Well, not in my place. If you bring a Mac that you paid yourself and dedicate to your work, I'll support it. No sweat. If you keep complaining about poor performance when you browse youtube and gossip on Facebook, I'll ignore you. Simple as that.
Well that may be an exception to the rule. I work for a global corporation and regular employees are not permitted to even plug their personal phone into a USB port, even if it is just for charging. No internet radio, Facebook, YouTube, etc. is permitted and is grounds for termination except for departments like mine that work in programming and creative services. We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. We also have corporate Google apps, email and storage accounts, Dropbox and iCloud and anything else we want, iPhones plugged in etc. None of that is managed by IT, but we are the exception and I am our department's computer and network manager, among or duties. Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department, hence they won't even give us the time of day, but we don't care because we have the blessing of the president of the world headquarters.
We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. ...
Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department
Oh, I see. *That* kind of user. Yes, I'd make sure to keep you walled off, that's for sure! Would still like to work *with* you rather than against you, though, just to have a clue about what you're up to in case it affects me or my other users.
To get a bit closer to the topic at hand; the type of computers affected by this price reduction from Microsoft is exactly the kind of trash I'd like to keep far, far away from my network. It happens now and then that co-workers show up with their private laptops in need of fixing. I'll try to help out but I'm definitely not allowing them onto my network! They're mostly infected by loads of trojans, adware and crapware, have an expired trial version of office and the user wonders how to get the machine back into working order. *sigh*
Oh, I see. *That* kind of user. Yes, I'd make sure to keep you walled off, that's for sure! Would still like to work *with* you rather than against you, though, just to have a clue about what you're up to in case it affects me or my other users.
Well the lack of IT cooperation is what started all this. We asked for a VPN for one of our team while she was on maternity leave and they said something like "having a non-company issued PC connected to our private network is insecure." or something to that effect. I needed some static IPs... " sorry we can't allow static IPs for workstations"..etc. etc. All totally lame excuses because they just didn't want to do it. So I went over their head with my connections in upper management. Now when any of the global offices wants to get some challenging web programming or shared storage project done, they don't even bother asking IT, they come straight to me. And it gets billed out of IT's budget which is why they love me so much...not.
Lets pretend for a moment that by lowering the price to 30% of current price, they are able to increase the number of cheap PC's by over 3.33x. This would yield the same revenue they are getting now on those computers. For this new pricing strategy to be worthwhile, lets say they need to grow unit sales by 4x from current levels.
You have to think about revenue outside of the initial purchase. When someone buys an iOS device, they use Siri, iAds, the App Store, buy iOS peripherals and cables, they recommend other people to buy similar products (if they are happy), they use related cloud services.
By not having high volume sales, Microsoft is missing out on Office subscriptions, ad revenue from Bing services (Cortana eventually) and in-app ad revenue, their own app store, their own cloud services.
The revenue from services and apps may be lower per person than profit margin from a purchase but it's recurring revenue. Someone may only buy a new product every 3 years and make Microsoft $50. But Microsoft might make $15 every year per person via services, apps and ads.
1 million customers over 3 years with $50 license = $50m devices + $45m services = $95m
2 million customers over 3 years with $15 license = $15m devices + $90m services = $105m
With enough recurring revenue, Microsoft could afford to make Windows mobile free, which would make it cheaper than Android for some manufacturers as they pay royalties to Microsoft for Android.
We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. ...
Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department
Oh, I see. *That* kind of user. Yes, I'd make sure to keep you walled off, that's for sure! Would still like to work *with* you rather than against you, though, just to have a clue about what you're up to in case it affects me or my other users.
To get a bit closer to the topic at hand; the type of computers affected by this price reduction from Microsoft is exactly the kind of trash I'd like to keep far, far away from my network. It happens now and then that co-workers show up with their private laptops in need of fixing. I'll try to help out but I'm definitely not allowing them onto my network! They're mostly infected by loads of trojans, adware and crapware, have an expired trial version of office and the user wonders how to get the machine back into working order. *sigh*
hawkse,
I'm so so sorry. I've always felt It takes a person with immense patience and perservirance to work in IT on Windows. I would not last long in that role. I have made it clear I won't help any of my extended family with Windows issues. I have lost too many hours trying to keep Windows running and configured correctly, not to mention raising my blood pressure both for work and personal. Regards. Life is so much easier and calmer now.
Lets pretend for a moment that by lowering the price to 30% of current price, they are able to increase the number of cheap PC's by over 3.33x. This would yield the same revenue they are getting now on those computers. For this new pricing strategy to be worthwhile, lets say they need to grow unit sales by 4x from current levels.
You have to think about revenue outside of the initial purchase. When someone buys an iOS device, they use Siri, iAds, the App Store, buy iOS peripherals and cables, they recommend other people to buy similar products (if they are happy), they use related cloud services.
By not having high volume sales, Microsoft is missing out on Office subscriptions, ad revenue from Bing services (Cortana eventually) and in-app ad revenue, their own app store, their own cloud services.
The revenue from services and apps may be lower per person than profit margin from a purchase but it's recurring revenue. Someone may only buy a new product every 3 years and make Microsoft $50. But Microsoft might make $15 every year per person via services, apps and ads.
1 million customers over 3 years with $50 license = $50m devices + $45m services = $95m
2 million customers over 3 years with $15 license = $15m devices + $90m services = $105m
With enough recurring revenue, Microsoft could afford to make Windows mobile free, which would make it cheaper than Android for some manufacturers as they pay royalties to Microsoft for Android.
you make a good point. I wonder if cheap stakes who buy @ ;$250, make for good recurring revenue customers.
"...In addition, these sub-$250 products do not have to be touch enabled."
Does this mean that Microsoft intends to have Windows installed on sub-$250 traditional PC hardware? Being that mobile devices are pretty much touch-enabled from the get-go, it seems strange that Microsoft is not targeting the mobile market more than they are. And how well will the full Windows system perform on such inexpensive hardware? I think Microsoft has gone batty, they haven't a clue about the new computing landscape. I agree with one of the previous posters, Microsoft needs to let go of Windows as a source of profit and should instead direct their resources toward building cross-platform solutions. This means that Azure and subscription-based services will now the company's source of revenue. Windows is a loss leader, and Office should be ported in its full form to OS X and iOS devices. Linux is a little trickier since there are so many distros to choose from.
Windows is a loss leader, and Office should be ported in its full form to OS X and iOS devices. Linux is a little trickier since there are so many distros to choose from.
I doubt MS can afford to dumb down Office enough to be compatible across all platforms. Look how much Apple had to cripple iWork apps just for equality across iOS, OS X and the iCloud version. Not that risky for Apple to do something like that because they don't have so many business users, but if MS did that it would be suicide.
"...In addition, these sub-$250 products do not have to be touch enabled."
Does this mean that Microsoft intends to have Windows installed on sub-$250 traditional PC hardware? Being that mobile devices are pretty much touch-enabled from the get-go, it seems strange that Microsoft is not targeting the mobile market more than they are. And how well will the full Windows system perform on such inexpensive hardware?
The least powerful x86-64 hardware commonly used in the Windows line up is Intel's Bay Trail-T. Bay Trail-T offers similar performance to a Core 2 Duo found in laptops from 2010/2011 and higher CPU performance than Apple's A7, so it has no problem running Windows 8.1.
Currently the $229 Dell Venue 8 Pro 32GB model utilizes the Z3740D Bay Trail-T SoC:
There is also the emerging market for set-top style PCs:
The ASUS Eee Box EB1037 combines a Bay Trail-M CPU and an NVIDIA GPU into a low cost package:
These types of products represent the "low end" and "low cost" for Microsoft, neither of which lack in performance.
As even more powerful hardware launches later this year, the floor required for running windows will sit even further beneath the performance ceiling of cheap/low end hardware.
Whether or not the consumer takes to Windows 8 in the tablet market is an entirely different story, leading Microsoft into an uphill battle.
Google has nothing to lose. All they have to do is make sure ad revenue covers their development costs of Chrome OS. Its the guys that make these Chromebooks that are taking all the risk and bleeding money, like Acer. We have gone from selling $4000 computers to $200 computers for the past few decades. What has this done for margins and fortunes of the HW OEM and where is all this going? Cheap Netbooks, Chromebooks and Cheap PCs in general are not a good business move for the HW guys. Many of which realized this and if they have any hint of survival skills are running for the exits. All the greats of days past, Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, where are they now? What's gonna cause them to reverse the trend? Even cheaper Chromebooks or Windows PCs? Just who is gonna be left to makes these cheap Chromebooks when most of these guys fold up and leave? Will Chrome OS survive is no one is left to make the HW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11
There is also the emerging market for set-top style PCs:
The ASUS Eee Box EB1037 combines a Bay Trail-M CPU and an NVIDIA GPU into a low cost package:
These types of products represent the "low end" and "low cost" for Microsoft, neither of which lack in performance.
As even more powerful hardware launches later this year, the floor required for running windows will sit even further beneath the performance ceiling of cheap/low end hardware.
Whether or not the consumer takes to Windows 8 in the tablet market is an entirely different story, leading Microsoft into an uphill battle.
When I read this story I first thought that Microsux was finally willing to compete by getting off of its high horse. Then I read it was only for the lower priced machines. The lowest priced tablet with Windoz on the Dell site is $299.
This must be totally about Chromebooks and Chromeboxes. ASUS is selling a Chromebox this month for $179 with the same internal parts as the $199 Acer Chromebook. HP has some Chromebooks that don't cost much more. Toshiba in March will begin selling a 13.3" screen Chromebook with a much better screen than the Acer. It will sell for $279 using the same chip as the Acer. The reports and reviews of these machines using the latest Celeron Haswell 1.4 GHz chip are very favorable. Web pages load very fast and there is no lag. Maybe these chips could run Windoz 8.
Even with these lower prices it makes me wonder who really wants to buy anything with Windoz 8. Everywhere I read customer reviews of different computers there is always a huge percentage of people complaining that they either don't like Windoz 8 or they hate Windoz 8. The word must have gotten around by now to everybody who works with computers that 8 is just not fun to use. It probably will just get worse and worse until Windoz 9 comes around. Who knows what that will bring.
Chromebooks are making huge inroads into the mobile computing world because low end chips are fast enough to get work done.
They probably cost manufacturers even less money than Windoz. How much telephone support is really needed for Chrombooks? I bet it is very small compared to Windoz 8. This is probably a big factor in manufacturers deciding to make Chromebooks. Chromebooks have a feature called "power wash". It is essentially a way to quickly reset everything in the OS to its original configuration. That must save a lot of time for telephone tech support which means much less money spent. That means fewer tech support people are needed for Chrome OS. Windoz support takes forever sometimes.
That ASUS box costs 270 Euros which translates to $365.00. That is above the Windoz low price threshold for their discount. I would still like to own one because it would do everything I needed at home. It's much cheaper than a Mac Mini and uses very little power just like a laptop.
Apple is more willing to make a break with the past in order to innovate, that is very true. They did not "dumb down" iWork, rather they scrapped the old paradigm and began with a clean slate, the new iWork will, in not too much time, surpass the old and will usher in a new era of office productivity software.
Microsoft is more fearful of creating a backlash among their users, and do not create disruptive change as Apple does. There is another difference too. Apple is famously secretive about their activities, and did not tell users what to expect with the new iWork until they dropped it at our feet. We were surprised, yes, but if we hold on for just a little bit longer, we will be happy with what we will have.
Microsoft is more outspoken about their workings, so what they could do is announce a new era of office productivity software, which will be cloud-based (running on Azure) as well as locally, installed on users' computers. They could let people continue using their current office suites for the time being, and then roll out the new version on Windows, OS X, and iOS, with feature parity across all platforms, when it is ready. This would allow current business users to (a) continue using the software they have, and (b) get ready for the new software so that when it arrives, they can begin using it. I do believe that Office can run very similarly on Windows and OS X, the reason why Microsoft did not realease a full-featured suite for Mac is because they are still trying to steer people toward Windows, their own platform. But now that operating systems are (or will be) cost-free, MS can transition to offering software and services, rather than trying to make money from Windows. This is the new paradigm in computing. Adobe has already gone there with Creative Cloud, and now many others will follow.
Apple is more willing to make a break with the past in order to innovate, that is very true. They did not "dumb down" iWork, rather they scrapped the old paradigm and began with a clean slate, the new iWork will, in not too much time, surpass the old and will usher in a new era of office productivity software.
Microsoft is more fearful of creating a backlash among their users, and do not create disruptive change as Apple does. There is another difference too. Apple is famously secretive about their activities, and did not tell users what to expect with the new iWork until they dropped it at our feet. We were surprised, yes, but if we hold on for just a little bit longer, we will be happy with what we will have.
Microsoft is more outspoken about their workings, so what they could do is announce a new era of office productivity software, which will be cloud-based (running on Azure) as well as locally, installed on users' computers. They could let people continue using their current office suites for the time being, and then roll out the new version on Windows, OS X, and iOS, with feature parity across all platforms, when it is ready. This would allow current business users to (a) continue using the software they have, and (b) get ready for the new software so that when it arrives, they can begin using it. I do believe that Office can run very similarly on Windows and OS X, the reason why Microsoft did not realease a full-featured suite for Mac is because they are still trying to steer people toward Windows, their own platform. But now that operating systems are (or will be) cost-free, MS can transition to offering software and services, rather than trying to make money from Windows. This is the new paradigm in computing. Adobe has already gone there with Creative Cloud, and now many others will follow.
What, exactly, is so innovative about iWork? It has nicer templates but a much worse feature set and FAR worse extensibility than Office. Numbers is essentially unusable for anything resembling serious; Keynote is beautiful, but try typesetting an equation (I have been doing it by Skitching pdfs produced with LaTeX, which works, but is not what I would call elegant), Pages is quite nice for letters (I use LaTeX for serious typesetting, so do not know enough to compare it with word). Anyway, just another office suite.
Well the lack of IT cooperation is what started all this. We asked for a VPN for one of our team while she was on maternity leave and they said something like "having a non-company issued PC connected to our private network is insecure." or something to that effect. I needed some static IPs... " sorry we can't allow static IPs for workstations"..etc. etc. All totally lame excuses because they just didn't want to do it. So I went over their head with my connections in upper management. Now when any of the global offices wants to get some challenging web programming or shared storage project done, they don't even bother asking IT, they come straight to me. And it gets billed out of IT's budget which is why they love me so much...not.
In most large organizations I had worked in, there was a hatred and contempt for the IT department, whose main purpose has always appeared to be to protect their own turf. (Smaller high-tech companies are run differently, and very technically savvy universities [Stanford, MIT] are too. "Normal" universities are not). Interesting, a battle I saw in many places involved the IT department's insistence on windows, and the end users' insistence on other things (Linux, OS X). Windows is so opaque that running it obviously helps in turf protection. Now, I notice that the pro-IT people here are, in fact, in IT, which seems to indicate that my experience is far from unique.
Prescott was at 3.6 Ghz. Not 2.5, but the point remains. That was 2003 and now it is 2014. That was the 90 nm node and we are waiting on the 14nm node and the chips will not be faster, they will simply use less power so they can run at higher frequencies for longer periods of time. There have been marginal improvements, but the last new chip from intel gave us an average of 10% faster performance by some measures. Show me a stock Intel chip that ships with the peta hertz frequencies we would have had if things had continued like they did in the 90"s
Why has nearly everyone here assumed that this pertains only/primarily to PCs?
I would assume this has far more relevance to tablets. After the mess caused by Netbooks, I wouldn't think too many manufacturers would be interested in $250 'laptops'. On the other hand, this could allow companies like Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. to offer better prices on Windows 8" tablets and should provide for more competitive pricing versus Android tablets.
I don't see this affecting Apple much, as they don't and won't be pricing at this level. I also wouldn't view this as much of a threat to Chromebooks; any laptop at $250 is not going to run Windows 8 very well.
On another point, how does this work outside the US, where prices are nearly always higher than US markets and obviously you've got constant currency fluctuations?
Mobile has been able to catch up to the PC market based on the lower power envelope that allowed the frequency improvements to continue along with the rising transistor counts. In 2002 ARM was rocking a 13 Mhz chip. Those inexpensive and very power efficient chips have come a long way in 12 years.
I don't think Moore's law has flatlined just yet. Speed may have hit a wall, but other aspects of processor design have gone around it. Look at Geekbench marks since 2002. My current iMac scores 6x higher than my first Intel iMac, seven years later. That's 2x every three years instead of every 18 months. That's not much worse than the benchmark improvement rate in the middle of the 90s. Transistor count growth is actually accelerating. And I designed a 200MHz StrongARM processor into a product way back in 1996, bringing it to market in 1997. The MessagePad 2000 ran a 162MHz StrongARM back in 1997.
You're right about the future not appearing as bright as the past. But we've been here before too. Moore's law was expected to expire in the 70s.
The average iPad customer just wants a great user experience. Once you start slinging the Intel code names, you've already lost the competition for the consumer. They don't speak specs.
Seems like a real visionary leader would be able to recognize that MS needs to create an entirely new OS from scratch that has no relationship to Windows. Create a team isolated from any and all Windows groups and give them the money and carte blanche to get the task done. Build an integrated phone/tablet OS while your at it since PCs are becoming secondary to those devices. As it stands now MS has the cash to do a Manhattan Project like this. In a few years that might not be true.
Seems like a real visionary leader would be able to recognize that MS needs to create an entirely new OS from scratch that has no relationship to Windows. Create a team isolated from any and all Windows groups and give them the money and carte blanche to get the task done.
Comments
Well that may be an exception to the rule. I work for a global corporation and regular employees are not permitted to even plug their personal phone into a USB port, even if it is just for charging. No internet radio, Facebook, YouTube, etc. is permitted and is grounds for termination except for departments like mine that work in programming and creative services. We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. We also have corporate Google apps, email and storage accounts, Dropbox and iCloud and anything else we want, iPhones plugged in etc. None of that is managed by IT, but we are the exception and I am our department's computer and network manager, among or duties. Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department, hence they won't even give us the time of day, but we don't care because we have the blessing of the president of the world headquarters.
We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. ...
Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department
Oh, I see. *That* kind of user. Yes, I'd make sure to keep you walled off, that's for sure! Would still like to work *with* you rather than against you, though, just to have a clue about what you're up to in case it affects me or my other users.
To get a bit closer to the topic at hand; the type of computers affected by this price reduction from Microsoft is exactly the kind of trash I'd like to keep far, far away from my network. It happens now and then that co-workers show up with their private laptops in need of fixing. I'll try to help out but I'm definitely not allowing them onto my network! They're mostly infected by loads of trojans, adware and crapware, have an expired trial version of office and the user wonders how to get the machine back into working order. *sigh*
Well the lack of IT cooperation is what started all this. We asked for a VPN for one of our team while she was on maternity leave and they said something like "having a non-company issued PC connected to our private network is insecure." or something to that effect. I needed some static IPs... " sorry we can't allow static IPs for workstations"..etc. etc. All totally lame excuses because they just didn't want to do it. So I went over their head with my connections in upper management. Now when any of the global offices wants to get some challenging web programming or shared storage project done, they don't even bother asking IT, they come straight to me. And it gets billed out of IT's budget which is why they love me so much...not.
You have to think about revenue outside of the initial purchase. When someone buys an iOS device, they use Siri, iAds, the App Store, buy iOS peripherals and cables, they recommend other people to buy similar products (if they are happy), they use related cloud services.
By not having high volume sales, Microsoft is missing out on Office subscriptions, ad revenue from Bing services (Cortana eventually) and in-app ad revenue, their own app store, their own cloud services.
The revenue from services and apps may be lower per person than profit margin from a purchase but it's recurring revenue. Someone may only buy a new product every 3 years and make Microsoft $50. But Microsoft might make $15 every year per person via services, apps and ads.
1 million customers over 3 years with $50 license = $50m devices + $45m services = $95m
2 million customers over 3 years with $15 license = $15m devices + $90m services = $105m
With enough recurring revenue, Microsoft could afford to make Windows mobile free, which would make it cheaper than Android for some manufacturers as they pay royalties to Microsoft for Android.
We have our own IP blocks and routers which even IT does not have permission to manage. ...
Perhaps our rogue attitude has made us a little unpopular with the regular IT department
Oh, I see. *That* kind of user. Yes, I'd make sure to keep you walled off, that's for sure! Would still like to work *with* you rather than against you, though, just to have a clue about what you're up to in case it affects me or my other users.
To get a bit closer to the topic at hand; the type of computers affected by this price reduction from Microsoft is exactly the kind of trash I'd like to keep far, far away from my network. It happens now and then that co-workers show up with their private laptops in need of fixing. I'll try to help out but I'm definitely not allowing them onto my network! They're mostly infected by loads of trojans, adware and crapware, have an expired trial version of office and the user wonders how to get the machine back into working order. *sigh*
hawkse,
I'm so so sorry. I've always felt It takes a person with immense patience and perservirance to work in IT on Windows. I would not last long in that role. I have made it clear I won't help any of my extended family with Windows issues. I have lost too many hours trying to keep Windows running and configured correctly, not to mention raising my blood pressure both for work and personal. Regards. Life is so much easier and calmer now.
Lets pretend for a moment that by lowering the price to 30% of current price, they are able to increase the number of cheap PC's by over 3.33x. This would yield the same revenue they are getting now on those computers. For this new pricing strategy to be worthwhile, lets say they need to grow unit sales by 4x from current levels.
You have to think about revenue outside of the initial purchase. When someone buys an iOS device, they use Siri, iAds, the App Store, buy iOS peripherals and cables, they recommend other people to buy similar products (if they are happy), they use related cloud services.
By not having high volume sales, Microsoft is missing out on Office subscriptions, ad revenue from Bing services (Cortana eventually) and in-app ad revenue, their own app store, their own cloud services.
The revenue from services and apps may be lower per person than profit margin from a purchase but it's recurring revenue. Someone may only buy a new product every 3 years and make Microsoft $50. But Microsoft might make $15 every year per person via services, apps and ads.
1 million customers over 3 years with $50 license = $50m devices + $45m services = $95m
2 million customers over 3 years with $15 license = $15m devices + $90m services = $105m
With enough recurring revenue, Microsoft could afford to make Windows mobile free, which would make it cheaper than Android for some manufacturers as they pay royalties to Microsoft for Android.
you make a good point. I wonder if cheap stakes who buy @ ;$250, make for good recurring revenue customers.
Does this mean that Microsoft intends to have Windows installed on sub-$250 traditional PC hardware? Being that mobile devices are pretty much touch-enabled from the get-go, it seems strange that Microsoft is not targeting the mobile market more than they are. And how well will the full Windows system perform on such inexpensive hardware? I think Microsoft has gone batty, they haven't a clue about the new computing landscape. I agree with one of the previous posters, Microsoft needs to let go of Windows as a source of profit and should instead direct their resources toward building cross-platform solutions. This means that Azure and subscription-based services will now the company's source of revenue. Windows is a loss leader, and Office should be ported in its full form to OS X and iOS devices. Linux is a little trickier since there are so many distros to choose from.
Windows is a loss leader, and Office should be ported in its full form to OS X and iOS devices. Linux is a little trickier since there are so many distros to choose from.
I doubt MS can afford to dumb down Office enough to be compatible across all platforms. Look how much Apple had to cripple iWork apps just for equality across iOS, OS X and the iCloud version. Not that risky for Apple to do something like that because they don't have so many business users, but if MS did that it would be suicide.
Can I get a refund?
"...In addition, these sub-$250 products do not have to be touch enabled."
Does this mean that Microsoft intends to have Windows installed on sub-$250 traditional PC hardware? Being that mobile devices are pretty much touch-enabled from the get-go, it seems strange that Microsoft is not targeting the mobile market more than they are. And how well will the full Windows system perform on such inexpensive hardware?
The least powerful x86-64 hardware commonly used in the Windows line up is Intel's Bay Trail-T. Bay Trail-T offers similar performance to a Core 2 Duo found in laptops from 2010/2011 and higher CPU performance than Apple's A7, so it has no problem running Windows 8.1.
Currently the $229 Dell Venue 8 Pro 32GB model utilizes the Z3740D Bay Trail-T SoC:
There is also the emerging market for set-top style PCs:
The ASUS Eee Box EB1037 combines a Bay Trail-M CPU and an NVIDIA GPU into a low cost package:
These types of products represent the "low end" and "low cost" for Microsoft, neither of which lack in performance.
As even more powerful hardware launches later this year, the floor required for running windows will sit even further beneath the performance ceiling of cheap/low end hardware.
Whether or not the consumer takes to Windows 8 in the tablet market is an entirely different story, leading Microsoft into an uphill battle.
Google has nothing to lose. All they have to do is make sure ad revenue covers their development costs of Chrome OS. Its the guys that make these Chromebooks that are taking all the risk and bleeding money, like Acer. We have gone from selling $4000 computers to $200 computers for the past few decades. What has this done for margins and fortunes of the HW OEM and where is all this going? Cheap Netbooks, Chromebooks and Cheap PCs in general are not a good business move for the HW guys. Many of which realized this and if they have any hint of survival skills are running for the exits. All the greats of days past, Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, where are they now? What's gonna cause them to reverse the trend? Even cheaper Chromebooks or Windows PCs? Just who is gonna be left to makes these cheap Chromebooks when most of these guys fold up and leave? Will Chrome OS survive is no one is left to make the HW?
There is also the emerging market for set-top style PCs:
The ASUS Eee Box EB1037 combines a Bay Trail-M CPU and an NVIDIA GPU into a low cost package:
These types of products represent the "low end" and "low cost" for Microsoft, neither of which lack in performance.
As even more powerful hardware launches later this year, the floor required for running windows will sit even further beneath the performance ceiling of cheap/low end hardware.
Whether or not the consumer takes to Windows 8 in the tablet market is an entirely different story, leading Microsoft into an uphill battle.
When I read this story I first thought that Microsux was finally willing to compete by getting off of its high horse. Then I read it was only for the lower priced machines. The lowest priced tablet with Windoz on the Dell site is $299.
This must be totally about Chromebooks and Chromeboxes. ASUS is selling a Chromebox this month for $179 with the same internal parts as the $199 Acer Chromebook. HP has some Chromebooks that don't cost much more. Toshiba in March will begin selling a 13.3" screen Chromebook with a much better screen than the Acer. It will sell for $279 using the same chip as the Acer. The reports and reviews of these machines using the latest Celeron Haswell 1.4 GHz chip are very favorable. Web pages load very fast and there is no lag. Maybe these chips could run Windoz 8.
Even with these lower prices it makes me wonder who really wants to buy anything with Windoz 8. Everywhere I read customer reviews of different computers there is always a huge percentage of people complaining that they either don't like Windoz 8 or they hate Windoz 8. The word must have gotten around by now to everybody who works with computers that 8 is just not fun to use. It probably will just get worse and worse until Windoz 9 comes around. Who knows what that will bring.
Chromebooks are making huge inroads into the mobile computing world because low end chips are fast enough to get work done.
They probably cost manufacturers even less money than Windoz. How much telephone support is really needed for Chrombooks? I bet it is very small compared to Windoz 8. This is probably a big factor in manufacturers deciding to make Chromebooks. Chromebooks have a feature called "power wash". It is essentially a way to quickly reset everything in the OS to its original configuration. That must save a lot of time for telephone tech support which means much less money spent. That means fewer tech support people are needed for Chrome OS. Windoz support takes forever sometimes.
That ASUS box costs 270 Euros which translates to $365.00. That is above the Windoz low price threshold for their discount. I would still like to own one because it would do everything I needed at home. It's much cheaper than a Mac Mini and uses very little power just like a laptop.
Apple is more willing to make a break with the past in order to innovate, that is very true. They did not "dumb down" iWork, rather they scrapped the old paradigm and began with a clean slate, the new iWork will, in not too much time, surpass the old and will usher in a new era of office productivity software.
Microsoft is more fearful of creating a backlash among their users, and do not create disruptive change as Apple does. There is another difference too. Apple is famously secretive about their activities, and did not tell users what to expect with the new iWork until they dropped it at our feet. We were surprised, yes, but if we hold on for just a little bit longer, we will be happy with what we will have.
Microsoft is more outspoken about their workings, so what they could do is announce a new era of office productivity software, which will be cloud-based (running on Azure) as well as locally, installed on users' computers. They could let people continue using their current office suites for the time being, and then roll out the new version on Windows, OS X, and iOS, with feature parity across all platforms, when it is ready. This would allow current business users to (a) continue using the software they have, and (b) get ready for the new software so that when it arrives, they can begin using it. I do believe that Office can run very similarly on Windows and OS X, the reason why Microsoft did not realease a full-featured suite for Mac is because they are still trying to steer people toward Windows, their own platform. But now that operating systems are (or will be) cost-free, MS can transition to offering software and services, rather than trying to make money from Windows. This is the new paradigm in computing. Adobe has already gone there with Creative Cloud, and now many others will follow.
Apple is more willing to make a break with the past in order to innovate, that is very true. They did not "dumb down" iWork, rather they scrapped the old paradigm and began with a clean slate, the new iWork will, in not too much time, surpass the old and will usher in a new era of office productivity software.
Microsoft is more fearful of creating a backlash among their users, and do not create disruptive change as Apple does. There is another difference too. Apple is famously secretive about their activities, and did not tell users what to expect with the new iWork until they dropped it at our feet. We were surprised, yes, but if we hold on for just a little bit longer, we will be happy with what we will have.
Microsoft is more outspoken about their workings, so what they could do is announce a new era of office productivity software, which will be cloud-based (running on Azure) as well as locally, installed on users' computers. They could let people continue using their current office suites for the time being, and then roll out the new version on Windows, OS X, and iOS, with feature parity across all platforms, when it is ready. This would allow current business users to (a) continue using the software they have, and (b) get ready for the new software so that when it arrives, they can begin using it. I do believe that Office can run very similarly on Windows and OS X, the reason why Microsoft did not realease a full-featured suite for Mac is because they are still trying to steer people toward Windows, their own platform. But now that operating systems are (or will be) cost-free, MS can transition to offering software and services, rather than trying to make money from Windows. This is the new paradigm in computing. Adobe has already gone there with Creative Cloud, and now many others will follow.
What, exactly, is so innovative about iWork? It has nicer templates but a much worse feature set and FAR worse extensibility than Office. Numbers is essentially unusable for anything resembling serious; Keynote is beautiful, but try typesetting an equation (I have been doing it by Skitching pdfs produced with LaTeX, which works, but is not what I would call elegant), Pages is quite nice for letters (I use LaTeX for serious typesetting, so do not know enough to compare it with word). Anyway, just another office suite.
Well the lack of IT cooperation is what started all this. We asked for a VPN for one of our team while she was on maternity leave and they said something like "having a non-company issued PC connected to our private network is insecure." or something to that effect. I needed some static IPs... " sorry we can't allow static IPs for workstations"..etc. etc. All totally lame excuses because they just didn't want to do it. So I went over their head with my connections in upper management. Now when any of the global offices wants to get some challenging web programming or shared storage project done, they don't even bother asking IT, they come straight to me. And it gets billed out of IT's budget which is why they love me so much...not.
In most large organizations I had worked in, there was a hatred and contempt for the IT department, whose main purpose has always appeared to be to protect their own turf. (Smaller high-tech companies are run differently, and very technically savvy universities [Stanford, MIT] are too. "Normal" universities are not). Interesting, a battle I saw in many places involved the IT department's insistence on windows, and the end users' insistence on other things (Linux, OS X). Windows is so opaque that running it obviously helps in turf protection. Now, I notice that the pro-IT people here are, in fact, in IT, which seems to indicate that my experience is far from unique.
Prescott was at 3.6 Ghz. Not 2.5, but the point remains. That was 2003 and now it is 2014. That was the 90 nm node and we are waiting on the 14nm node and the chips will not be faster, they will simply use less power so they can run at higher frequencies for longer periods of time. There have been marginal improvements, but the last new chip from intel gave us an average of 10% faster performance by some measures. Show me a stock Intel chip that ships with the peta hertz frequencies we would have had if things had continued like they did in the 90"s
Why has nearly everyone here assumed that this pertains only/primarily to PCs?
I would assume this has far more relevance to tablets. After the mess caused by Netbooks, I wouldn't think too many manufacturers would be interested in $250 'laptops'. On the other hand, this could allow companies like Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. to offer better prices on Windows 8" tablets and should provide for more competitive pricing versus Android tablets.
I don't see this affecting Apple much, as they don't and won't be pricing at this level. I also wouldn't view this as much of a threat to Chromebooks; any laptop at $250 is not going to run Windows 8 very well.
On another point, how does this work outside the US, where prices are nearly always higher than US markets and obviously you've got constant currency fluctuations?
Mobile has been able to catch up to the PC market based on the lower power envelope that allowed the frequency improvements to continue along with the rising transistor counts. In 2002 ARM was rocking a 13 Mhz chip. Those inexpensive and very power efficient chips have come a long way in 12 years.
I don't think Moore's law has flatlined just yet. Speed may have hit a wall, but other aspects of processor design have gone around it. Look at Geekbench marks since 2002. My current iMac scores 6x higher than my first Intel iMac, seven years later. That's 2x every three years instead of every 18 months. That's not much worse than the benchmark improvement rate in the middle of the 90s. Transistor count growth is actually accelerating. And I designed a 200MHz StrongARM processor into a product way back in 1996, bringing it to market in 1997. The MessagePad 2000 ran a 162MHz StrongARM back in 1997.
You're right about the future not appearing as bright as the past. But we've been here before too. Moore's law was expected to expire in the 70s.
Here's an interesting worry about the future...
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck
"Blah blah blah Bay Trail-T blah blah blah"
The average iPad customer just wants a great user experience. Once you start slinging the Intel code names, you've already lost the competition for the consumer. They don't speak specs.
Seems like a real visionary leader would be able to recognize that MS needs to create an entirely new OS from scratch that has no relationship to Windows. Create a team isolated from any and all Windows groups and give them the money and carte blanche to get the task done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(operating_system)