Well, to be fair, plans like this are - or at least should be - months if not years in the making. That's how it works with "normal" companies at least. I don't think anyone expects MS to stand still waiting for the next CEO to tell them how things will be going forward (even if they'd probably benefit from doing so).
If Ford's CEO joins MS, Ford would continue to make vehicles based on pre-existing R&D, future planning, etc. It would be a while before the new CEO's influence would be apparent. In the world of tech there's a much faster track of course. Steve Jobs' booting almost everything in the pipeline upon his return to Apple is a good example.
That said, and based on their shotgun approach to marketing, it's very difficult to tell what, if any, R&D and/or future planning happens at MS these days. However if this "one size fits all" with "all" meaning "Windows" concept is Ballmer's baby...his legacy will certainly be cemented.
That companies have long term plans and properly work to those is beyond dispute. But in this case, if that is indeed what Microsoft is doing, it's certainly peculiar.
Consider: They are in the midst of removing CEO Ballmer presumably for a variety of causes including his inability to make Microsoft viable in the developing technologies of today, particularly mobile and others. Mr. Ballmer has been working many years establishing policies and direction in these fields and has not done well. The MS board clearly is unsatisfied and is looking for a replacement.
And yet, before they do have that replacement, Microsoft continues to move forward on the strategies that Mr. Ballmer established, the strategies that led to his demise, the strategies that the new CEO - whoever comes in - was likely not responsible for and for which he will not have ownership?
Shouldn't the new CEO be tasked first and foremost with moving beyond the failures of the previous administration and developing new directions and programs? Would the new regime simply continue the activities of the old one? Would not seem at all to be the best approach.
So what should Microsoft be doing at the moment? It could be argued that they have to either do something or nothing, and doing nothing is not positive at all, so they have to do something. And that something is to continue with the - failed - existing plans and programs for lack of any better ideas.
So what should Microsoft be doing at the moment? It could be argued that they have to either do something or nothing, and doing nothing is not positive at all, so they have to do something. And that something is to continue with the - failed - existing plans and programs for lack of any better ideas.
Good question. But it wouldn't surprise me if Ballmer thought marrying a toaster to a refrigerator was genius no matter who came up with it originally.
When Microsoft released Win 8, they even tried to bolt the Fisher-Price touch interface onto their servers only to have to reverse their convergence to a regular keyboard. So, right now they have one interface for their server software, another for smart phones (that doesn't have any common apps with anything else that runs Win 8), another set of apps that run on Win 8 RT, and another set of apps that are not "touch aware" and run on intel PCs that do not have touch screens; while another group of apps that are "touch aware" and run on Intel-based hardware that have touch screens, but can't run legacy software, Additionally, Microsoft has several versions of OS, depending on whether it's for home, school, or Enterprise... suddenly it makes sense that the people in the Microsoft Ads throw their hardware around and act like they have a terrible case of twitching and St Vitus' Dance...
And yet, before they do have that replacement, Microsoft continues to move forward on the strategies that Mr. Ballmer established, the strategies that led to his demise, the strategies that the new CEO - whoever comes in - was likely not responsible for and for which he will not have ownership?
Shouldn't the new CEO be tasked first and foremost with moving beyond the failures of the previous administration and developing new directions and programs? Would the new regime simply continue the activities of the old one? Would not seem at all to be the best approach.
So what should Microsoft be doing at the moment? It could be argued that they have to either do something or nothing, and doing nothing is not positive at all, so they have to do something. And that something is to continue with the - failed - existing plans and programs for lack of any better ideas.
Well...
The board is soft balling Ballmer. If they really wanted him gone, they could appoint an interim CEO until a permanent replacement can be found. His successor can change course and cancel projects when that day comes around, but until then, Ballmer can continue to do whatever he wants.
A direct analogy is Steve Jobs couldn't undo anything at Apple until Gil Amelio was officially released as CEO. Steve was deferential to Amelio until then.
So, Windows 9 then. Any bets that it won't be free?
Sure...I'll take that bet. With a half-dozen iterations of Windows OS being churned out each time a new version of Windows is released, MS makes too much money to simply eliminate them all and give one away. Besides, the poor I.T. drones need to justify their budgets...particularly the ones that are still nursing XP along.
Now, could MS issue a crippled Surface RT version of Windows that will barely support anything without upgrading to a paid copy just so that they can create another "me too" ad? Sure...wouldn't surprise me.
When Microsoft released Win 8, they even tried to bolt the Fisher-Price touch interface onto their servers only to have to reverse their convergence to a regular keyboard. So, right now they have one interface for their server software, another for smart phones (that doesn't have any common apps with anything else that runs Win 8), another set of apps that run on Win 8 RT, and another set of apps that are not "touch aware" and run on intel PCs that do not have touch screens; while another group of apps that are "touch aware" and run on Intel-based hardware that have touch screens, but can't run legacy software, Additionally, Microsoft has several versions of OS, depending on whether it's for home, school, or Enterprise... suddenly it makes sense that the people in the Microsoft Ads throw their hardware around and act like they have a terrible case of twitching and St Vitus' Dance...
I love your posts! Please don't stop. That last sentence…????
I agree with others who said each device should have its most appropriate UI. With that being said, WTF was the point of Launchpad on OSX? It strikes me as just as misguided as what Microsoft is doing.
I agree with you about UI. I do like using Launchpad though, with the four finger pinch on the external trackpad. It needs to be smarter-organised into categories and most recently used.
Hmmmm, feels like regardless of implementation/interface limitations, Microsoft are focused to make everything look the same.
They should focus more on making the content/information flow across devices instead of giving everything the 'Metro UI' lick of paint.
The problem with AI articles is they quote other reports and miss out huge points of information and end up reporting something completely different.
The article they've references is about merging Desktop, Phone and Xbox OS in terms of API's. So if a developer writes an app for the phone, all the same API's will be available on the Desktop or Xbox. At no point does it say all 3 will have the same UI, in fact it says the complete opposite. Each device will continue to have it's own UI optimized for each experience as they do now.
Comments
Converge three platforms that nobody wants. Great idea.
Well, to be fair, plans like this are - or at least should be - months if not years in the making. That's how it works with "normal" companies at least. I don't think anyone expects MS to stand still waiting for the next CEO to tell them how things will be going forward (even if they'd probably benefit from doing so).
If Ford's CEO joins MS, Ford would continue to make vehicles based on pre-existing R&D, future planning, etc. It would be a while before the new CEO's influence would be apparent. In the world of tech there's a much faster track of course. Steve Jobs' booting almost everything in the pipeline upon his return to Apple is a good example.
That said, and based on their shotgun approach to marketing, it's very difficult to tell what, if any, R&D and/or future planning happens at MS these days. However if this "one size fits all" with "all" meaning "Windows" concept is Ballmer's baby...his legacy will certainly be cemented.
That companies have long term plans and properly work to those is beyond dispute. But in this case, if that is indeed what Microsoft is doing, it's certainly peculiar.
Consider: They are in the midst of removing CEO Ballmer presumably for a variety of causes including his inability to make Microsoft viable in the developing technologies of today, particularly mobile and others. Mr. Ballmer has been working many years establishing policies and direction in these fields and has not done well. The MS board clearly is unsatisfied and is looking for a replacement.
And yet, before they do have that replacement, Microsoft continues to move forward on the strategies that Mr. Ballmer established, the strategies that led to his demise, the strategies that the new CEO - whoever comes in - was likely not responsible for and for which he will not have ownership?
Shouldn't the new CEO be tasked first and foremost with moving beyond the failures of the previous administration and developing new directions and programs? Would the new regime simply continue the activities of the old one? Would not seem at all to be the best approach.
So what should Microsoft be doing at the moment? It could be argued that they have to either do something or nothing, and doing nothing is not positive at all, so they have to do something. And that something is to continue with the - failed - existing plans and programs for lack of any better ideas.
Well...
So what should Microsoft be doing at the moment? It could be argued that they have to either do something or nothing, and doing nothing is not positive at all, so they have to do something. And that something is to continue with the - failed - existing plans and programs for lack of any better ideas.
Exactly.
As a last resort, Microsoft can call on Bill Gates, because as you can see in this photo, "Bill Gates knows his shit!"
When Microsoft released Win 8, they even tried to bolt the Fisher-Price touch interface onto their servers only to have to reverse their convergence to a regular keyboard. So, right now they have one interface for their server software, another for smart phones (that doesn't have any common apps with anything else that runs Win 8), another set of apps that run on Win 8 RT, and another set of apps that are not "touch aware" and run on intel PCs that do not have touch screens; while another group of apps that are "touch aware" and run on Intel-based hardware that have touch screens, but can't run legacy software, Additionally, Microsoft has several versions of OS, depending on whether it's for home, school, or Enterprise... suddenly it makes sense that the people in the Microsoft Ads throw their hardware around and act like they have a terrible case of twitching and St Vitus' Dance...
Because they're trying to turn the PC into a tablet, not a living room console.
The board is soft balling Ballmer. If they really wanted him gone, they could appoint an interim CEO until a permanent replacement can be found. His successor can change course and cancel projects when that day comes around, but until then, Ballmer can continue to do whatever he wants.
A direct analogy is Steve Jobs couldn't undo anything at Apple until Gil Amelio was officially released as CEO. Steve was deferential to Amelio until then.
So, Windows 9 then. Any bets that it won't be free?
Sure...I'll take that bet. With a half-dozen iterations of Windows OS being churned out each time a new version of Windows is released, MS makes too much money to simply eliminate them all and give one away. Besides, the poor I.T. drones need to justify their budgets...particularly the ones that are still nursing XP along.
Now, could MS issue a crippled Surface RT version of Windows that will barely support anything without upgrading to a paid copy just so that they can create another "me too" ad? Sure...wouldn't surprise me.
I love your posts! Please don't stop. That last sentence…????
I agree with you about UI. I do like using Launchpad though, with the four finger pinch on the external trackpad. It needs to be smarter-organised into categories and most recently used.
And this is on a site about Apple news because......................................?
Hmmmm, feels like regardless of implementation/interface limitations, Microsoft are focused to make everything look the same.
They should focus more on making the content/information flow across devices instead of giving everything the 'Metro UI' lick of paint.
The problem with AI articles is they quote other reports and miss out huge points of information and end up reporting something completely different.
The article they've references is about merging Desktop, Phone and Xbox OS in terms of API's. So if a developer writes an app for the phone, all the same API's will be available on the Desktop or Xbox. At no point does it say all 3 will have the same UI, in fact it says the complete opposite. Each device will continue to have it's own UI optimized for each experience as they do now.