Dear Ed Bott: No, Windows 8 is not the new XP
roughlydrafted.com
roughlydrafted.com
But the author spent the first half of the essay arguing that the market Microsoft is good at is going away. If that's correct (and it's a big if), Microsoft has no choice but to learn to be good at different things. You can criticize how effectively Microsoft has done this - and that critique consumes the latter half of the essay - but you can't simultaneously argue that Microsoft needs to change what it does and that Microsoft needs to keep doing what it's good at.
The Nexus 7 and other 7-inch tablets that run Android, presumably originally developed to compete with iPad, are selling so well that it has prompted Apple to launch a competitive variant of iPad (not officially, but wait 24 hours). This is competition working the way it should, to the benefit of consumers and the general state of technology.
Any claim that any company should not pursue a market in which it has the potential to be competitive simply because another company is currently more successful is a lie. When such statements involve companies with a large fanboy culture, their wrongheadedness is somewhat hidden, but I for one am excited to see where Windows 8 will take us, and take the Mac.
Throwing touchscreen devices into the Windows wheelhouse and trying to write one OS that runs across them and desktop machines is actually very much a bet on MS's core competency.
I take it you never tried to use one of the thousands of Vista laptops sold with 1-1.5 gigs of RAM?
That Windows 8 doesn't look at all like Windows of old is a 'good' thing, that Microsoft is continuing to try to be a competitor in mobile is a good thing, and that they are taking a more leading role in defining hardware is a good thing too. One can argue that they haven't done as good a job as one might like, or that some of their efforts seem to address non-problems, but it seems silly to criticize the company for trying.
Really? So does my car have a tire tax, just because it comes with tires on it? If you're buying a PC, 99.99% of all people expect it to come with an OS. In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC preloaded with Windows ($35) than it is to buy an unloaded PC and buy a copy of Windows ($150). There are major manufacturers making Linux PCs. There are major manufacturers that will sell you a box loaded with FreeDOS. There's even a major manufacturer that sells pre-installed, well-supported, and beautiful Unix PCs (I've heard they're one of the richest companies in the world). It's not like Microsoft is literally taxing computers, they're charging an incredibly small amount of money and in return you're getting their OS preinstalled like most of the market wants.
Can we get over the Windows Tax thing? It's pretty much akin to saying Micro$oft. Funny in middle school, but it makes your argument much less attractive now.
It's also cheaper to buy a computer with Windows preloaded than a computer with no operating system (typically). This is especially noticeable in the laptop market. (Granted the market may have changed since I last bought a pre-built computer five years ago.)
Anyway, I think the point of the statement you quote really isn't about the "tax" but an illustration of the fact that Microsoft more or less controls the PC market through Windows. If Microsoft arbitrarily decides to double their license fee, manufacturers (until recently) really have no choice but to comply.
I have not noticed this. But I have noticed that Acer laptops with Linux Mips are ~80EUR cheaper than same models with Windows.
Is this because Microsoft is forcing them to buy a license, or because the market is demanding Windows? We can debate Microsoft's sketchy practices in the past (which they were then punished for), but the here-and-now question is why do OEMs provide Windows? And my answer is, because there's not much else they can do. OEMs offer Ubuntu, and it's a very low-volume seller. OEMs offer FreeDOS, and it's a very low volume seller. When someone buys a PC, they expect it to run right out of the box and with the OS the market is demanding.
I think my point still stands. It's not a tax any more than including (and charging for) a hard drive is a tax. It's just expected that a PC will come with it. It would be cheaper for the OEMs to produce all their PCs with Linux (to the tune of ~$35 per PC), but they don't because the price decrease will not offset the sales decrease. When I bought my truck, I wanted huge 38" MT tires instead of the 31" all season tires that came with it, but I had to buy those separately because the market demands road tires.
Which OEMs? In the UK, the only way I've got a computer without Windows is to order one custom built in a local shop.
Dell also offered FreeDOS as an option. Looking online, Acer has offered FreeDOS in the UK, at least in the past. These computers are usually advertised as "No OS Installed" or something similar.
(1) They find that offering one Linux isn't much of an advantage even for Linux users, since so many people have a different preferred distro. Even people who buy a laptop running Ubuntu are likely to replace it with something else, currently Mint.
(2) Supporting Linux is a very expensive nightmare, especially if you try to do it in 30 languages across 50 countries. Selling Linux laptops to newbies is a loss-making proposition, so you only want to sell to geeks and businesses that can look after themselves. And they're the people who install their own OS anyway.
(3) It's not such a big deal to sell business machines with FreeDOS or something similar. With consumer laptops, the pre-installed crapware basically pays for Windows. Business laptops don't have (or shouldn't have) pre-installed crapware so OEMs are not losing to much on installation fees. The exception is probably the anti-virus program, which delivers big bucks if the user signs up and pays.
Over the years I've wasted a lot of money buying copies of Windows that I never used and that I never wanted.
I very much doubt that this is so because of convenience: it is so because it gives more money to Microsoft.
It's outrageous.
So, yes, I wish we could get over the Microsoft Tax thing. Call it Microsoft Mandatory Purchase or Microsoft Gratious Gift for Mere Pennies if you wish, it doesn't matter.
Of course, I knew that when buying a MacBook I would end up paying a small amount for the development of OSX even though I had no intention of using it.
I had options, you had options. We chose the option we did because in balance that was the best option for us respectively.
> I very much doubt that this is so because of
> convenience: it is so because it gives more money
> to Microsoft.
That said, I've seen places with Microsoft shops would have wanted to avoid the 'Microsoft Tax.' I remember each machine in University had two Microsoft licenses. One that came with the purchase from Dell, and the other one purchased separately so that we could do more enterprise-y stuff with it. I'm sure that on a purchase of 1000s of desktops, avoiding $35/machine would have been nice.
Well, most people want Windows pre-installed. So, is it more/less/equally convenient for manufacturers to maintain a 2nd inventory for the small percentage of people who do not want Windows installed? And would the overall cost associated with this 2nd level of inventory divided by the total number of PC's sold without an OS be greater than or less than the amount you are paying for Windows when you buy a new PC?
I don't know the answer, but it's something to think about.
You could have just as easily purchased something that wasn't a ThinkPad. That's akin to complaining that the iPhone comes with iOS on it, or that Mac's come pre-installed with Mountain Lion.
You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with. Consider that with Windows is the norm, and because of that, it's easy to produce in greater numbers. Producing an exception, or a custom, will drive up the price.
At least here in the UK, it's not easy to get any computer without Windows - unless you want to shell out much more for a Mac. Dell no longer offer Ubuntu, and there's no local equivalent of System76. I found a small shop that builds unbranded desktops and will install Linux, but their laptops have Windows bundled.
> You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with.
But on the rare occasions that a big name offers laptops with Linux - or without an OS - it is cheaper than comparable Windows machines.
>Microsoft needs to focus on what it is good at, and stop chasing Apple just because it wants to be good at what Apple is good at.
This line just destroyed his credibility. The false ideology that these writers have, that is, everyone is chasing Apple these days should be corrected. I think Microsoft is just trying to make their Windows Operating systems better by introducing a new UI.
It is stupid to label anyone as a copycat of Apple just because they are trying to perfect their products.
To support my arguments, here is another article explaining very well why there is no 'post-pc' era:
http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-rt-redm...
It is actually not in support of Windows/Microsoft, but it explains very well why there is no 'post-pc' era.
FYI: I own 2 windows based desktops, an iMac, an iPad and 4 Android phones. There are a lot of things my iPad will never be able to do like my PC.
But how can you deny that tablets (not just ipad) are replacing PC sales? Think of all the use cases that a tablet just makes more sense than a PC (e.g. as a mobile cash register or for casual media consumption)
Are you going to use a spreadsheet on on your IPad?
Are you going to use your laptop to make a call you are stuck on the side of the road?
Both Jobs' Truck/Car metaphor and Microsoft's "PCs are everywhere" are both correct.
So I agree that the post-pc device can never take over certain functions, but it can replace enough to make microsoft worry.
Whichever way you put it, the trend today points to people spending more time using their smaller, more portable devices, including smartphones and lightweight tablets.
I agree that the author is biased, though, and he completely ignores that Microsoft can't afford not to go into the lightweight tablet market.
This is so over-blown. Apple has sold something like 80MM iPads since the device was released. On the other hand, there were 90 million PCs sold in the first quarter of 2012.
Tablets are great, but they aren't replacing PCs any time soon. For all we know, the market will be tablet-saturated after Christmas.
>"Microsoft can’t command those prices anymore because of competition. Apple now hands out OS X upgrades for $29, forcing Microsoft to sell its new Windows 8 Pro upgrades for just $40."
In 2001, Apple was selling OSX for $129. The low cost of operating system upgrades was something that happened gradually, over time.
I don't know what office you work in.. but no; iPads have not replaced PC's. Yet. There are too many applications that just don't work well enough on a tablet device. This will change of course. But not today.
Granted a lot of people in the office have ipads, but most bought it themselves. And use it with a PC. Not in place of.
So IMHO it's not that far fetched to say that individuals and businesses are buying less PCs than they were when Win XP came along. Doesn't say they aren't buying them anymore, just less.
The only place I see people using their iPads to cash out are at the farmers market. And that makes sense since you are outside and need something portable.
But I do agree, businesses are buying less PC's but not because they are replacing them with iPads. Because they aren't spending the money. The glut in the PC market is that everyone has one. It's saturated (I'm talking the Western World here, not developing countries). Now you buy one as a upgrade. And businesses only upgrade when they must.
MS's job is to provide a compelling reason to upgrade. Time will tell if Windows 8 does this (I doubt it actually. Maybe when more apps are built for it).
the comment above you also talks about 'tablets', not 'ipads'. Tablet-style things (ie rather small devices with a touch screen) have been used for cash registers and as controls in the industry for quite some time. A lot of them were merely PC's, running some sort of Windows. This might start changing now since tablets are getting more widespread, hardware getting cheaper etc.
Which must be a pretty slow cycle in this space. I recently shopped at a store that I hadn't been to in at least a decade. I was shocked to find they were still using the exact same orange screen terminals that they were using when I was a young child.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate the original claim though. All new POS terminal installations could be using iPads or similar tablet devices.
Imagine trying to effectively generate an excel sheet. I cringe at the thought of trying to manipulate data from a tablet. You would waste a lot of time to produce something sub par. This is one example, there are many more.
Although apple reinvented the tablet market it will take greater innovation and the creation of some other tools before tablets become effective and efficient machines in the work place.
We've been talking a lot about replacing everything with iPads. The install price for the customers would be much much cheaper, and the experience for all involved would be better.
The only thing holding us back, is the lack of available man hours, to make the switch, but it will happen.
(Edit: added "something like")
The bonus of using iOS, is predictable behavior, sleek design, better custom accesories (iPad msr) , percieved value of the customer, but also the ability to get a replacement device, with ease.
If you go with Acer X, you have no idea of availabilty 2-3 months later, let alone a year or two.
Is deploying a custom application to the iPad (without going through the App Store) as easy was sideloading to an android device?
However, if you would rather sidestep the regular appstore, Apple provides something called the Volume Purchasing program. With that, it is possible to provide apps directly to devices, either for free or a paid solution.
And all of those words and zero mention of Linux or Android...
It is funny that our loyalties to brands make it difficult to just step back and say "man, that is cool". So, let me do it for you: "man, Windows 8 is cool".
"Windows Phone is doing so badly that Nokia, Microsoft’s
largest and staunchest mobile partner, actually sold more
of its abandoned legacy Symbian devices (3.4 million)
than its new Windows Phone Lumia phones (2.9 million) in
the last quarter."
see here for a more detailed analysis, courtesy of Horace Dediu: http://www.asymco.com/2012/10/19/nokias-lumia-brand-strategy...
2.9 mil Lumia phones in a quarter? Why is this stat presented as "doing badly"?
Samsung sold about 10mil Galaxy Notes in a year (so, ~2.5mil/Q), and that "phablet" is quite a niche device. And Verizon alone sold more iPhones in Q3 than Nokia sold Lumias worldwide.
Maybe WP8 will change this, but I'm doubtful.
Also, the situation with young Android or iOS is not exactly comparable to the one now, as then the markets were still dominated by featurephones, and so there were lots of "new" customers to convert. Now for example in USA the market is 50% smartphone, and people already have invested into one of the ecosystems. Getting those users to switch is a lot harder.
However, 200$ is still too much.
"The problem with the PC isn’t that the market desperately wants a new version of Windows that looks different and has a higher version number. The real problem is that the well has run dry, and new versions of Windows won’t fix this. And really, if they’re too different, they’ll just accelerate the shift to Post PC devices."
"There is not going to be huge annual increases in PC shipments anymore. Everyone knows this. What they don’t always seem to see as clearly is that you can have a personal computer without having a box under your desk blowing hot air away from an Intel CPU."
"Windows Phone is not just unpopular, it’s so toxic it lethally crippled what was not too long ago the world’s leading smartphone manufacturer."
"Not to worry, the Windows Enthusiasts tell us. Microsoft doesn’t need a lack of competition, high ASPs, expanding revenues, nor even any support via Post-PC devices. The legacy pile of PCs out there will magically blow money in Microsoft’s direction once Windows 8 hits because that’s what happened in the past."
"There are tremendous problems facing the Surface. The first: it’s based on a lie. It’s called “Windows 8 RT,” but consumers associate “Windows” with two things: a familiar interface and the ability to run Windows apps. Surface RT supports neither."
"The non-RT, Intel x86 version of Surface not only isn’t available yet, but it’s going to be too thick, expensive and heavy to compete with iPad, just like any other Ultrabook or previous Windows Tablet."
"Saying that the Surface is a combination of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 hardware savvy and its Windows Phone software savvy is like one of those jokes about a train engineered by Italians, serving English food, managed by Portugal and financed by Greece."
Good analogy.
I independently commented quoting that sentence but deleted it when I saw you beat me to it.
Not arguing against the entire point of the article, but that seems like a highly localized phenomenon. In fact, I haven't seen PCs used for this in over 10 years either.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Anyway. The article seem full of half-truths and inaccuracies intermixed with opinion to support his point. I'm not saying he's all wrong, but he has enough wrong to lose most of his credibility.
I see them all the time, in Safeway, Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Kroger's, Rite-Aid, etc. They're running custom register software & a network-boot OS, but reboot them and they still run through the same bios POST and start-up messages as today's desktop PCs.
It might make sense to point out that what everyone knew a few years ago was that Apple was dead. It might make sense to point out that this week Microsoft will begin shipping a true post PC operating system, Windows RT, to hardware OEM's, and that Microsoft will have first mover advantage.
Yes, it might make sense to point out these things, but everyone knows them.
Windows was fairly protected by being a big natural monopoly. Making a good OS is itself a difficult task. Making a good OS & getting an application market to grow around it in a deal-breaker rich environment is nearly impossible. There were no ways to climb the hill other than straight up the steep face.
Smartphones/tablets are an angle of attack. An easier way to climb the hill. Android & iOS matured without having to compete with windows. Now two of MS's most dangerous competitors can both launch new smartphone derived PC (keyboard & mouse) operating systems with 80% of the work (in both OS building & in app ecosystem building) already done.
Even worse, there may be room for new mobile OS' to get going. The market isn't tending to the same kind of monopoly as PCs.
I predict that iOS, Android and/or yet-to-succeed OSs are going to hop from tablets & phones to TVs and other devices. Its only a matter of time before we see one gaining traction on laptops. Apple could probably release a $500 post-PC PC within a year that will double (in units) Apple sales out of the gate. Google could too (though it probably wouldn't hit the ground running as fast).
Eventually, this market will fold in on itself and we will have several OS families. I would be surprised if any one (including windows) gets as firm a grip on any market as microsoft did.
This doesn't mean that MS dies. They are (despite the criticisms) a very competent company. It just means they compete with 2-5 different companies for market share in a bigger market. consumers win.
The frustrating thing about reading Daniel Dilger's articles is that he's actually a good deal more knowledgeable than most tech pundits and occasionally even insightful, but his worldview is so Apple-centric that he's blind to having any idea what his blind spots are. This article is a case in point, almost everything factual in it about Microsoft is wrong, to wit:
* Zune wasn't a low-budget project (it was actually funded fairly lavishly, in part because it was meant partly as a kind of pilot project for developing new Microsoft design aesthetics / patterns / practices)
* Zune wasn't based on web technologies (it used Yet Another Internal UI Framework). Neither is Windows 8 really (there is a web-based UI framework, along with a native one, but they both sit on top of native APIs)
Windows 8 has nothing in common with Zune codebase-wise, and UI/design-wise though there's a family lineage between them it was developed independently from the Zune->Windows Phone line (which itself has changed a lot over the years) and diverged quite a bit
* he still apparently thinks the new Windows UI is a "thin layer" on top of old Windows, which I think he still imagines as Windows XP or whatever. in previous posts he was having fun comparing it to Bob. I think that's fundamentally wrong - while the new environment isn't really separate from existing Windows it's imo misleading to think of it as a "thin upper layer", because developing it involved making deeper changes & refactorings to every layer of the system (ARM support, window hardening, MoCOM, PLM, app model, async, etc.)
* see, not only does his ignorance lead taking jabs at MSFT that don't make sense, it leads to him missing out on potential avenues of attack that WOULD make sense - he could make fun of the ridiculous UI framework fragmentation problem Microsoft has, which is an area where Apple actually has its shit together and has for some time.
Windows 8 is the painful stepping stone that windows needs to step on in order to move forward and stay competitive.