shouldn't MS be even stronger? I would argue that yes, the power still lies with He Who Has the OS. And what has changed in not integrated has taken over, it's that now 3 companies have an OS instead of 1.
It's telling that in the ad you embedded as marking the return of integrated products, it is an ad about connecting to the Internet. Because that's how Google got their OS: the Internet commoditised a lot of core OS software, allowing them to catch up with MS. Apple got there through Steve Job's (and his team) genius in creating the Next OS. There is not some great sea change back to integrated, there is just 2 big companies catching up with Microsoft finally.
Alan Kay, the genius behind all the shiny things (the GUI but mostly smalltalk which is the grandfather of Obj-C) at PARC that gave us macs had it in a simple sentence :
"
Remember, it's all software, it just depends on when you crystallize it.
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
"
Was true then and still is. When you do only software on a varierty of hardware in the responsability of others, you have a very big problem which will either lead to fragmentation or non optimal use of saidhardware.
Windows and Androïd most glaring failure is exactly that , and in this mobile era, the dismal batteries durations are a direct result.
being partly integrated wont solve the problem either as they still need to make accomodations.
1. 700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind.
2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.
1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)
2. Google launched an OS to prevent anyone (Apple and MS) from domination. However, Google does everything in its power to be the dominant force in whatever it does. Stabbing allies in the back by Apple I have not read about happening. Would like to see some 'facts' to support this statement. MS, Goolies and FacsimileSam have proven their skills well in the game of backstabbing. Apple is/was in hardware sales. Now the field is open for it to go into search (Siri via vocals) and possibly its own search engine to compete with the Goofle, as well its venture into advertising. The games, in earnest, are begun and Apple had/has no choice in the matter after what the Claim to No Evil began.
Then the comments would've been "well Google saw what was going on, why didn't they develop their own mobile platform?". In the long run it would've been more damning if they didn't develop Android. They simply thought it was too risky to rely heavily on Apple.
You are nuts. Please seek help.
And you are a bloody troll. Get lost.
"This myopic, willful ignorance and excuse-centric, platitude-barfing flattery of Microsoft's every misstep might have made sense in the 1990s, but by 2010 the kowtowing tech media's fawning over Microsoft was as unnecessary as the lickspittle sycophants of the royal court after the revolution had beheaded their monarchs. "
This incredibly long sentence is the most hilarious (in a good way) of the piece. How does DED create a sentence like that? You have to reread it several times to take it all in. With writing like that I'm surprised he has to work for AI (no offense intended) rather than a major media outlet.
That was good but, for it's perfect evocation of the essence of Windows I preferred "... it forcibly fed Windows down its throat like a unlucky duck being raised for foie gras."