A ton of assumptions peppered with a pretty glaring lack of substance. So "Microsoft is making radical changes"? You mean different from the last "too little, too late" campaigns they had?
Reads like an ad for investors. Like something that is promised for the future and we will enjoy if we only hold out and believe. Sounds like the tune Microsoft has been whistling for decades now.
> That's the world for which Microsoft is building Windows 8. It can run everything from a touchscreen app like Angry Birds to resource-intensive software such as 3-D games and video editing tools. That sounds simple, but it's an all-in-one approach Microsoft's rivals have chosen not to pursue.
No, actually that sounds almost entirely meaningless.
So there are three approaches to the future of computing, the apple way based on Macs and iOS, the Google-way based in the internet and an all-in-one from Microsoft. All three big computer companies are betting on the future, but in different ways.
I think all approaches are justified, there are so many different users out there that there should be enough place for all of them. For me that's the message of the article, covered under a lot of Microsoft Windows 8 PR.
A smartphone that is able to hook up to a keyboard and monitor and run a simple word processor and spreadsheet; and some calendar / scheduling software; and some email thing (either cloud based web client or traditional server client) - that's a smart phone that many people would buy.
Supporting it in the enterprise environment would be tricky. You don't want users loading their phones with malware and then bringing that infected phone inside the network.
And, really, I'd be happy if the phone was decoupled from the rest of it. A phone and something like Raspberry PI would do me fine.
Supporting it in the enterprise environment would be tricky. You don't want users loading their phones with malware and then bringing that infected phone inside the network.
This happens today even with corporate laptops. If they're allowed outside, they will get infected. Working in information security, I send a few form emails each month telling someone to call the helpdesk and get their computer reimaged. If the company has a good enough network team to know how to properly segment a network (and/or implement a reverse proxy) and a security team with enough resources to monitor network traffic, the risk becomes acceptable.
Basically what you describe is BYOD, and it gives me job security :) For the record, I would totally buy the same desktop on three form factors if the same apps and same data could be synced across all of them.
I don't own an tablet because it is frustratingly useless, I just can't figure out why I'd really want one regardless if they were actually worth their price or not.
But an all-in-one-solution is soo much more appealing. Now suddenly there is a reason to carry an oversized phone even if you can't call with it.
For most people in the world, their only computing device, if they have one, will be a mobile one. By requiring a desktop to develop apps and/or connectivity to the internet Google's and Apple's development ecosystems hit roadblocks in many parts of the world.
The vision of mobile devices as first class computers is, in my opinion, what sold Nokia on Windows Phone. Microsoft's approach scales to places with less money and infrastructure in a way in which their primary competitors are unwilling or struggling to match.
Killer apps can and will come out of less developed regions. It's just a matter of time.
I want an all-in-one solution in terms of the APIs that the OS provides to applications. That doesn't mean all applications should look and behave exactly the same on every device.
Eventually more powerful tasks are coming to the tablet, though, especially as people look to replace desktops with it and pads gain hybrid features (e.g. plug in a mouse, bluetooth keyboards, etc).
And in most ways they're already there. Angry Birds? Yeah, it has that. Video editing? For the consumer level, iMovie and competitors are as rich as they've ever used. 3D Games? Yeah, that's been there for a couple of years. Maybe they intended for a more intensive example?
Agreed, this is a terrible article. There is no plan detailed, nothing is questioned (like the whole "reinvention" bit -- Microsoft reinvented themselves because they put solid coloured regions around their icons? And then takes a swipe at Google for apparently not doing something so profound?). Bad.
"All the reviewers point out a key question mark hanging over Windows 8: Developer support."
Of all the things Microsoft does, the one it clearly does better than Apple or Google is support developers. And all that support helps facilitate what is almost certainly the largest development community among them.
Metro turns every corporate developer into a potential mobile developer. I doubt adoption by developers will be the issue.
I don't hold any love for any of them, but I downloaded Windows 8 and it recognised my 8 year old pro audio interface and it just worked, legacy hardware is a big deal, people don't all have money to throw out all their stuff.
For years Microsoft has failed to deliver the great UX we've come to expect from devices like the iPad and iPhone, and apps like gmail. I've heard Windows Phone is pretty good, but it's hard to imagine Microsoft offering serious competition to Apple and Google while they still think stuff like this is a good idea: http://gizmodo.com/5835814/th-new-windows-8-explorer-ui-look...
I like what they did to the xbox 360 dashboard. I don't understand why they went with flat tiles in windows 8. (actually I do, but it's a shame that they don't have an option to switch into it like aero) The depth and 3D elements on the 360 made for a slick interface.
Allow me to be skeptical. Those statements sound just like 'the novel is dead' from the 60's of the past century. It's now fifty years later, and we can still buy books; and desktop PC's, desks and chairs won't disappear anytime soon.
The thing is, Microsoft can integrate with its own products as much as it wants, but I will never have only Microsoft products. If it doesn't integrate well with other products not controlled by Microsoft, I think their strategy will fail. And let's face it, they've got a terrible track record in that area.
Not so along ago (probably still now) Windows had the best software & hardware compatibility. Apart from that, who's going to have an iPad/iPhone and a Windows 8 laptop? Or a Macbook and Windows 8 tablet/phone? At least for the Apple side it's pretty clear to me. Finally, part of what you mention is also developers' responsibility rather than Microsoft itself; as someone says above the company's investing quite a lot in getting developers aboard.
If Microsoft is aiming for an all-in-one situation than they're doing it right. I don't understand why I'm not yet able to have a truly unified experience with all of my devices including smart appliances. I think a hardware maker will have figured it out when they are able to deliver products that provide a consistent interface, delivering smart-content on demand without having to have a gazillion apps. Build devices so they are connected with each other out of the box, not after downloading the remote app and TV guide app and remote desktop app...
Macs integrate with iOS devices, but there's a clear schism in Apple's world view: Mobile devices are for content consumption, Macs are for creation
Yeah, this is true. But I don't think that Android, let alone Windows Phone, are any different. Are developers going to start writing apps with their phones? No. At least not anytime soon, and definitely not with Windows Phone.
Reads like an ad for investors. Like something that is promised for the future and we will enjoy if we only hold out and believe. Sounds like the tune Microsoft has been whistling for decades now.
> That's the world for which Microsoft is building Windows 8. It can run everything from a touchscreen app like Angry Birds to resource-intensive software such as 3-D games and video editing tools. That sounds simple, but it's an all-in-one approach Microsoft's rivals have chosen not to pursue.
No, actually that sounds almost entirely meaningless.