Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-microsoft-needs-three-or-more-operating-systems/
9 comments
As time goes on I'm more convinced arstechnica doesn't understand the increasingly non-Wintel world we're in. Things like the comment about Intel based phones, the whole premise of the article here (without going into how the whole point of WP8 was it was supposed to have the same API as RT, but it actually didn't and thus was pointless) and their confusions about the XBox are all indicative of a mindset that still believes in the ultimate invincibility of MS and Intel.
I think you miss my point about Intel phones. Intel is threatening to have processors that will be somewhere between "credible" and "best in class" for smartphones. It's not guaranteed at this stage, but it's absolutely within the realm of possibility. Should this happen, it's absolutely something that Microsoft will need to support, especially since Android already runs on such phones.
Windows Phone 8 was intended, first and foremost, to bring the kernels into alignment. It did this. It is a shame that it does not provide the full WinRT API, but Microsoft never said that it would, so I'm not sure why you're saying that it was "supposed" to.
Windows Phone 8 was intended, first and foremost, to bring the kernels into alignment. It did this. It is a shame that it does not provide the full WinRT API, but Microsoft never said that it would, so I'm not sure why you're saying that it was "supposed" to.
I don't understand what you're talking about or how you get anything about "the ultimate invincibility of MS and Intel" from this article. You think an Atom phone is completely impossible? And what "confusions about the Xbox"? Is it really controversial to suggest that the Xbox One doesn't run a stock install of Windows 8?
I wouldn't say the whole Ars team, just Peter Bright (not to offend -- it's his opinion and I myself don't really have one), who is mostly responsible for MS coverage.
The elephant in the room that's being ignored here is the business model.
I'm typing this message right now on an Android tablet and a Bluetooth keyboard. I paid $150 for a pretty nice device, and adding the keyboard and mouse brings that to about $200, a lot less than any netbook. Perhaps a $300 netbook is better spec wise, but this thing is smaller and cuter and even turns heads in rooms full of macbook toting developers.
Android devices will always be able to beat Windows 8.1 devices pricewise because the biz model for Microsoft is that device manufactures pay something in the high $XX for a Windows license.
They can demand that premium because of all the software that exists for Windows. Windows RT deliberatly dumps Win32 compatibility because they want to have a cheap tablet OS they can sell that doesn't command the price premium without cannabilizing the market for Win 8.1
I'm typing this message right now on an Android tablet and a Bluetooth keyboard. I paid $150 for a pretty nice device, and adding the keyboard and mouse brings that to about $200, a lot less than any netbook. Perhaps a $300 netbook is better spec wise, but this thing is smaller and cuter and even turns heads in rooms full of macbook toting developers.
Android devices will always be able to beat Windows 8.1 devices pricewise because the biz model for Microsoft is that device manufactures pay something in the high $XX for a Windows license.
They can demand that premium because of all the software that exists for Windows. Windows RT deliberatly dumps Win32 compatibility because they want to have a cheap tablet OS they can sell that doesn't command the price premium without cannabilizing the market for Win 8.1
True, but it depends on the value you put on functionality. If you look at the Dell Venue 8 tablet, it's going for $150 running Android or $300 running Windows 8.1 on a quadcore Bay Trail (which performs really well).
The extra $150 gets you Windows 8.1, a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student, and the ability to run x86 apps from the world's biggest software ecosystem.
That may not be of any value to you, but it's certainly of value to businesses and individuals that live in and off Microsoft Office and a vast range of Windows utilities.
If you're into photography, for example, the ability to run Adobe Lightroom and other software with batch processing and bulk uploading from an 8in tablet is pretty compelling.
The premium price is $1 a week over three years. This isn't a lot if your time time has any value.
The extra $150 gets you Windows 8.1, a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student, and the ability to run x86 apps from the world's biggest software ecosystem.
That may not be of any value to you, but it's certainly of value to businesses and individuals that live in and off Microsoft Office and a vast range of Windows utilities.
If you're into photography, for example, the ability to run Adobe Lightroom and other software with batch processing and bulk uploading from an 8in tablet is pretty compelling.
The premium price is $1 a week over three years. This isn't a lot if your time time has any value.
I don't disagee that that $150 premium brings some real value. Personally I like Windows and I own a number of Windows machines.
On the other hand, the Android ecosystem is getting better quickly, and the main thing that threatens it is kneecapping on the part of vendors.
For instance, the Kindle Fire is a good product line but it doesn't give you access to Google Play. Amazon won't let you watch Instant Video on stock Android devices, however, which just drove me to get a Netflix subscription.
Microsoft Office 365 Home is a great deal at $99 a year given that you can run Office on up to 5 Windows computers and up to 5 mobile devices... With the caveat that Microsoft doesn't offer a complete version of Office for Android.
CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android, in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap.
On the other hand, the Android ecosystem is getting better quickly, and the main thing that threatens it is kneecapping on the part of vendors.
For instance, the Kindle Fire is a good product line but it doesn't give you access to Google Play. Amazon won't let you watch Instant Video on stock Android devices, however, which just drove me to get a Netflix subscription.
Microsoft Office 365 Home is a great deal at $99 a year given that you can run Office on up to 5 Windows computers and up to 5 mobile devices... With the caveat that Microsoft doesn't offer a complete version of Office for Android.
CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android, in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap.
"CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android, in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap."
I would think that "with iOS, we have a place to go if people start cracking our software" plays a part, too. Why would CNBC see Android as a threat?
I would think that "with iOS, we have a place to go if people start cracking our software" plays a part, too. Why would CNBC see Android as a threat?
Good points. I must have another look at Android on tablets. Mine (Nexus 7) fell out of use because very few apps made good use of the extra screen space compared with my quite big Android phone....
A lot of manufacturers (like Samsung) see the OS as a differentiating factor which they push using custom builds of Android. This presumably costs money, and risks deploying an OS which is worse than stock Android, and just annoys users.
Windows 8 has the advantage of being more consistent across different devices, and gives a polished experience. This makes the product easier to market as the user can make assumptions about what they will get (unlike some crappy Android builds).
If you assume that most users don't care about the inner workings of the OS the real issue with WP8 is poor app quality.
Windows 8 has the advantage of being more consistent across different devices, and gives a polished experience. This makes the product easier to market as the user can make assumptions about what they will get (unlike some crappy Android builds).
If you assume that most users don't care about the inner workings of the OS the real issue with WP8 is poor app quality.
Microsoft's main problem is that most customers don't see it that way.
IF they choose Windows, it's because they want compatibility with software they already use. That's what doomed RT. Microsoft thinks Metro/Modern/Market apps are what Windows is now. They want to shed the past. But customers buy Windows exactly because of continuity with the past.
Android customers want Google's ecosystem and the big selection of apps in the Play store. Microsoft's other problem is that the Bing/Live ecosystem isn't competitive.
I agree with the article to the extent that Microsoft should have done what Windows customers wanted: Let Windows be Windows. And they should have freed themselves to build the future, initially as a companion device to Windows. Or they could have bought Blackberry, or not shut down Nokia's OSs and gotten a leg up on that transition. QNX running and Android-ish userland based on an MSIL VM would have kicked ass. Instead we are dragging Windows everwhere and the userland is a hodgepodge of Web, C++, and MSIL apps.
Killing RT and running real Windows everywhere is a small improvement over the current mess, but Microsoft is wading deeper into the swamp instead of finding a way out. The only way to win at mobile is to make a non-Windows product. They are so far away from that as to be a lost cause, even if the next CEO sees the problem.
IF they choose Windows, it's because they want compatibility with software they already use. That's what doomed RT. Microsoft thinks Metro/Modern/Market apps are what Windows is now. They want to shed the past. But customers buy Windows exactly because of continuity with the past.
Android customers want Google's ecosystem and the big selection of apps in the Play store. Microsoft's other problem is that the Bing/Live ecosystem isn't competitive.
I agree with the article to the extent that Microsoft should have done what Windows customers wanted: Let Windows be Windows. And they should have freed themselves to build the future, initially as a companion device to Windows. Or they could have bought Blackberry, or not shut down Nokia's OSs and gotten a leg up on that transition. QNX running and Android-ish userland based on an MSIL VM would have kicked ass. Instead we are dragging Windows everwhere and the userland is a hodgepodge of Web, C++, and MSIL apps.
Killing RT and running real Windows everywhere is a small improvement over the current mess, but Microsoft is wading deeper into the swamp instead of finding a way out. The only way to win at mobile is to make a non-Windows product. They are so far away from that as to be a lost cause, even if the next CEO sees the problem.
> Android devices will always be able to beat Windows 8.1 devices pricewise because the biz model for Microsoft is that device manufactures pay something in the high $XX for a Windows license.
My understanding is that right now it costs most manufacturers either as much or more to use Android versus Windows, since nearly all of the big handset companies have patent licensing agreements with Microsoft on a per-handset basis.
So it's either pay Microsoft $15 for a Windows Phone license, or pay Microsoft $15 in patent licensing fees if you go with Android. It's less a cost issue so much as a market demand for Android (versus WP).
My understanding is that right now it costs most manufacturers either as much or more to use Android versus Windows, since nearly all of the big handset companies have patent licensing agreements with Microsoft on a per-handset basis.
So it's either pay Microsoft $15 for a Windows Phone license, or pay Microsoft $15 in patent licensing fees if you go with Android. It's less a cost issue so much as a market demand for Android (versus WP).
They need to take Windows 7 and keep developing that as separate Enterprise OS.
No the base of Windows 8 is solid. Simply not having that Metro interface, making metro the new API that ran within a traditional desktop would have been just fine.
From that, just create an interface for Windows tablets that is similar to the existing Metro interface as it does work there.
From that, just create an interface for Windows tablets that is similar to the existing Metro interface as it does work there.
[deleted]
It still blows my mind that they didn't at the very least make Metro optional for Professional and Server SKUs. Or, better yet, off by default unless the setup detected a device with a touch panel.
I agree
No way. Windows 8 is a better OS than Windows 7 in every aspect. Once you are on the desktop, Metro is nothing but a huge start menu.
The folks at Microsoft must know that enterprise was never ever going to deploy Windows 8. If you need to test a new feature set why not test it on home users who have no choice? Then in five years time sell a polished windows tablet to business as peoples old laptops die.
There will always be a need to have fully functional work environment OS such as windows 7/mac os x/linux....Android/iOS/Windows 8 are for the mainstream users who just want to check email/text/watch youtube.
The confusion of windows 8 is that it's trying to have 2 different ui systems...
Mac OS X seems to have done a decent job of slowing integrating some features from iOS (app store, notifications) without without copying and pasting the iOS ui system into it
The confusion of windows 8 is that it's trying to have 2 different ui systems...
Mac OS X seems to have done a decent job of slowing integrating some features from iOS (app store, notifications) without without copying and pasting the iOS ui system into it
I am genuinely curious: have you ever actually used Windows 8? I mean more than just clicking around it a few minutes. I ask because I find it hard to imagine somebody who actually uses it ever referring to "Android/iOS/Windows 8", as if they were roughly equivalent.
I currently spend most of my time on a Windows 8.1 desktop with more than 20 different languages and development environments installed. I never "check email/text" on it, and only rarely use it to watch YouTube (have other boxes for that). To me, the "Modern" UI is little more than a souped-up Start menu.
The misunderstanding that Windows 8 is somehow a lesser Windows is getting old. After more than a year of general availability, surely somebody on HN should know better.
I currently spend most of my time on a Windows 8.1 desktop with more than 20 different languages and development environments installed. I never "check email/text" on it, and only rarely use it to watch YouTube (have other boxes for that). To me, the "Modern" UI is little more than a souped-up Start menu.
The misunderstanding that Windows 8 is somehow a lesser Windows is getting old. After more than a year of general availability, surely somebody on HN should know better.
If you're a power user you just use the Super key to pull up the menu and start typing what you want and then there is little practical difference between 7 and 8.
Within 5 years Google might even figure out how to sell Android tablets to enterprises, and Drive apps might be usable offline on those tablets.
What I'm hearing is that the massive break between WP7 and WP8 won't be the last of its kind - the inevitable consolidation of WinRT and WP8 into a new OS will require deep-enough changes that I doubt we'll see the OS released on our existing devices.
I'm also disappointed to hear how much legacy code lives in the Win8RT/WP8 platforms - I thought they were supposed to be a clean break.
I'm also disappointed to hear how much legacy code lives in the Win8RT/WP8 platforms - I thought they were supposed to be a clean break.
I'm sure it will go over well with customers and developers when their devices / code once again won't run anymore with the Windows 9 OSes. I doubt MS would be as big if they'd made this mistake back in the Windows 2 through 4 days. Once the upgrade situation is worse than on Android you know they're in trouble.
I'd assume all the Windows RT + .NET Compact code would be just fine, it's more the physical devices that would be the worry.
Microsoft needs to stop trying to create an OS - just throw in the towel. Take BSD or Linux kernel port WIN32 on it and be done with it. They make almost all of their money on Office and Exchange anyways.
I mean this is what Next/Apple essentially did with BSD correct? Took BSD and created their own UI/services layer on top of it.
I mean this is what Next/Apple essentially did with BSD correct? Took BSD and created their own UI/services layer on top of it.
No, the BSD part of OS X/NeXT is just that, a part of the OS. OS X is not just a pretty face on FreeBSD.
> Microsoft needs to stop trying to create an OS - just throw in the towel.
What's their motivation? Why do you think that Microsoft can't write an OS?
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, last quarter, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue and $2.24bn in profits and represents 91% of the desktop market: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
Apple knew their competitive advantage (the UI/services layers) and essentially outsourced the rest. For Microsoft to outsource Windows makes as much sense as Apple outsourcing their UI[0].
Windows, on the other hand, has tremendous backwards compatibility of executables going back 20 years. Until a few years ago (when Windows phased out 16-support), they beat even Linux in the backwards-compatibility category.
The Windows OS is crufty and ugly, but given the incredibly wide range of use cases it needs to support (both horizontally, across industries in the present, and longitudinally, across older systems), it's remarkably robust.
I certainly don't think Windows is a fun OS to write for (or even to use - I run Linux). And I would vastly prefer if Microsoft made the main line of Windows POSIX-compliant[1].
But I see no reason to come to the conclusion that Microsoft should "throw in the towel" when it comes to their OS.
[0] Apple does outsource their hardware production, but that's because SCM is itself one of their core competencies.
[1] That's probably the only thing that would make me even consider going back to Windows
What's their motivation? Why do you think that Microsoft can't write an OS?
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, last quarter, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue and $2.24bn in profits and represents 91% of the desktop market: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
Apple knew their competitive advantage (the UI/services layers) and essentially outsourced the rest. For Microsoft to outsource Windows makes as much sense as Apple outsourcing their UI[0].
Windows, on the other hand, has tremendous backwards compatibility of executables going back 20 years. Until a few years ago (when Windows phased out 16-support), they beat even Linux in the backwards-compatibility category.
The Windows OS is crufty and ugly, but given the incredibly wide range of use cases it needs to support (both horizontally, across industries in the present, and longitudinally, across older systems), it's remarkably robust.
I certainly don't think Windows is a fun OS to write for (or even to use - I run Linux). And I would vastly prefer if Microsoft made the main line of Windows POSIX-compliant[1].
But I see no reason to come to the conclusion that Microsoft should "throw in the towel" when it comes to their OS.
[0] Apple does outsource their hardware production, but that's because SCM is itself one of their core competencies.
[1] That's probably the only thing that would make me even consider going back to Windows
"two operating systems: a locked down mobile-oriented one and a full-strength one for tasks that need full flexibility."
Why a locked down one? Why not a full-strength mobile OS?
Why a locked down one? Why not a full-strength mobile OS?
Because expectations and demands for stability in mobile devices are still much higher than on laptops and desktops.
If I start a game that requires too much horsepower on my PC, then sure, maybe the thing freezes or take a long time to get responsive and if I recieve a skype call in that instance, I actually expect it to fail.
Not on a phone. No matter what I am doing, I expect SMS's and phonecalls to be accepted. No excuses.
If I start a game that requires too much horsepower on my PC, then sure, maybe the thing freezes or take a long time to get responsive and if I recieve a skype call in that instance, I actually expect it to fail.
Not on a phone. No matter what I am doing, I expect SMS's and phonecalls to be accepted. No excuses.
Why Microsoft really needs is to stop and start again from a garage. They have transformed in a weird-ass monster that is slowly dying.
Windows needs to be restarted from a garage but other arms are not doing too badly/ not dying quite so badly. Games are a good spinner for MS; Office, exchange and AD are still ubiquitous for offices and they may even make that Azure mess into a reasonable product (Especially if they keep targeting transcoding based industries)
[deleted]
[deleted]
The section title paused me for a second.
> A different CPU does not an operating system make
> A different CPU does not an operating system make
What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property, and participate as the perfect corporate partner, in the open-OS ethos. There is no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public, common, property - available to all for use and/or modification.
The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department, wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and "sanctity" of corporate property.
The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department, wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and "sanctity" of corporate property.
> There is no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public, common, property
For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...
For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...
Except you are missing something, this hasn't even begun yet.
The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android.
Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS.
Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.
The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android.
Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS.
Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.
And if we're going to be honest the best parts of Android aren't OSS anyway.
What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property
You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"?
In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.
You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"?
In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.
Somewhat sobering to remember that Linus released the first Linux kernel before the first beta of Windows NT (1992).
[deleted]