Microsoft to slash Windows RT licensing fees in effort to boost soft sales - report

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 70
    red oakred oak Posts: 873member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Of course it will. Imagine if Apple released something like the surface and it was a complete sales disaster, how the stock would utterly vaporize. Apple stock gets hammered when Apple announces the most successful quarter in corporate history, or the most successful phone launch in history, record breaking sales in all their product lines, etc. 


     


    Oh, and Windows RT is a clusterfuck- all the disadvanatges of Windows 8 Metro and lack of apps, and none of the advantages of being able to run classic Window applications. Not sure who in their right mind would choose that over other platforms. 



     


    That is why Tim should (and now is) buying back their stock aggressively.  Use this f*** up situation to Apple's advantage.   If they continue purchases at the rate through 2020, they will effectively take 30% of Apple private  

  • Reply 42 of 70
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Of course it will. Imagine if Apple released something like the surface and it was a complete sales disaster, how the stock would utterly vaporize. Apple stock gets hammered when Apple announces the most successful quarter in corporate history, or the most successful phone launch in history, record breaking sales in all their product lines, etc. 

    Oh, and Windows RT is a clusterfuck- all the disadvanatges of Windows 8 Metro and lack of apps, and none of the advantages of being able to run classic Window applications. Not sure who in their right mind would choose that over other platforms. 

    You're forgetting about Windows CE/Mobile which only competitor was Palm until HP acquired it and effectively killed both it and their iPaq's (from Compaq) when first generation "smart"phones (blackberry devices) started taking off.

    What I find funny in the grand scheme of things is that HP seems to acquire everything just as it's failing and then gives it the deathblow. Microsoft does the opposite... puts stuff out there that NOBODY WANTS, markets it like it's the next hot thing and then dumps it. Good golly the only reason I never bought the CE devices a third time was because (like the iPhone and iPad) I needed a tool store notes that was lightweight and lasted more than one day on a battery. They were horrible devices for doing anything resembling work on.

    Keeping that in mind, when the iPhone came out, I passed, and continued to pass on the iPhone device because I still have a working cell phone. 6 years later, cell phone still works and still no iPhone, but I've since bought a macmini and an iPad.
  • Reply 43 of 70
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,179member


    I think it's kind of a shame.  Windows RT could have been a great tablet OS, if Microsoft had focused it on being a tablet OS, and not a weird tablet/desktop hybrid.  Having RT and Pro under the same Windows 8 banner just made things doubly strained.


     


    I might be alone here, but I really like Modern UI.  It forms a nice middle ground between the simplicity and style of iOS, and the customisability and featureset of Android.  The live tiles, more open data sharing between apps, and some of the UI elements are arguably superior to iOS.  If it didn't have the barely-unusable-with-touch desktop hiding underneath it, and focused on its strengths then it could be a really good contender for the tablet OS space (just like Windows Phone 8 is a really good contender for the phone space on pure OS terms, i.e. app ecosystem aside).  It isn't without problems, sure, and probably the major one is the lack of apps, but none are fundamental, and iOS has been through a lot of the same or similar issues, fixed with successive iterations.


     


    It's the Windows-everywhere philosophy that is blighting Microsoft.  Windows 8 Pro should have been Windows 8, and desktop/notebook orientated (maybe with Modern UI as a Front Row-style launchable environment).  Windows RT should have been Modern UI only, and rebranded as something new; a shame they couldn't use Metro OS, I liked that as a name.


     


    I hope they manage to turn it around and realise that this hybrid model is a mistake.

  • Reply 44 of 70
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    s.metcalf wrote: »
    Windows Server is very immature too, in fact every Microsoft OS is because they're all shit from the ground up. Yet IT managers still shell out $800 for each license when superior alternatives are available for free. Any administrator that buys Microsoft should hang their head in shame. Microsoft sell themselves on compatibility and existing tools and software but building reliance on this closed source corporation is worse in the long run in comparison to building your own software and tools. And don't get me started on visualisation. Bill Gates and Microsoft are probably the world's biggest environmental vandals when you look at the general quality and efficiency of their software.

    At some point there has to be a major shift in momentum away from Microsoft...there just has to be. I feel there's the mood to and that's why Microsoft can't make it in the mobile arena. I just really hope we start to see a seismic shift from the desktop as well.

    Mmmm...

    The mood to shift away from Microsoft…

    Mmmm...

    I wonder what software the IRS uses on its servers and desktops…
  • Reply 45 of 70
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member


    ...Wang went on to call the Windows RT platform "very immature."..


     


    Well at least they got their advertising right.


     


     


    MS are zooned


  • Reply 46 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post



    When will Microsoft understand that they are a software company? Cut the BS and port Office to iOS you stupid tards.... Oh, and while you are at it, port .Net to Mac OS also...



    EGlasheen


    A bit harsh....but the best idea yet! :)

  • Reply 47 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cynic View Post


    Despite the fact that nowadays even in Enterprise the iPad dominates adoption, because people slowly learned to move on, to forget two decades old tools and are discovering that custom tools, made for purpose and designed for touch input are so much more empowering and productive than running legacy software with a stylus, there's a simple reason for this:


     


    Microsoft has never learned it's lesson. They have been trying for over a decade to introduce new computing form factors and they always based it on their Windows technology and brand. What they didn't realise is that the average consumer (and by this I mean really average technophobe, not the kind of people voicing their opinion on boards such as this) just doesn't care at all.


     


    What people want is beauty, simplicity and easy of use. Power comes though this and not through "raw" power allowing you to run apps made in 1997 on a modern tablet.


     


    IMHO Microsoft also highly overestimates the impact of Office. This might or might not drive enterprise adoption, however the average consumer doesn't give a damn about Office and hence I believe their whole marketing campaign to be flawed. Those people that make decisions regarding IT adoption know about Surface and Surface Pro. Those that don't (regular consumers), certainly won't get impressed by ads showcasing how Powerpoint works. Sorry, that's just not a selling point for most people because they simply have no use for it.


     


    And of course we have a brand problem, I'm not sure why Microsoft doesn't realise this. Windows is huge because of historic reasons, because it still ships on almost all classic PCs sold today and people are used to it for a long time now. However, at the same time I believe when looking at the big picture, there are actually very few people that like it or that associate Windows with something pleasant. Windows does not run on most modern mobile computing devices and people just don't want it there, because in contrast to XBOX, Windows just doesn't really have a good reputation amongst consumers. People hated it on their PCs, people cursed it and people will generally rather say "eeewwwww" than "cool" when you tell them about a phone running Windows.


     


    Despite the Metro attempt to really come up with a "unique" interface, Microsoft has just never had the guts to come up with something completely new and this is what cost them. They have always tried to push their Windows on any form factor and this has lead to nothing but mostly horrible experiences. And yes, even Surface is a horrible experience. We might argue about a few good ideas in there but that's about it.



    Very thoughtful comment(s). I agree with everything you said. :)

  • Reply 48 of 70
    timgriff84timgriff84 Posts: 912member
    rayz wrote: »
    All good points, but there are two things to bear in mind:
    1. Cost. Windows7 was over a hundred dollars when it was released. Microsoft saw that Windows8 was facing adoption problems on launch and so immediately dropped its price to $40, which is more palatable for folks who want to just try it out to see if it meets their needs. 
    2. Counting. Microsoft figures include OEM purchases and end user purchases in the figures. If you do buy a new machine then you have to have Windows8 on it, though you can downgrade for free. The question is how many of these machines are being downgraded?

    I think MS should have kept the desktop and tablet metaphor entirely separate, personally. Having used Windows8 on a laptop, I find the massive buttons more of a hindrance than a help (great on a tablet though). If things were going as well as they'd hoped then I'm not sure they would talking about restoring the start menu and including an option to start up in desktop mode; as climb-downs go it doesn't get much bigger than that.

    Still, I think another problem is the press: they make up a lot of stuff. I never thought Vista's problems were anywhere near as big as the press made out.
    I agree the cheap price probably boosted sales. But it also meant a lot of people that would buy a new pc for win 8, just bought an upgrade. When a new pc was £400 and windows was £150 buying a new pc made sense. When a new pc is still £400 but windows is £25 and is going to make your existing pc faster, it doesn't make so much sense.

    The second point about counting I wouldn't read much into. Does the average user even know how to downgrade?

    The return of the start button and booting into windows i think has been over hyped with people calling it a uturn. Looking at the new feature list in windows 8.1 its a similar size to a new version of osx and its basically all additions to metro. The old start menu isnt returning, all that's happening is the start menu hot corner is turning into a solid button.

    Its no different to apple changing if launchpad shows by default and if the doc had a launchpad button or just hot corner.
  • Reply 49 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post



    Windows Server is very immature too, in fact every Microsoft OS is because they're all shit from the ground up. Yet IT managers still shell out $800 for each license when superior alternatives are available for free. Any administrator that buys Microsoft should hang their head in shame. Microsoft sell themselves on compatibility and existing tools and software but building reliance on this closed source corporation is worse in the long run in comparison to building your own software and tools. And don't get me started on visualisation. Bill Gates and Microsoft are probably the world's biggest environmental vandals when you look at the general quality and efficiency of their software.



    At some point there has to be a major shift in momentum away from Microsoft...there just has to be. I feel there's the mood to and that's why Microsoft can't make it in the mobile arena. I just really hope we start to see a seismic shift from the desktop as well.


    Windows server is not shit. I am  an IT admin and use it heavily. I will not move from windows server till another OS has an equivalent to Group Policy. IT would have to be able to manage the smallest detail on any machine. Also has to be just as easy also. I can do a lot of things without any scripts or programming.


     


    Something tells me you do not have to manage hundreds of machines at once.


     


    For things like web and email servers you can use alternatives but for managing 100's of computers, and saying what users can and can't use on their machines I still do not see an alternative .


     


    I can change icons on a remote machine, I can say what the home page is remotely on the fly. I can make the default browser firefox remotely. I can limit what programs a person can use remotely . I can limit and configure every square inch of a windows machine from windows server. I have not found a direct replacement for this in Linux yet. Even Apple doesn't let you manage everything within a gui .


     


    Do not bash Microsoft Server just because you do not use all its features.


     


    I can get free tools that even let me manage Apple devices from windows Server.

  • Reply 50 of 70


    I agree with majortom;


     


    Microsoft's only saving grace is Excel, maybe Exchange. There is no other application that has the power of Excel... period. It is the basic tool for all businesses, including business intelligence work.


     


    Add, SharePoint for collaboration and BI, the combo is perfect. (OpenText sucks).


     


    Until someone develops an alternative to Excel... that is as powerful as Excel... Microsoft will still be the choice for enterprise business.


     


    Still haven't found a collaborative tool better than SharePoint either...

  • Reply 51 of 70
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post


    Windows server is not shit. I am  an IT admin and use it heavily. I will not move from windows server till another OS has an equivalent to Group Policy. IT would have to be able to manage the smallest detail on any machine. Also has to be just as easy also. I can do a lot of things without any scripts or programming.


     


    Something tells me you do not have to manage hundreds of machines at once.


     


    For things like web and email servers you can use alternatives but for managing 100's of computers, and saying what users can and can't use on their machines I still do not see an alternative .


     


    I can change icons on a remote machine, I can say what the home page is remotely on the fly. I can make the default browser firefox remotely. I can limit what programs a person can use remotely . I can limit and configure every square inch of a windows machine from windows server. I have not found a direct replacement for this in Linux yet. Even Apple doesn't let you manage everything within a gui .


     


    Do not bash Microsoft Server just because you do not use all its features.


     


    I can get free tools that even let me manage Apple devices from windows Server.



     


    Apple's MCX support everything you need already.... you should not bash Apple just because you don't know about Open directory client management 

  • Reply 52 of 70
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    bigmac2 wrote: »
    Apple's MCX support everything you need already.... you should not bash Apple just because you don't know about Open directory client management 

    Sorry but Apple's Open Directory can't hold a candle to MS's offering, for large enterprise organizations, Active Directory is by far better. However, Centrify (http://www.centrify.com/directcontrol/grouppolicy.asp) makes a viable solution that defiantly competes and is available for OSX. I personally wouldn't choose OSX or Windows for my company's needs but use Solaris or RedHat (CentOS, Scientific Linux) instead.
  • Reply 53 of 70
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    I can change icons on a remote machine, I can say what the home page is remotely on the fly. I can make the default browser firefox remotely. I can limit what programs a person can use remotely . I can limit and configure every square inch of a windows machine from windows server.

    I can do all that with UNIX using a cell phone connected via a terminal app using VI. GUI's, blah, a real admin does it all in a terminal baby!!
  • Reply 54 of 70
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post





    Sorry but Apple's Open Directory can't hold a candle to MS's offering, for large enterprise organizations, Active Directory is by far better. However, Centrify (http://www.centrify.com/directcontrol/grouppolicy.asp) makes a viable solution that defiantly competes and is available for OSX. I personally wouldn't choose OSX or Windows for my company's needs but use Solaris or RedHat (CentOS, Scientific Linux) instead.


     


    Most IT doesn't even know about Apple MCX, Kerberos single sign-in solution, Remote booting and home folder. M$ only offering is to make sure corporate IT wont lose their jobs. 


     


    Sorry to be so abrasive, but I'm so sick to deal with institutionalized users with locked down computer by IT derp who think WinXP + IE 7 is the safest environment.  

  • Reply 55 of 70
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 615member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post


    Add, SharePoint for collaboration and BI, the combo is perfect. (OpenText sucks).


     


    Still haven't found a collaborative tool better than SharePoint either...



     


    From our experience, SharePoint is a cluster. Granted, it may have gotten better in 2010, but with 2007 our devs were basically rewriting the security model from scratch after reporting that what Microsoft provided was (unsurprisingly, based on their historical apparent ambivalence toward security) lackluster at best. The comment below exemplifies what I believe is the major motivation between IT shops choosing Microsoft products: "It's from Microsoft, it must be good." or "It's from Microsoft. I don't know anything else."


     


    From what I've seen, collaboration tools like Plone blow (the comparatively pathetic) SharePoint out of the water. Plone is far more customizable, has a better security model, integrates with more tools, and on top of that it's free. The only thing SharePoint has going for it is the built-in integration with Office applications - and I suspect that integration is more about continuing the reliance on Microsoft products (aka "Ensuring we maintain our virtual monopoly") over adding functionality. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


    Most IT doesn't even know about Apple MCX, Kerberos single sign-in solution, Remote booting and home folder. M$ only offering is to make sure corporate IT wont lose their jobs. 


  • Reply 56 of 70
    timgriff84timgriff84 Posts: 912member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post


    From our experience, SharePoint is a cluster. Granted, it may have gotten better in 2010, but with 2007 our devs were basically rewriting the security model from scratch after reporting that what Microsoft provided was (unsurprisingly, based on their historical apparent ambivalence toward security) lackluster at best. The comment below exemplifies what I believe is the major motivation between IT shops choosing Microsoft products: "It's from Microsoft, it must be good." or "It's from Microsoft. I don't know anything else."


     


    From what I've seen, collaboration tools like Plone blow (the comparatively pathetic) SharePoint out of the water. Plone is far more customizable, has a better security model, integrates with more tools, and on top of that it's free. The only thing SharePoint has going for it is the built-in integration with Office applications - and I suspect that integration is more about continuing the reliance on Microsoft products (aka "Ensuring we maintain our virtual monopoly") over adding functionality. 


     



    Always get a chuckle when I read something like "our devs were basically rewriting the security model from scratch". 99.9% of the time it usually means, our devs didn't understand the security model, because our devs don't actually have enough skills in security. Which isn't an indication of bad devs, 99.9% of devs aren't good at security. Unless your job role is just security, the nature of security and how specialised it is just means your not going to be good at it.


     


    Personally I can't even imagine how rewriting the security model could ever be cost affective. That must have cost a multiple of what SharePoint actually cost in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to just go with something else?

  • Reply 57 of 70
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 615member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    Always get a chuckle when I read something like "our devs were basically rewriting the security model from scratch". 99.9% of the time it usually means, our devs didn't understand the security model, because our devs don't actually have enough skills in security. Which isn't an indication of bad devs, 99.9% of devs aren't good at security. Unless your job role is just security, the nature of security and how specialised it is just means your not going to be good at it.


     


    Personally I can't even imagine how rewriting the security model could ever be cost affective. That must have cost a multiple of what SharePoint actually cost in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to just go with something else?



     


    The guy I was speaking with in particular about this is one of the smartest devs (and most knowledgeable of internals) I know. Back when we were on XP, he managed to hack our local machine administrator account passwords in a matter of seconds (which points out two things to me: A) he knows security, and B) Microsoft security, as I mentioned in my previous comment, has historically been a joke).


     


    I completely agree with you on your second point, however. Going with a different solution would have been far preferable. Unfortunately, I work for a rather large corporation whose policies are made above (unfortunately by IT people who don't bother to look for the correct solution, only the solution they know). Company-wide, Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, and SharePoint are all the company standard. 

  • Reply 58 of 70
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post


     


    That is why Tim should (and now is) buying back their stock aggressively.  Use this f*** up situation to Apple's advantage.   If they continue purchases at the rate through 2020, they will effectively take 30% of Apple private  



    In order to privatise Apple they would need to buy all the shares, I don't see that happening. I don't intend to sel mine any time soon , at least not until they go to $700

  • Reply 59 of 70
    eglasheeneglasheen Posts: 45member


    Interesting. I find that most of the "cluster" with SharePoint is from users and IT not having a clue of what they are doing. Do you have a Governance Plan and a committee that meets regularly? My last two enterprise deployments, one government and one manufacturing, did not; never heard of such a thing let alone have a business model for the platform. Solid user and IT training program? Good luck with that.


     


    Do not know anything about Plone, and will check it out. However, the key and future of these platforms will be integration with Excel as well as other OLAP data (SAP etc.). I still do not know of any other platform that does this better, excluding OpenText which is much more a cluster and not worth the price tag and frustration.


     


    Coming from the government to the private sector, I am surprise how backwards corporate IT is; ie building silos from the bottom up.


     


    I do not think the quote  "It's from Microsoft, it must be good." or "It's from Microsoft. I don't know anything else." is true from what I have experienced. We know the products are full of holes. However, nothing else truly has the depth of features, especially true if you are restricted to on-premise because of security


     


    Ed Glasheen.

  • Reply 60 of 70
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 615member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post


    Interesting. I find that most of the "cluster" with SharePoint is from users and IT not having a clue of what they are doing. Do you have a Governance Plan and a committee that meets regularly? My last two enterprise deployments, one government and one manufacturing, did not; never heard of such a thing let alone have a business model for the platform. Solid user and IT training program? Good luck with that.


     


    Do not know anything about Plone, and will check it out. However, the key and future of these platforms will be integration with Excel as well as other OLAP data (SAP etc.). I still do not know of any other platform that does this better, excluding OpenText which is much more a cluster and not worth the price tag and frustration.


     


    I do not think the quote  "It's from Microsoft, it must be good." or "It's from Microsoft. I don't know anything else." is true from what I have experienced. We know the products are full of holes. However, nothing else truly has the depth of features, especially true if you are restricted to on-premise because of security


     


    Ed Glasheen.



     


    My point is that there are often times better solutions out there. I haven't personally set up a collaborative site using Sharepoint, Plone, Drupal, or anything else; I'm simply basing my comments on the experiences of folks that I trust. From my discussions with them, I understand Plone to be more powerful, customizable, and secure than Sharepoint, while Sharepoint beats Drupal in power and customization (and probably security); Drupal is nice from an ease of set up and cost, i.e. free, and can be appropriate for smaller sites.


     


    Plone integrates with Active Directory security, however I doubt it has the tight integration with Excel that Sharepoint has. That's the side-effect of Microsoft owning them both - they can build support for their own server tools into their client tools and, thus, effectively kill (or diminish) perceived support for non-Microsoft products (much as they have tried to do with the integration between IIS and IE with ActiveX/COM objects that only worked with Microsoft's Internet server and client components, to say nothing of how they tried to kill the cross-platform benefits of Java with a customized Microsoft Java VM with Windows-specific extensions, but I digress...).


     


    And are you really suggesting that most IT shops examine alternative solutions to Office, Sharepoint, or Windows in general? Remember the old adage, "Nobody was fired for using IBM?" For the past couple of decades that has held true for Microsoft (although, thankfully, it seems to be lessening as many corporate IT departments are opening up to Linux and Mac OS as alternatives to Windows client and server environments).

Sign In or Register to comment.