"Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in
> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At 28 Aug 2010 18:16:45 -0400 nospam wrote:
>
>>> you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of **** that you
>>> actually had to do that?
>> No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
>> My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
>> I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
>> case."
>
> Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep.
> (That's a joke!)
> If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
>
>
> If Microsoft made cars...
>
> In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
> technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
> following characteristics:
>
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
>
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
> buy a new car.
>
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
> and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
>
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
> have to reinstall the engine.
>
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
>
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
> on five per cent of the roads.
>
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
>
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
>
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
>
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
>
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
> neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
> would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
> more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
> Justice Department.
>
> 12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
> operate in the same manner as the old car.
>
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.

Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

---

› See More: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:23:37 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in
>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
>>> I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
>>> case."
>>
>> Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep.
>> (That's a joke!)
>> If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
>>
>> If Microsoft made cars...
>> [SNIP]

>This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
>adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
>
>My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
>reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
>
>Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
>much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
>right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
>pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
>fuse!!!

Sure, and that's the point -- you shouldn't have to reboot your cell
phone either!

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:23:37 -0400]:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in
>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> At 28 Aug 2010 18:16:45 -0400 nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of **** that you
>>>> actually had to do that?
>>> No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
>>> My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
>>> I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
>>> case."
>>
>> Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep.
>> (That's a joke!)
>> If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
>>
>>
>> If Microsoft made cars...
>>
>> In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
>> stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
>> technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
>> following characteristics:
>>
>> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
>>
>> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
>> buy a new car.
>>
>> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
>> and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
>>
>> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
>> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
>> have to reinstall the engine.
>>
>> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
>> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
>>
>> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
>> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
>> on five per cent of the roads.
>>
>> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
>> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
>>
>> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
>>
>> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
>>
>> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
>> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
>> door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
>>
>> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
>> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
>> neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
>> would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
>> more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
>> Justice Department.
>>
>> 12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
>> how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
>> operate in the same manner as the old car.
>>
>> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>
> This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
> adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
>
> My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
> reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
>
> Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
> much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
> right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
> pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
> fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:23:37 -0400]:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in
>>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 28 Aug 2010 18:16:45 -0400 nospam wrote:
>>>>> you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of **** that you
>>>>> actually had to do that?
>>>> No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
>>>> My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
>>>> I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
>>>> case."
>>> Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep.
>>> (That's a joke!)
>>> If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If Microsoft made cars...
>>>
>>> In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
>>> stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
>>> technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
>>> following characteristics:
>>>
>>> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
>>>
>>> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
>>> buy a new car.
>>>
>>> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
>>> and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
>>>
>>> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
>>> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
>>> have to reinstall the engine.
>>>
>>> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
>>> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
>>>
>>> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
>>> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
>>> on five per cent of the roads.
>>>
>>> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
>>> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
>>>
>>> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
>>>
>>> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
>>>
>>> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
>>> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
>>> door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
>>>
>>> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
>>> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
>>> neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
>>> would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
>>> more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
>>> Justice Department.
>>>
>>> 12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
>>> how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
>>> operate in the same manner as the old car.
>>>
>>> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>> This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
>> adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
>>
>> My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
>> reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
>>
>> Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
>> much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
>> right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
>> pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
>> fuse!!!
>
> Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:36:42 -0400]:
> Justin wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:23:37 -0400]:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in
>>> My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
>>> reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
>>>
>>> Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
>>> much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
>>> right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
>>> pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
>>> fuse!!!
>>
>> Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.
>
> Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
> OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
> or trim the damned trees!

Security vulnerabilities. There was just one with shortcuts that can be
used just by opening an icon.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 28 Aug 2010 21:36:42 -0400 Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.
>> Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
>> OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
>> or trim the damned trees!
>
>
> I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
> require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
> rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
> realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...
>

It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

Todd Allcock wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600]:
> At 28 Aug 2010 16:33:40 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in
>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >At 28 Aug 2010 14:09:19 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>>
> MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
> in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
> I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
> hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

>> and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
>> Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
>> and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
>> but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.
>
>
> But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
> party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
> clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a

When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with

> MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
> (comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
> early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
> Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
They are certainly a slow burn.



> Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

On 28/08/10 10:21 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

> MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
> in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
> I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
> hood if you dig deep enough.

Microsoft has lost. It's over. Based on the statistics from
"http://www.webmasterpro.de", Windows has only about 93.4% of the
desktop market place while OS-X holds about 5%, and Linux holds 1.3%
(actually the Linux share is less because that 1.3% includes both the
desktop and server side, but the numbers don't include Windows Server.

If you include all OSes, not just desktop OSes, it looks even worse for
Microsoft, with their market share falling to just under 92% with
Apple's iOS taking most of the 1.5% away from Microsoft.

It will only get worse for Microsoft. If they don't come up with a
winning product for the mobile device embedded market they'll see their
market share fall below 90% in a few years.

Microsoft doesn't give up on crucial markets. They come back again and
again. They have virtually unlimited resources. Ask Apple. Ask Novell.
Ask Sony. Don't count them out of the phone/tablet market quite yet.

Justin wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600]:
>> At 28 Aug 2010 16:33:40 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in
>>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 28 Aug 2010 14:09:19 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
>> in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
>> I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
>> hood if you dig deep enough.
>
> I did. But I am like that.
>
>>> and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
>>> Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
>>> and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
>>> but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.
>>
>> But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
>> party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
>> clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a
>
> When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
> Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
> smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with
>
>> MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
>> (comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
>> early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
>> Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.
>
> IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
> They are certainly a slow burn.
>
>
>
>> Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are
>
> What are the three?
> The DS outsells them all.
>

What is the "DS"? Please don't abbreviate unless you are certain that
your entire audience will recognize and understand it!

Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:17:13 -0400]:
> Justin wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600]:
>>> At 28 Aug 2010 16:33:40 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in
>>>> <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At 28 Aug 2010 14:09:19 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>>> MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
>>> in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
>>> I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
>>> hood if you dig deep enough.
>>
>> I did. But I am like that.
>>
>>>> and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
>>>> Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
>>>> and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
>>>> but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.
>>>
>>> But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
>>> party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
>>> clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a
>>
>> When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
>> Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
>> smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with
>>
>>> MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
>>> (comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
>>> early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
>>> Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.
>>
>> IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
>> They are certainly a slow burn.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are
>>
>> What are the three?
>> The DS outsells them all.
>>
>
> What is the "DS"? Please don't abbreviate unless you are certain that
> your entire audience will recognize and understand it!

I am not abbreviating, it's called a DS, made by Nintendo.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:29:33 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 28 Aug 2010 17:06:05 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> No, that was an article. I don't think it's a great idea -- I just
>> think it might make more sense than what Microsoft is trying to do now.
>
>Blackberry OS and WinMo have too much in common- they're both tired OSes,
>designed for a narrower purpose, that have been kludged to play on the
>same field with more modern OSes. The effort to rebuild Blackberry for
>the expectations of modern users is the same as for WinMo, and a
>wholesale change to Blackberry OS would strand a larger and more fervent
>customer base than WinMo enjoys.

Market share is priceless. The challenge is to retain as much of the
user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
might even be a good starting point.

>Windows 7 is probably what Vista would've been if they released it after
>Vista was finished instead of before!

There's truth to that, but I think it's more a matter of Microsoft
getting it first wrong, then right, over and over, in a never-ending
painful cycle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if "Windows 8" is as bad
as Vista.

>Either way, rich cloud apps are still more awkward to use than those
>installed down here on Earth, so MS has quite awhile to keep milking!

They're already more than adequate for many people (and for much of what
I do), and with HTML5 and CSS3 they should be able to pretty much match
desktop functionality (offline as well as online). Plus the price (free
in the case of Google) is right. Google has just had to wait for
technology to catch up to its ambitions. (Gears didn't cut it.) Chrome
is helping by pushing the other browsers hard.

Office survives only through enterprise investment and inertia, and
I see serious signs the tide is reversing. But Office momentum is a
good example of why RIM might have value to Microsoft.

>> That's only because RIM has fallen so far behind in coolness, lost all
>> the mojo, lost the buzz, problems that could be fixed, although it would
>> take a major effort. But like Microsoft, RIM is too busy fighting the
>> old battles to do the job it needs to do in new battles, witness the
>> BlackBerry Torch, OK but no more than that.
>
>My point above about effort. MS trying to beat the current Windows
>Mobile or Blackberry OS into an iOS or Android-class mobile OS might be
>like trying to pass off Windows 98 SP22 as a modern desktop OS.

True. The challenge is to lead the target sufficiently. My thought is
a two-pronged approach, with one team merging WinMo7 and BB OS 6 quick
quick, another team working on a big leap forward at the same time. It's
how Intel now designs chips to stay ahead of AMD, horribly expensive but
quite effective if you're a/the deep pockets player.

>Sidekick is just the US branding of Danger.

Sidekick is a phone.
Danger is the platform.

>And what did MS do when they bought Danger? Spun their wheels, then
>fired the top Danger people and crashed their servers!

All Microsoft wanted was the platform, not Sidekick, so the result isn't
terribly surprising, especially since Microsoft isn't terribly good at
acquisitions.

>Then they
>created Kin/Verizon Contractual Obligation Phone 1.0, and let the MS in-
>fighting kill it to focus on WP7.

I think it more a matter of waking up to the fact that Kim was a poor
idea and dangerous diversion likely to fail. What Microsoft should be
doing is what Sony Ericsson is reportedly doing for Android 3.0, merging
its gaming platform into its mobile communication platform, But the
serious problem for Microsoft is that it's failed to develop and
establish a mobile gaming platform.

>> I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
>> base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
>> marketing challenges.
>
>Typically, yes, but MS apparently feels there aren't enough of _me_ out
>there to worry about! At some point you have to jettison backwards
>compatibility if it's holding you back. Part of XP's success was MS'
>willingness to kiss a lot of DOS/Win 3.x compatibility goodbye.

The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
engineers, not insurmountable obstacles.

You see the glass as (more than) half empty. I see the glass as (more
than) half full -- I'm quite impressed with how much backward
compatibility is built into Windows XP (Vista and 7).

>I'm
>certainly in a tiny minority of folks who thought WinMo was still viable.
> MS apparently feels there isn't enough lipstick on the planet to save
>the WinMo 6.x pig!

Looks like poor judgment to me.

Microsoft has a good record of persistence in some areas (e.g.,
Windows), but it also has a bad record of abandonment in other areas.

>> It's not a matter of technology -- it's a matter of understanding users
>> and the user experience, and making it cool, something Microsoft has
>> never been terribly good at, with Windows Vista a painful case in point.
>
>I'm apparently in another minority- I thought Vista _was_ "cool." It was
>just an unfinished, bloated, work-in-progress that would've been fine
>after another SP or two. MS, however, seized an opportunity to rework
>it, change the UI and rename it "7," allowing it to leave the bad press
>behind, while simultaneously enabling themselves to charge an upgrade fee
>for it. If the very same 7 had been released as Vista SP3, the tech
>press would've been less enthusiastic, and MS would be giving it away
>instead of selling it to Vista users!

I think you underestimate the changes in 7 versus Vista, which I think
are easily as significant as the changes in Vista versus XP, just much
better done (and in less time). You might as well argue that XP was
Windows 2000 SPnn, and Windows 2000 was Windows NT SPnnn.

>Similarly, if WP7 had been just another reworked WinMo, the tech press
>would be far more skeptical, since both WM6 and 6.5 were supposed to be
>the "new and improved" WinMo poised to grab significant market share.
>Instead, MS is practically bragging about its limitations and
>shortcomings as if to "prove" it's completely different from that other
>"failed" Windows phone OS.

Looks like poor judgment to me. Dissing your own children tends to have
unfortunate, unexpected consequences. Coke learned its lesson, now
doesn't say, "Old product sucked, new product doesn't suck!" It now
says, "Same wonderful product, new improved taste!" The difference can
be subtle but profound.

>And make no mistake, WP7 is pretty "cool." If that was my main criteria
>for a mobile OS, I'd be excited right now.

I find technology interesting but not exciting. As a _user_ (not a
technologist), I care not a whit what processor is in my Android phone
or (for example) how Android garbage collection functions. What I do
care about is how well it serves my needs. I won't put up with having
to reboot it, or to kill apps -- the 2nd time I have to kill an app is
the last time it will be on my phone. The 2nd time I have to reboot my
phone is when I start looking for new phone.

>Unfortunately I fear it'll be
>more sizzle than steak, at least when released.

If it has the sizzle I care about, especially seamless integration with
all my Google cloud functionality, that's as good as or better than what
I have now, then that would be enough to get me seriously interested.
The steak (what's inside) is not something I care about as a _user_ (not
a technologist).

A big problem for Microsoft is that it now competes with Google on many
fronts, so it's not in a position to get great cloud support from the
get go. Windows Live Hotmail is losing the war (for 2nd place behind
Yahoo Mail) to Gmail (both free and Google Apps), and the "Windows Live"
re-branding is symptomatic of fundamental miscalculations by Microsoft.
Windows is the problem, not the solution.

>Personally, I predict WP7 will follow the iPhone OS strategy- release
>with a laughably tiny feature set hidden under a slick, fun, UI, and add
>the missing features over time, along with the bloat, UI complications,
>and sluggishness that comes with feature creep.

I predict Microsoft will stay wedded to its dinosaurs, and that WinMo7
will work really well only for those still addicted to Office Kool-Aid.
And in defending its past, I predict Microsoft will lose the war.

I used to be a fan of Office, but Office XP (10) was the last major
version upgrade I really liked, with Office 2003 (11) only a modest
improvement, and Office 2007 (12) an abomination worse than Vista that
actually makes me _less_ (not more) productive. (I'm still stunned that
Microsoft failed to include the Office 2003 UI as an option.)
So I started parting company with Office, shifting more and more of my
work to Google Docs. (I had to install Office 2007 recently to support
a client, and learned all over again just how bad it is.)

>By then, however, the
>ecosystem and user base is in place. I'm enjoying the irony that Steve
>Jobs once said "if you see a task manager, (we) blew it." Guess what
>launches when you double tap the iOS home button? Yep- the "we blew it"
>app. The difference, I believe, is that MS will get in one year, where
>it took Apple three, because the "missing" stuff is likely stuff that was
>actually planned, but couldn't be ready by the 1.0 release, where the
>missing stuff in iOS was Apple's inexperience in the mobile space,
>assuming people didn't actually need or want cut and paste, background
>tasks, rich third-party apps or file sync. I predict WP7 updates will be
>flying fast and furious in year one, as MS concentrates on improving the
>user experience and repairing their reputation in mobile devices. I
>might even _like_ WP7 2.0, um, WP8, er, whatever.

I think it will be game over by then -- the world will have moved on
before Microsoft can get it right, leaving Microsoft still a full cycle
behind, a fatal problem in the long term. WinMo7 is at least a year too
late.

>(I realize I may be giving MS far more credit than they're due, but I'd
>like to believe they learned SOMETHING from a decade of selling WinCE-
>based devices!)

I'm not so optimistic -- I see lots of evidence that Microsoft hasn't
really changed, which is not terribly surprising given that Steveo is
now running the show himself -- corporate culture is very hard to change
even with the right management.

Did Whitacre really change GM enough for it to grow and prosper? I fear
no more so (and probably less so) than Iacocca at Chrysler. What
Whitacre did was a short term success, but I predict GM will go back to
many of its bad old ways in the long term -- too many of the old players
are still in place. Same problem at Microsoft.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 28 Aug 2010 16:33:40 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
>> is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.
>
>MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
>in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
>I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
>hood if you dig deep enough.

No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress.

>> and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
>> Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
>> and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
>> but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

>MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
>(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
>early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
>Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
not catching up.

>> That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
>> 1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
>> Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"?
>
>No, using your own examples, people tend to cluster around MS and one
>other player. That's what I mean by there's "plenty of room," if you're
>Microsoft.

As I'm sure you know, I could pick several other areas in which
Microsoft has fallen flat, not just Bob, MSX, MSN Smart Watch, MSN TV,
Zune/PlaysForSure, tablet PCs, "ultra mobile" PCs, but notably also in
mobile devices like Kin.

>Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race,

Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.

>and mobiles are
>such a large market there's plenty of room for more than three, IMO-
>Symbian, RIM, Apple and Google are all getting along ok, and poor old
>WinMo is still selling a million units a month somehow without any
>advertising or much support from carriers or manufacturers right now.

I only see room for 2 or 3 major players -- everyone else will get
killed, and the carnage is already well underway -- just ask Jorma
Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.

>(Even after MS threw all the OEMs under the bus announcing WP7 eight
>months prior to release, and declaring no current WinMo device would be
>upgradable- just as HTC and Samsung were releasing their flagship
>Snapdragon-based large-screen WinMo phones! I'd be like Ford announcing
>they've invented a car that runs on tap water, it'll be released next near,
>and current gasoline cars can't be converted to run on water. Good luck
>selling the existing model year lineup, Ford Dealers!)

Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
hottest engineering is being poured into Android.

>MS has the resources to outlast and outspend virtually anyone. Hopefully
>their product will be worthy of the effort MS will likely expend pushing
>it down our collective throats!

Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on. Microsoft
needs speed, not staying power.

>The fact that MS already had HTC, Samsung, LG and Dell on board with
>nothing more than vapor and a few dog-and-pony demos on prototype
>equipment, tells me they're both serious, and won't take failure as an
>option.

Tells me Microsoft has yet to convince anyone that WinMo7 is a hot
ticket.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:03:19 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 14:10:40 +0000 Justin wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600]:

>> > Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are
>>
>> What are the three?
>> The DS outsells them all.
>
>DS is a handheld. "Game consoles," at least in my mind, connect to TVs.

The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:15:28 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 28/08/10 10:21 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
>> in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
>> I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
>> hood if you dig deep enough.
>
>Microsoft has lost. It's over. Based on the statistics from
>"http://www.webmasterpro.de", Windows has only about 93.4% of the
>desktop market place while OS-X holds about 5%, and Linux holds 1.3%
>(actually the Linux share is less because that 1.3% includes both the
>desktop and server side, but the numbers don't include Windows Server.
>
>If you include all OSes, not just desktop OSes, it looks even worse for
>Microsoft, with their market share falling to just under 92% with
>Apple's iOS taking most of the 1.5% away from Microsoft.

No such data at that link. Why are we not surprised?
Because you almost never have a _real_ citation.
FYI, that data is actually from Net Applications.
<http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8>

Here's another real citation, different data from Ars Technica:
<http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/windows-7-growing-faster-than-vista-overtakes-mac-os.ars>
or <http://goo.gl/SGRL>
that shows (as of December 2009):
Windows 64.30%
Mac OS X 27.88%
Linux 6.41%
Others 1.32%

See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>

There is little published information on the usage share of desktop
and laptop computers. Web client information (see below) is often
used as a proxy for this, but many such computers are not used for
web surfing. Web client stats suggest that Microsoft Windows has
about an 89% share, Apple Mac OS 6% and Linux 1%. The correlation
between desktop share and web client share is being increasingly
challenged by the rise of mobile web access, which rose through 1% in
2009 and 3% in 2010.

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:17:01 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 28 Aug 2010 21:36:42 -0400 Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> Justin wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.
>>> Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
>>> OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
>>> or trim the damned trees!
>>
>> I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
>> require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
>> rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
>> realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...
>
>It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
>have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

Small comfort if you get bitten by the 0.56%, and it's usually the
latest exploits that are the most serious.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]