> Microsoft needs to focus on what it is good at, and stop chasing Apple just because it wants to be good at what Apple is good at.
But the author spent the first half of the essay arguing that the market Microsoft is good at is going away. If that's correct (and it's a big if), Microsoft has no choice but to learn to be good at different things. You can criticize how effectively Microsoft has done this - and that critique consumes the latter half of the essay - but you can't simultaneously argue that Microsoft needs to change what it does and that Microsoft needs to keep doing what it's good at.
That quote in particular is a huge WTF, since it disregards how the free market model works to advance the state of the art. A similar sentence is "Google needs to focus on what it is good at, and stop chasing Apple just because it wants to be good at what Apple is good at."
The Nexus 7 and other 7-inch tablets that run Android, presumably originally developed to compete with iPad, are selling so well that it has prompted Apple to launch a competitive variant of iPad (not officially, but wait 24 hours). This is competition working the way it should, to the benefit of consumers and the general state of technology.
Any claim that any company should not pursue a market in which it has the potential to be competitive simply because another company is currently more successful is a lie. When such statements involve companies with a large fanboy culture, their wrongheadedness is somewhat hidden, but I for one am excited to see where Windows 8 will take us, and take the Mac.
This is what I noticed as well, I read it a couple of times. The summary seemed to be "Microsoft, you are in a dying market, stay there and die, don't even try to get into adjacent growing markets where Apple is."
That Windows 8 doesn't look at all like Windows of old is a 'good' thing, that Microsoft is continuing to try to be a competitor in mobile is a good thing, and that they are taking a more leading role in defining hardware is a good thing too. One can argue that they haven't done as good a job as one might like, or that some of their efforts seem to address non-problems, but it seems silly to criticize the company for trying.
The thing is, Microsoft is doing what they're good at. They're good at giving a consistent experience across whatever hardware, no matter what, and damn any technical debt or consequences they incur in doing so. I think someone posted a video of them actually running the upgrades from Windows 1.0 through to 7 on youtube somewhere.
Throwing touchscreen devices into the Windows wheelhouse and trying to write one OS that runs across them and desktop machines is actually very much a bet on MS's core competency.
>buying new PC hardware bundled with the Windows 8 “we won’t say Tax but that’s what it is when you levy a fee on all products within a market because you exercise dominion over it as a quasi-authority”)
Really? So does my car have a tire tax, just because it comes with tires on it? If you're buying a PC, 99.99% of all people expect it to come with an OS. In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC preloaded with Windows ($35) than it is to buy an unloaded PC and buy a copy of Windows ($150). There are major manufacturers making Linux PCs. There are major manufacturers that will sell you a box loaded with FreeDOS. There's even a major manufacturer that sells pre-installed, well-supported, and beautiful Unix PCs (I've heard they're one of the richest companies in the world). It's not like Microsoft is literally taxing computers, they're charging an incredibly small amount of money and in return you're getting their OS preinstalled like most of the market wants.
Can we get over the Windows Tax thing? It's pretty much akin to saying Micro$oft. Funny in middle school, but it makes your argument much less attractive now.
I bought a ThinkPad recently in Europe, and there was no way for me not to buy Windows. I don't need it and I don't want it. I don't even have it: I wiped the hard disk immediately after getting it. I could choose what memory I wanted, what screen I wanted or how much hard disk I wanted (SSD or regular HDD), but I could not choose not to get Windows. The same is true for the great majority of laptops.
Over the years I've wasted a lot of money buying copies of Windows that I never used and that I never wanted.
I very much doubt that this is so because of convenience: it is so because it gives more money to Microsoft.
It's outrageous.
So, yes, I wish we could get over the Microsoft Tax thing. Call it Microsoft Mandatory Purchase or Microsoft Gratious Gift for Mere Pennies if you wish, it doesn't matter.
Oddly enough, I bought a MacBook last year, and there was no way for me to not buy OSX. I don't need it, and I don't want it. I installed Windows 7 immediately after getting it.
Of course, I knew that when buying a MacBook I would end up paying a small amount for the development of OSX even though I had no intention of using it.
I had options, you had options. We chose the option we did because in balance that was the best option for us respectively.
Is it wrong to point out that you would have had better options if manufacturers made this bundling optional? And that the range of options seem to decrease over time? (Eg. you can't buy Windows RT and install it on an iPad).
The ARM market is different due to many drivers and specs not being open-sourced. In some cases, the drivers for the SoC are hidden behind an NDA and you have to be a hardware partner to get access to these drivers. Trying to install Windows RT on an iPad would likely result in finding driver incompatibilities.
Options don't come for free though. Every option in the chain doubles the number of configurations that the manufacturer has to maintain. So, yes, better for consumer, but not better / easier for OEMs.
> I very much doubt that this is so because of
> convenience: it is so because it gives more money
> to Microsoft.
When Microsoft was throwing its weight around with OEMs to not offer alternative OSes, it was not because a handful of enthusiasts would have avoided paying an extra $35 on their computers. It was to make sure that alternative OSes remained a niche because they weren't hardware vendor supported.
That said, I've seen places with Microsoft shops would have wanted to avoid the 'Microsoft Tax.' I remember each machine in University had two Microsoft licenses. One that came with the purchase from Dell, and the other one purchased separately so that we could do more enterprise-y stuff with it. I'm sure that on a purchase of 1000s of desktops, avoiding $35/machine would have been nice.
Working at a semi-large-ish IT company here and the computers we buy come without any OS. So larger entities than a single person apparently have ways of purchasing large volumes of computers and avoiding buying OSes multiple times.
I should have qualified that my experience was from ~2001 or so. I guess it's also possible that the person doing the purchasing was incompetent, or didn't care about the savings because it wasn't their money.
The latter may even be a valid reason. At least when universities here (Germany) are given a certain budget for certain things they have to use it up, lest they get less the next year. So there often is a rush at the end of the year to spend all remaining money on office supplies and other things that are not strictly necessary or need renewal, just to not get cuts the next year.
> I bought a ThinkPad recently in Europe, and there was no way for me not to buy Windows.
You could have just as easily purchased something that wasn't a ThinkPad. That's akin to complaining that the iPhone comes with iOS on it, or that Mac's come pre-installed with Mountain Lion.
You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with. Consider that with Windows is the norm, and because of that, it's easy to produce in greater numbers. Producing an exception, or a custom, will drive up the price.
> You could have just as easily purchased something that wasn't a ThinkPad.
At least here in the UK, it's not easy to get any computer without Windows - unless you want to shell out much more for a Mac. Dell no longer offer Ubuntu, and there's no local equivalent of System76. I found a small shop that builds unbranded desktops and will install Linux, but their laptops have Windows bundled.
> You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with.
But on the rare occasions that a big name offers laptops with Linux - or without an OS - it is cheaper than comparable Windows machines.
The fact that Dell doesn't offer Linux as an option means there's no market for it. Come WRT and iOS you won't even have the option to easily install a different OS.
> I very much doubt that this is so because of convenience: it is so because it gives more money to Microsoft.
Well, most people want Windows pre-installed. So, is it more/less/equally convenient for manufacturers to maintain a 2nd inventory for the small percentage of people who do not want Windows installed? And would the overall cost associated with this 2nd level of inventory divided by the total number of PC's sold without an OS be greater than or less than the amount you are paying for Windows when you buy a new PC?
I don't know the answer, but it's something to think about.
> In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC preloaded with Windows ($35) than it is to buy an unloaded PC and buy a copy of Windows ($150)
It's also cheaper to buy a computer with Windows preloaded than a computer with no operating system (typically). This is especially noticeable in the laptop market. (Granted the market may have changed since I last bought a pre-built computer five years ago.)
Anyway, I think the point of the statement you quote really isn't about the "tax" but an illustration of the fact that Microsoft more or less controls the PC market through Windows. If Microsoft arbitrarily decides to double their license fee, manufacturers (until recently) really have no choice but to comply.
>If Microsoft arbitrarily decides to double their license fee, manufacturers (until recently) really have no choice but to comply.
Is this because Microsoft is forcing them to buy a license, or because the market is demanding Windows? We can debate Microsoft's sketchy practices in the past (which they were then punished for), but the here-and-now question is why do OEMs provide Windows? And my answer is, because there's not much else they can do. OEMs offer Ubuntu, and it's a very low-volume seller. OEMs offer FreeDOS, and it's a very low volume seller. When someone buys a PC, they expect it to run right out of the box and with the OS the market is demanding.
I think my point still stands. It's not a tax any more than including (and charging for) a hard drive is a tax. It's just expected that a PC will come with it. It would be cheaper for the OEMs to produce all their PCs with Linux (to the tune of ~$35 per PC), but they don't because the price decrease will not offset the sales decrease. When I bought my truck, I wanted huge 38" MT tires instead of the 31" all season tires that came with it, but I had to buy those separately because the market demands road tires.
Dell, at various times, has offered Ubuntu machines (their latest offering is an Ubuntu XPS laptop). I don't know if they've offered them in the UK or outside of the US at all, but they've always been discontinued shortly after appearing. If they were discontinued because of Microsoft objecting, Dell wouldn't have done it at all (and wouldn't keep trying every couple of years). My guess is that they've been discontinued due to not selling in enough quantities.
Dell also offered FreeDOS as an option. Looking online, Acer has offered FreeDOS in the UK, at least in the past. These computers are usually advertised as "No OS Installed" or something similar.
(1) They find that offering one Linux isn't much of an advantage even for Linux users, since so many people have a different preferred distro. Even people who buy a laptop running Ubuntu are likely to replace it with something else, currently Mint.
(2) Supporting Linux is a very expensive nightmare, especially if you try to do it in 30 languages across 50 countries. Selling Linux laptops to newbies is a loss-making proposition, so you only want to sell to geeks and businesses that can look after themselves. And they're the people who install their own OS anyway.
(3) It's not such a big deal to sell business machines with FreeDOS or something similar. With consumer laptops, the pre-installed crapware basically pays for Windows. Business laptops don't have (or shouldn't have) pre-installed crapware so OEMs are not losing to much on installation fees. The exception is probably the anti-virus program, which delivers big bucks if the user signs up and pays.
Personally, I feel this author is far too biased. He spends too much time in bringing Apple into context even when unnecessary. His theory that there is a 'Post-PC' era and iPads are replacing computers is just plain BS.
>Microsoft needs to focus on what it is good at, and stop chasing Apple just because it wants to be good at what Apple is good at.
This line just destroyed his credibility. The false ideology that these writers have, that is, everyone is chasing Apple these days should be corrected. I think Microsoft is just trying to make their Windows Operating systems better by introducing a new UI.
It is stupid to label anyone as a copycat of Apple just because they are trying to perfect their products.
To support my arguments, here is another article explaining very well why there is no 'post-pc' era:
I hate the use of the term "Post-PC Era". The PC is not going anywhere. The PC is a tool. It's like you were using Swiss Army knife all this time and now you have a dedicated Phillips head screwdriver and a real wrench now. We just have better tools now for specific scenarios:
Are you going to use a spreadsheet on on your IPad?
Are you going to use your laptop to make a call you are stuck on the side of the road?
Both Jobs' Truck/Car metaphor and Microsoft's "PCs are everywhere" are both correct.
I see your point, but the phone example actually plays into the post-pc argument. And when it comes to spreadsheets, I'd argue that there are tons of people that don't do much with this. Sure, apple or whatever post-pc company might appear might not take over the corporate world, but it might still be a scary thought to microsoft that the post-pc devices, tailored to needs (iPad: simpler creation and consumption, iPhone: on the road calls and other stuff) could take a significant chunk of their revenue. Betting on just corporate, and not the creative sector at that, might be putting too many eggs in one basket.
So I agree that the post-pc device can never take over certain functions, but it can replace enough to make microsoft worry.
How does that article explain why there is no 'post-pc' era? All it explains is how customers have failed to understand what Windows RT isn't.
Whichever way you put it, the trend today points to people spending more time using their smaller, more portable devices, including smartphones and lightweight tablets.
I agree that the author is biased, though, and he completely ignores that Microsoft can't afford not to go into the lightweight tablet market.
I read the Post PC comments as the author explaining both sides. It is advantageous for MS to downplay Post PC and call everything a PC. It's advantageous for Apple to do the opposite. They both know they are playing semantics.
But how can you deny that tablets (not just ipad) are replacing PC sales? Think of all the use cases that a tablet just makes more sense than a PC (e.g. as a mobile cash register or for casual media consumption)
>"But it’s worse that that. iPad sales have hit conventional PCs so hard"
This is so over-blown. Apple has sold something like 80MM iPads since the device was released. On the other hand, there were 90 million PCs sold in the first quarter of 2012.
Tablets are great, but they aren't replacing PCs any time soon. For all we know, the market will be tablet-saturated after Christmas.
>"Microsoft can’t command those prices anymore because of competition. Apple now hands out OS X upgrades for $29, forcing Microsoft to sell its new Windows 8 Pro upgrades for just $40."
In 2001, Apple was selling OSX for $129. The low cost of operating system upgrades was something that happened gradually, over time.
"But he appears to be oblivious to a signifiant new problem facing Windows 8: people and businesses aren’t buying as many PCs as they once were. They’re buying iPads."
I don't know what office you work in.. but no; iPads have not replaced PC's. Yet. There are too many applications that just don't work well enough on a tablet device. This will change of course. But not today.
Granted a lot of people in the office have ipads, but most bought it themselves. And use it with a PC. Not in place of.
Funny you should bring this up. The place I work for, sells a POS like setup for fitness clubs, but with more features, than a traditional POS.
We've been talking a lot about replacing everything with iPads. The install price for the customers would be much much cheaper, and the experience for all involved would be better.
The only thing holding us back, is the lack of available man hours, to make the switch, but it will happen.
What are the drivers for using an iPad for POS applications? As far as I know iPads are built for light consumer use. Wouldn't a more ruggedised tablet running something like android be cheaper, more durable, and less of a target for theft?
Most good Android tablets, are atleast as much as the iPad when considering cost, however you could then posibly get away with using off the rack MSR or barcode readers, provided, that the Android device features USB.
The bonus of using iOS, is predictable behavior, sleek design, better custom accesories (iPad msr) , percieved value of the customer, but also the ability to get a replacement device, with ease.
If you go with Acer X, you have no idea of availabilty 2-3 months later, let alone a year or two.
I think I would go trough the App Store, and just use som kind of authentication, as that would be easier for some clients, and would provide better visibility of the app and the company.
However, if you would rather sidestep the regular appstore, Apple provides something called the Volume Purchasing program. With that, it is possible to provide apps directly to devices, either for free or a paid solution.
That's certainly true for the office. But, as the author points out later in the article, many PCs were bought to serve as cash registers and info terminals, and those are replaced by tablets more and more.
So IMHO it's not that far fetched to say that individuals and businesses are buying less PCs than they were when Win XP came along. Doesn't say they aren't buying them anymore, just less.
Really? I was just at the mail the other day, and I didn't see one iPad being used as a cash register.
The only place I see people using their iPads to cash out are at the farmers market. And that makes sense since you are outside and need something portable.
But I do agree, businesses are buying less PC's but not because they are replacing them with iPads. Because they aren't spending the money. The glut in the PC market is that everyone has one. It's saturated (I'm talking the Western World here, not developing countries). Now you buy one as a upgrade. And businesses only upgrade when they must.
MS's job is to provide a compelling reason to upgrade. Time will tell if Windows 8 does this (I doubt it actually. Maybe when more apps are built for it).
"Really? I was just at the mail the other day, and I didn't see one iPad being used as a cash register."
the comment above you also talks about 'tablets', not 'ipads'. Tablet-style things (ie rather small devices with a touch screen) have been used for cash registers and as controls in the industry for quite some time. A lot of them were merely PC's, running some sort of Windows. This might start changing now since tablets are getting more widespread, hardware getting cheaper etc.
Which must be a pretty slow cycle in this space. I recently shopped at a store that I hadn't been to in at least a decade. I was shocked to find they were still using the exact same orange screen terminals that they were using when I was a young child.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate the original claim though. All new POS terminal installations could be using iPads or similar tablet devices.
There are many tasks at many jobs which require a PC (PC as in personal computer, which could be any OS as the author points out). The trade-off between a tablet device and a PC makes for a difference between ease of work, efficiency, and power.
Imagine trying to effectively generate an excel sheet. I cringe at the thought of trying to manipulate data from a tablet. You would waste a lot of time to produce something sub par. This is one example, there are many more.
Although apple reinvented the tablet market it will take greater innovation and the creation of some other tools before tablets become effective and efficient machines in the work place.
Windows 8 is simply better than what Apple and Google are offering now. Enthusiasts such as Bott are having a hard time explaining this because they are not use to Microsoft having a superior product. And, Apple apologists are beside themselves trying to figure out how Microsoft designed a better looking OS.
It is funny that our loyalties to brands make it difficult to just step back and say "man, that is cool". So, let me do it for you: "man, Windows 8 is cool".
"Windows Phone is doing so badly that Nokia, Microsoft’s
largest and staunchest mobile partner, actually sold more
of its abandoned legacy Symbian devices (3.4 million)
than its new Windows Phone Lumia phones (2.9 million) in
the last quarter."
That stat actually looks relatively impressive to me. 2.9 mil Lumia phones in a quarter? Why is this stat presented as "doing badly"?
2.9 mil Lumia phones in a quarter? Why is this stat presented as "doing badly"?
2.9mil smartphones is not a terribly good number if you consider how the market has grown, and how big Nokia used to be. In Q1 2011 they sold 24mil smartphones, and last quarter only about 6mil, over half of which were still Symbian. So, a pure-WP Nokia would now be only about 10-15% of what the company was in the "good old days".
Samsung sold about 10mil Galaxy Notes in a year (so, ~2.5mil/Q), and that "phablet" is quite a niche device. And Verizon alone sold more iPhones in Q3 than Nokia sold Lumias worldwide.
I understand that the 2.9mil figure is small compared to the figures for the other makers today, however, what were these figures for, say, the second or third generation of android devices? For a relatively new entrant, a market take up of 2.9mil in a quarter makes me think MS might rise in the phone space. Any economies of scale advantage that Apple might have bought itself would likely put Android makers and WinPhone makers on the same footing, margin wise. Can the market tolerate more than 2 major players? Quite easily, i think (given symbian is kn its way out). If you include a country like India where iphone calibre smartphones are not the dominant kind, it doesnt look like a lost game for MS. Besides, they have other assets to leverage off, like office sync (which i hear is good), azure, etc.
There are many open questions here, but for example I'm not putting a lot of faith for WP in places like India or China, as the license costs and hardware requirements make it targeted for the high end of smartphones (for now).
Also, the situation with young Android or iOS is not exactly comparable to the one now, as then the markets were still dominated by featurephones, and so there were lots of "new" customers to convert. Now for example in USA the market is 50% smartphone, and people already have invested into one of the ecosystems. Getting those users to switch is a lot harder.
I also imagine that after Microsoft officially announced that existing Lumia phones won't get upgraded to Windows 8, many people decided to hold off on buying a Lumia device until the next version came out. I know that is certainly true for me.
"The problem with the PC isn’t that the market desperately wants a new version of Windows that looks different and has a higher version number. The real problem is that the well has run dry, and new versions of Windows won’t fix this. And really, if they’re too different, they’ll just accelerate the shift to Post PC devices."
"There is not going to be huge annual increases in PC shipments anymore. Everyone knows this. What they don’t always seem to see as clearly is that you can have a personal computer without having a box under your desk blowing hot air away from an Intel CPU."
"Windows Phone is not just unpopular, it’s so toxic it lethally crippled what was not too long ago the world’s leading smartphone manufacturer."
"Not to worry, the Windows Enthusiasts tell us. Microsoft doesn’t need a lack of competition, high ASPs, expanding revenues, nor even any support via Post-PC devices. The legacy pile of PCs out there will magically blow money in Microsoft’s direction once Windows 8 hits because that’s what happened in the past."
"There are tremendous problems facing the Surface. The first: it’s based on a lie. It’s called “Windows 8 RT,” but consumers associate “Windows” with two things: a familiar interface and the ability to run Windows apps. Surface RT supports neither."
"The non-RT, Intel x86 version of Surface not only isn’t available yet, but it’s going to be too thick, expensive and heavy to compete with iPad, just like any other Ultrabook or previous Windows Tablet."
"Saying that the Surface is a combination of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 hardware savvy and its Windows Phone software savvy is like one of those jokes about a train engineered by Italians, serving English food, managed by Portugal and financed by Greece."
"Saying that the Surface is a combination of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 hardware savvy and its Windows Phone software savvy is like one of those jokes about a train engineered by Italians, serving English food, managed by Portugal and financed by Greece."
And today, you’re already seeing cash registers, terminal emulation, and other dummy tasks being performed by iPads rather than PCs.
Not arguing against the entire point of the article, but that seems like a highly localized phenomenon. In fact, I haven't seen PCs used for this in over 10 years either.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Anyway. The article seem full of half-truths and inaccuracies intermixed with opinion to support his point. I'm not saying he's all wrong, but he has enough wrong to lose most of his credibility.
In fact, I haven't seen PCs used for this in over 10 years either.
I see them all the time, in Safeway, Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Kroger's, Rite-Aid, etc. They're running custom register software & a network-boot OS, but reboot them and they still run through the same bios POST and start-up messages as today's desktop PCs.
>" There is not going to be huge annual increases in PC shipments anymore. Everyone knows this."
It might make sense to point out that what everyone knew a few years ago was that Apple was dead. It might make sense to point out that this week Microsoft will begin shipping a true post PC operating system, Windows RT, to hardware OEM's, and that Microsoft will have first mover advantage.
Yes, it might make sense to point out these things, but everyone knows them.
I would describe the danger to MS/Windows a little differently.
Windows was fairly protected by being a big natural monopoly. Making a good OS is itself a difficult task. Making a good OS & getting an application market to grow around it in a deal-breaker rich environment is nearly impossible. There were no ways to climb the hill other than straight up the steep face.
Smartphones/tablets are an angle of attack. An easier way to climb the hill. Android & iOS matured without having to compete with windows. Now two of MS's most dangerous competitors can both launch new smartphone derived PC (keyboard & mouse) operating systems with 80% of the work (in both OS building & in app ecosystem building) already done.
Even worse, there may be room for new mobile OS' to get going. The market isn't tending to the same kind of monopoly as PCs.
I predict that iOS, Android and/or yet-to-succeed OSs are going to hop from tablets & phones to TVs and other devices. Its only a matter of time before we see one gaining traction on laptops. Apple could probably release a $500 post-PC PC within a year that will double (in units) Apple sales out of the gate. Google could too (though it probably wouldn't hit the ground running as fast).
Eventually, this market will fold in on itself and we will have several OS families. I would be surprised if any one (including windows) gets as firm a grip on any market as microsoft did.
This doesn't mean that MS dies. They are (despite the criticisms) a very competent company. It just means they compete with 2-5 different companies for market share in a bigger market. consumers win.
Do they really have abandoned the desktop? Not so sure about that. Also read discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4660072. Is Windows 8 really that bad? Not sure either.. Opinions are at least mixed, so let's not start calling things a fact yet, for something that not even has been widely adopted.
I am hoping that the same thing will happen with mobile devices as with pc's and you will be able to buy a device and load it with the software you choose. I don't like any of the mobile OS's they all feel too restrictive in terms of storing and manipulating files and turning on and off functionality.
(note: I work for Microsoft. but I certainly don't represent them and in fact I think they'd probably rather I didn't run my mouth here :) Also just because I work for Microsoft doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about when I talk about Microsoft either, it's hard enough to even keep track of what the specific team I'm on is really doing sometimes let alone the whole company so keep that in mind :) also I'm drunk :) )
The frustrating thing about reading Daniel Dilger's articles is that he's actually a good deal more knowledgeable than most tech pundits and occasionally even insightful, but his worldview is so Apple-centric that he's blind to having any idea what his blind spots are. This article is a case in point, almost everything factual in it about Microsoft is wrong, to wit:
* Zune wasn't a low-budget project (it was actually funded fairly lavishly, in part because it was meant partly as a kind of pilot project for developing new Microsoft design aesthetics / patterns / practices)
* Zune wasn't based on web technologies (it used Yet Another Internal UI Framework). Neither is Windows 8 really (there is a web-based UI framework, along with a native one, but they both sit on top of native APIs)
Windows 8 has nothing in common with Zune codebase-wise, and UI/design-wise though there's a family lineage between them it was developed independently from the Zune->Windows Phone line (which itself has changed a lot over the years) and diverged quite a bit
* he still apparently thinks the new Windows UI is a "thin layer" on top of old Windows, which I think he still imagines as Windows XP or whatever. in previous posts he was having fun comparing it to Bob. I think that's fundamentally wrong - while the new environment isn't really separate from existing Windows it's imo misleading to think of it as a "thin upper layer", because developing it involved making deeper changes & refactorings to every layer of the system (ARM support, window hardening, MoCOM, PLM, app model, async, etc.)
* see, not only does his ignorance lead taking jabs at MSFT that don't make sense, it leads to him missing out on potential avenues of attack that WOULD make sense - he could make fun of the ridiculous UI framework fragmentation problem Microsoft has, which is an area where Apple actually has its shit together and has for some time.
Have you tried it? Because I did installed it at home since the public beta and it is not painful at all. Actually it is very reliable and fast. We can argue whether it would be successful or not but I can't see how it is painful.
I agree. I don't see any reasons why I would choose to use Windows 7 over Windows 8. Even if you don't use the Metro interface for anything besides launching apps, it is still a better OS.
But the author spent the first half of the essay arguing that the market Microsoft is good at is going away. If that's correct (and it's a big if), Microsoft has no choice but to learn to be good at different things. You can criticize how effectively Microsoft has done this - and that critique consumes the latter half of the essay - but you can't simultaneously argue that Microsoft needs to change what it does and that Microsoft needs to keep doing what it's good at.