Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Jul 2013 21:19 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Nokia's vice president Bryan Biniak: "We are trying to evolve the cultural thinking [at Microsoft] to say 'time is of the essence'. Waiting until the end of your fiscal year when you need to close your targets, doesn't do us any good when I have phones to sell today." Later Biniak adds: "As a company we don't want to rely on somebody else and sit and wait for them to get it right." There was a simple solution to this problem.
Thread beginning with comment 568384
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by Luminair
by silviucc on Tue 30th Jul 2013 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Luminair"
silviucc
Member since:
2009-12-05

My point was that I did not get the reason to have Windows RT for tablets and Windows Phone for , well, phones. Nobody else does that. iOS goes on all of Apple's mobile platforms. Write for the phone and it will just run on the tablet. Depending on skill, the code might not need any tweaking to run just fine (GUI wise) on both.

Same goes for Android. Phones and tablets use the same OS. Target one and it will also run on the other.

Windows RT and Windows Phone? Errrr, maybe if you just use HTML5 and js.


Android for x86 exists as a by-product of the portability of the Android OS. Also because the source is also made availabe so people can do whatever they want with it. Not actively pushed by Google.

Writing software for ChromeOS is basically writing chrome extensions.

Having both ChromeOS and Android does not hurt Google's bottom line while it does hurt MS' to have Windows RT and Windows Phone. Google does not make money from selling licenses. Android and ChromeOS enable you to use the internet and google's services to accomplish tasks. As long as you are using the internet and/or their services Google is making money off of you. It's a frictionless business model which has been proven by Google's own success.

Edited 2013-07-30 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by Luminair
by bentoo on Thu 1st Aug 2013 16:41 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Luminair"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

My point was that I did not get the reason to have Windows RT for tablets and Windows Phone for , well, phones. Nobody else does that. iOS goes on all of Apple's mobile platforms. Write for the phone and it will just run on the tablet. Depending on skill, the code might not need any tweaking to run just fine (GUI wise) on both.


I think the point was to have a real/full Windows OS running on a tablet, not a limited "phone" OS like Android or iOS. That said Microsoft's execution coupled with the inadequacies/incompatibilities of ARM made Windows RT a dud.

If anything the whole Windows RT debacle did get Intel to re-think their mobile processor future.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by Luminair
by cdude on Thu 1st Aug 2013 18:40 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Luminair"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Its both, Surface Pro (Intel x86) and Surface RT (ARM), which failed completly and lead to the $1 billion write-off at Microsoft.

At this point in time with all that past ranging from Kin over WP to Surface, its pretty save to say: Windows was not able to extend beyond its classic workstation PC. It just failed 100% on any- and everything else.

And while the workstation PC market is crashing so is Microsoft's Windows. They had 95% market share 10 years ago. Its 20% now and future falling while Android raised.

Be sure that IF the PC market would grow again Android would join it like Chrome Boom already did (and is growing fast). Be sure that Android being cross device means Windows would lose any such battle long-term.

Reply Parent Score: 1