First, the Surface is actively being marketed against the iPad.
Second, since we're dealing in hypotheticals about out-of-stock -- let me add mine.
Computer manufacturers frequently offer special deals to merchants (especially large merchants) for holiday sales.
It goes something like this: If the mfgr has a lot of inventory, it will offer to ship extra stock to the merchants -- above the merchants' normal order -- so they can satisfy expected/desired holiday demand.
As incentive, the merchant might be offered:
extended payment terms, say net 45 instead of net 30 days
lower unit cost
lower or eliminated shipping fees
waived return restocking fees
waived return shipping charges
As a result, the merchant can stock up for holiday sales with little cost or risk if those sales do not materialize.
I suspect there's some of that going on.
Most mfgrs book sales when the product is in transit to the merchant. Returns can be booked any time (within limits) at whim.
In the case of the Christmas holidays it is very convenient that the quarter and/or FY ends around December 31. That way both the merchants and the mfgrs can post the good news (sales) today -- and defer any bad news (returns) until next quarter or FY.
"First, the Surface is actively being marketed against the iPad."
I don't know about that. Every ad I've seen has the Surface Pro 3 being targeted against the MBA.
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
"That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
I think Elon Musk will have something to say about the part I bolded.
What was vague? I though I was pretty clear, the article author wrote a hit piece on unreleased technology where he offered nothing but spurious speculations on his own interpretations of the technologies uses, and a series of sarcastic asides. Who cares about the history of things named Surface? What does that matter? Actually, while we're there, how did the Surface RT "copy" the iPad in any meaningful sense?
Other notes, in order:
- there was no Metro interface on Windows 7 - inaccuracy
- It's not called Metro - inaccuracy
- "Even people who love Windows hate Metro" - generalisation
- the list of features Apple announced at their conference - irrelevant - "ostensibly free OS updates" - Microsoft basically did announce this. - aforementioned Surface naming - who cares? - Apple changed the name of failed products too - iTools, .Mac, MobileMe - What's bad about standard-compliant? ?- Calling something vapourware the day after it was announced is a bit premature. It's pre-announced, just like the <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">?Watch is, just like the iPhone was.</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">- Apple were so clever in buying PrimeSense and then doing... wait, what was it they did with it again?</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">- Omigosh, Iseez3D, that breakthrough, massively popular product! </span>
- Holo-pedantry
- Pretty sure that wasn't FaceTime, and that videochat exists outside of, and predates, FaceTime
- "not something you'd do" - I might. I might not want the TV show to be constantly in my frame of view, I might momentarily want to do something else. Other use cases exist.
- "Similarly, when you want to watch a web video ... You'd generally want it to use the whole screen" - Maybe. Maybe I wouldn't want the entirety of my vision to be taken up with another person, when I could be doing something else at the same time. ?- Oh my god, I'm so bored of this polemic already and I'm not even halfway through. Is that enough?
Oh, and Dan, sorry "Corrections" (seriously, still?), disagreeing with you does not make me a contrarian. I would've thought you of all people would be embracing the word given how you like to adopt this "truth-saying rebel commentator" standpoint. Contrary to you perhaps, but that's because your wear your bias like a Miss America sash.
P.S. As I think I implied, I'm not won over by HoloLens. I think there are interesting things that could be done with it, but Microsoft will have to do a better job of showing them off. That doesn't mean that untempered vitriol like DED's is useful in any way. Besides which, how is this article even relevant on this site? What Apple product is this competing with?
Well said.
But hey, MS didn't hoard couple of hundreds happy employees to show their pride and joy during the presentation, and there was no U2 playing... not even Taylor Swift... so it must be lame and irrelevant. You can't make relevant tech without good old Bono rockin' around.
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
Governments didn't build subway systems in the U.S., nor universities. They took them over after the fact. There isn't anything special about putting gravel on dirt in which you need to appeal to your rulers to build. I guess being a liberal, you can only imagine big ventures being undertaken by some central authority.
"That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
I think Elon Musk will have something to say about the part I bolded.
Leon musk isn't investing in space exploration. He's working to build a business in outer atmosphere transportation. And his clients are mostly us govt and Air Force contracts. The govt is paying him to do jobs related to public funded, public interest research projects. There is not yet any commercial basis for speculatively building rockets to Mars.
It is sparking private investment though, which is great. The same way that Eisenhowers interstate freeway system was pushed through congress as a military plan to build roads capable of moving ICBMs around. Fear is nearly the only way anything gets funded in the US.
Same with the Internet: funded as military research, but when al gore worked to maintain funding for links between universities and backbone infrastructure all these old conservatives railed against it in favor of CompuServe/AOL/Comcast private shakedown. They're still at it demonizing net neutrality.
The benefits to society of infrastructure investment are obvious and incredible, but Americans--particularly in red states--have a hard time understanding large scale public investment, especially if it involves science or the environment.
No problem to spend $4 trillion and +4k soldier's lives on oil wars but make a series of investments in solar power and if one of them fails to work out, you'll never hear the end of it about how big govt shouldn't try to influence public investment in environmental technologies because it might not work out. So let's stay invested in Iraqi oil. Anti-intellectualism is taking over. /rant
Leon musk isn't investing in space exploration. He's working to build a business in outer atmosphere transportation. And his clients are mostly us govt and Air Force contracts. The govt is paying him to do jobs related to public funded, public interest research projects. There is not yet any commercial basis for speculatively building rockets to Mars.
He's going to announce his design for an Earth to Mars transport ship later this year. The only reason SpaceX exists is to colonise Mars, the satellite launches are just to pay the bills. He can get away with that because it's not publically owned. He has said he won't be going public because the sharemarket would not invest in such a long term project (essentially agreeing with your broader point).
Reasons for not going public (2:54):
(Also the government is their single biggest customer, but not the majority of their revenue, which is from private satellite launches)
Governments didn't build subway systems in the U.S., nor universities. They took them over after the fact. There isn't anything special about putting gravel on dirt in which you need to appeal to your rulers to build. I guess being a liberal, you can only imagine big ventures being undertaken by some central authority.
Some private companies started train lines later incorporated into public systems. But the difficultly of organically developing a transit system at a profit and the risk to cities of private business failure wiping out transportation means that most subways were built by government funding. IRT in NYC, Muni in SF (the name comes from municipal), BART, the virtually identical systems in DC and Atlanta, all transit built post WW2, all interstates--it's all built and operated with public funds.
It's just stupid to look at the world and see the pace of innovation and development and far greater wealth available in sophisticated, progressive countries from Switzerland to Scandanavia to Japan and then say the U.S. should shrink back and cut taxes until our remaining infrastructure all comes crashing down, until our population is all uneducated or deeply in debt from it, and that we should remain the only developed nation without a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland, just because we're too cheap to contribute towards a civilized society.
Some private companies started train lines later incorporated into public systems. But the difficultly of organically developing a transit system at a profit and the risk to cities of private business failure wiping out transportation means that most subways were built by government funding. IRT in NYC, Muni in SF (the name comes from municipal), BART, the virtually identical systems in DC and Atlanta, all transit built post WW2, all interstates--it's all built and operated with public funds.
It's just stupid to look at the world and see the pace of innovation and development and far greater wealth available in sophisticated, progressive countries from Switzerland to Scandanavia to Japan and then say the U.S. should shrink back and cut taxes until our remaining infrastructure all comes crashing down, until our population is all uneducated or deeply in debt from it, and that we should remain the only developed nation without a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland, just because we're too cheap to contribute towards a civilized society.
You're confusing correlation and causation, which a lot of people tend to do. Your government didn't first decide that there should be certain advancements in society, then will them into existence. Governments have no wealth of their own and produces nothing. They can only become as powerful if the people they tax in their geographical region they rule are already productive and organized. The Somali state, for example, have no means whatsoever to create "a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland" even if they wanted to.
In regards to the NYC subway: when they were built, the city stipulated that fares were fixed at 5 cents per person. They were very heavily regulated from the start. Those companies lobbied and proposed higher fares or to charge by the milage and were routinely rejected. Some were even charged with corruption as a result. Obviously they eventually couldn't meet operational cost as inflation increased while still being required to charged 5 cent, so some defaulted on loans and your city government took them over.
The argument, "the difficulty of organically developing... at a profit and the risk...", could quite literally be used for every new industry.
You aren't aware are you that Microsoft is a one hit wonder do you? Obviously not, you just laid yourself open to a parody of yourself, thanks for the laugh. What has ms done since it designed windows? Except build all kinds of bloat around it and rip people off? Which is btw coming to an end . Ms has gone from 95% market share of the personal computing market to about 18% in about 6 years and is now irrelevant who would have foreseen that in 2009?
You should really be more selective in picking your battles.
That's a lot of effort you've put into defending a big dumb corporation with zero sense of what consumers want, and which just blew out the most atrocious mix of nonsense-bullshit and a purely dishonest misrepresentation of its own contributions to a group of technologies by claiming credit for stuff that's been out there in the public for at least two years.
Your long rambling response really just reflects on your willingness to be intellectually dishonest.
But please, keep making yourself out to be a fool. It's thoroughly enjoyable to see that the only real critics are of your caliber and capacity.
Actually, I thought his response was one of the more honest replies I've seen on here. The level of fanboyism here is ridiculous. I love Apple products and have owned dozens of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate MS just to fit into some stupid club. The article was nothing but sour grapes and really didn't need to be published here. Pure MS bashing and nothing more. Bloated immature trash.
You aren't aware are you that Microsoft is a one hit wonder do you? Obviously not, you just laid yourself open to a parody of yourself, thanks for the laugh. What has ms done since it designed windows? Except build all kinds of bloat around it and rip people off? Which is btw coming to an end . Ms has gone from 95% market share of the personal computing market to about 18% in about 6 years and is now irrelevant who would have foreseen that in 2009?
Xbox? I they've sold around 15 million of the latest gen and the 360 was wildly successful. You can't discount that just because Apple isn't involved in console gaming. Also not sure where you're getting your numbers. While I much prefer OSX, Windows still dominates market share.
Actually, I thought his response was one of the more honest replies I've seen on here. The level of fanboyism here is ridiculous. I love Apple products and have owned dozens of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate MS just to fit into some stupid club. The article was nothing but sour grapes and really didn't need to be published here. Pure MS bashing and nothing more. Bloated immature trash.
There is a lot to like about Win 8. If it was more intuitive, that would be great, but otherwise a very nice OS. And Win 10 will fix that to be a blend of Win 7 & Metro.
I would have considered a Win phone, but in the end, did not. Hopefully, Win 10 phone will be very compelling and people will see it as a viable/better option, either to iOS or to Android.
We should all be fanboys of innovation and competition. Having one company monopolize does no one any favor. Or duopoly.
This is a lie. According to the WSJ (1/22/15) via the IDC, 89.5% of personal computers run some version of Windows. Please do your research
IDC is notorious for fudging the number in favor of their clients, its a joke but any ways im not referring to computer desktops im referring to if we include smart phones and tablets which are actually computers. People are actually using them for tasks that they did before on a windows pc. If you include these numbers my figures are correct. Go on keep in denial about what has happened and stay entrenched in a product category which has been losing market share for years. See ms latest earnings report and resulting gap down in stock price, Pretty soon the only reason someone will buy windows is to use it for work ie accessing corporate email using outlook and share point. That's is your basic back office data/computing need. You really can't just attribute mobile computing as irrelevant. Microsoft isn't stupid, that's why they made the surface which failed massively and balmer is history and they hired the new ceo who is a cloud expert. They are now a cloud company. Not an OS company, they have even resorted to giving away windows for a year to compete with Unix (OS X and android) Windows will be around for a long time as a niche and legacy product becoming more and more irrelevant IMHO
IDC is notorious for fudging the number in favor of their clients, its a joke but any ways im not referring to computer desktops im referring to if we include smart phones and tablets which are actually computers. People are actually using them for tasks that they did before on a windows pc. If you include these numbers my figures are correct. Go on keep in denial about what has happened and stay entrenched in a product category which has been losing market share for years. See ms latest earnings report and resulting gap down in stock price, Pretty soon the only reason someone will buy windows is to use it for work ie accessing corporate email using outlook and share point. That's is your basic back office data/computing need. You really can't just attribute mobile computing as irrelevant. Microsoft isn't stupid, that's why they made the surface which failed massively and balmer is history and they hired the new ceo who is a cloud expert. They are now a cloud company. Not an OS company, they have even resorted to giving away windows for a year to compete with Unix (OS X and android) Windows will be around for a long time as a niche and legacy product becoming more and more irrelevant IMHO
Yes, well when you use phrases like "personal computer market" I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking about personal computers. Yes, smartphones are computers, but so are calculators, digital watches, electric pianos and GPS systems, but no one calls those "computers" either.
As to your other points: the Surface did not "fail massively". The Surface line in fact just recently pulled in over $1 billion in sales, which considering they started off with a $900 million write-off is a pretty big deal.
And I'm not arguing that they're now very cloud-centric. Nadella himself admitted that was his new plan for Microsoft. But their OS is also becoming more and more cloud-oriented as well. Windows 10 will run on all devices, so all your settings and files will be synced automatically, new OS features will come in the form of updates, and just in general everything will become more connected.
I do, however, disagree with your assessment that Windows will only be used for e-mail. Windows is an incredibly versatile platform that runs on anything from POS devices to ATMs. It has many more uses than just accessing the internet.
And another thing to remember is that corporate empires rise and fall. Back in the '90s, Microsoft was where Apple is now, and I'm sure things are bound to change soon. I don't believe there will ever be a point where one tech company will rule things indefinitely
Yes, well when you use phrases like "personal computer market" I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking about personal computers. Yes, smartphones are computers, but so are calculators, digital watches, electric pianos and GPS systems, but no one calls those "computers" either.
That is disingenuous as I'm sure you are well aware.
When people think of a computer, they expect it to be a device that can perform many tasks - email, web surfing, word processing, calculations and so on - and that these functions can be altered and enhanced by adding new software. A desktop PC, tablets and smartphones can clearly be included in that, but a washing machine or an electric piano cannot.
If my mum asked me what she needed to surf the web and I answered "A computer" it wouldn't be very useful if she tried to do it on an electric piano.
You are just lumping these devices together to boost your numbers to make Windows look more meaningful. Unless Microsoft crack the tablet market with the Surface - and a look at its sales compared to those of the iPad shows they have a very steep hill to climb - then Windows use will decline along with general PC sales. It's likely that that will continue for some as until we have compilers and development environments on tablets (which is possible, but would be awkward) to create the software which can run on them.
That is disingenuous as I'm sure you are well aware.
When people think of a computer, they expect it to be a device that can perform many tasks - email, web surfing, word processing, calculations and so on - and that these functions can be altered and enhanced by adding new software. A desktop PC, tablets and smartphones can clearly be included in that, but a washing machine or an electric piano cannot.
If my mum asked me what she needed to surf the web and I answered "A computer" it wouldn't be very useful if she tried to do it on an electric piano.
You are just lumping these devices together to boost your numbers to make Windows look more meaningful. Unless Microsoft crack the tablet market with the Surface - and a look at its sales compared to those of the iPad shows they have a very steep hill to climb - then Windows use will decline along with general PC sales. It's likely that that will continue for some as until we have compilers and development environments on tablets (which is possible, but would be awkward) to create the software which can run on them.
I'm not talking about numbers; I was arguing semantics. By general convention, the term "personal computer" refers to a laptop or desktop. According to recent studies, as I stated earlier, 89.5% of those computers run Windows. However, I will admit since most Wiindows tablets these days run the full Windows OS, these are probably also included in the statistics as well (ATMs, POS devices etc. are not included). But seeing as Windows Phone only runs on 3.3% of the smartphone market, adding those numbers to my scores doesn't really affect much. Perhaps you misunderstood my point when I brought up calculators and those other instruments. I wasn't trying to lump them together with personal computers to make the number of devices running Windows seem larger. I was merely pointing out that even though these devices are technically computers, nobody categorizes them under the moniker of "personal computer". Similarly, even though a smartphone is in fact a computing device, it is in its own category called "smartphones".
As to your other point about the Surface, Microsoft doesn't need to use it to "crack the tablet market". They're a devices and services company, and Windows is one of those services. It runs on any device that any OEM cares (and is licensed) to make. The Surface was merely built as a platform to demonstrate the proper use of Windows 8x/10. It was meant to show people how the OS should look and feel. Unfortunately, people skipped out on it and went for Windows 8 on their desktops and laptops instead, which resulted in an unmitigated disaster.
This article very disingenuously in a most misleading and irreverent fashion mischaracterizes just about everything Microsoft's Hololens is about. I use Apple, Microsoft and Android devices and know the strengths and weakness of each companies offerings. Intelligent readers who seek the truth about Hololens should go to other multiple sources for truthful description of Microsoft's Hololens. The only thing akin to this article's evident anti-Microsoft bias is 'Fox news amusing depictions of Obama's Character and presidential competence. My Friend (Daniel Dilger) be truthfully objective and fair next time. It will help your "tech god" Apple do even better when you give them the absolute facts and figures, not figments of your Microsoft hating imaginations. You score less than F with this utter rubbish of an article.
Comments
First, the Surface is actively being marketed against the iPad.
Second, since we're dealing in hypotheticals about out-of-stock -- let me add mine.
Computer manufacturers frequently offer special deals to merchants (especially large merchants) for holiday sales.
It goes something like this: If the mfgr has a lot of inventory, it will offer to ship extra stock to the merchants -- above the merchants' normal order -- so they can satisfy expected/desired holiday demand.
As incentive, the merchant might be offered:
As a result, the merchant can stock up for holiday sales with little cost or risk if those sales do not materialize.
I suspect there's some of that going on.
Most mfgrs book sales when the product is in transit to the merchant. Returns can be booked any time (within limits) at whim.
In the case of the Christmas holidays it is very convenient that the quarter and/or FY ends around December 31. That way both the merchants and the mfgrs can post the good news (sales) today -- and defer any bad news (returns) until next quarter or FY.
"First, the Surface is actively being marketed against the iPad."
I don't know about that. Every ad I've seen has the Surface Pro 3 being targeted against the MBA.
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
"That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
I think Elon Musk will have something to say about the part I bolded.
Well said.
But hey, MS didn't hoard couple of hundreds happy employees to show their pride and joy during the presentation, and there was no U2 playing... not even Taylor Swift... so it must be lame and irrelevant. You can't make relevant tech without good old Bono rockin' around.
If you're discussing technology that can be subsidized by a huge government project paid for by compulsory taxation, then we are no longer talking about commercial enterprise. Of course the government can fund economically nonsensical pursuits.
That's why gov investment needs to exist: private enterprise would never have the capital to build our freeways, HSR, subways, airports, military, space exploration and universities.
But we don't need the govt to subsidize failing companies that can't compete in markets others can, whether Microsoft HolLOLens or Blackberry apps.
I'm surprised you'd say that. I had you pegged as an older conservative guy who rails against big govt.
Governments didn't build subway systems in the U.S., nor universities. They took them over after the fact. There isn't anything special about putting gravel on dirt in which you need to appeal to your rulers to build. I guess being a liberal, you can only imagine big ventures being undertaken by some central authority.
Leon musk isn't investing in space exploration. He's working to build a business in outer atmosphere transportation. And his clients are mostly us govt and Air Force contracts. The govt is paying him to do jobs related to public funded, public interest research projects. There is not yet any commercial basis for speculatively building rockets to Mars.
It is sparking private investment though, which is great. The same way that Eisenhowers interstate freeway system was pushed through congress as a military plan to build roads capable of moving ICBMs around. Fear is nearly the only way anything gets funded in the US.
Same with the Internet: funded as military research, but when al gore worked to maintain funding for links between universities and backbone infrastructure all these old conservatives railed against it in favor of CompuServe/AOL/Comcast private shakedown. They're still at it demonizing net neutrality.
The benefits to society of infrastructure investment are obvious and incredible, but Americans--particularly in red states--have a hard time understanding large scale public investment, especially if it involves science or the environment.
No problem to spend $4 trillion and +4k soldier's lives on oil wars but make a series of investments in solar power and if one of them fails to work out, you'll never hear the end of it about how big govt shouldn't try to influence public investment in environmental technologies because it might not work out. So let's stay invested in Iraqi oil. Anti-intellectualism is taking over. /rant
Leon musk isn't investing in space exploration. He's working to build a business in outer atmosphere transportation. And his clients are mostly us govt and Air Force contracts. The govt is paying him to do jobs related to public funded, public interest research projects. There is not yet any commercial basis for speculatively building rockets to Mars.
He's going to announce his design for an Earth to Mars transport ship later this year. The only reason SpaceX exists is to colonise Mars, the satellite launches are just to pay the bills. He can get away with that because it's not publically owned. He has said he won't be going public because the sharemarket would not invest in such a long term project (essentially agreeing with your broader point).
Reasons for not going public (2:54):
(Also the government is their single biggest customer, but not the majority of their revenue, which is from private satellite launches)
Some private companies started train lines later incorporated into public systems. But the difficultly of organically developing a transit system at a profit and the risk to cities of private business failure wiping out transportation means that most subways were built by government funding. IRT in NYC, Muni in SF (the name comes from municipal), BART, the virtually identical systems in DC and Atlanta, all transit built post WW2, all interstates--it's all built and operated with public funds.
It's just stupid to look at the world and see the pace of innovation and development and far greater wealth available in sophisticated, progressive countries from Switzerland to Scandanavia to Japan and then say the U.S. should shrink back and cut taxes until our remaining infrastructure all comes crashing down, until our population is all uneducated or deeply in debt from it, and that we should remain the only developed nation without a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland, just because we're too cheap to contribute towards a civilized society.
Some private companies started train lines later incorporated into public systems. But the difficultly of organically developing a transit system at a profit and the risk to cities of private business failure wiping out transportation means that most subways were built by government funding. IRT in NYC, Muni in SF (the name comes from municipal), BART, the virtually identical systems in DC and Atlanta, all transit built post WW2, all interstates--it's all built and operated with public funds.
It's just stupid to look at the world and see the pace of innovation and development and far greater wealth available in sophisticated, progressive countries from Switzerland to Scandanavia to Japan and then say the U.S. should shrink back and cut taxes until our remaining infrastructure all comes crashing down, until our population is all uneducated or deeply in debt from it, and that we should remain the only developed nation without a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland, just because we're too cheap to contribute towards a civilized society.
You're confusing correlation and causation, which a lot of people tend to do. Your government didn't first decide that there should be certain advancements in society, then will them into existence. Governments have no wealth of their own and produces nothing. They can only become as powerful if the people they tax in their geographical region they rule are already productive and organized. The Somali state, for example, have no means whatsoever to create "a universal healthcare system like Israel or Switzerland" even if they wanted to.
In regards to the NYC subway: when they were built, the city stipulated that fares were fixed at 5 cents per person. They were very heavily regulated from the start. Those companies lobbied and proposed higher fares or to charge by the milage and were routinely rejected. Some were even charged with corruption as a result. Obviously they eventually couldn't meet operational cost as inflation increased while still being required to charged 5 cent, so some defaulted on loans and your city government took them over.
The argument, "the difficulty of organically developing... at a profit and the risk...", could quite literally be used for every new industry.
You aren't aware are you that Microsoft is a one hit wonder do you? Obviously not, you just laid yourself open to a parody of yourself, thanks for the laugh. What has ms done since it designed windows? Except build all kinds of bloat around it and rip people off? Which is btw coming to an end . Ms has gone from 95% market share of the personal computing market to about 18% in about 6 years and is now irrelevant who would have foreseen that in 2009?
That was a given.
Actually, I thought his response was one of the more honest replies I've seen on here. The level of fanboyism here is ridiculous. I love Apple products and have owned dozens of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate MS just to fit into some stupid club. The article was nothing but sour grapes and really didn't need to be published here. Pure MS bashing and nothing more. Bloated immature trash.
Xbox? I they've sold around 15 million of the latest gen and the 360 was wildly successful. You can't discount that just because Apple isn't involved in console gaming. Also not sure where you're getting your numbers. While I much prefer OSX, Windows still dominates market share.
Actually, I thought his response was one of the more honest replies I've seen on here. The level of fanboyism here is ridiculous. I love Apple products and have owned dozens of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate MS just to fit into some stupid club. The article was nothing but sour grapes and really didn't need to be published here. Pure MS bashing and nothing more. Bloated immature trash.
There is a lot to like about Win 8. If it was more intuitive, that would be great, but otherwise a very nice OS. And Win 10 will fix that to be a blend of Win 7 & Metro.
I would have considered a Win phone, but in the end, did not. Hopefully, Win 10 phone will be very compelling and people will see it as a viable/better option, either to iOS or to Android.
We should all be fanboys of innovation and competition. Having one company monopolize does no one any favor. Or duopoly.
IDC is notorious for fudging the number in favor of their clients, its a joke but any ways im not referring to computer desktops im referring to if we include smart phones and tablets which are actually computers. People are actually using them for tasks that they did before on a windows pc. If you include these numbers my figures are correct. Go on keep in denial about what has happened and stay entrenched in a product category which has been losing market share for years. See ms latest earnings report and resulting gap down in stock price, Pretty soon the only reason someone will buy windows is to use it for work ie accessing corporate email using outlook and share point. That's is your basic back office data/computing need. You really can't just attribute mobile computing as irrelevant. Microsoft isn't stupid, that's why they made the surface which failed massively and balmer is history and they hired the new ceo who is a cloud expert. They are now a cloud company. Not an OS company, they have even resorted to giving away windows for a year to compete with Unix (OS X and android) Windows will be around for a long time as a niche and legacy product becoming more and more irrelevant IMHO
Yes, well when you use phrases like "personal computer market" I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking about personal computers. Yes, smartphones are computers, but so are calculators, digital watches, electric pianos and GPS systems, but no one calls those "computers" either.
As to your other points: the Surface did not "fail massively". The Surface line in fact just recently pulled in over $1 billion in sales, which considering they started off with a $900 million write-off is a pretty big deal.
And I'm not arguing that they're now very cloud-centric. Nadella himself admitted that was his new plan for Microsoft. But their OS is also becoming more and more cloud-oriented as well. Windows 10 will run on all devices, so all your settings and files will be synced automatically, new OS features will come in the form of updates, and just in general everything will become more connected.
I do, however, disagree with your assessment that Windows will only be used for e-mail. Windows is an incredibly versatile platform that runs on anything from POS devices to ATMs. It has many more uses than just accessing the internet.
And another thing to remember is that corporate empires rise and fall. Back in the '90s, Microsoft was where Apple is now, and I'm sure things are bound to change soon. I don't believe there will ever be a point where one tech company will rule things indefinitely
Yes, well when you use phrases like "personal computer market" I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking about personal computers. Yes, smartphones are computers, but so are calculators, digital watches, electric pianos and GPS systems, but no one calls those "computers" either.
That is disingenuous as I'm sure you are well aware.
When people think of a computer, they expect it to be a device that can perform many tasks - email, web surfing, word processing, calculations and so on - and that these functions can be altered and enhanced by adding new software. A desktop PC, tablets and smartphones can clearly be included in that, but a washing machine or an electric piano cannot.
If my mum asked me what she needed to surf the web and I answered "A computer" it wouldn't be very useful if she tried to do it on an electric piano.
You are just lumping these devices together to boost your numbers to make Windows look more meaningful. Unless Microsoft crack the tablet market with the Surface - and a look at its sales compared to those of the iPad shows they have a very steep hill to climb - then Windows use will decline along with general PC sales. It's likely that that will continue for some as until we have compilers and development environments on tablets (which is possible, but would be awkward) to create the software which can run on them.
That is disingenuous as I'm sure you are well aware.
When people think of a computer, they expect it to be a device that can perform many tasks - email, web surfing, word processing, calculations and so on - and that these functions can be altered and enhanced by adding new software. A desktop PC, tablets and smartphones can clearly be included in that, but a washing machine or an electric piano cannot.
If my mum asked me what she needed to surf the web and I answered "A computer" it wouldn't be very useful if she tried to do it on an electric piano.
You are just lumping these devices together to boost your numbers to make Windows look more meaningful. Unless Microsoft crack the tablet market with the Surface - and a look at its sales compared to those of the iPad shows they have a very steep hill to climb - then Windows use will decline along with general PC sales. It's likely that that will continue for some as until we have compilers and development environments on tablets (which is possible, but would be awkward) to create the software which can run on them.
I'm not talking about numbers; I was arguing semantics. By general convention, the term "personal computer" refers to a laptop or desktop. According to recent studies, as I stated earlier, 89.5% of those computers run Windows. However, I will admit since most Wiindows tablets these days run the full Windows OS, these are probably also included in the statistics as well (ATMs, POS devices etc. are not included). But seeing as Windows Phone only runs on 3.3% of the smartphone market, adding those numbers to my scores doesn't really affect much. Perhaps you misunderstood my point when I brought up calculators and those other instruments. I wasn't trying to lump them together with personal computers to make the number of devices running Windows seem larger. I was merely pointing out that even though these devices are technically computers, nobody categorizes them under the moniker of "personal computer". Similarly, even though a smartphone is in fact a computing device, it is in its own category called "smartphones".
As to your other point about the Surface, Microsoft doesn't need to use it to "crack the tablet market". They're a devices and services company, and Windows is one of those services. It runs on any device that any OEM cares (and is licensed) to make. The Surface was merely built as a platform to demonstrate the proper use of Windows 8x/10. It was meant to show people how the OS should look and feel. Unfortunately, people skipped out on it and went for Windows 8 on their desktops and laptops instead, which resulted in an unmitigated disaster.
You score less than F with this utter rubbish of an article.