"the writing is on the wall for desktop computing."
Verily 'tis the shit of the horse.
While Microsoft posted solid numbers for Windows 8, anyone paying attention to Intel's quarterly report can see that the writing is on the wall for desktop computing. Perhaps surprisingly, this is also true of the enterprise, generally not an early mover on technology trends. According to a new Appcelerator survey of enterprise …
All these kinds of predictions are meaningless anyway, when the terms are so ill-defined anyway. I mean, "mobile" includes a 10" or more huge tablet, whilst using a 7" netbook is "desktop". For several years, laptops have outsold actual desktops, so people saying desktops will decline is obvious, but including laptops as "desktops" makes no sense. Especially as the trend now seems to be that "mobile" tablets are more likely to be used on a flat surface (since the stand/top-heavy form doesn't work so well on a lap).
I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not about the hardware.
What is actually dead is outdated desktop user interfaces because people have now had a taste of the vastly streamlined and simplistic interfaces of mobile apps.For consumers there's only one way forward now.
To be fair, Microsoft seem to understand this and have brought a new mobile-style UI with touch support to the desktop, the trouble is nobody likes it because there's no apps for it and it's a nasty hybrid of old and new Windows. They tried to go too far too fast. Meanwhile OS X is slowly incorporating iOS features with each new release, which is a bit less of a shock to their users.
People keep saying this as if repeating it endlessly will make it true. Whether they realize it or not, a touch interface is the LAST thing that most people want on a desktop. Desktops and laptops require a different interface that is tuned to keyboard and mouse input because it's a different working model. It's about content creation on a desktop, not consumption.
And before you point to the built-in soft keyboards on tablets, I have yet to see anyone typing with anywhere near the speed that I know that they're capable of on a full keyboard. From what I've personally witnessed, most lose about 75-90% of their typing efficiency. That may be OK for banging out a quick tweet or Facebook post, but it's FAR from adequate for anyone trying to write anything more complex than a couple of paragraphs. I can't imagine that attempting to write even a short 3-5 page paper using a touch UI, let alone something even a few tens of pages long.
Then there's attempting to use touch and gestures to do a mouse's job. Ever try to draw with one? Or work on a complex technical diagram that requires precise positioning for selection? I thought not.
Don't get me wrong. I think a touch driven interface is great for tablets and phones. It's just that it's a lousy UI model for desktops and laptops. Eventually this fad will fade and we'll see a return to a more logical split in UIs.
Rubbish. Mobile interfaces are useful at accessing simple information on the move.
I'd love to see you run 3D Studio Max on a phone and do anything productive on it.
Yes, for people just pratting about on the 'net a phone will do. But the keyboard and mouse interface (or puck/wacom) are highly efficient for creative endeavours.
> "nobody likes it because there's no apps for it and it's a nasty hybrid of old and new Windows"
Installed the upgrade last night for $24.99. Better grab those cheap upgrades while you can boys - just a couple days left on the $39 special. With NVIDIA graphics and Classic Start Menu (Win7 themed), this is one seriously fast, good looking system. All my old XP and Vista software works fine. I spend most of my time in a KDE desktop on various Linux distros like Mint and openSUSE, but this Win8 with the Win7 theme is one I'm going to have to muck around in a bit. The slideshow backgrounds and themes are a real nice touch.
". . .people have now had a taste of the vastly streamlined and simplistic interfaces of mobile apps."
Let me fix that for you: "people have now had a taste of the featureless, unfinished, barely functional, unfit for purpose interfaces of mobile apps."
I recently attempted an experiment on my Nexus 7 tablet to see if it would be suitable for corporate email. Having pecked out 4-5 sentences, a single mis-swype of my palm resulted in the entire text buffer being selected and replaced with a space. At which point I discovered Android has no undo function, to add to the long list of missing text-processing concepts that have been with us for decades. Such as cursor keys or "Home", "End", or "Delete".
While searching for the location of the non-existent undo function on Android, I came across a post by one brilliant gentleman who suggested that Android doesn't need one. That's because it's really not that difficult to just retype things. An opinion he no doubt cultivated because he's never assembled more than 140 characters at a time, or actually expressed anything in words that was of any importance whatsoever. But his attitude was one of righteous indignation for why someone would question why Google continues to refuse to include "undo."
I fear the future of computing will be a race to "streamline" interfaces not to make them easier to use, but simply to strip out feature after feature to avoid confusing the least capable users among us. But, hey, that makes it easier to call the code finished, right?
"to add to the long list of missing text-processing concepts that have been with us for decades. Such as cursor keys or "Home", "End", or "Delete".
Try the Hacker's Keyboard - a full 5 row keyboard with all those lovely buttons present
I agree "mobile" can be a silly term, when half of my laptop was made out of desktop parts or was desktop chips soldered to the motherboard (integrated, but the same as the desktop counterpart). Likewise, people want software that does both. So if one day we walk around with a PC because it shrunk, or put a tablet/phone on the desk because we want to sit down, then where is the difference?
The decline in desktop sales is only down to the fact that the software isn't there to take advantage of any CPU tech since 2007. I'm not including games in this though that sector is still lagging.
Take any old dual core enterprise PC off the IT Stores shelf and slap a new build on it and its good to go
Folks still want and need desktops just not in the sheer numbers we needed 10 years ago. We can just sweat the assets far longer.
As for needing more CPU power, other than video transcoding software, anything in the basic business software remit that would make a CPU spin up to 100% for more than 5 seconds would be viewed with suspicion.
The only reason we were buying computers ten years ago was that then a 5 year old computer had a AMD K-6 processor in it running at a tiny percentage of the speed of the cheapest new equipment available.
My slowest computers from like 7 years ago have AMD64 3200+ processors in them, which are still sold as a entry grade processor in maplins IIRC. These machines are perfectly adequate for running office 2003 + our one peice of software, the users don't want or need any of the functionality that has come out since and as far as I am concerned the existing computers can continue to run until something burns out, at which point the user can have another one from stores. (spares from downsizing)
If i'm spending money on anything, then it's on infrastructure not on desktops. The constant desktop upgrade treadmill is dead, and most businesses also have a supply of spare desktops so there is not going to be much spending on more desktops in the immediate future.
However, saying that the lack of sales for the reasons above means desktop computing is dead is stupidly absurd. When all of the existing equipment is dead what do you think we'll do, replace a secrateries computer with an ipad? Never going to work, you need desktops for producing things- tablets are just a means of consuming media not for creating it.
No longer a huge cash cow does not mean dead.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Presumably you're ignoring anything game development related as well, such as compiling, or 3D modelling or ray-tracing/rendering..."
CPU-intensive development applications never meant volume sales on the desktop -- or anywhere, for that matter (just look at Silicon Graphics). The bulk of desktop/laptop sales are related to office and generic domestic use, where web browsing, e-mail and office productivity apps are probably more than 90% of the software running per unit of time. And for those types of apps, 5-10 year-old hardware is still adequate.
I agree about laptop keyboards. I have a Lenovo L430, and the keyboard layout is terrible. I have $25 logitech wireless usb keyboard that sits comfortably on the open laptop, or wherever is convenient. I also use a wireless mouse to save me from the "Damn, I didn't mean to do that!" touchpad.
Yep, that's an escape key, and it's the right size and shape, and in the right place.
I just looked at my office PC. A Dell Precision 390. 4GB, NVidia graphics to support multiple screens - bog standard from the catalogue. I think its a P4D CPU, dual core from before Dual-Core was a trademark. This machine has got to be more than 6 years old, because I have been using it that long and I didn't get it new.
OK, it has been upgraded with an SSD system disk - this really, really improved the snappiness. I am not expecting to get a machine upgrade any time soon, simply because there is no office or other Win application that requires more performance than I have.
"no office or other Win application that requires more performance than I have."
I think you mean - that YOU use. There are plenty of applications that can use huge amounts of memory/cpu -the most general obvious being video, esp. rendering or transcoding 1080p/50
That's what I meant to write, it's what I thought I wrote in fact.
Was it a Friday? Every day seems like Friday at the moment.
Apologies for the obviously incorrect statement.
I do have applications requiring orders of magnitude more processing power, but they don't run on my office desktop Win machine.
There is another factor.
Ever since I can remember a basic PC has cots about the same, but its performance would double or treble every few years. 8088->8086>80286-80386SX->80486->pentium->whatever...
Last week I popped into ,my PC vendor, to cost out a replacement for this machine. For the first time ever, he admitted that what I had from 3 years ago was not much worse than what an entry level system would be now.
And would cost the same.
To get the 4x speed increase and the 2xRAM would cost DOUBLE.
And use twice the power. And electricity is expensive enough to make a difference. a 50W unit on 24x7 clocks up a hefty 400 units of electricity over a year. That £40 .
I reluctantly decided not to upgrade.
And I've already ditched windows apart from an ageing XP VM to run legacy windows programs.
All markets start with innovation, where lots of different approaches are tried, followed by standardisation where development along predetermined routes makes for rapid cost reduction, and spread of the technology, and performance increases as the low hanging fruit are plucked, before settling into a period of maturity, zero overall growth - just 'replacement' and finally decline as a new technology takes over.
I believe that desktop computing has in fact reached that point. home users neither wanted nor needed workstations, but they got them anyway. Now they have tablets, and the bottom has dropped out of domestic workstations.
And there ain't the volume in corporate workstations to justify the development of better ones.
Apple has jumped ship for I-devices - but the chances are that they will have a tough time beating android.
Microsoft has stuck with the corporate desktop. But here Linux already can do nearly everything needed for standard applications.
And even quite specialised ones. One may predict with SOME confidence that the big players in specialised apps - graphical scientific and page layout, that actually need desktop computing power - will increasingly be looking at ways to sell their apps on a Linux platform. Meanwhile the average office wonk will be using a tablet or smart phone.
And the database will present an HTML5 interface so any bloody device will work.
The long and the short of all that is that there is little justification for most people to buy a desktop AT ALL. And of those that do, most can stretch the life of existing kit with no performance hit for more years than hitherto. And also, that there is as the years roll by, less and less reason to install an expensive buggy and frankly overflashy face on it, to do basic desktop workstation jobs on.
Given the rise in network bandwidth, all most users need, is a basic - and usually web based - access to it.
Servers do the grunt work.
Desktop computers will become what they really are suited for - 'work stations' as opposed to 'play stations' or 'database servers'..and if some reasonably efficient platform independent language comes along, then what hardware and OS is running becomes rather irrelevant.
If I were Apple, Id be afraid. Too much cash needed. If I were Microsoft I would be very afraid. They missed the net, they missed the mobile boom, and no one wants 'em any more, and their core profit centre - home PCs and the corporate desktop, is in decline.
If I were Intel, I'd be worried too. Unable to deliver more MIPS per watt on a steadily rising basis, and lacking the constant market for their desktop products, and having failed to really come to grips with mobile devices where ARM based technology starts from a better place, they have nowhere to go but servers.
And servers tend to run platform independent LINUX. If some other chip designer comes up with a chip that offers more MIPS per dollar-watt than Intel..perhaps a GPU manufacturer - and ports a stable Linux to it, bye bye Intel.
No: I think we are in a period of profound transition. he desktop wont disappear. But it will be a niche player.
And there is too much free software for anyone to ever think of paying for the standard offerings in future.
And there is, so to speak, in tough economic times, a disinclination to pay through the nose for offerings which are, frankly, a triumph of style over content.
> Ever since I can remember a basic PC has cots about the same,
I have prices here from 1983 for IBM PC (not XT).
Computer 48Kb 2235.00
Memory board 64K 540.00
Floppy controller 220.00
Floppy 2S 320Kb 650.00
Color Graphics card 300.00
Color Monitor (Amdek) 999.00
Although this was PC and MS-DOS 1 the list does have a hard disk but it was necessary to use CP/M-86 to support it.
Hard Disk 5" 5MB 1995.00
As a comparison:
"""In 1982, the base price of the Escort 3-door was $5,518"""
You miss the point. Consumers buy a mobile os every time they buy a device, wrap up in the purchase price.
OEMs on the other hand don't have to. Their OS is either a strategic option (IOS) or Free (android or various Linuxen).
I wonder if MS licensing has let them down? Logically you'd expect them to be able to enforce win 7 on mobile manufacturers who also make desktops, but it doesn't seem to be happening.
Perhaps they sawed up the contractuals or perhaps it's the relevant values of the mobile and desktop markets that mean their big stick has gone rotten and the OEM's are playing it hardball?
"Last year, Microsoft was reported to be licensing Windows Phone 8 to ZTE for $23 to $30 per device. For tablets it's worse: $85 per device.
It's cute and quaint that Microsoft is still trying to sell a mobile OS in a market where no one pays for a mobile OS. It's also stupid."
The question isn't "stupid" - it's, "Jjust how fucking stupid?"
AFAIAC - they can stick their "customer surveillance" DRM naziware up their arse.
Smiley - Laughing at another one of Microsofts "Epic Fails".
This post has been deleted by its author
"Android didn't initially make headway against Apple because it was better. It wasn't. Far from it. No, Android won over the handset vendors and other partners because it was cheap. Cheaper than free."
Well hang on, we're confusing two things. If it's about what manufacturers chose, then they obviously didn't choose IOS, because they couldn't - it's not available for licensing. It helped that Android was free, as it meant it was a better choice than say continuing to write their own OSs, but it still helped that it was good.
For users, actually yes, we bought it because it was better. ("Far from it"? Sure early Android versions lacked some features, but early IOS couldn't even do apps or copy/paste, let alone something like multitasking - it struggled to qualify as a feature phone OS. Satnav only came recently. Still waiting for a homescreen that even my 2005 feature phone had.)
But Android isn't really free. OEMs pay to use all the Google goodies in Android. If they want free Android they can get it but that means no access to the Android market and other Google services. So only those big enough to go it alone will use Android for free, as Amazon have done.
Samsung has gotten to such a high market share they they could conceivably go it alone if they choose to, but other phone makers are stuck paying Google
"Last year, Microsoft was reported to be licensing Windows Phone 8 to ZTE for $23 to $30 per device. For tablets it's worse: $85 per device."
Are you f**king kidding me?
Well, considering that Apple wanted a similar amount for features like slide to unlock and rubber-banding, MS is not asking too much for a whole OS/eco-system if what you want is something that isn't android. (In comparison to Apple)
MS is asking too much. MS caters to the entire industry. Apple only caters to their own users which all MS only folks continue to deride as 4 % or less of the market. Surely, Bristol, you can't be suggesting that a company that influences 90% of the market be held to the same level as a company that influences 4% of the market?
It sure reads to me that you think Microsoft should be held accountable to the same levels of, what, a company that does 5% of what Microsoft does? In my opinion, a company that holds over 50% of the market share need to be very reactive and follow the wants/needs of the community.
Microsoft will never do that. They could own 100% of the market (as they did in the past) and STILL push their desire onto the market. Microsoft sucks and needs to close their doors and their warez can be release into the public domain where it will be fixed correctly.
What does "showing mobile leadership" even mean? Blegh, business speak again.
Once again it's the Asay Satay Sauce of various figures dredged out of multiple "analyses" mashed up to support what the author is saying. But it generates ad revenue, I suppose, and after a previous good article, I'm not surprised to see the author back to his normal self.
Microsoft has long been holding on to their archaic views regarding mobile for far too long. Now it seems like they are stubbornly sticking with their views for the sake of pride. Lose the old leadership figures who are trying to sink the ship and Microsoft may have a chance. However, I foresee the ship sinking slowly beneath the waves. Will it be sad? ...nope. I'll be surprised if anyone actually notices!
You can't turn a profit on software while trying to build an ecosystem. Only the first to market (Apple) can get away with that trick. Google knows this, and the Nexus phones and tablets, sold more or less at cost while they ramp up their services business (music, movies, apps, books, magazines and so on), is the end result.
There were plenty of phones able to run download and run apps, plenty of phones with touch screens, cameras and all those gizmos. There were also stores for buying stuff.
Apple may have made a better app store, may even (if you like their interface) have done a 'better job' (actually I don't like their interface and don't believe its better - which is why I never bought one).
But they weren't first at anything. Stop reading Rory CJ on the BBC - he is the chief apple fanboy
"There were plenty of phones able to run download and run apps, plenty of phones with touch screens, cameras and all those gizmos. There were also stores for buying stuff.
Apple may have made a better app store, may even (if you like their interface) have done a 'better job' (actually I don't like their interface and don't believe its better - which is why I never bought one).
But they weren't first at anything. Stop reading Rory CJ on the BBC - he is the chief apple fanboy"
Plenty of this, plenty of that and all going exactly nowhere because they couldn't be arsed sorting out the business model and the end user experience. And all because they had the market all sewn up and they thought mediocrity was good enough. I've had my share of Symbian handsets and they were all a pain in the arse compared to my Android and iOS devices.
Dave15 - they were the first to become a 1 trillion dollar company! Why is that? Because of their fanbois? WOW. Pretty damned rich fanbois I would say.
Face it. Apple did a better job than anyone else out there. Quit your whinning and just allow others to get some limelight instead of insisting that Microsoft is the only company allowed success and popularity.
they were the first to become a 1 trillion dollar company
Jim, you might want to investigate a concept called "constant dollars" (assuming you're already familiar with the one called "inflation"). Being the "first ... trillion dollar company" is a meaningless achievement.
In constant dollars, Apple has never yet come close to being the IT company with the historical highest market capitalization. Clearly, they have made a bunch of money selling their products, and they've also been quite successful at convincing investors to drive up their stock price (recent fluctuations notwithstanding, because they're irrelevant; the price is still high). None of this proves, or even by itself even supports, the assertion that Apple produce better products and services.
Clearly it doesn't prove the converse either, but as an argument it's more or less vacant.
 Do a basic Toulminian analysis. The claim is "Apple did something better than the competition"; the candidate support is "Apple earned a lot of money". The warrant, then, would be that the market rewards quality - and that is obviously not the case, in general.
I wouldn't refer to Ovi, as that came afterwards (though I don't know why you snigger, I've found that site fine as a user and developer).
Yes they were the first OS vendor to have a central software repository on mobile (it wasn't the first central repository; nor was it the first software or media download site for mobiles). I just wasn't sure how that relates to the idea of being able to charge a profit or not. If the aim is to expand market share as large as possible for the aim of controlling the software/media, then at 15%, that argument applies to Apple too. So whilst I do see some argument that MS should go for market share, perhaps they're just happy making higher profit margins instead, which actually is rather similar to Apple, in contrast with Google.
Considering how much damage a loss leader mobile OS from MS could do it's a small wonder that good ole' chair flinger hasn't gone this way already.
I guess the idea of giving anything away for the longer term strategy is just too much like "allowing another to benefit" from any current decisions, "Profits later!!! but me not boss later !!!!" ///chairs
RIM (BB, BB10), Apple, Samsung (Bada), Nokia (S40, Asha, Symbian) have their own in-house OSes and therefore aren't free. Firefox OS, Sailfish, Tizen, Ubuntu, and Windows Phone are licensed to third parties and out of those Firefox OS is free as it comes from a non-profit supported by Google's cash, Sailfish and Windows Phone are not free, and I don't know about the other two although I'll hazard a guess that Ubuntu won't be free because Shuttleworth's got to make some money somewhere.
Leaving Android the odd one out and even so Android isn't really free because manufacturers need to pay to licence the Google Apps. Just try and sell a phone without Play Store and watch it fail.
Someone somewhere's got to get paid for their work eventually.
Have to pay a juicy license fee to MS for the patented technology they are using. This is ace, if, like me, you are a MS shareholder!!! So, hopefully the cost of the patent fees that the Android guys need to pay will soon exceed the cost of a WinPhone license fee, which means that WinPhone will be the CHEAPEST os for smartphone manufacturers!!
MS play a long game, but they play it well......
The author seems to have forgotten about the license fees to Google for Maps, Play etc as well as the license fees to MS for their infringed patents. Which, when taken in to consideration, kind of negate the premise of the entire article really.....
What you seem to not realize is the whole house of cards software patent scam in the US is starting to collapse. The system is not stable, the courts realize it (clogged up having to decide life and death of companies and markets), the tech companies realize it (market share won in court not in marketplace), even the patent office realizes it (desperately hoping outsiders helps them with prior art due to terrible funding). You might be fine for several years but their is some major systemic risk to companies that rely on software patents to turn profits.
‘but their is some major systemic risk to companies that rely on software patents to turn profits’
Oh, their is, is their?
Seriously, you expect to be taken seriously when you cannot even use their/there in the correct context?
As for the freetards dream of the US Patent Office riding to the assistance of the ‘Open Source Movement’, I think you need to invent another wet dream. There is really only one company who would benefit from that (Google) and many more that would not. The USPO is not in place to make it easier for Google to make money at the expense of larger, more mature and more ethical tech companies.
Love how you immediately assume I am a freetard defending Google. Anybody with eyes and half a brain could tell the only reason the software patent system hadn't broken down long ago was due to the big boys having a cross license truce for the most part. That all changed once Apple decided it could go nuclear on everyone else and the result is that the system has started breaking down in a hurry. The last thing most judges want to do is pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Its going to become obvious that the current system is impeding innovation to even the politicians. Yes they won't do the right thing and eliminate being able to patent math (what software is) but they will change the game some. Who it is most likely to effect is companies like Intellectual Vultures who make nothing and just leech off others. Microsoft is obviously not in this camp as they still derive the majority of their income from real software. That patent cash you are talking about is still largely chump change compared to say Office revenue. I am just saying if you are counting on that patent revenue to be able to replace Microsoft's software sales long term you are making a fool's bet. Microsoft won't survive as major player long term unless people start buying their software on mobile platforms as well.
MS does not have the Google business model, and I don't think it should. MS should not be mining the data of it's customers, selling the results to advertisers and competitors. So MS is going to have to gain revenue for products more directly from the end user.
Obviously, unlike Apple, it is not going to be able to have an exclusive App store. Something like that is cumbersome for enterprise. It is not going to be able to take a significant cut of hardware because MS does not sell computing hardware.
This I think is where the MS problem in mobile lies. Not in the licensing fee, but in the fact that MS has traditionally externalized the risk of building and stocking hardware to the OEM. We see this in the reluctance of these OEM to build mobile for MS. The mobile market is different from the PC market. If MS wants it's products on mobile, they are going to have to assume more of the risk.
Agreed - and MS should not be encouraged to use the fat wedge that they have extorted via their monopoly positions in other markets to gain anything like a monopoly position in the mobile market.
Yes Google have spent quite a lot developing Android but Android is Open Source and a huge chunk of the work was already done in the form of the Linux kernel and other Open Source inputs. And yes Google are monopolistic in their own way but that is their search+ad+data slurp model, not mobile OS lock-in.
An attempt by MS to gain significant mobile market share by using WinPho8 as a loss-leader initially can only be on the premise of future monopoly per-device license fees in the future as that is almost the only significant business model they have. That would not be a good future for any of us apart from possibly MS (if they could make that succeed, which is questionable).
MS's failure to date is not that their mobile OS is too expensive, it's that it is not sufficiently superior to (or even as good as, some of us may argue...) the competition to justify the premium they need to charge to cover the cost of development and turn a profit.
> deliberately hampering access to its services from Windows Phone, by not making their apps available on other devices other than iOS and Android.
It was Microsoft that recently, in the Novell-MS appeal, claimed that it had no requirement to assist its competitors.
In any case MS controls the app store and has already said that no alternate browsers will be allowed, so a Metro Chrome would not be accepted by MS. What Google apps do you think MS would accept ?
@AC 18:44: it may have escaped your notice but Google actually only create a few apps for Android, the overwhelming majority are 3rd party creations. Should Google compel every developer who understandably wants to create apps for Android also make a version WinPho? Oh yeah...that's gonna happen!
Surely the main reason for MS to play in this sector is as a defensive play to prevent IOS and Android creating a diverse ecosystem which might bring *nix into the enterprise.
Permanent loss-leading to help OEMs in that area is reasonable to protect the lucrative desktop sector.
If all you are interested in doing is a mindless 'tweet' or viewing some porn then a mobile is fine. If you are looking at doing some serious work then you need a decent screen, decent keyboard and decent applications. The desk top (/laptop) is far from dead.
The idea of giving something away is not plausible, no such thing as a free lunch and everyone has bills to pay. I don't know what the going rate for a licence for MS mobile stuff is, and I don't know how much they give in the way of back handers and support, but they will want to make money out of it at some point.
Way back there was talk of making money from 'mobile services' but to be honest I don't see that is likely to ever really happen, if a service is popular then someone is going to undercut or replace it with an application... so the model is basically flawed.
According to some random website...
Plenty of manufacturers are making profit from Android. Sony, ZTE, Asus, LG to name a few. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't.
And as to why nobody wants Windows 8:
It's a bit long, but sums up comprehensively why Windows 8 fails on so many levels.
"While Microsoft posted solid numbers for Windows 8,"
You mean that 60M number that their CFO/CMO (yes, it sound like a joke but I'm NOT joking, she is also the Chief Marketing Officer while holding the CFO title - so much for credibility!) trotted out as "sales", subsequently admitting it's nothing but the number of licenses they've sold to manufacturers, it has nothing to do with actual adoption?
Matt, please, stop eating the dogfood press junk MSFT offers up and do at least basic due diligence.
Your first chart is 33.2 percentage points shy of 100. Given that the question was "which of these 5 is showing mobile leadership", and that BYOD started because of iPad & iPhone, I'd guess the #1 answer was pretty much "none of these 5" for whatever reason
The report also showed ~80% were "very interested" in developing for iPhone & iPad. Android devices did place second, at 64% for phones and 52% for tablet, but being the first to mass-market mobile devices and flood into IT, Apple remains at the top of the heap, at least for 2013 (according to this survey).
"being the first to mass-market mobile devices and flood into IT, Apple"
First to mass market? 2007 was late. And if you mean first to sell more than a certain amount, check out the history of smartphone sales - iphone was never number one (before Android, it was Symbian), and indeed didn't sell much until 2010-2011 anyway.
I don't know why companies are so keen to cater only for the minority of Apple users, when it's never been the number one platform; for consumers this ignorance of the state of the market is damaging (Android reaches 75%, and still we have every other advert advertising about get-it-on-your-iphone, or ads for fisherman with ipads who watch Sky).
(And I suspect that first for BOYD is yet another mythical first.)
Do be quiet Mark. Some facts. Android was first for absolutely zip. Nada. Rien. NOTHING. While Android the kernel may have reached 75% saturation, the fragmentation headache for us devs is still very real. The abuse one gets for producing for iOS only just beats the abuse for daring to charge for an app. Piracy and malware is rife too. You are an absolutely ridiculous fanboy.
Due to platform support payments from MS to Nokia, WP licenses for Nokia phones are effectively paid for by Microsoft. I'm not sure how that will change as the number of phones sold by Nokia goes up or down, but as Nokia produces the vast majority of WP phones, the average Windows phone has a free OS.
Once the tablet sales breakdown - Surface vs. the others - becomes available it will be possible to determine whether the average Windows RT tablet also has a free OS (i.e. MS hardware effectively has a free OS, even if it is paid for by internal funny money).
Look I've said it before and I'll say it again, slowly this time.
iOS. Is. Not. Free.
We have no idea what the cost per unit of iOS is, as it's only sold bundled with an expensive Apple device and they're not saying how that price breaks down into hardware, software, third-party licenses, etc.
Put it this way. If WinPho 8 were only available on phones made by MS and those phones cost what the current crop of Nokia, Samsung, etc devices do with no seperate software charge on the bill when you bought one, would that mean it was suddenly "free"?
The guys posting desktop computing is finished clearly don't know what there talking about.
Can you imagine a call center employee using a tablet to record a conversation with a customer.
Businesses still require desktop computers. A laptop can be a replacement but most companies prefer locked down desktop computers. A desktop is less likely to be stolen because of its size. The chance of it falling on the floor and breaking is very small. Furthermore if they do break repairing them is easy since the parts are easily interchangeable. Whereas if a laptop screen breaks you have to find the exact model screen to repair it.
It will be difficult for Microsoft to charge for its mobile OS since Android is quite good. What Microsoft needs to do is leverage its installed base of corporate software. E.g. Exchange server and Office communicator. Many organizations ban employees from using Skype and Yahoo Messenger and encourage employees to use Office communicator for security reasons.
That unless you are running very graphics-intensive sofware or maybe hardcore statistical analysis, then your 4-5 year old corporate desktop/laptop will be just fine for running enterprise apps (namely, office productivity).
Mobile apps? Eh, good idea, but your average mobile device UI really does limit serious productivity.
Given the investment in VDI/Citrix/Remote desktop infrastructure where I work, it's radically changed the speed of the desktop migration project, as existing hardware can be sweated longer to reduce the costs of platform upgrades.
Only management use Good Technology to check email, and secure browse on BYO devices, real workers still use BBs and desktops.
"For years Google has subsidized Android adoption, paying handset vendors and others to deploy the OS .. It's cute and quaint that Microsoft is still trying to sell a mobile OS in a market where no one pays for a mobile OS. It's also stupid".
Aren't a lot of hardware manufacturers paying Microsoft for putting Android on their own hardware, so technically speaking Google is subsidising Microsoft.
Microsoft..... you really should think about it. I think it's a good idea. Anything that can help get a larger install base for Windows Phone 8, and thereby increase the likelihood that developers will write apps for it is a good idea.
I am running Windows Phone 7.5 right now. I bought it to help increase the WP share and I was irritated with crashes I was having on Froyo (at the time I was on Virgin Mobile). I have found Windows Phone to MUCH MORE STABLE and I really like it. However there’s a number of programs that are either not on WP, or are not as capable on WP. The Best Buy app for example, under android you can actually use it to buy items, under WP not. Another example, there is no official WP version of Red Box.
MS, you need a larger install base. Take one for the team, either reduce or remove your license fee. Give OEM’s more of an incentive and I would hope the reduction in cost would be also shared with the end user…..
Dufus, you forgot to read for comprehension, or lack the ability. The rest of the statement you failed to quote was "I bought it to help increase the WP share and I was irritated with crashes I was having on Froyo (at the time I was on Virgin Mobile). I have found Windows Phone to MUCH MORE STABLE..."
Next time try competence.....
> Dufus, you forgot to read for comprehension, or lack the ability. The rest of the statement you failed to quote was "I bought it to help increase the WP share and I was irritated with crashes I was having on Froyo (at the time I was on Virgin Mobile). I have found Windows Phone to MUCH MORE STABLE..."
You stated 2 reasons for buying (joined by 'and'). The 'sad' comment was made about your first reason. Your second reason doesn't nullify the first.
How hard was that to understand ?
As soon as I saw
"the writing is on the wall for desktop computing. "
I knew that the rest of the article would not be worth reading and I was right.
Mobile devices are additional devices and very very rarely replacement devices.
Just try it, remove power cables from your desktops and see how long you can manage.
Such comments are easy to make but they come from people who are just stupid
> As soon as I saw "the writing is on the wall for desktop computing. " ...
> Just try it, remove power cables from your desktops and see how long you can manage.
I am afraid that you have suffered a complete failure of understanding. The demise of desktop computing is _not_ that all the existing desktops will be turned off, nor will they evaporate in a puff of smoke. No one will come an take yours away.
But it is likely that those with a desktop will not buy a replacement for their current desktop machine. As they have done for a couple of years now, they will buy laptops, tablets, smartphones, smartTVs, and such which will do much of what they used the desktop for. They will not need a second desktop for their children because the laptops, tablets and phones will reduce the desktop usage. The desktop will still be used, but primarily for the decreasing number of tasks that require it.
When I worked for Microsoft during the development of WP7 and WP8 I proposed that they should make the OS free and make their money from advertising and apps. My US colleagues just laughed and told me that their OS was so superior to Android and iOS that all the handset vendors would be beating a path to their door. Arrogance indeed.
Just because the low end users who just browse & send email (and god forbid, tweets) don't need a desktop doesn't mean the desktop is dead.Some of us actually use the umph in a real PC.
However, it does mean the market is declining as not everybody needs one.
Also, I don't quite get the revenue model of giving away your product.
Isn't this like saying because there's lots of blogs The Times needs to be free (and I mean FREE not funded by buckets of advertising) or because of all the free MP3's Pink Floyd need to give away their product?
Nice idea but how are the hacks and muso's going to eat?