> The Windows trust and value proposition was always compatibility,
There are other platforms, you know? If you say "compatibility", you might want to add "compatibility with other proprietary microsoft stuff".
> low-cost devices,
They could be cheaper when not being forced to pay for windows with them.
> and an open architecture (to name a few).
I don't really get it. Almost everything he talks about is proprietary closed source microsoft specific stuff. How "open" of an architecture is that?
But then I don't really understand why people would want to tie themselves completely to proprietary microsoft technology, even if it did not change so much.
Aren't there enough actual open and cross platform frameworks that people could use? Why specialize yourself to create software that does and will only ever work on windows?