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.
Thread beginning with comment 523762
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Jun 2012 02:00 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Tue 26th Jun 2012 03:30 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Jun 2012 05:57 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 Parent Score: 3