Microsoft drove the bus off the cliff, now it tries to speed up
semiaccurate.com
semiaccurate.com
Soon I figured out it came with following crapware
1. Google chrome with Bing to be homepage and defautl search engine. I even suspected that Chrome Exe might be bloated so I reinstalled it.
2. It came with Norton antivirus which consistently took up 10% CPU and large chunk of memory.
3. Some intel software which always squatted in background without telling me why it exists.
4. Lenovo's crapware
- There were 11 Lenovo software, each of which I had to uninstall separately. This included some rescue programs to some remote diagonistic programs to some internet security.
5. Did I mention Windows Update ? It was the shittiest of all. First it choked my bandwidth. It slowed down everything. Eventually my screen went blank and my machine restarted on it own. It took around 90 minutes for 71 updates to get applied. I dint even ask for them.
Even all this did not work so I had to change my display settings tuned for performance which is basically windows 95 look and feel for Windows 7.
Overall compared to my macbook which came with very less software but only something that worked as it was supposed to be.
Windows Update is an unfortunately necessary evil, it becomes more painful the longer it has been since a major Windows release.
t520 i7 1.6ghz v t400 c2d 2.4ghz
Not to tout the Surface, but if you had bought that directly from Microsoft, it would've cold booted in about 8 seconds (faster after first run) to <5% CPU usage and minimal to no major updates to download, and no preinstalled crapware to remove.
Probably one of the reasons Microsoft is getting tired of relying on OEMs to sell their OS -- they give customers such a terrible out-of-box experience.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf...
Irrelevant in what? According to whom? Very important questions.
The only way I'm able to fathom someone being able to claim that IBM is "irrelevant," is if said person has never done any level of enterprise or government IT business anywhere on earth. Must be nice to have an irrelevant $100b sales business with $16b in profit and 434,000 employees.
Well let's see here. By that measure, the following companies are apparently irrelevant too: Oracle, HP, Dell, Cisco, Intel, SAP, Microsoft, EMC - they only tally a cool $450 billion or so in sales. They must not do anything useful at all to earn that.
Irrelevant must mean: not hip or fashionable, and not dominate in consumer smart phones or tablets.
o_0
"Last fall SemiAccurate was one of the few voices criticizing Windows 8, WART, and Surface. The mainstream press seemed too welded to the MS advertising revenue stream to dare even hint that the emperor has no clothes...."
They've got trouble. I don't know if getting rid of Ballmer would solve anything (it might be necessary to start a long road to reform). I can trace back a /lot/ of MS's bad decisions to the way they review and compensate people, and Ballmer seems dead set on keeping the current review system intact, which is a shame.
I don't think M$ will go under (think: Fortune 500 + gov't), but as a consumer I don't want any of their new stuff.
I think we could've guessed that from your use of "M$" in the prior clause.
Yeah, Microsoft has lost its way. It has some amazing strengths and a lot of smart people. It can turn itself around. But the parallels to IBM are astounding. Their internal politics and HR policies are insane. They have meetings upon meetings. Etc.
But they know they are losing and, unlike the IE/Netscape battle, they can't win on price and bundling. This level of awareness gives them a chance.
If the re-org works, it will break the power of the intrenched divisions and they can stop being their own worst enemy. Or maybe it will just get Balmer fired. (I vote Scott Gu for CEO :)
People keep saying this, though I suppose someone at Microsoft must be embezzling huge sums of money because this purported big Android windfall still fails to appear on any Microsoft quarterly report. Dear NSA: the FBI or someone should look into this.
This myth is founded on Microsoft continually getting agreements with manufacturers to give them patent immunity, never with actual dollar amounts announced. Instead the press just starts inventing numbers, becoming ever more zealous with the incredible sums Microsoft is making off of Android (again, apparently completely off the books...).
Given the actual reality that these dollar amounts don't exist, the next time you hear about Microsoft making enormous sums from some sucker company, realize that they probably aren't making anything, but instead are getting various cooperation agreements, where the payments are more likely fictional movements of non-money and continued involvement in Microsoft's efforts (e.g pretty please make a Windows Phone device)
It shows up under the reporting of the Windows Phone Division:
“Windows Phone revenue, reflecting patent licensing revenue and sales of Windows Phone licenses, increased $222 million for the quarter,”
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/10/micros...
> Given the actual reality that these dollar amounts don't exist
The estimate is Microsoft gets about $8 for each Android device sold:
http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-opera...
Windows Phone exists in the entertainment division, which is a division that neither pulls in big numbers, nor actually produces a profit. For the most recent quarter it still lost over $100MM.
If these massive Android profits are hidden in there -- in a division that hosts both the xbox and Windows Phone, and has revenue of just two billion a quarter -- then it can't be very big.
The estimate is Microsoft gets about $8 for each Android device sold
There are about 1.5 million Android devices sold a day. Do you think Microsoft is making $360 million a month from Android? $4.3 billion a year?
There is no universe where that is even remotely close to accurate, or Microsoft would be screaming from the mountaintops about their incredible, pure profit success. Instead they have to stuff the purported earnings into a nebulous division.
Here is just one such an agreement:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/24/zte-android...
Also, from that link, it suggests Microsoft now has 80% of the Android market covered by similar license agreements.
As to the size of those royalty payments, who’s to know. Companies always keep those kind of details under wraps.
But I doubt very much Microsoft is going to go easy on them. Why would they?
And those patents don't only affect Android.
Microsoft recently forced Tom Tom to licence their technology as well.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html
It is no wonder Google is fighting hard against patents.
As the grow Android, Microsoft comes along for free, courtesy of their patent war chest.
Edit: It appears Google owned Motorola is trying to fight these Microsoft patents but they appear to be losing:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/google-loses-appeal-again...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/itc-orders-import-ban-aga...
Are you actually replying to my posts, or just repeating the same content repeatedly? Yes, Microsoft keeps announcing agreements -- almost universally with companies that produce Windows Phone devices, who play along with this charade -- yet there is zero evidence in their profits that any of these deals are netting a dollar of revenue, further supported by the fact that Microsoft goes to great lengths to hide this income.
But I doubt very much Microsoft is going to go easy on them. Why would they?
Because they won't go easy on Microsoft? Microsoft is trying to make the transition to hardware (where the big money is now), and it turns out that all of those companies that Microsoft is yielding agreements have massive troves of patents that can demolish and eliminate Microsoft from the market.
It appears Google owned Motorola is trying to fight these Microsoft patents but they appear to be losing
Motorola told Microsoft to get lost (all Microsoft wanted, as an aside, was that Motorola keep making Windows Phone devices. That was the entirety of their demands when they didn't "go easy" on Motorola), and thus far Microsoft's effect on Motorola has been....nothing. Absolutely nothing. A couple of fringe patents that will get beaten back and beaten back.
I'm sorry but I just don't believe you when you say there is zero evidence of them making money. They will be making big money.
Why on earth would any company license its technology for zero revenue gain?
> there is zero evidence
As noted earlier, from the latest Microsoft quaterly reporting figures:
Windows Phone revenue, reflecting patent licensing revenue and sales of Windows Phone licenses, increased $222 million.
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn...
So Windows Phone revenue is up $222 million for the quarter, which means they are either selling lots of Windows phones or they're making money from their patent licensing agreements.
It must be one or the other. Take your pick. I know which one I'd choose.
Windows Phone has been doing remarkably well for the niche it holds. I mean, it is in the dark shadows of Android and iOS, but a couple of years ago it would have been held as stellar smartphone results.
Given that WP is estimated to be licensed at between $20 and $35 per (even though shenanigans see Microsoft returning all of that money to Nokia, it still counts as bogo-revenue), and there were some ten million Windows Phone devices activated, yes, that sum absolutely is accounted for by Windows Phone.
And then you have the fact that Microsoft makes patent money on FAT (on every single device in the world that uses FAT SD cards and the like), ActiveSync (patent licenses), and their portion of MPEG-LA...
...there is remarkably little space left to hide the enormous sum they supposedly make from Android.
You have anything concrete to back this up with?
if MS is really going down the cliff why is it that they are still making billions NOW?! nobody's going to use a tablet in the office typing their 10 page report...
I'm sure they'll have lots of problems going forward. I'm not aware of many companies that don't - what 40 year old technology companies don't have problems? Given that only a few of those exist today, and even less large-scale 40 year old tech companies exist, I'd say Microsoft is doing just fine.
This causes me to have to develop 2 versions of my product, increasing expense. Shame on you MS.
A terribly non-constructive article. It really is just one long angry bash fest. I had to stop reading at "Windows 8 is just awful" - I've been using it for some time, and it's a perfectly fine operating system: fast, secure, stable, and requires no more resources than Vista did six years prior. I haven't had a single problem with it; the sole thing I dislike about it - the start screen - I practically disable by booting directly to the desktop and blocking charms for it.