Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2012 08:50 UTC
Microsoft The New York Times further fans the flames of the emerging uneasiness between Microsoft and its hardware partners. As the paper reports, Microsoft decided it needed to get into the hardware game (with Surface) after the utter failure of HP's Slate 500 Windows 7 tablet. "Microsoft worked with other hardware partners to devise products that would be competitive with the iPad, but it ran into disagreements over designs and prices. 'Faith had been lost' at Microsoft in its hardware partners, including by Steven Sinofsky, the powerful president of Microsoft's Windows division, according to [a] former Microsoft executive." The biggest news is not Surface itself. It's the changing industry it represents. Microsoft failed to deliver capable smartphone/tablet software, which pissed off OEMs, who, in turn, turned to Android (and webOS for HP) - which in turn pissed off Microsoft, leading to Surface. Had Microsoft gotten its act together sooner, we'd have had far better OEM products.
Order by: Score:
Back to the old days.
by moondevil on Mon 25th Jun 2012 09:28 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

While I enjoy the freedom of installing the OS of choice in my computer, I miss what a computer meant back in the 80-90's.

When I talk about an Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amiga, Atari, Apple, etc. The name of the computer is an experience of hardware and software, made to work together.

The PC brought the freedom of hardware and software integration, and with it the bloatware and crapware that most OEM use to differentiate themselves. Something that is now spreading to the mobile world.

And lets not fool ourselves, if OEMs start selling Linuxes with their boxes, we will have HP Linux, Dell Linux, Toshiba Linux, ... .

I for one would gladly get a PC from Microsoft if it meant getting a proper integrated experience, without bloatware.

We all know about their bad practices in the industry but I doubt any MegaCorp would play nice.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Back to the old days.
by dvhh on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:04 UTC in reply to "Back to the old days."
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

did you meant an XBOX ? of course you can not run office on it yet ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Back to the old days.
by peejay on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "Back to the old days."
peejay Member since:
2005-06-29

I for one would gladly get a PC from Microsoft if it meant getting a proper integrated experience, without bloatware.


Actually, you can.

"Many new PCs come filled with lots of trialware and sample software that slows your computer down—removing all that is a pain, so we do it for you! Every PC the Microsoft Store sells is put on a software diet and performance is tuned to run the best it can."

http://signature.microsoft.com/

Reply Score: 5

RE: Back to the old days.
by MOS6510 on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:51 UTC in reply to "Back to the old days."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I could only give you a +1, I'd rather give you a +10. I too miss the time when a computer was a complete product of hardware and software. It gave it a personality and it made them all different and interesting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Back to the old days.
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Back to the old days."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Also limited sort of by design, with plenty of efforts duplication for not really that much of a difference, easily obsoleted without a clear upgrade path and overall relatively expensive long-term.
You know, just remember the wider picture :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Back to the old days.
by MOS6510 on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Back to the old days."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The C64 sold for 10 years!

Try making a computer now and sell it for even 5 years without upgrading it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Back to the old days.
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Back to the old days."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, and it was almost abusive - at the end, pushing those already long-obsolete 8bit machines (not only Commodore) into places which, well, just didn't have much of any other choice. Powerful and quite inexpensive (if you wanted, if you settled for slightly older but still powerful) hardware - coming from the economies of scale, standardisation, and constant upgrade cycle of PC world - was much nicer, ~decade later.

Well, and the C64 did get at least a cosmetic upgrade halfway through (together with many hw revisions). Overall, we're sort of returning to the dynamics of the 80s, when the same CPU (among 6502, Z80, 68k) was good for a decade - because it largely wasn't the dominating factor in performance and/or was good enough, anyway.
Ywah, we're not setting specs in stone so much - but again, that's a good thing.

Edited 2012-06-27 18:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Back to the old days.
by MOS6510 on Wed 27th Jun 2012 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Back to the old days."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Specs didn't matter much, because they didn't chance I guess.

Developers, who were called programmers back then, knew what the specs were. I think that's a great advantage.

Apple doesn't have many computers in their line-up, but even the same model can differ in memory or processing power. Let alone over a period of 2-3 years. Different hardware, different operating systems.

The C64 didn't change and programmers learned to squeeze everything out of it. And if it ran fine at their end it would at yours.

I have a feeling a lot of coding issues these days are solved with more brute force than clever and efficient tinkering of code. Then again can you spend so much time on things in a world that moves so fast these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Back to the old days.
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Back to the old days."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Specs didn't matter much, because they didn't chance I guess.

It was more than not changing. Look at Motorola 68000, a CPU from the turn of 70s/80s, and being introduced in new and different machines for over a decade - starting with workstations, then in home computers of mid-80s, numerous new types of arcade machines and consoles well into late 80s at least; but also with Mac Classic and such, A600, or IIRC new models of one Japanese computer line of early 90s.
Z80 and 6502, from mid-70s - and still some new machines in mid-80s (even a terminator ;) ...later of course also other embedded or portable usages, but those have separate considerations).
Similar largely with PCs in those period - XT or AT class machines remained standard for a long time, and while first 386 were introduced in mid-80s, the AMD386 of early 90s was still a big success.

The CPU hardly even featured in ~marketing, other things seemed to be bigger considerations for a long time, more limiting factors - like the amounts of memory, or small storage and slow I/O.
Then those became less of an issue, and we really found some usage for more CPU power in mid-90s, so the race was on.
Now it's more about the GPU and power consumption, it seems (though we have leftovers of the 90s/00s race, in marketing)

Yeah, the specs of year-on-year models differ, but that's beside the point (and a good thing) - half-decade old machines are still quite good enough in most cases.
And BTW, also probably in many "I require high speed" cases ;) - I did a sort of ABX test on such buddy of mine (also into overclocking, tweaking parameters), with halving the speed of his CPU ...and in normal usage he clearly couldn't tell when the CPU ran at full speed and when at half, his guesses were no better than chance.

The C64 didn't change and programmers learned to squeeze everything out of it. And if it ran fine at their end it would at yours.
I have a feeling a lot of coding issues these days are solved with more brute force than clever and efficient tinkering of code.

Not really... what mostly happened is that games looked virtually the same, were quite static for a long time.
And it wasn't quite that portable - most notably, NTSC and PAL models were often essentially incompatible; C64 demoscene is almost a PAL-only phenomena. And while, IIRC, C64 didn't have incompatibilities between revisions (or few), this was a problem with Spectrum lineage at least.

Also, most of past games were quite dreadful gameplay-wise, and apps not that good; shovelware - so what if it was optimised? It's a good thing when app devs can focus more on user experience, when game devs don't have to focus on low-level tinkering, that's not what games are about.

But, where it matters, we do push for heavy optimisations - mplayer for example made a big progress in performance over the years. Providers of game engines also have this in mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Back to the old days.
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:13 UTC in reply to "Back to the old days."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I miss what a computer meant back in the 80-90's.

When I talk about an Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amiga, Atari, Apple, etc. The name of the computer is an experience of hardware and software, made to work together.

But then here http://www.osnews.com/permalink?523578 you seem to sort of grumble about it?...

And you know, there was plenty of shovelware back in the day, too (well, at least it was bloating only floppy or cassette numbers)

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft missed the boat
by PieterGen on Mon 25th Jun 2012 09:36 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

I'd say that it was mainly Microsoft who failed. From a consumer view, what innovation have we seen from Microsoft the past 15 years? The OS is basically the same (NT=XP=Vista=Win7). Yes, some eyecandy was added (Aero, gradients, drop shadows).

And what about the 'killer apps' Outlook and MS Office? The same lack of innovation. After 15 years living together in the suite, Word still does not recognize Excell files. The Ribbon was an innovation, but one leading to less screen real estate and more clicks. And Outlook? A slew of uninuitive menus, cripple search engine, pathetic web service (Outlook Web Exchange).

I'm not even talking about the bizar license schemes, with titles as the Consumer Ultimate Extra Student Business Server Edition 2011. And I'm not talking about language support either. OSX and Linux get this right: there is one application and then you have several language packs. But MS does this more complex: MS Office English is a different program from MS Office French. Imagine the "joys" this brings in a multi-language company.....

Then came the iPad, the iPhone. And Android phones and Android tablets. Wow! A breath of fresh air, inituitive menus, a joy to work with. Now the bulk of Windows consumers saw what OSX and Linux users had seen all along: who old and stale Windows was. Now finally MS is starting to move. Win8 is controversial, and not my cup of tea, but at last we are seeing some movement. It wasn't the hardware companies who were slow, it was MS. Remember Steve Ballmer laughing over the iPhone? "A 500 dollar phone?" ;)

Edited 2012-06-25 09:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft missed the boat
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2012 09:52 UTC in reply to "Microsoft missed the boat"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'd say that it was mainly Microsoft who failed. From a consumer view, what innovation have we seen from Microsoft the past 15 years? The OS is basically the same (NT=XP=Vista=Win7). Yes, some eyecandy was added (Aero, gradients, drop shadows).


...and yet another person who completely disregards the fact that virtually everything - frameworks, stacks, etc. - has been rewritten or massively overhauled between XP and 7, a process that's nearing completion with Windows 8.

Come on guys, I expect comments like this on Engadget, but not here. You guys know better than this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft missed the boat
by moondevil on Mon 25th Jun 2012 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft missed the boat"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Come on guys, I expect comments like this on Engadget, but not here. You guys know better than this.


Some people just love to hate Microsoft, without recognizing that all behave the same.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft missed the boat
by zima on Mon 25th Jun 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft missed the boat"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Come on guys, I expect comments like this on Engadget, but not here. You guys know better than this.

Wasn't ~"Operating Systems News" more prominent in the past layout? Perhaps now, with just OSNews (is Exploring the Future of Computing), we largely have a crowd who gathered here thinking it's about open source ...so of course anything-Microsoft needs to be suppressed or ridiculed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft missed the boat
by Radio on Mon 25th Jun 2012 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft missed the boat"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

That is true.

But:

On the other hand, Microsoft did fail to offer a compelling touch-based UI for tablets, and x86 tablets were a stupid idea until the very latest 2012 intel procs. Not that you had the choice until Win8, as an ARM version of "Wintel" was unimaginable.

So Microsoft "losing faith" in its OEM is laughable: by their inability (until Metro) to create a good interface and to create an ARM version, they are the main culprits of the sorry state of Windows slates.

And now that x86 procs are, at last, good for the job, Microsoft uses its ginormous reserves of cash to jump over its OEM before they have the time to get on.

So once again, MS screws its "partners". Good luck trying to spin it otherwise.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Microsoft missed the boat
by Gone fishing on Tue 26th Jun 2012 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft missed the boat"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

...and yet another person who completely disregards the fact that virtually everything - frameworks, stacks, etc. - has been rewritten or massively overhauled between XP and 7, a process that's nearing completion with Windows 8.

Come on guys, I expect comments like this on Engadget, but not here. You guys know better than this.


I think your being unfair, PieterGen's point is about innovation yes MS have done some work, things have been rewritten and improved, but where is the innovation?

Windows 8 is MS's attempt at innovation after a long period of stagnation (not idleness).

Reply Score: 3

Its Microsoft's mess.
by Nelson on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:12 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

OEMs have always been terrible. Everyone knows that. They fucking suck at the job they do. But they've always been a vehicle for form factor diversity and reach.

Microsoft is wrong to blame them for a failed tablet when Windows 7 quite frankly wasn't up to the task of touch computing.

Those are two separate things. I think conflating the two is a mistake.

Microsoft Surface makes sense because of reason #1. OEMs in general, even with perfect conditions, fucking suck.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Its Microsoft's mess.
by Neolander on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:04 UTC in reply to "Its Microsoft's mess."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Microsoft Surface makes sense because of reason #1. OEMs in general, even with perfect conditions, fucking suck.

But as you say yourself in the very same post...

(...) they've always been a vehicle for form factor diversity and reach.

The reality is that OEMs are often the least awful option. Limit yourself to one single OEM per OS, and what you get is Apple : Don't like virtual keyboards on 3.5" screens ? Don't like to have the Inquisition decide which software is best for you ? Don't like that you have to pay hundreds of dollars to replace a friggin' laptop battery ? The answer is always "get used to it". Only a healthy OEM ecosystem can allow users to get a reasonable level of hardware and software diversity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Its Microsoft's mess.
by moondevil on Mon 25th Jun 2012 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Its Microsoft's mess."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Limit yourself to one single OEM per OS, and what you get is Apple


Not really, I remember there was lot of competition back in the 8/16bit days.

Hardware/OS vendor A screws you? Then move to other platform.

On the days most applications were coded in Assembly there was more portable content between systems than nowadays.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Its Microsoft's mess.
by tanzam75 on Mon 25th Jun 2012 18:57 UTC in reply to "Its Microsoft's mess."
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Exactly. These are two separate issues.

Certainly Microsoft deserves blame for the problems with Windows over the past decade -- and for dropping the ball on tablets.

But who should we blame for all those crappy notebook computers? The ones with preloaded crapware, awful drivers, terrible thermal design, strange BIOS defaults, crippled BIOSes (VT-X often locked out in the firmware), awful LCDs, barely-working touchpads, etc. etc. etc.?

It got to the point where Windows ran better on a Macbook Air using Boot Camp than it does on the majority of PCs! Boot Camp was a sideshow for Apple -- the drivers aren't exactly the most optimized -- but it also left you with a clean Windows install. That made it better than most OEM PCs.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft's fault?
by darknexus on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:14 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I'm no fan of ms but, as far as a bad Windows experience, I'm not really sure if you can place the majority of blame on them. If you buy a Windows computer from Dell, Asus, HP, or insert-other-brand-here, what do you get? Do you get a speedy, stable Windows? Nope, you get a Windows loaded with buggy drivers, ad-ridden bloatware, and useless trialware that you either have to uninstall or wipe the os and start fresh. OEMs have made the Windows experience god awful, all in the name of earning an extra few cents from companies like Symantec, ask.com, and others. This largely contributes to the stereotype of Windows being slow and unstable. Now, Windows does have its faults and it's not my personal choice, but a non-OEM install of Windows (fresh from the Microsoft disk) is usually pretty damn fast and stable barring any hardware problems. Given that, I don't think it's really fair to blame Microsoft or say they missed the boat when their hardware partners have been turning what could have been an amazing user experience into a crapfest by installing things that nobody wants.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Microsoft's fault?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:15 UTC in reply to "Microsoft's fault?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I was talking specifically about tablets.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft's fault?
by moondevil on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:31 UTC in reply to "Microsoft's fault?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

And as I mentioned in my post, this is something OEMs will always do regardless of the OS being used.

Just look at what they are doing with Android, or did with Symbian, or the Linux distributions created for the first wave of netbooks.

They will always try to diversify somehow.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft's fault?
by acobar on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft's fault?"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

The problem for OEM is that to be recognized and stay relevant you need to somehow differentiate. And what is the easiest way to do that? Software layers modifications. Their thinking is simple: people acquainted with some added features may stick to them and teach others to do so too. Their failing point is that most of the things they modify/add is crap.

Probably would be wiser to invest more on build quality and services around the device but, guess what, few of them have the resources to do that and some that have are afraid because the bigger risk associated. These are precisely the Apple strong points. Also, they would compete with their front vendors, the telcos and ISP. Not an easy task if you are not that big.

So, really, if you are doing hardware and is not Apple, Samsung or perhaps some 3 to 4 others more, you do not have that much choice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?
by Neolander on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft's fault?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It is possible to differentiate through hardware quality and software stability though.

Until Nokia got Elop'd and fell into software madness, I used to recommend their phones for their sturdiness and the good stability/feature set equilibrium provided by s40 and Symbian for the price. Similarly, I strongly suggest friends not to buy Acer laptops due to their horrible build quality.

Edited 2012-06-25 12:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?
by acobar on Mon 25th Jun 2012 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Same here about Nokia. I really have a hard time to try to understand companies that try to bring someone from outside to sort out their problems, seeing them like a savior. When they bring expertise on distribution/business relations or about new technologies is one thing, but what did Elop (and many others like him on other companies) brought? Nothing! They try to "revolutionize", wasting valuable efforts on a crisis moment.

You don't get too big a company just doing stupid things, even thought big companies do stupid things, but unlike most of us, as long as the stupid thing they did is not insane, or that the bleeding is not related to a huge technology shift, they will have the time to adapt. Nokia could do that, they had market presence, business relationship and expertise on the field. They could have improved their mix of offerings on service and options and what they did? The most dumb movement I ever saw on any gigantic company with their market presence.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Microsoft's fault?
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Elop brought, and continues to bring, pretty much what Nokia board wanted... (whatever that is, long-term)

That did include an expertise of sorts with one business relation, BTW. And Nokia was visibly stumbling before Elop. And Elop seems to aggressively push further the development of S30 and S40.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It is possible to differentiate through hardware quality and software stability though.

Until Nokia got Elop'd and fell into software madness, I used to recommend their phones for their sturdiness and the good stability/feature set equilibrium provided by s40 and Symbian for the price.

S40 seems better than ever, and being developed further, under Elop? Symbian similarly, so far... (and while this one supposedly has writing on the wall, it should still be good at least for one typical mobile phone lifetime)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft's fault?
by Neolander on Thu 28th Jun 2012 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh, I'm pretty sure that Nokia phones are still good, I just don't want to fund their current practices unless all of the alternatives would really horribly suck.

I want Nokia's financial health to go bad enough that they will have to get themselves some common sense, start firing the people who are actually responsible for the current disaster instead of dumping fine employees from the bottom of the hierarchy, and work on some great new thing instead of rehashing the same old stuff and being Microsoft's bitch. Then they can count me as a potential customer again.

Edited 2012-06-28 07:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Microsoft's fault?
by zima on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Microsoft's fault?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But wouldn't buying into their product lines that you do like, S40 or Symbian, be propping up the "preferable" Nokia practices? :p

Again, S40 (or even Symbian...) doesn't appear to be merely "still good" - it seems better than ever under Elop, and dynamically developed ( http://www.developer.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/?filte... particularly Asha 305 and the like) - in contrast to its relative stagnation for half a decade or so before Elop, when they were really rehashing the same old stuff (and when you were recommending Nokia phones, I guess); when also phones like Samsung Corby, Star or LG Cookie - not only so called "smartphones" - stole the momentum and spotlight, which Nokia has a hard time recovering.

And yeah, if people will just ignore them even when Nokia is getting its act together here and there... Meanwhile, the board and major shareholders apparently want present Nokia practices (whatever the long-term goal is, particularly with smartphone divisions).

BTW those lowly employees, largely in manufacturing - we decided we don't want them in ~Western fabs, by refusing to pay more for something similar or expecting the same price as for consumer toys manufactured in East Asian factories (hence pushing profit margins, valuations, and so on down).
Also, the lay-offs were announced together with news of some managerial shake-up ( http://press.nokia.com/2012/06/14/nokia-sharpens-strategy-and-provi... ), but that didn't seem to be reported...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Microsoft's fault?
by Neolander on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Microsoft's fault?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I do not think that solely buying and recommending the products that I like would be enough.

As far as I can tell, a functional tech company works due to a fragile equilibrium between the interests of employees, executives, customers, and shareholders. In the case of Nokia, it seems that due to a problem on the executive side in the Symbian days, financial problems have appeared, which has in turn caused shareholders to go crazy and suddenly decide that their big piles of cash somehow gave them miraculous insight on how to lead a tech company. This in turn led to the arrival of Elop and his pawns, who don't give a crap about Nokia but saw a golden opportunity for Microsoft to finally to get the dedicated OEM that they desperately needed for WP7. So these guys are now desperately trying to make this OS relevant on the phone market by associating it with the name and hardware of a reknown phone company (Nokia) and killing all possible competition inside of that company (Symbian, Maemo, Meego, Meltemi...).

The problem is, this won't work. WP7 tries to compete with iOS and Android without the brand image and centralized control of Apple or the hardware diversity of Android. It is too little and too late, in short it is doomed to fail unless WP8 magically changes the game. If that was not enough, this OS is the worst possible choice for Nokia, a company which based its success on its ability to manufacture phones for everyone's needs instead of half a dozen of lookalike slabs.

Even the management is aware of this, but to keep WP7 in focus, they couldn't find a better idea than to take a simple feature phone OS (s40) and feature-bloat it until it becomes an okay replacement for Symbian. Now, I don't know how s40 works on the inside, but I'm pretty sure that to make it work on super-low-end hardware, some serious security/cleanness compromises had to be made : running everything in kernel mode, putting all processes in a single address space, maybe some cooperative multitasking even... So I expect that at some point, when Nokia tries to bring it into the "app" game, the whole thing will blow up in a spectacular explosion of mobile malware. But only time will tell.

Meanwhile, with that vision of things in mind, it makes no sense to just buy s40 hardware as if nothing happened. This would bring Nokia's revenue up, and thus validate Elop's suicidal strategy. Shareholders would in turn be happy, and gain what looks like factual evidence that their managerial strategy is worth anything. What should happen instead is a financial disaster : shareholders would get an instant lesson of tech company management (never trust Microsoft), fire Elop, and either decide to get some more lessons before forgetting their purely financial role or sink the company further up to the point where employees and management take back Nokia's financial control.

A few years ago, Nokia were indeed a bit resting on their past successes because they could : their low- and mid-end phones were still simply better than everyone else's (I mean, Samsung and LG have never been able to achieve Nokia-like build quality, and only got better than Nokia on the software front thanks to Google's help). But they were still trying to innovate with stuff like Maemo and Qt. By carefully fixing the issues of the Symbian team, they could have succeeded and ended up with something pretty awesome. Now, it's just Windows or nothing, which is hardly exciting.

Edited 2012-06-28 16:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 25th Jun 2012 16:16 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Had Microsoft gotten its act together sooner, we'd have had far better OEM products.


That's questionable. I'd rather see no influence from MS to any OEMs. So far their relations were "lock and control". OEMs were given secret discounts to ship Windows preisntalled, leading to sick monopoly of Windows on the desktop. The picture could be much healthier if there were no leverage on OEMs from MS side.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by shmerl
by tanzam75 on Mon 25th Jun 2012 19:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

The ending of per-PC licensing was a condition of the antitrust settlement.

The antitrust settlement also prohibited Microsoft from controlling what software OEMs may preload on their systems. Hence the crapware epidemic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Jun 2012 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't see this in practice. Microsoft was never explicitly prohibited from bundling practice with OEMs. Thus the ridiculous Windows tax issue is present until this day.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Tue 26th Jun 2012 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't see this in practice. Microsoft was never explicitly prohibited from bundling practice with OEMs. Thus the ridiculous Windows tax issue is present until this day.


Of course not. Antitrust law is intended to restore competition in a given market, not kill it outright. Google and others were permitted to incentivize OEMs to include additional software. So, it made sense that MS was allowed to compete w/o tying incentives to the license cost of the OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Tue 26th Jun 2012 03:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"Had Microsoft gotten its act together sooner, we'd have had far better OEM products.


That's questionable. I'd rather see no influence from MS to any OEMs. So far their relations were "lock and control". OEMs were given secret discounts to ship Windows preisntalled, leading to sick monopoly of Windows on the desktop. The picture could be much healthier if there were no leverage on OEMs from MS side.
"

Dude, that was like 20 years ago. Time to move on...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Jun 2012 05:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

As I said, what changed since then? The bundling issue is still rampant.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Thu 28th Jun 2012 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

As I said, what changed since then? The bundling issue is still rampant.


Bundling isn't an issue. Other ISVs are free (and do) work with OEMs to get their software on machines that the OEMs sell. Why do you think there are so many complaints about "crapware" or "bloatware" shipping with new machines?

Reply Score: 2