Competition from Apple and Linux (but mostly Apple) is the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a long time. No, the UI isn't perfect yet, the design decisions (for this beta) not always logical, but Windows is finally going somewhere amazing after many years of going no where. Because some of Microsoft's best products were great but went no where.
Take the Zune and Windows Phone 7. People who own them love them, especially the Zune. My neighbor had an iPod and Zune and always stood up for his Zune despite loathing Microsoft. But everyone else refuses to touch them. Why? Because they're Microsoft products and the stigma around them is that MS products have no future and become abandoned quickly or go nowhere fast. A reputation that's going to take consumers at least a decade to forget about and move on. So hopefully MS keeps these "revolutionary redesigns" going at a constant rate and not just kill them once profit comes in and market share returns.
Another relevant point: antitrust oversight of Microsoft started in 1998 and ended 12 May 2011, and Microsoft clearly doesn't have a monopoly in PCs anymore.
Imagine a world in which Apple was taken to court for including Mobile Safari on the iPhone, with talk of huge fines and company breakups. Consider having to make strategic decisions with those threats hanging over your head. Would we get Siri? Maybe adding Reminders counts as bundling? Maybe Game Center is anticompetitive against OpenFeint? Will the Growl developers sue over Mountain Lion notifications? What do you do when every improvement could become grounds for a lawsuit?
Of course, Apple doesn't have to worry about those things because they don't have any monopolies. Microsoft did. So competition from Apple may have made the difference simply in that Microsoft no longer has to worry about being a monopoly either.
Despite the widespread perception that the antitrust investigation was ineffective, if you trace back to the beginnings of Microsoft's stagnation, you will find it happens exactly when they started getting sued for antitrust in the US and Europe, and similarly so too did their innovation stall. They kept on producing cool stuff out of their research labs but nearly none of it ever made it out. Regulatory concerns enormously biased them towards playing it safe, just doing incremental improvements and milking their cash cow instead of risking aggressively entering new markets and getting hauled into court for it. Even the rise of OSX can be traced to it as MS has been forced to license a great deal of technology (exchange, office formats, etc) to its most hated competitors under FRAND type terms.
So its kind of interesting that regulation may actually have been effective, just very slow to work, and also it is unclear whether it was in the ultimate interests of consumers or not (eg: years of stalled innovation that we are only now catching up on).
> if you trace back to the beginnings of Microsoft's stagnation, you will find it happens exactly when they started getting sued for antitrust in the US and Europe, and similarly so too did their innovation stall.
Or, when they managed to effectively kill Netscape and BeOS, having essentially zero competition.
> They kept on producing cool stuff out of their research labs but nearly none of it ever made it out.
The stuff out of their research labs never made it out before that either.
> Regulatory concerns enormously biased them towards playing it safe, just doing incremental improvements and milking their cash cow instead of risking aggressively entering new markets and getting hauled into court for it.
Huh? Was there any point in time after, say, 1987, when they did not play it safe? what does regulation have to do with it?
> Even the rise of OSX can be traced to it as MS has been forced to license a great deal of technology (exchange, office formats, etc) to its most hated competitors under FRAND type terms.
Samba was bundled with OS/X before MS was forced to open the protocol (which was actually extended from an older Digital protocol). The only other protocol which might have been at all relevant is ActiveSync, but it wasn't a factor in the rise of OS/X. It might have contributed to the iPhone, but I'm not sure of that either.
> So its kind of interesting that regulation may actually have been effective, just very slow to work, and also it is unclear whether it was in the ultimate interests of consumers or not (eg: years of stalled innovation that we are only now catching up on).
Excuse me for the question; in all seriousness - are you a Microsoft employee?
Are you seriously claiming that Microsoft's failure to and delay in implement standards for web and office documents is somehow related to regulation? Because from where I'm standing, it sure looks like "it's good to be the king, we don't need to do anything" stalling.
The rhetoric in this post is ridiculous, especially when you cherry-pick interpretations of his commentary, castigate him for your interpretation, and question his personal affiliations.
If your best interpretation of "innovation" is "web standards," it is clear that we have VERY different perspectives on modern computing.
It is completely devoid of any data - just assertions that are completely false in the world I live in.
> If your best interpretation of "innovation" is "web standards," it is clear that we have VERY different perspectives on modern computing.
Well, in HN the standard topic of "MS stalling" is IE, so I assumed that.
> Please consider the tone of your posting.
Yes, it was a bit aggressive. I've been on HN since the time when a demand for facts or at the very least items that could be discussed (rather than vague notions) was the norm. Most people on this site had joined recently, and think this is a reddit/fox news "everyone's opinion carries the same weight". I don't; I think If you want to advance a position, you have to give some support. Non was given.
Let's start again. Do you think the claims in the post I replied to have any merit? I don't. Do you have any examples we can discuss, since you clearly disagree the ones I brought up are relevant?
Because they're Microsoft products and the stigma around them is that MS products have no future and become abandoned quickly or go nowhere fast.
I really, really don't believe that. What consumer-facing product was abandoned quickly in the Zune era? The Kin was an unmitigated disaster, sure, but when people think of MS they think of Windows, Office and (perhaps) Xbox- none of which have been abandoned.
After Vista, PlaysForSure, Silverlight, Windows Live all killed their brand/device/service? I think the lesson for consumers is that Microsoft has not been able to expand beyond its cash cows (Xbox/Kinect the notable exception).
If you google [microsoft flop] you will get many overlapping examples. Kin shows up, of course. As does Vista, as does Zune. And that latter day tablet product that never was. And the other products of MSR that never quite make it to stores. Consumers are not dumb. They are aware of these high profile collapses.
And there is a general trend of lagging the market, then failing to catch up. This more than anything explains the performance of Windows Phone in the market.
Windows Live isn't dead, by any stretch. It's been rebranded as "Microsoft Account", and actually extended a ton in Windows 8. Vista wasn't "killed" any more than Snow Leopard was "killed" by Lion.
PlaysForSure and Silverlight are actually great examples of what I'm talking about- consumers have zero idea what they are. Developers are angry that MS dropped Silverlight because they spent a lot of time learning it and creating stuff with it, but beyond an initial install screen (which they've already forgotten about) consumers have no idea whether they are using HTML5, Flash or Silverlight. This is a good thing.
Consumers do not regard the MS Courier tablet as a flop. They have never heard of it.
I agree with you. Here in Turkmenistan mp3 market is taken almost entirely by iPod. In contrast, pc market is almost entirely (99.9%) windows. I can't show you official statistics, but I am sure the deviation from my estimations is insignificant.
People love windows in here, they are very eager to try new versions of windows (Majority of them don't even know that something else exists). Many companies with annual revenue above 1$mln usd use Excell as a primary work station. Nobody heard about Silverlight, MS Courier tablet (even me) and other "failed" MS products. Microsoft is regarded as a safe-bet. Thats what keeps many people from buying macbooks.
Thats said, I believe that majority of the world (those who don't follow tech news) think of Microsoft as they think of Windows- stable, reliable, familiar, indispensable product (company in case of Microsoft itself).
Fine, they are "undead" products. I reiterate that the consumer is aware of them as failed experiments, not as "subtle redirections forming the core of a new flagship product".
I don't know how many google searches you want me to provide you with. Here is the top result for [Microsoft brand]. Admittedly it is from 2010. However, it is not an isolated example.
Consumers have turned their backs on Microsoft. A company that once symbolized the future is now living in the past.
Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets. It has even fallen behind in Web browsing, a market it once ruled with an iron fist.
Here's something from a few days ago reinforcing my position.
The articles you link to state that MS has brand problem. I agree with that. It isn't "cool", and people don't identify with it. As your quotes say, they are behind the times.
What I am disgreeing with is the original suggestion that these brand problems are the result of products that are abandoned quickly and/or have no future. I do not think that consumers regard Silverlight as a failed experiment, I don't think they know what it is, or that it even exists.
I think Microsoft's brand problem is that they are not seen as interesting or innovative, not that they ditch their products too quickly.
The ZuneHD released September 2009, pronounced dead October 2011. Then there is the aforementioned Kin. WP7 devices will be shortly. No WP7 device is capable of running WP8(or at least that is the rumor.)
The ZuneHD released September 2009, pronounced dead October 2011.
I don't know what you mean by that exactly- have all the ZuneHD devices out there stopped working? No. Is the Zune desktop software still being updated? Yes.
And 'Zune' wasn't killed, it was integrated into Windows Phone. MS are just responding to the market in that regard- no-one wants to carry around a dedicated media player any more- they use their smartphone.
Kin was a giant mess, yes. But MS practically killed it before launch, and it has next to no advertising- I very much doubt it affected the average consumer's perception of Microsoft, because they probably never heard about it.
Is the Zune desktop software still being updated? Yes.
That is rather like saying the iPod mini wasn't killed off because iTunes is still updated. You are unable to build software with the current sdk that will run on a Zune. Zune device software hasn't been updated since before it was discontinued. So no Zune devices were not integrated into windows phone, they were dropped in the dust bin.
Considering the Zune never had an app store or any official way to distribute Zune apps, I don't see it as a net loss. Microsoft even said that the only officially distributed Zune apps would be from Microsoft themselves.
You're talking about the Zune as though it were a single product, like the iPod Mini. It's not. Zune is a product line. Windows Phone is a continuation of the Zune product line.
By your reasoning, Apple must have killed the iPod line because the older iPods are not being made. You ignore that they're making new iPod (Zune) hardware. The only thing that has changed is Microsoft is not making Zune-branded hardware anymore, rather hardware that runs the Zune software.
Only if you miss characterize what I said. I was specifically talking about the ZuneHD. Much like if I had an iPod classic focus on new hardware (wp7 or iPod touch) does me no good I am not invited to play in those reindeer games.
>The ZuneHD released September 2009, pronounced dead October 2011.
So they had a product that was made and sold for two years. At the end of its life they stopped making them and started making the replacement. How long did the iPod Mini last? (hint: less than two years)
>or at least that is the rumor.
Let's save that discussion for when it becomes fact. Even if it's true, Windows Phone 7 has had many significant updates. Every mobile device has its support dropped within years of its release.
If anything, Microsoft has a history of holding on to old things for far too long. The rest of the industry changes far more rapidly and far more drastically.
Your theory is ridiculous. The Xbox 360 was a major success.
The Zune failed because people didn't like it. Not because it's a Microsoft product. Same goes for Windows Phone 7, it is failing because people don't like it.
Now whether it's a better product or not is a subjective debate that isn't worth having, IMHO (better for whom?) But to say that they failed because of the Microsoft stigma is absurd.
I think people actually did like it, and I think that people do like Windows Phone when they try it. Zune failed because of a lack of visibility in a crowded marketplace (well, crowded in the sense that Apple is taking up 90% of the room). Windows Phone actually has the same challenge, and MS haven't really stepped up their game with regards to promoting it. Yet?
I've seen a lot of Windows Phone 7 promotion, but it's not all that compelling. Their entry into the smart phone wars was so late that they needed something extraordinary to convince people to consider them seriously. Instead they made something marginally better than iOS and Android in some ways and marginally worse in others.
I suspect they're waiting for Windows 8 before making a big push. A unified desktop/tablet/phone platform is probably a lot more interesting, promotion-wise, than yet another smartphone.
Nokia is making a huge push over here in belgium. I'm pretty sure windows phone will be outselling the iphone globally within 2 years. Nokia is still a big player outside the US, and now they actually will have a product worth buying. It's no coincidence microsoft is going after budget phones with wp7.5.
"I'm pretty sure windows phone will be outselling the iphone globally within 2 years."
I'm saving this quote. Not to poke fun of you if it doesn't come true, but because putting together a list of "wild" predictions for the future would be pretty interesting.
I love how people like to sit in a tree and talk about how other people think. Did you own a Zune and not like it? If not, then don't say "the Zune failed because people didn't like it" because as a Zune and iPod user who loves the Zune and hates the iPod, you don't know what you are talking about.
"Same goes for Windows Phone 7, it is failing because people don't like it."
It's been out for a little over a year in a crowded marketplace. Microsoft's strategy is long term - there is little evidence to the contrary and their history is of taking such an approach (easier when the founder and CEO each hold more stock than any other shareholder).
Windows Phone is targeted far more broadly than the competition - from the 4G smart phones of Europe to the data planless feature phones of Zambia.
I, for one, would love to get my hands on a good Nokia Lumia 800 running Windows Phone 7, but despite reading about them for months-to-years, they're never available when I go to the store. MSFT could learn a lot from Apple about not making announcements until products are ready. It's very frustrating.
Apple is a US based company. They release their products in the US. If you're outside of the US, you're waiting months or years to get your hands on the new iPhone.
Nokia is a Finnish based company. They release their products globally, and generally the US is lower on that list. Nokia treats the US how Apple treats other countries. It's not that different.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't really considered, thanks. That said, Microsoft is an American company and perhaps they should make their own hardware if they really want to compete in the US phone market....
There are certain markets where I feel Microsoft has to be careful in. Making Microsoft brand PCs or phones would get dangerous for their antitrust ruling which only recently ceased. Consoles have a long precedent of having the software directly tied to the hardware, as do MP3 players. PCs and phones, not so much. If Microsoft were to start making their own phones and ended up gaining significant marketshare, there's the chance they could be cited again (though not as strictly if they were not actively anti-competitive). Even Apple has come under federal investigation for potential abuse of their iPod monopoly.
Apple is an interesting case in that they've been allowed to control every aspect of their system because they have such an insignificant marketshare. Their aggressive actions in the mobile arena coupled with their unbridled success may very well see them in the same boat Microsoft was in during the late 90s.
I would wager that Zune and WP7 struggle not due to consumers not liking it, but due to the people the consumers get their information from not liking the idea of it.
When someone I know goes to buy a piece of hardware, generally they'll ask me or someone else what they should get. It's up to me/other people to understand what they need before giving them advice. Telling them " don't buy a Windows Phone" without understanding them or clarifying why (and telling the truth) is just being an asshole. The question should be "if they use a PC, why should they get an iPhone (and vice versa)".
Xbox 360 is a huge success based on number sold. Is it based on money made? I know they had massive hardware failure and their warranty costs were through the roof. I do not know the dollar figures.
Windows phones have some of the best ratings on carrier websites and Amazon.
There is indeed a Microsoft stigma, and MS is failing at shaking it. When have you seen a commercial for the HTC Titan on TV? It's all iPhones and Android out there except for an inkling of ads for the Nokia 710 (which IS selling well btw, and is the third best selling device on their network).
It is also failing because of carrier stores and salesmen, who seem to be steering people away from Windows Phones to Android LTE devices.
"It is also failing because of carrier stores and salesmen, who seem to be steering people away from Windows Phones to Android LTE devices."
There's truth to that. When I asked what Windows Phones the store had, the sales clerk gave me a surprised look and asked "Are you sure you want that?".
When I bought a Windows Phone, the salesman tried very hard to steer me away. I asked about the Samsung Focus, and he showed me the Samsung Galaxy S instead. In the end I had to just say "is there someone else I can talk to who won't let me walk out the door right now?"
Customer satisfaction only means that people who BOUGHT one like it. It says nothing about whether all the people who DIDN'T buy one like it. What does say something to that? The sales numbers.
Those sales goons also steer people toward Android and away from iPhones as well -- for a simple reason that the carrier tells them to because the carrier makes more profit on Android phones -- but yet iPhones continue to sell extremely well.
Accept reality; most people don't like Windows Phone 7.
> There is indeed a Microsoft stigma, and MS is failing at shaking it. When have you seen a commercial for the HTC Titan on TV? It's all iPhones and Android out there except for an inkling of ads for the Nokia 710
Microsoft's initial marketing spend on WP7 was vast; nearly 500m in three months (for comparison, that's about 100m less than Apple's _entire_ annual marketing spend). It didn't appear to do much good.
You couldn't be wronger. In fact, it is ahead of Android.
People don't like == miserable sales numbers. The narrative for Windows Phone 7 is so bad that naturally the only people who buy it are generally going to automatically like the platform -- they had some ulterior motive, generally, for selecting it.
Windows Phone is evolving quickly and is turning credible, but that satisfaction survey is complete discardable nonsense.
Windows phones have some of the best ratings on carrier websites and Amazon.
Fringe things generally do. That isn't an insult to it, it's simply truth.
It is also failing because of carrier stores and salesmen, who seem to be steering people away from Windows Phones to Android LTE devices.
Maybe because they think the Android devices are better? For much of Android's life salespeople have rightly steered users to the iPhone. A "held down" conspiracy doesn't follow.
How can you not like something if you've never used it? Android and iOS are the safe bet, but might not be the best fit for every use case. You'll never know with a closed mind and preconceived notions.
I don't think the problem was the zune itself but the zune ecosystem. Apple more than any competitor understood this. If all you want is a player for your existing music library, an iPod offers little advantage over any other decent music player, and the zune UI was very polished.
That said, the first thing that struck me about Windows 8 is that there's still a hard line between the 32- and 64-bit versions, which points to a fairly major underlying technical legacy in the current stack. So they need to go through another major revision (as in DOS -> NT) or hope 32-bit disappears (at least on the Intel side; it looks like they're planning on making the ARM side embedded/pre-installed only, so it won't matter so much).
There are still plenty of people with hardware that has less than 4 GB of RAM. For those people, there's not generally an advantage in running a 64-bit OS if all their applications are available in 32-bit versions.
No. And for most programs, 64-bit code is probably less efficient than 32-bit code. Pointers are twice as big and instructions are generally longer, so less stuff fits into cache.
For almost every architecture out there the transition to 64-bits made existing code run more slowly for the reasons you describe, but on x86 the 64 bit transition also doubled the number of registers, guaranteed that SSE2 was available, and did some other stuff that actually made most code run faster.
However, I believe Google is working on some program to let people use all the goodies in x86-64 while also using 32-bit pointers.
Most of the memory used by programs are pointers, and if you double your pointer size, it has a negative impact on the efficientcy of the L1 and L2 cache.
>> Most of the memory used by programs are pointers
This is a huge generalization, may I add.
Yes, I will not argue that cache usage is less efficient, but I am sure you know that register access is faster than cache access, and we double the amount of registers in x64.
To quote Donald Knuth, a 64 bit program would "waste half the memory [and] effectively throw away half of the cache".
You may double the number of registers, but you are still shuffling tons of data between your caches and memory, and that is going to be your constraint for most programs. Losing half of the 4mb or 12mb of your L2 or L3 cache because you use 64 bit pointers has a much bigger impact than doubling the number of registers.
For the legacy problems, I found a VMWare + old OS in virtual machine solution really usable. Especially when some magic is applied to window management to have it seamlessly integrated in the host OS.
It would free MS from so much pain if they'd bless this setup and get rid of the administrative hurdles (licenses, registration, genuine check etc.).
Of course people who bought the Zune are going to like them. They're a self-selected sampling... Even if they thought that deep down, the Zune was a POS, human nature is to defend decisions you've made, especially ones that involve money.
The real question is why was the Zune a failure. It was a failure because it didn't offer what the market was buying. The fact that the few who did buy the Zune liked it in no way confers any quality upon the Zune.
I got my first iPod around the time Zune launched, and my wife ended up doing some promo jobs for the Zune - and at the end of that summer, got a Zune out of it as a bonus.
To rank my experience between portable music playback devices:
iPhone > Zune > iPod
She swears by her Zune, and having used both it and the iPod, the Zune is far and away a better device on every front. Having said that, the iPhone's interface is just that much better - and has the benefit of in-depth integration with third party devices.
When I'm listening to music on my computer though, I actually came to use the Zune desktop software. I have a rather silly process of downloading music, tagging it with MP3tag, dropping it into iTunes (to sync to the iPhone, & to organize the files into folders based on artist & album), and Zune Desktop picks up on the changes to my Music folder and catalogs them automatically.
Zune Desktop blows away iTunes for music playback. iTunes is perhaps a better music/app/video store, but the interface sucks, it's laggy. It looks out of place because it's using dated Mac aesthetics in a Windows environment. For a company that prides itself on style, it sure screws that pooch in the software department.
> Desktop blows away iTunes for music playback. iTunes is perhaps a better music/app/video store, but the interface sucks, it's laggy. It looks out of place because it's using dated Mac aesthetics in a Windows environment. For a company that prides itself on style, it sure screws that pooch in the software department.
I feel the same way too. It's weird that for an application that could be a gateway to Apple-dom, Apple doesn't appear to spend much effort. I see it get updated on a regular basis, but I see very little improvements, just feature adds. It's gotten to the point where I don't bother updating unless it blocks me from updated my iPhone.
I suppose Apple thinks that spending those resources on other properties is a better investment, but as an end user that deals with iTunes it's a bit frustrating.
Exactly, Deskotp zune is soo cool visually, people always asking me what software I am using when they see it. Its way better than iTunes for music playback.
I saw it for the first time when my friend brought an windows phone 7 device. I was so fascinated by the Desktop zune, I didn't even properly played the phone itself(I saw it for the first time as well)
Either your reading comprehension is terrible, or your selective quoting is intentional and your motives ethically ambiguous. The full quote you are referring to is this:
"She swears by her Zune, and having used both it and the iPod, the Zune is far and away a better device on every front. Having said that, the iPhone's interface is just that much better - and has the benefit of in-depth integration with third party devices."
Within that quote, I say that the Zune is better than the iPod, and the iPhone better than the Zune. I illustrated this very simply just two lines before that one. There is no contradiction at all. By asking which is it, you are intimating a dichotomy where a trichotomy was actually in play.
I'll restate more clearly, and in greater detail: For playing music from my library, I believe the Zune is a superior device when compared to the iPod, however having come to own an iPhone, I prefer the iPhone to the Zune - with respect to playing music from my library.
but Windows is finally going somewhere amazing after many years of going no where
Windows 7 is an excellent operating system. It is secure. It is very robust. It is easy to use. It is feature rich. It connects to everything and uses everything. In what way is that going nowhere?
Same on the server side with Windows Server 2008 R2.
I think the competition provided by Apple is proving terrible for Microsoft. They are abandoning their core strengths while poorly trying to duplicate what led to Apple's recent success (which, it should be noted, is largely the same design philosophies that Apple has been using for decades, through their rout as well). It is a classic cargo-cult where Microsoft desperately tries to copy the playbook.
In the end they diminish the advantages they hold, while continuing to be deficient by the Apple playbook. They are following so they can never lead.
I must say again that it is telling that the people who are most impressed with Microsoft's makeover are the people who would never buy their products -- the Apple faithful. They still think that Apple is leading, which is natural when one follows the other, but they like what Microsoft is doing. That's great if second place accolades could carry a business.
Windows 7 is awesome, but it wasn't going anywhere NEW. And that's something consumers want. A constantly moving product. Constantly evolving. Not just build it once and sit on it for a decade. But something that has life.
"They are abandoning their core strengths while poorly trying to duplicate what led to Apple's recent success"
But so is Ubuntu. They're just starting to realize that there's a huge demographic out there that they can make money off of and are adjusting their assets to compete for it, I think. A lot of the doom and gloom "desktops are dying" are because of mobile but also because of the stagnation and lack of 'ease of use' of desktop operating systems. Mobile's great but lets not bullshit ourselves, you can only stare at that little screen for so long before you hop on your laptop and do everything you wanted to do 10 times faster.
The consumer and enterprise markets are still vastly different. For as strong as Apple is on the consumer side Microsoft is on the Enterprise side. Yes both are likely headed to convergence but if MS alienates its Enterprise market going after the consumer space it risks loosing its core strength.
Take the Zune and Windows Phone 7. People who own them love them, especially the Zune. My neighbor had an iPod and Zune and always stood up for his Zune despite loathing Microsoft. But everyone else refuses to touch them. Why? Because they're Microsoft products and the stigma around them is that MS products have no future and become abandoned quickly or go nowhere fast. A reputation that's going to take consumers at least a decade to forget about and move on. So hopefully MS keeps these "revolutionary redesigns" going at a constant rate and not just kill them once profit comes in and market share returns.