Posted on 06/23/2012 7:18:05 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
Many have scoffed at the idea that Redmond's tablet will succeed. But there are three crucial reasons to take the effort seriously. By Don Sears
FORTUNE -- Do not underestimate Microsoft's Surface tablet move. Its gambit to design and build its own hardware is a bold play to develop a thriving ecosystem of new products. It is centered on Microsoft's dominant property: the operating system. Monday's flashy Surface launch may have felt like an Apple event with its bright, pastel-colored keyboard, slick introductory videos and breathless hyping from little-known engineers. But, in fact, Microsoft's play is anything but Apple-like. The company is clearly trying to make tablets into hybrid PC-mobile devices, something its California rival has said is a bad idea. We don't yet know all of Surface's details -- battery life, pricing, official release dates are all to-be-determined for instance. But here are three important reasons Microsoft's Surface is likely to be anything but dead on arrival:
Reason #1: Microsoft can build an ecosystem
Microsoft (MSFT) has had success in the consumer market with the Xbox and most recently with the Kinect motion-control devices. The Xbox has become a household name with major brand extensions as an entertainment device. Microsoft disrupted gaming, and it can disrupt hardware.
Microsoft has serious engineering chops. Josh Topolosky, Editor-in-Chief of The Verge and not exactly a fanboy, was blown away by a visit to Microsoft's R&D in 2011. He wrote of that visit: "[MS] showed me a project … which would allow you to create a virtual window from one room to another, utilizing a variety of display, motion sensing, and 3D technologies… dubbed … the 'magic wall.' It was nuts. It was awesome. It was ambitious. The whole time, all I could think was: where has Microsoft been hiding guys like this?"
(Excerpt) Read more at tech.fortune.cnn.com ...
Major distros would probably load on a Mac with little trouble anyhow. If Windows can, odds are Linux will. The idea for Apple sponsoring a distro being having an omnicapable software environment. Either the Linux by itself, or as a virtual machine off of the Mac.
Probably not without some hacking. But Ubuntu runs fine in a VM on my Mac.
With 90-95% of the PC market, I would say that, the biggest platform for usage, right now, is the Windows platform, and Apple’s Macs are a very distant second. I wouldn’t use the car analogy for comparing the computer market, since, the Windows auto equivalent would have to include the Toyotas and the Nissans and the Subarus and the Fords and the Chevys and the GMs and the Hyundais and the Hondas and the VWs and the Chryslers and just about every other manufacturer out there, while, the Apple line would probably be the BMW and perhaps a couple of other Luxury makes. Remember that, Windows computers come from many different manufacturers. While Apple may be making loads of money from their lineup, their market share of computers is tiny in comparison to Windows.
When it comes to smartphones and tablets, I wouldn’t target any one of them, since, it’s such a volatile market, and, what’s up today, could just as easily be down tomorrow, and it’s going to be years before that market settles and we learn who the winners and loser end up being. A generic design, if at all possible, is what I would prefer, and then just try to tweak for the different platforms. My preferred approach is to “write once, run anywhere”.
When it comes to the Windows phone market, it would be very foolish for anyone to discount the Microsoft entry, since, they’ve been known to come from behind and take over any market they insist is theirs to own, like they did with the XBox and the Office software market, and which they also did with computer OSes, and with web browsers. I can see WP8 being a major player within 2 years, and perhaps taking the lead shortly thereafter. They’ve got the resources to compete better than any other company, and that includes Apple and Google, since, Microsoft has the biggest development staff, and the widest variety of experience. That’s not to sound fanboyish, but, more on the practical side. However, like I said, I wouldn’t be targeting any single platform. And, btw, when it comes to the UI, that’s where your suggestions for breaking up the criteria screen would be most helpful, since those smartphone screens wouldn’t be able to accommodate so much data and so many boxes.
Is this an Apple furnished VM or third party VM?
Yes, OS X Desktop has a small overall marketshare because Apple doesn't play in the bargain computer niche. Apple instead plays in the high-end niche, where it rules. But if you want to talk in terms of most customers for your tool, Windows is it (well, remember, there are various target environments when programming for Windows, and choosing some can eliminate chunks of that population).
When it comes to smartphones and tablets, I wouldn’t target any one of them, since, it’s such a volatile market, and, what’s up today, could just as easily be down tomorrow
Then you'll miss the boat. The market settled on Android and iPhone a while back. It's been five years. Microsoft quit being a viable competitor not long after the iPhone came out, and Blackberry is now dying. Microsoft is about to give a third try at changing that. Third time's a charm?
My preferred approach is to “write once, run anywhere”.
Good luck. I got in on Java in the late 90s on that promise. It never delivered. It doesn't really deliver on the Web either, with all those desktop and mobile browsers that can't really do web-standard applications (and, no, Safari isn't in that list).
When it comes to the Windows phone market, it would be very foolish for anyone to discount the Microsoft entry, since, they’ve been known to come from behind and take over any market they insist is theirs to own, like they did with the XBox and the Office software market, and which they also did with computer OSes, and with web browsers
Let's see where we are with that. Office is doing well. Windows isn't doing very well. Millions are buying iPads instead of laptops nowdays. Windows on mobile is basically non-existent. IE is down around 15% now.
Microsoft already did their big-boy shove into the mobile space. It worked for a while, and Microsoft was actually putting out a competitive system. Then it died. Twice. What you are hoping is that Microsoft, no longer even being the big boy in town (Apple is bigger), can shove it through. But there is no monopoly power to leverage anymore -- Microsoft actually has to compete.
They’ve got the resources to compete better than any other company, and that includes Apple and Google, since, Microsoft has the biggest development staff, and the widest variety of experience.
Microsoft has talent. But as I've shown you, that talent is choked by incompetent management. They could have a thousand modern Wozniaks and Ives, but it won't do a damn bit of good when creativity is stifled. Even now, if you look at the larger picture, Windows 8 for ARM is a REACTION. Sure, it may end up being technically brilliant, but it's still a reaction to Apple's ingenuity. Apple showed them the way and management was forced by reality to allow the brilliant engineers to follow Apple's lead. But no more, they were not allowed to really innovate, do something all-new, market-changing. This is a reactionary move to protect the god Windows.
Remember, Microsoft management KILLED mobile touch-based computing when their own engineers tried to push it, years before Apple started work on the iPhone.
I can see WP8 being a major player within 2 years, and perhaps taking the lead shortly thereafter.
Here's the problem: You and I are thinking about the current market. Apple's probably already thought the next step ahead. While Microsoft was trying to figure out how to match the iPod, Apple came out with the iPhone. Then while Microsoft was trying to match that, Apple came out with the iPad. Now Microsoft is trying to match the iPad, and ... well, you see the pattern. So WP8 may actually get marketshare in the smart phone market as seen today, what's left of it at least.
And, btw, when it comes to the UI, that’s where your suggestions for breaking up the criteria screen would be most helpful, since those smartphone screens wouldn’t be able to accommodate so much data and so many boxes.
CSS is your friend here. If you write the page code right, you can create completely different pages just by substituting the CSS. To get an idea, check out the CSS Zen Garden. Every page there is actually the same exact HTML code, with the exception of which style sheet it points to.
Third party: Parallels, VMWare or VirtualBox. No reason for Apple to try to compete with their own product.
I still dunno.
A boxed up VM-Linux extension would extend the Apple platform to everything that Linux users had been accustomed to, while also providing the luxury Mac environment. Linux is still known as quick-and-dirty, but it would be a painless way to start using a Mac.
Then I hope you're not targeting IE 8, or especially 7. They are horrible at CSS, and especially when you start scripting.
When it comes to Apple being "bigger", NO!, it's not!
We were talking about using muscle to be able to push a new product. Apple has more money, and is the dominating manufacturer in smart phones, tablets, and music players. If Apple believed in the loss-leader, they can afford to do far more than Microsoft. But they won't. Apple believes in profit from day one (something I like from a company).
with basically, three major products, those being the iPhone and iPad and Macs; the iCloud and apps/iTunes stores are just support for those 3 products.
Again, then admit Microsoft has one major product -- the XBox 360. Everything else is support for that. Oh, Windows and Office? You weren't counting software for Apple, so you don't get to count them for Microsoft.
They look nice, and work quite well, but, they're not really any better than comparable products from other manufacturers that offer their products at much lower prices.
Remember my friend? The iMac was clearly superior to all the cheap plastic PC offerings. When it comes to high-end slim notebook PCs, others do start to compete, but then they're around the same price too, or more.
High-end Apple products are just higher-priced, and not superior, like a Lexus might be considered superior to a Ford Focus.
The workmanship and attention to detail is clearly superior.
if the application works in one browser, it should work on all other browsers, even on the tiny screens.
Only in the dreams of every web designer. Reality is different. Recently, a company said it looked at the $100,000 cost to write an IE version of their web site, so they just decided not to support IE.
Also, as far as I know, IE is still, by far, the most used web browser on the market,
I think I was wrong on the 15%, maybe. On desktop IE still has about 50% and still dropping. On mobile, IE is mixed in with the 15% "Other" category, not even enough to register as itself. The problem here is that browser stats depend on the source, and different demographics can be visiting sites tracked by the different sources.
However, one course that shows IE at 54% desktop also shows Safari at 65% on the mobile. That's more than IE has on the desktop, and after only five years on the market.
Also, because MS did not do well in the mobile space in the past, is no reason to discount them in the future.
Microsoft did do well, once, at least in the US (Nokia owned the non-US smartphone market). Then Microsoft lost it -- twice. The problem with your prediction is you need to give a really good reason why Microsoft's proven losing trend should end. You also give no really good reason why Apple's proven winning trend should end. You're basing everything on press releases.
BTW, during my testing with browsers, the one which I have the most problems with, is Safari
If you're developing for mobile, and you as you say develop for the most common, then Safari would be it -- 65% remember? In any case, Safari is not the best browser, or the most standards-compliant. However, it is near the top, far above IE, about equal to Firefox depending on the aspect of standards you're looking at.
When it comes to Apple thinking ahead, well, they're behind right now, with the Surface tablets scheduled to start eating Apple's lunch
Surface is just an attempt to copy the iPad. How is that thinking ahead on Microsoft's part? And behind right now? Surface isn't even out yet. The copy of Apple's product hasn't even hit the market!
That is the most successful computer product in the history of man
Thank IBM and Compaq for that, not innovation on Microsoft's part.
Microsoft spends many times as much on research, and it's busy acquiring other companies which will add to it's products and services lineup.
Like that online ad company aQuantive. That was a great $6.3 billion wasted. Apple bought an online ad company too, for under $300 million. They're reaping the profits now with iAd. It's one thing to buy a company, it's another to successfully integrate it into your product strategy to improve your products and make money. Or how about that loss of half a billion buying Danger, then to use it to release that disaster known as the Kin?
Meanwhile, Apple buys chip designers, NAND flash storage accelerators, mapping companies, and gesture recognition companies -- all of which have seriously or definitely soon will add to Apple's products and profits. Basically, Apple has a better hit to miss ratio on buying companies.
Apple has been, basically, standing still when it comes to product development
Again, I guess Apple revolutionizing four markets in only a decade isn't enough for you? Name one market Microsoft has revolutionized in the last decade. No? Okay, how about an easier one: Name four markets that Apple revolutionized, and that Microsoft failed in their attempt to copy. I can:
When it comes to products and services, and in the variety of those services and products, Microsoft outclasses Apple.
Variety does not matter. Apple is living by an old philosophy: Pick a few things and be absolutely the best at them. Don't pick a lot of things and be best at nothing.
Interviews show that Apple doesn't believe in putting out a product unless all of those involved can be personally proud of it. Microsoft will put out a product just to get into a new market, to make next quarter's earnings, or just to stave off an attack by an innovator in the market. Examples of the latter: IE7 released because Firefox was eating IE6's lunch after monopoly Microsoft refused to improve it for five years. Windows Mobile 6.5, touch added to WM6 in reaction to the iPhone being released. Neither of those Microsoft products were any good, but Microsoft needed to release something. For earnings necessity, Vista was released way before it was ready because Microsoft needed some money flowing into the client OS division after five years of nothing (the delay was caused by pathetically inadequate development processes).
Keep checking the stock market, and especially the Apple stock price, because, in about 2 years, you might have to sell your Apple stock.
BTW, Apple is, mostly, a hardware company, and makes most of its money from hardware sales, and the software is just for support.
Microsoft is a software company, which also designs and sells hardware. Microsoft makes most of its money from software, especially in the Office arena, and server markets. Microsoft is now delving deeper into the hardware arena, BIG TIME!, and may surpass Apple’s sales and profits in the hardware area in about a year or two. You are comparing “Apples and Microsofts” and, if one were to discount the area where each one is not a “major” player in, then, you’d have to take away Apple’s software, and Microsoft’s hardware. If you could do that, then, Apple would be dead, and Microsoft would still continue being the biggest software company in the universe.
Apple has more money in the bank than Microsoft, but, when it comes to the total value of the assets of the companies, if a fire sale were to be held, with both companies selling all of their hardware and software, there is no doubt that, Microsoft would end up way ahead in the money collected from the sales, because, it’s got the much bigger selection and the the most used combination of products and services.
When it comes to the Macs, it’s only in your mind that they are superior to the PCs, especially if the PCs are made with the same parts and functionality and performance in mind. And, lately, governments and universities and businesses, are beginning to refuse to use Macs in their work environments, because, the Macs are not EPEAT compatible. That’s going to hurt Apple’s bottom line.
When it comes to the system I’m writing, my primary test browser is FF, and I later test for other browsers. I’m not targeting any specific version of a browser. My testing for IE, has been with IE9 and IE10.
BTW, when it comes to IE marketshare, they were dropping a few months ago, but, one of the reports I saw a couple of months ago, showed that IE is increasing its market share again, even if slowly. IE 9, and now, IE10, are beginning to outclass and outperform the other players in the market, and that’s according to browser tech experts and tests conducted. When Windows 8 launches, IE10 will be the default browser for Microsoft, and, because of the $40 upgrade to get people to move from XP and Vista and Windows 7, IE10 will become the instant leader in browsers, by a large margin.
You have to admit, for a company which has had a number of failures, Microsoft ain’t doing that bad. And, it’s got a future which is a lot more secure than Apple with its “measly” 3 products. ;)
You still have no solid reasoning why this historical trend should reverse.
Apple has more money in the bank than Microsoft, but, when it comes to the total value of the assets of the companies, if a fire sale were to be held
Nobody values a company this way unless it's in bankruptcy.
When it comes to the Macs, it’s only in your mind that they are superior to the PCs, especially if the PCs are made with the same parts and functionality and performance in mind.
First, they're pretty much never made with the same parts. Specifically, nobody else is using the same cases, and nobody is using that Retina display. Nobody else is integrating as tightly to produce very small, high-powered computers. But the OS being part of the package, that helps keep it superior. As opposed to you, I used both Mac and Windows regularly, actually using Windows more. It is a pleasure to come back from work and use the Mac.
And, lately, governments and universities and businesses, are beginning to refuse to use Macs in their work environments, because, the Macs are not EPEAT compatible.
That was a daring move by Apple, dropping an obsolete marker of how recyclable a computer is. I'm betting EPEAT gets updated after this slap by the maker of the most environmentally friendly computers on the market. Apple never did well by Greenpeace's standards either, even when Apple had phased out hazardous substances long before the highly-rated competition.
What's interesting is exactly what caused it. Apple is moving to tighter integration and slimmer and slimmer cases. All of it is 100% recyclable (Apple will take it back for free for recycling), but because Apple uses glue instead of screws, they couldn't get the rating.
I’m writing, my primary test browser is FF, and I later test for other browsers. I’m not targeting any specific version of a browser. My testing for IE, has been with IE9 and IE10.
My primary desktop browser is FF too. Your problem with targeting IE9 and IE10 is that constitutes about 5% of the market for IE9, 0% for IE10. So much for targeting the most used platform. The rest of the IE versions that are horrible at handling modern web apps represent the other ~50% of IE market share.
When Windows 8 launches, IE10 will be the default browser for Microsoft, and, because of the $40 upgrade to get people to move from XP and Vista and Windows 7, IE10 will become the instant leader in browsers, by a large margin.
Despite Microsoft's best effort to kill it for over a year now, IE6 still has 10%. It will be several years before IE10 even hits 30%. That's where IE8 is, over three years after being released, and being included with the "best selling OS ever."
You have to admit, for a company which has had a number of failures, Microsoft ain’t doing that bad.
Microsoft's been riding the monopoly gravy train for years, not even bothering to innovate, just copy. Actually, as I told you, even destroying internal attempts to innovate. Even if Microsoft stopped development cold, they could ride Windows and Office for at least a decade and retain 50% market in Windows, 80% market in Office. Microsoft didn't have a monopoly in the mobile space, so falling asleep for just a couple years screwed them as Apple destroyed their market share.
And, it’s got a future which is a lot more secure than Apple with its “measly” 3 products. ;)
You still haven't answered my question. Where has Microsoft reinvented or revolutionized a market in the past decade? Can you even give me one example? Apple has four examples, each one insanely profitable. I should make that five, including the App Store separately. And that's what this about, profit. We are talking companies after all.
I'm betting EPEAT gets updated after this slap by the maker of the most environmentally friendly computers on the market.
Along with Apple announcing a return, EPEAT is now talking about revising their standards to include things they haven't thought of. My bet is that EPEAT asked Apple to come back, but Apple demanded an update of their standards.
Interesting, how, from one week to the next, what wasn’t EPEAT compatible, is suddenly, EPEAT compatible. How does a piece of equipment become EPEAT compatible, if the design and manufacturing process hasn’t changed at all?
Something tells me that, perhaps, there is some behind-the-door negotiations which includes kickbacks. Nothing makes the regulators see things your way, than some “monetary favors”. I don’t have any evidence for that at all, except, it’s highly suspicious. And, those pieces of equipment from Apple aren’t EPEAT compatible, for the same reasons which were outlined in the original argument. Nothing has changed, except for, perhaps, the suspicious negotiations which, miraculously, made them compatible.
Apple withdrew computers from the registry, that's all. Apple withdraws them, they are no longer EPEAT certified. Apple puts them back in, they are EPEAT certified again.
Something tells me that, perhaps, there is some behind-the-door negotiations which includes kickbacks.
Kickbacks aren't necessary. The embarrassment of having the most environmentally friendly electronics maker on the planet ditching their standards was enough.
Plus, Apple put the two items in question, the Retina MacBook Pros, back on the list. They will be reviewed by EPEAT later, as is how it works for all items on the list. If EPEAT disagrees, they could come off the list. So an agreement wasn't even necessary to place them there. You can lay off the libel now.
And, those pieces of equipment from Apple aren’t EPEAT compatible, for the same reasons which were outlined in the original argument.
BTW, the rest of Apple's products that fit into categories covered by EPEAT all have a GOLD rating. Whether the Retina MacBooks lose gold rating before the criteria are modernized is a good question.
So, think of that: All of Apple's products before the Retina notebooks were gold-rated, and Apple still wanted to ditch EPEAT as being behind the times. Apple pulled out because of these old, fixed criteria, and EPEAT is changing them. Aside from the screw issue, I think Apple is getting tired of going far ahead of the competition in things like using fewer plastics and going with perfectly recyclable aluminum, and not getting credit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.