Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:14 UTC
Windows After yesterday's TV advertisement, Microsoft finally unveiled the pricing for its Surface tablet - the ARM Windows RT version that is. The cheapest Surface - 32GB without touch cover - will set you back $499. They're aiming straight for iPad pricing here, ignoring the popular cheaper Android offerings. Update: only available in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States. As usual.
Thread beginning with comment 538876
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"While you are correct you are still missing the point."

Haha, I'll take it. The thing is, the competitive damage of corporate walled gardens is proportional to their *collective* market share. It's still good to have more competition over less, but if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It won't happen because the need for bespoke software will always be present.

The landscape is changing, but that doesn't mean doom or gloom.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"It won't happen because the need for bespoke software will always be present.
The landscape is changing, but that doesn't mean doom or gloom."

I think that maybe you are the one missing the point. Do you understand what happens if microsoft's locked down metro platform becomes successful? It represents yet another personal computing platform that has monopolised distribution rights. If we don't actively protest them today, these restricted platforms have the potential to become the defacto norm for consumers in the future. Whether this is doom or gloom is open to your opinion, but this kind of change in landscape is exactly what I've been describing as closed computing. Open computing is responsible for building the entire software industry to what it is today. Software development would not be anywhere near as pervasive as it is today if not for the openness of computers we have benefited from up to this point.


I'm disappointed that people are being blinded by fanboy fetishes when so much is at stake. If another entity were to step in and do the exact same thing, it would be an unmitigated disaster. People would be up in arms if a government stepped in to regulate software developers, charging taxes, forcing us to apply for the right to distribute and sell our own software to consumers. Yet this is exactly the model apple and microsoft are pushing us into, with themselves in control of everyone's software. There's just too much conflict of interest in allowing top oligopolists to control the fate of the software industry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.

OTOH a typical (smallish) software-only developer won't be able to target more than two ecosystems effectively, anyway... (maybe three - if the "gatekeepers" do all the appstore, payments, etc. dirty work)

Reply Parent Score: 2