Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Aug 2013 14:52 UTC
Windows

Nokia is preparing to back Windows RT by launching a 10.1-inch tablet soon. Sources familiar with Nokia's plans have revealed to The Verge that the tablet, codenamed Sirius, will be launched shortly. While prototype pictures of the device leaked earlier this month, we understand that the final design more closely resembles Nokia's Lumia Windows Phone products.

Nice specifications, but Windows RT. Nobody wants Windows RT, and for good reason. I say this from experience: Windows RT is horrible. It offers nothing over iOS (let alone Android), Metro applications are side projects riddled with bugs, performance issues, and bad design, and the platform barely plays third fiddle compared to iOS and Android, so developers have little interest in it. On top of that, virtually everyone has abandoned Windows RT.

But, I'm pretty sure some people will tell us this tablet will turn Nokia around.

Order by: Score:
Windows Phone is dead!
by crocodile on Mon 26th Aug 2013 15:25 UTC
crocodile
Member since:
2010-01-18

Now that Balmer is "retiring" and that even Gates admitted that Windows Phone strategy is a mistake nobody (carriers, developers, shops, etc.) will touch Windows on tablet, phablet, or phone!

Nokia should cancel right now the launch of Sirius and they would save a lot of money (unless they put Android on it)!

Edited 2013-08-26 15:33 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Windows Phone is dead!
by The123king on Mon 26th Aug 2013 15:38 UTC in reply to "Windows Phone is dead!"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

But that will never happen. Nokia might as well become (and in 2 years i bet it does) microsofts mobile subsidary. Microsoft will drive Nokia into the ground, which is a shame, because Nokia was an awesome company

Reply Score: 11

Why?
by reduz on Mon 26th Aug 2013 15:42 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

Why invest so much in a product that has proven to be an absolute failure? How can Nokia even benefit from this?

I could understand a Windows Phone Tablet to a certain degree because Lumia sales have proven to be at least warm, but windows Windows RT is already dead and there is no point about digging it out from the grave.

It's like Nokia has become a whore that will do anything to please Microsoft for money while getting a deadly STD in exchange.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 15:56 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone sales weren't spectacular before Lumia. If they can grow the ecosystem then a tablet can help hedge their mobile bet to a degree.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why?
by crocodile on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
crocodile Member since:
2010-01-18

Balmer got retired because of the spectacular sales of Windows Phone!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No he didnt.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why?
by crocodile on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
crocodile Member since:
2010-01-18

Then why he got retired?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Wouldn't you retire after 30 years in senior leadership?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by joekiser on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

Wouldn't you retire after 30 years in senior leadership?


This came across my Twitter feed just a few minutes ago:

http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/activist-investor-helped-drive-ballmer...

Reply Score: 7

RE[7]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, I predict over the next few weeks you'll see about 10 different theories as to why he decided to retire.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Why?
by Kivada on Tue 27th Aug 2013 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Wouldn't you retire after 30 years in senior leadership?

Why not hang around for eternity when win, lose or draw he still gets paid an obscene amount of money?

And leadership? Like Jobs and Gates, just no, these guys don't lead, they bark out vague, often impossible orders, no doubt full of crap from marketing, to the staff that then has to try and make something.

As CEO your job is that and meet the boys at the country club for an important meeting.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why?
by Nelson on Tue 27th Aug 2013 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

He owns an obscene amount of Microsoft stock and is rich beyond imagination, I honestly can't understand why people so well off even get up for work. That's just me though.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Why?
by Morgan on Wed 28th Aug 2013 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I left a cushy government job to work full time at a place where I actually enjoy going in to work every day. I don't get paid much more, I get less benefits -- in fact I have to rely on my wife's health insurance now -- but I'm doing what I love.

Sometimes it's not about the money. Maybe Ballmer just said "I'm done" and wants to enjoy the rest of his life stress-free.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why?
by hussam on Mon 26th Aug 2013 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

I read something of the sort here:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Questionable-rumor-Ballmer-pushed-ou...
and his retirement letter did hint he would have rather retired at a different time.
Whether that is true or not is a completely different story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft has had writeoffs larger than $900 million. Why not the aQuantive $1.6B write off? Why not the Xbox $1B write off?

People are guessing.

Edited 2013-08-26 23:06 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why?
by reduz on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

It still doesn't make sense. I mean of course it makes sense for Microsoft to ask Nokia to try luck with this device, as they did moderately well with the Lumias.

But for Nokia, It makes much more sense to do something like a Windows Phone tablet than go with something so high risk at this point. It's their money, not Microsoft's money, unless we are to assume that Nokia is pretty much just living out as a services company for Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

There is no such thing as a Windows Phone tablet. Otherwise I'm sure they'd try, but there's rumors of a 6 inch Galaxy Note style phablet running WP8 which blurs the lines a bit.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why?
by jnemesh on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
jnemesh Member since:
2008-04-08

They aren't spectacular NOW! They have less than 4% global market share...so, yes, they are selling millions, and no, that isn't even making a SMALL dent in the number of Android and iOS handsets being sold. It's not enough to motivate developers to make the NEEDED apps for the platform, and it's not enough to keep the entire ecosystem from dying. It is CERTAINLY not enough to save Nokia from bankruptcy!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

When is Nokia going to go bankrupt? NSN just got a 300 million dollar contract to help build out China's LTE network. Bankrupt indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 27th Aug 2013 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

NSN is pretty awesome. Regardless of what happens to Lumia,etc NSN will survive as a profitable business in some fashion.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 15:55 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Margins are astronomical on tablets, if Microsoft eats some of the advertising cost, this can definitely help Nokia's bottom line, provided it sells a few million.

Unsure if it will though, not too bullish on it. Especially since its apparently 10 inches, but who knows.

I think the Snapdragon 800 will do a great deal (along with perf improvements in 8.1) should help along the way.

The use of RT is certainly peculiar for a ten inch tablet with how the efficient Haswell is, but LTE may have played a role.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by crocodile on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson "
crocodile Member since:
2010-01-18

Microsoft will not help Nokia here! Actually Microsoft will even charge Nokia for each tablet sold with Windows!
Microsoft already lost 900 million $ on its own tablet which was sold for only 6 weeks before it got declared a failure! Now Gates is in charge at Microsoft and he made it clear that Windows Phone strategy is a mistake which cannot be fixed anymore!

Reply Score: 1

why so late?
by bnolsen on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:01 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

It's been almost a year since RT's rollout. Why wait so long to release this tablet? Does this mean that nokia is now competing directly with MS?

Or is it that MS gave up and decided to try again with nokia as proxy?

And what the hell are nokia's shareholders doing? Isn't nokia bleeding enough money already trying to (unsuccessfully) buy their way back into the mobile market?

Edited 2013-08-26 16:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: why so late?
by tkeith on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:29 UTC in reply to "why so late?"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

Really, they have to have something new to make a difference. Everyone seemed to like the surface's hardware, so good hardware won't be enough. Strange it doesn't even have a rear facing camera, as annoying as they can be.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:49 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Looks like Nokia want to make a final suicidal move before going bust and selling all their patents to trolls... Elop's strategy of self annihilating platform in action. It was probably the plan of some IV or other trolls all along.

Edited 2013-08-26 16:55 UTC

Reply Score: 6

I'll admit...
by peejay on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:57 UTC
peejay
Member since:
2005-06-29

I actually was surprised when I looked at the photo of the Sirius and it wasn't black. ;)

Reply Score: 7

"Priced similar to Apple's iPad"
by jbauer on Mon 26th Aug 2013 17:07 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

Priced similar to Apple's iPad


Hahaha. Seriously, why bother.

Reply Score: 8

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I agree. They need to learn from Microsoft and not price the same as the market leader if they want to move units. Plus, 10 inches seems a bit myopic when the big thing is 7-8 inch tablets.

Reply Score: 3

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

i think 7-8" tablets sell well because they are noticeably cheaper than 10" tablets. For home use (browsing, etc) I definitely prefer a 10" one.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by _cynic_
by _cynic_ on Mon 26th Aug 2013 18:36 UTC
_cynic_
Member since:
2012-04-18

They'll be competing with heavily discounted Surface RT 1 and the next Surface.
Let's hope Nokia has 900mi to spare, just in case...

Nelson optimistic(delusional) as ever, why don't you copy/paste here some cool Windows RT features?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by _cynic_
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 19:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by _cynic_"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I've been right about nearly everything I've said about Nokia on this website. Right about their trajectory, right about how much they'd sell, right about their financials, right about their overall health. I've been right a lot more often than you've even staked out a position.

Some "delusion". And if you actually took the time to read my comment (which you either haven't or you're being willfully or unwillfully ignorant) you'd see that I'm not as confident their tablet venture will work out, only that it has tremendous upside potential.

Surface got Microsoft over 800 million dollars in revenue and had better margins than an iPad, even a fraction of that will be very attractive to Nokia if they can manage supply adequately.

You don't know a thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by _cynic_
by adkilla on Mon 26th Aug 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by _cynic_"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Why so Sirius?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by _cynic_
by No it isnt on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by _cynic_"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Ah, Nelson being "right". The best kind of right, that is technically right, a.k.a. misleading. Like when a $900M loss becomes a $800M revenue. Like when getting soundly beaten in every market becomes a relative YoY growth from barely nothing.

You're a sleazebag liar, not least when you tell the truth.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by _cynic_
by Nelson on Mon 26th Aug 2013 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by _cynic_"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You do know how accounting works? It is both possible to have $800M in revenue while having $900M in write offs against future purchases. You do know that this is taken from Microsoft's own financials, right?

The revenue figure was cited only to show upside potential because of high margins on tablets. That would take actual thinking on your part.

The rest of what you say is an aside and not at all related to anything I've claimed, especially not the health and unit sales of Nokia, just to burn down that strawman

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by _cynic_
by Kivada on Tue 27th Aug 2013 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by _cynic_"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

You do know how accounting works? It is both possible to have $800M in revenue while having $900M in write offs against future purchases. You do know that this is taken from Microsoft's own financials, right?

The revenue figure was cited only to show upside potential because of high margins on tablets. That would take actual thinking on your part.

The rest of what you say is an aside and not at all related to anything I've claimed, especially not the health and unit sales of Nokia, just to burn down that strawman


You can stop being so disingenuous about the numbers about a product that by all measures is a complete and total failure that single handedly took one of the best and largest market share phone companies and nearly forced them out of the market.

Elop was Microsoft's parasite to spread the Windows disease to mobile yet again but this time have it completely infect a company. It has failed just as bad as every other mobile project from Microsoft with the added tragedy of taking Nokia down with it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by _cynic_
by Nelson on Tue 27th Aug 2013 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by _cynic_"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You can stop being so disingenuous about the numbers about a product that by all measures is a complete and total failure that single handedly took one of the best and largest market share phone companies and nearly forced them out of the market.


Complete and total failure with double digit volume growth quarter over quarter and year over year, you have a peculiar definition of failure.

However, in the interest of not rehashing arguments I've brought up in literally every Nokia thread (which is ignored and often lost on the delusional) I'll leave you to believe what you wish and we'll revisit the topic when their quarterly results show another volume increase and further stabilization of financials.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by _cynic_
by allanregistos on Tue 27th Aug 2013 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by _cynic_"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"
You can stop being so disingenuous about the numbers about a product that by all measures is a complete and total failure that single handedly took one of the best and largest market share phone companies and nearly forced them out of the market.


Complete and total failure with double digit volume growth quarter over quarter and year over year, you have a peculiar definition of failure.

However, in the interest of not rehashing arguments I've brought up in literally every Nokia thread (which is ignored and often lost on the delusional) I'll leave you to believe what you wish and we'll revisit the topic when their quarterly results show another volume increase and further stabilization of financials.
"

Nelson, I have not read almost all your posts. But let us take this simply with a question:

Do you consider Windows RT Tablet(Yes, tablet only) a success in the past up to the present? Please explain if your answer is yes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by _cynic_
by Nelson on Tue 27th Aug 2013 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by _cynic_"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I consider Windows RT to have had a mixed reaction. Microsoft did move a deal of Surfaces at very high margins, but they shouldn't have. If they were going to write down a billion dollars, one would argue they should've subsidized the devices on that cost and gone for a volume play to build out the Windows 8 ecosystem.

There were some missteps along the way. Messaging got royally fucked up and Microsoft being Microsoft didn't do much about it. They let the story get away from them. There's also lukewarm OEM reactions because they're all approximately useless, but it also was because of performance problems with some of the chips inside the tablets.

There's no excuse for some of their mistakes I think, but I similarly think that the reception to them was lukewarm at worst. They didn't completely flop in the market (Surface sold through decent, they wrote down future expectations and unsold inventory, which isn't mutually exclusive with selling a decent amount).

I think its in the same situation Windows Phone was in 2011. Promising, written off, and at the same time misunderstood. If Nokia can do for RT what they did for Windows Phone they can kick this thing into gear.

First a few things need to happen:
- Microsoft needs to unify WP8 and WinRT. Two strategies, two ecosystems, and two platforms (however close they are) doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. That needs to change.
- Microsoft needs to become more platform agnostic, which will help Windows Phone. Stop thinking in terms of vendor lock in and start thinking in terms of service lock in. Hook someone on Office on an iPad, then show them how great it is on a Surface. Get someone using Outlook on Android so that when they do try a Lumia it's not a jarring transition.

Those are just my own personal opinions, a little rambly, but take it as you wish.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by _cynic_
by enx23 on Tue 27th Aug 2013 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by _cynic_"
enx23 Member since:
2008-12-17

Complete and total failure with double digit volume growth quarter over quarter and year over year, you have a peculiar definition of failure.


I think that you Nelson have a very peliculiar definition of failure!

It is very easy to get double digit volume growth quarter over quarter when one has small numbers. By this definition if one sells one mobile phone today and another 50 next quarter will have triple digit volume growth! I think that according to these kind of measures the company Jolla (see www.jolla.com) will look even better than Apple, Samsung! Jolla will have an infinite volume growth quarter over quarter (some number divided by zero)!

"Double digit volume growth quarter over quarter and year over year" can be seen very often when one has less than 5% of the market!

Here are some more appropiate measures of failure:
- Nokia had over 30% of the market in 2010 and now it has 3%-4% of the market => 10 fold decrease for Nokia!
- Windows Mobile has ~12% of the market (during Gates time) and now the Windows Phone has 3%-4% of the market => clearly the todayƤ's strategy of Windows for mobile phones is even worst than in Gates' times!
- Nokia was number one mobile manufacturer of smartphones in 2010 and today is number 10!

Edited 2013-08-27 08:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by _cynic_
by Nelson on Tue 27th Aug 2013 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by _cynic_"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It is very easy to get double digit volume growth quarter over quarter when one has small numbers.


But Nokia does not have small numbers. Nokia went from 5.6 million to 7.4 million units in a quarter. That is not small. Maybe compared to every single Android OEM combined that's small, but if you look at the other Android OEMs (besides Samsung, obviously) they are posting similar types of volumes. Nokia is in the ballpark. So if Nokia is a failure, then the other OEMs have failed as well.


By this definition if one sells one mobile phone today and another 50 next quarter will have triple digit volume growth!


That's nice, but Nokia did not sell one, or 50 phones. They sold 7.4 million. This quarter its expected to increase by double digits again, as it has for the past few quarters.


I think that according to these kind of measures the company Jolla (see www.jolla.com) will look even better than Apple, Samsung! Jolla will have an infinite volume growth quarter over quarter (some number divided by zero)!


If Jolla posts strong QoQ gains, then it does imply that they are getting a strong reception relative to their own volumes. I'd be encouraged and others should too. I was encouraged when it was Lumia shipments going from 2 to 4 million, and I am encouraged when its from 5.6 to 7.4 million.

can be seen very often when one has less than 5% of the market!


5% of a very large market is still a large amount of units to sell, and when speaking about the impact it will have on Nokia's health and stability moving forward, it was a good bet.

If you look at their bottom line sans one time restructuring costs, they've posted strong underlying profits since Q3 of last year. That' significant and as these costs sunset at the end of 2013, you'll begin to see this materialize in IFRS profit.


Here are some more appropiate measures of failure:
- Nokia had over 30% of the market in 2010 and now it has 3%-4% of the market => 10 fold decrease for Nokia!
- Windows Mobile has ~12% of the market (during Gates time) and now the Windows Phone has 3%-4% of the market => clearly the todayƤ's strategy of Windows for mobile phones is even worst than in Gates' times!
- Nokia was number one mobile manufacturer of smartphones in 2010 and today is number 10!


Everybody knows Nokia is no longer #1, and that's fine, they don't have to be and aren't going to be for a while. This is about managing a very risky transition and setting them up for the future, which, like it or not is happening. Their devices are gaining traction, they are gaining marketshare, and the ecosystem is being fleshed out. It was the right bet.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by _cynic_
by bnolsen on Wed 28th Aug 2013 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by _cynic_"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

if you want to read and read and read about nokia you can visit this blog:

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/

The best point this guy brings out is that bill gates even identified windows phone as a failure during a public interview. So while nelson argues technicalities the business side definitely points to failure of windows phone and nokia falling far far short of expectations.

Reply Score: 1

Secret event coming
by wigry on Mon 26th Aug 2013 19:28 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Is this the reason for this event?

http://www.wpcentral.com/nokia-holding-world-premier-event-moscow-a...

We'll find out on wednesday.

Reply Score: 2

Keyboard?
by joekiser on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:22 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Hopefully, Nokia won't overlook the keyboard, which for me is the biggest letdown of the Surface and Surface Pro. The keyboard is supposed to be the selling point of Windows tablets (actually, running Office is the selling point of WinRT, but you kinda need a decent keyboard for that), and there isn't a single Windows tablet keyboard that's worth typing on. The closest thing to usable is the Lenovo tablet's keyboard, and then they went and messed up the Trackpoint.

At this price point, you have to have something compelling that sets you apart from the already established iPad. Office is that product, but only if you can actually do data entry.

Reply Score: 6

Presence on TV
by pysiak on Tue 27th Aug 2013 09:31 UTC
pysiak
Member since:
2008-01-01

Funny how the TV product placement of this differs:
- iOS - almost every US show or movie - ad nausem, recent example: Dexter
- Windows 8/RT - just a few, select shows: Under the Dome, Touch
- Android - nowhere?

When something shows up as an product placement it immediatelly makes me want not to buy it.

If it's good why the hell are they trying to do these sort-of-subliminal-programmin on the viewers, huh?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Presence on TV
by Kivada on Tue 27th Aug 2013 10:04 UTC in reply to "Presence on TV"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Funny how the TV product placement of this differs:
- iOS - almost every US show or movie - ad nausem, recent example: Dexter
- Windows 8/RT - just a few, select shows: Under the Dome, Touch
- Android - nowhere?

When something shows up as an product placement it immediatelly makes me want not to buy it.

If it's good why the hell are they trying to do these sort-of-subliminal-programmin on the viewers, huh?


Actually Apple has had product placements mainly due to it's dominance in the entertainment industry, you often see iMacs and Powermacs/MacPros as set pieces with a sticker over the logos just because they are there in the studio already, so they just grab a dead one or one that isn't currently being used and throw it on a desk and there you have your prop computer.

Now though I have seen a fair amount of Dell laptops with the logos covered as well as Thinkpads, both IBM and Lenovo just because they are pretty ubiquitous.

Note that you almost never see the actual OS these machines should be running in TV and movies, they are always some kind of bullshit impractical GUI to make it all seem far more "high tech" to the technophopic, this is a simple trick to do since you can just show a solid green or blue screen and fill it in later and have the actor randomly press buttons that rarely correspond to what is happening on screen...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Presence on TV
by quackalist on Tue 27th Aug 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Presence on TV"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Once upon a non neo-liberal dimension you could assume anything brand-able was just a prop. In the dimension we live in assume the plots been rewritten just to place some piece of crap.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Presence on TV
by Kivada on Tue 27th Aug 2013 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Presence on TV"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

The difference is if you can see the logo it's a paid product placement, if theres no visible logo but you know who the manufacturer is by the case design you are just a geek that spends too much time with computers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Presence on TV
by jonoden on Tue 27th Aug 2013 16:46 UTC in reply to "Presence on TV"
jonoden Member since:
2012-02-13

Funny how the TV product placement of this differs:
- iOS - almost every US show or movie - ad nausem, recent example: Dexter
- Windows 8/RT - just a few, select shows: Under the Dome, Touch
- Android - nowhere?

When something shows up as an product placement it immediatelly makes me want not to buy it.

If it's good why the hell are they trying to do these sort-of-subliminal-programmin on the viewers, huh?


I've seen plenty of Android phones on various shows. As someone else said, you see much of Apple's stuff because it's laying around. If you actually see the Apple logo, they paid for it.

Reply Score: 3

Is is not
by Machster on Tue 27th Aug 2013 15:13 UTC
Machster
Member since:
2007-05-15

Thom,

If I recall correctly I thought you were optimistic that 8.1 would solve many issues with RT. Has your opinion changed?

Edited 2013-08-27 15:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Is is not
by chithanh on Wed 28th Aug 2013 11:52 UTC in reply to "Is is not "
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Here is the article:
http://www.osnews.com/story/27179/Windows_8_1_on_the_Surface_RT_fir...

You can see that his opinion has not changed. Windows RT 8.1 is an improvement, but Microsoft did not fix the things that made it a failure.

Reply Score: 2