Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Windows Phone 8 was intended, first and foremost, to bring the kernels into alignment. It did this. It is a shame that it does not provide the full WinRT API, but Microsoft never said that it would, so I'm not sure why you're saying that it was "supposed" to.
I'm typing this message right now on an Android tablet and a Bluetooth keyboard. I paid $150 for a pretty nice device, and adding the keyboard and mouse brings that to about $200, a lot less than any netbook. Perhaps a $300 netbook is better spec wise, but this thing is smaller and cuter and even turns heads in rooms full of macbook toting developers.
Android devices will always be able to beat Windows 8.1 devices pricewise because the biz model for Microsoft is that device manufactures pay something in the high $XX for a Windows license.
They can demand that premium because of all the software that exists for Windows. Windows RT deliberatly dumps Win32 compatibility because they want to have a cheap tablet OS they can sell that doesn't command the price premium without cannabilizing the market for Win 8.1
Windows 8 has the advantage of being more consistent across different devices, and gives a polished experience. This makes the product easier to market as the user can make assumptions about what they will get (unlike some crappy Android builds).
If you assume that most users don't care about the inner workings of the OS the real issue with WP8 is poor app quality.
IF they choose Windows, it's because they want compatibility with software they already use. That's what doomed RT. Microsoft thinks Metro/Modern/Market apps are what Windows is now. They want to shed the past. But customers buy Windows exactly because of continuity with the past.
Android customers want Google's ecosystem and the big selection of apps in the Play store. Microsoft's other problem is that the Bing/Live ecosystem isn't competitive.
I agree with the article to the extent that Microsoft should have done what Windows customers wanted: Let Windows be Windows. And they should have freed themselves to build the future, initially as a companion device to Windows. Or they could have bought Blackberry, or not shut down Nokia's OSs and gotten a leg up on that transition. QNX running and Android-ish userland based on an MSIL VM would have kicked ass. Instead we are dragging Windows everwhere and the userland is a hodgepodge of Web, C++, and MSIL apps.
Killing RT and running real Windows everywhere is a small improvement over the current mess, but Microsoft is wading deeper into the swamp instead of finding a way out. The only way to win at mobile is to make a non-Windows product. They are so far away from that as to be a lost cause, even if the next CEO sees the problem.
The extra $150 gets you Windows 8.1, a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student, and the ability to run x86 apps from the world's biggest software ecosystem.
That may not be of any value to you, but it's certainly of value to businesses and individuals that live in and off Microsoft Office and a vast range of Windows utilities.
If you're into photography, for example, the ability to run Adobe Lightroom and other software with batch processing and bulk uploading from an 8in tablet is pretty compelling.
The premium price is $1 a week over three years. This isn't a lot if your time time has any value.
On the other hand, the Android ecosystem is getting better quickly, and the main thing that threatens it is kneecapping on the part of vendors.
For instance, the Kindle Fire is a good product line but it doesn't give you access to Google Play. Amazon won't let you watch Instant Video on stock Android devices, however, which just drove me to get a Netflix subscription.
Microsoft Office 365 Home is a great deal at $99 a year given that you can run Office on up to 5 Windows computers and up to 5 mobile devices... With the caveat that Microsoft doesn't offer a complete version of Office for Android.
CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android, in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap.
I would think that "with iOS, we have a place to go if people start cracking our software" plays a part, too. Why would CNBC see Android as a threat?
My understanding is that right now it costs most manufacturers either as much or more to use Android versus Windows, since nearly all of the big handset companies have patent licensing agreements with Microsoft on a per-handset basis.
So it's either pay Microsoft $15 for a Windows Phone license, or pay Microsoft $15 in patent licensing fees if you go with Android. It's less a cost issue so much as a market demand for Android (versus WP).
The confusion of windows 8 is that it's trying to have 2 different ui systems...
Mac OS X seems to have done a decent job of slowing integrating some features from iOS (app store, notifications) without without copying and pasting the iOS ui system into it
I currently spend most of my time on a Windows 8.1 desktop with more than 20 different languages and development environments installed. I never "check email/text" on it, and only rarely use it to watch YouTube (have other boxes for that). To me, the "Modern" UI is little more than a souped-up Start menu.
The misunderstanding that Windows 8 is somehow a lesser Windows is getting old. After more than a year of general availability, surely somebody on HN should know better.
From that, just create an interface for Windows tablets that is similar to the existing Metro interface as it does work there.
I'm also disappointed to hear how much legacy code lives in the Win8RT/WP8 platforms - I thought they were supposed to be a clean break.
I mean this is what Next/Apple essentially did with BSD correct? Took BSD and created their own UI/services layer on top of it.
What's their motivation? Why do you think that Microsoft can't write an OS?
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, last quarter, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue and $2.24bn in profits and represents 91% of the desktop market: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
Apple knew their competitive advantage (the UI/services layers) and essentially outsourced the rest. For Microsoft to outsource Windows makes as much sense as Apple outsourcing their UI[0].
Windows, on the other hand, has tremendous backwards compatibility of executables going back 20 years. Until a few years ago (when Windows phased out 16-support), they beat even Linux in the backwards-compatibility category.
The Windows OS is crufty and ugly, but given the incredibly wide range of use cases it needs to support (both horizontally, across industries in the present, and longitudinally, across older systems), it's remarkably robust.
I certainly don't think Windows is a fun OS to write for (or even to use - I run Linux). And I would vastly prefer if Microsoft made the main line of Windows POSIX-compliant[1].
But I see no reason to come to the conclusion that Microsoft should "throw in the towel" when it comes to their OS.
[0] Apple does outsource their hardware production, but that's because SCM is itself one of their core competencies.
[1] That's probably the only thing that would make me even consider going back to Windows
Why a locked down one? Why not a full-strength mobile OS?
If I start a game that requires too much horsepower on my PC, then sure, maybe the thing freezes or take a long time to get responsive and if I recieve a skype call in that instance, I actually expect it to fail.
Not on a phone. No matter what I am doing, I expect SMS's and phonecalls to be accepted. No excuses.
> A different CPU does not an operating system make
The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department, wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and "sanctity" of corporate property.
The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android.
Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS.
Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.
You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"?
In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.
For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...