Maybe Microsoft would like to revisit this ??
chandra wrote: »
MS should start writing software for Apple or go back to it's ill-gotten roots MS-DOS.
hypoluxa wrote: »
I second that notion. Software is where they should continue in. Leave the OS/hardware market. They produce the tackiest HW. Sans the XBox. That seemed to have worked for them, except didnt they lose money producing it or whatever?
plovell wrote: »
Maybe Microsoft would like to revisit this ??
<img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="45780" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/45780/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 191px">
rogifan wrote: »
I just visited the Verge and didn't see one story about Microsoft's potential layoffs. There was however a story about senator Cory Booker taking selfies with other senators. Wow is that site going downhill.
I think it was nearly all Ballmer's delusional myopia and Bill G being retired in place and spending more time on hobbies than the business. The herd of nerds was doing exactly what it was told to do. If you look at most of the Ballmer interviews and talks in that era you'll see that he never took Apple seriously in any area at all, even the iPod. He came across as truly believing Microsoft had an answer and secret sauce to counter every product by Apple and all the other what he thought were Microsoft wannabes. He had the iPod killer with Zune, the iPhone killer with the keyboard laden Windows Mobile device, the iPad killer with Surface, and all of the other Microsoft magic dust coated me-too-late to the party ecosystem and services.
Microsoft didn't miscalculate the need or timing for mobile, they (or Steve & Bill) grossly miscalculated and over estimated the value of what they had to offer. They started focusing on mobile at least decade before the iPhone hit the market. Remember Pegasus and WinPad? They had the vision to a large degree but failed on the execution. Apple's early success in the Apple Jobs Redux era was based on superior design and execution compared to Microsoft. Apple basically beat Microsoft at Microsoft's "strong follower" game. That's the part that must really sting a company that thought it could out-design and out-engineer any company on the planet.
Nadella has a certain resemblance to Robert Zemeckis.
I know - I'm not adding anything to the discussion...
How would going with UNIX change anything, outside of Apple no one uses Unix in consumer products and Apple does everything it can to hide those underpinnings. The only reason why Apple went the direction they did was they were basically desperate, remember the whole Copeland debacle, using Next was a move of connivance. If Steve Jobs had sold Next before coming back to Apple, OSX would probably be of BeOS design, which it almost was despite Steve owning Next but Jean-Louis Gassée greed put a stop to that.
Because it is their pig of an OK which makes them late to the party for everything. It's not efficient, it doesn't run on mobile very well. It's just a big nasty hack which slows them down.
There's a lot of 'ifs' in your statement, fact is, Apple made the right decision, they didn't choose BeOS, they got Steve back on board who had vision, and with it Next built upon a solid foundation which could eventually be stuffed inside a mobile phone with relative ease.
You may not know Microsoft already sold Unix, long before Apple/NeXT.
The article goes on say Microsoft bailed on Xenix because eventually AT&T began selling Unix licenses directly, so Microsoft sent the Xenix development team to work on OS/2 with IBM. Microsoft started selling Xenix before MS-DOS, so they never really competed because they served different purposes. DOS was created for IBM's first PC.
Interesting. I did not know that.
Your point is better than mine. They did have some vision but badly failed on execution. I always forget how powerful that one word is. It's Xerox PARC all over again. Jobs saw the bitmap and went to work. The Mac set a new course for Apple. Gates had that huge monster table tablet thingy and yet couldn't execute to get it under 472 pounds so I could use it to read in bed.
It's also a lack of aesthetics and beauty. Microsoft just doesn't make stuff that makes me react viscerally to it. Except negatively. It's like the difference between Pages and Word. One is a joy to use and one is simply around because it was the standard.
Actually, MS has its roots in writing software for Apple, long before MS-DOS came into the picture.
Yep, two of the biggest were Basic and Multiplan.
Microsoft's Windows 8.1 mobile software was written from the ground up and runs extremely well, fast, even on hardware with anemic specs like the Nokia 620. There may have been some problems with their first release version 7 but I can categorically say that 8.1 is an entirely different system. Their mobile OS is actually very good or I wouldn't currently be using it. I'm an extremely tech savvy and very selective about the phones I carry, so if I chose a Nokia 1020 with WM8.1 over say an iPhone or Android(insert brand here) then it must have defiantly offered something of value. Simply shooting it down by saying it's not efficient or doesn't run on mobile very well, whatever that means without any narrative of say an experience with an actual Windows 8.1 phone is then just conjecture on your part and no my friend from Ohio who has one doesn't count. I understand this is an Apple forum and it's almost a prerequisite to come here with some bias in regards to Apple's competition but I humbly request you at least have some first hand account of the product in question before the negative onslaught begins. Even then though I would also expect some sort of con list that describes why it's so inferior. I didn't mean to corner or belittle you in any way as this is more of a plea to everyone. Simply shotgunning negative adjectives at things we don't like and calling it day is actually inherently damaging to our point of view. The more negative things we read about something the more likely we will stay away from it. Reading is a very powerful social force, we actually retain more from that activity then say watching TV.
My point being if someone who has never used say a Windows 8.1 phone before and they come here and read, Microsoft's Windows 8.1 sucks 100 times in one sitting it is very likely that person will take that sentiment with him the next time they go phone shopping, probably won't even bother looking at one, oh I read somewhere that there not any good. Now, not everyone is so acceptable to such bombardment of negativity but you would be surprised to how many are. That's why people who review products at least try to weigh in the pros and cons of the product their reviewing, so people can decide for themselves, yes I know there are those exceptions with some reviewers who push their point of view on to others but what their doing isn't right.
I know sometimes these forums just feel like a hangout but in a lot of ways it's also a moving commentary, but still a place where enthusiast like yourself can come together and talk tech, mostly Apple stuff but also tech in general. But you also have to realize that everything you say here is out there for everyone to read. I've had at least 12 people already who have joined AppleInsider just to PM me so they could say their praying for me and my family, well except this one pervert but I won't go into that, just happened to see one of my posts while Googling. So even though I am high as f*****g kite right now, I believe like those tech reviewers, we have at least some responsibilities to be a little more, aaahh what's the word I'm looking for, diplomatic, no, conciliatory, getting there, tactful, there it is, when posting here. We all have opinions, but it's the ones that are insightful, articulate and tactful, can't forget tactful, that bring something worth while to the conversation.
There's another reason as well. As Alan Kay said, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware". For the PC era this was simple. IBM had designed the hardware and it was more-or-less standardized. But there was no such standard-setter in the early days of mobile. Nor was there a common vision of what the devices would do, aside from make phone calls, whereas the IBM PC already did - thanks to the experimentation of the 70's when hundreds of companies were experimenting with the early microcomputers. A Cambrian explosion of sorts.
Microsoft's problem is that they were trying to figure out how this might all go together but they were doing only the software piece. Others were doing their hardware. With cooperation and consultation to be sure, but it's not like having a single team.
Good analysis. However, I think MS actually needs to be much much more aggressive in letting people go. They need to shrink by like 90%. You can't reinvent yourself with 50,000 employees. Most companies don't have the guts to let the people go if they have the money to keep them. They just keep the ship sailing as long as they can. That's certainly what happened at Kodak. In order to have the Apple scenario, the company usually has to be in dire straights (i.e., run out of money). The lack of money forces the company to fire people and provide the opportunity to reemerge.
gatorguy wrote: »
Something to keep in mind: A weakened Microsoft might become a dangerous and desperate Microsoft. They can cause a lot of harm to other techs while on the way down.
suddenly newton wrote: »
What makes you think that might be the case?
I happen to think Microsoft is at its worst (culturally, as well as in terms of collateral damage) when they have maximum influence and market power. A Microsoft in decline is less dangerous, don't you think?
I was shocked when I saw a desktop operating system for a touchscreen. All I can ever think of is Steve-O's comments about touch surfaces wanting to be flat. (IIRC, it was in the original iPad announcement, but I might be mistaken.) Boy was he right! I recently bought a little BT keyboard cover for my iPad mini (way cheep like <$20) and it is almost wholly useless. It's the worst of both worlds. If you need a laptop, get a laptop (love my MBA); if you want a desktop, get a desktop, get a desktop. Human psychology and interaction is *way* more important than saving a few bucks.
Even at Apple new prices, these optimized devices for completing tasks is the way to go. You buy the tool for the job, not bastardize tools to be all in ones. With the integration of OSX and iOS coming, I don't see MS being anyhow relevant in making tools for anyone.