PDA

View Full Version : Intel goes for a Windows-only chip



SimpsonTruckDriver
September 14th, 2012, 06:42 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/262324/intel_clover_trail_atom_chip_wont_work_with_linux. html#tk.hp_new

This is only for tablets, meaning Android can't be used on it. But, Intel may make ONLY Windows chips for PCs later, shoving out Linux.

TS

CharlesA
September 14th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Moved to Cafe.

I figure it will be a chip used it tablets running win8. As far as I recall those would be locked to using Windows only, but time will tell what direction this takes.

deadflowr
September 14th, 2012, 07:13 PM
It's an X86 chip. It's not that linux can't run on it, but rather as it is now, the kernel won't be able to utilize the chip to its full capacity.
That and Intel doesn't plan on adding that support for the kernel, any time soon.

Paqman
September 14th, 2012, 09:13 PM
Disappointing, but not at all unexpected. The ARM/Android combo represents a huge threat to Microsoft's dominance of personal computing, and we've already seen with the whole "secure boot" thing that they're quite happy to use their relationships with manufacturers to lock out the competition at the hardware level.

vexorian
September 14th, 2012, 09:35 PM
Disappointing, but not at all unexpected. The ARM/Android combo represents a huge threat to Microsoft's dominance of personal computing, and we've already seen with the whole "secure boot" thing that they're quite happy to use their relationships with manufacturers to lock out the competition at the hardware level.
Let their treats work and be super succesful. It is time to see MS fall for anti-trust once again.

How much things change...

forrestcupp
September 14th, 2012, 10:16 PM
I'm not going to get too worked up over a crappy Atom chip. But I'm sure it won't take the kernel devs long to get this worked in. Intel's attitude toward Linux is kind of disappointing, though. They've always been big supporters.

szymon_g
September 14th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Disappointing, but not at all unexpected. The ARM/Android combo represents a huge threat to Microsoft's dominance of personal computing, and we've already seen with the whole "secure boot" thing that they're quite happy to use their relationships with manufacturers to lock out the competition at the hardware level.

yeah, i hear that BS about ARM going "on desktop" for several years (although more poeple is claiming that "smartbook" will be usable any time soon... since 2008).
Can you please provide me with 2 things that Android has to threaten MS Windows on PC? And "Secure Boot" doesn't mean that you cannot boot anything else- you can disable that on PC.

Mikeb85
September 14th, 2012, 10:54 PM
So they're creating a reference design together? I don't see an issue. If anything, it might just be a disadvantage for Intel. As long as there are plenty of other options for Linux/Android, it isn't a monopoly issue. Besides, even Windows is moving to ARM as well. Intel probably just wants to ensure it doesn't get shut out of the tablet picture, by making a processor 'optimized' for Windows tablets...

vexorian
September 14th, 2012, 11:00 PM
yeah, i hear that BS about ARM going "on desktop" for several years (although more poeple is claiming that "smartbook" will be usable any time soon... since 2008).
Can you please provide me with 2 things that Android has to threaten MS Windows on PC? And "Secure Boot" doesn't mean that you cannot boot anything else- you can disable that on PC.
Cause convincing users go to Bios so that the can disable the misleadingly called "Secure" boot is going to be so easy to do.

szymon_g
September 14th, 2012, 11:18 PM
Cause convincing users go to Bios so that the can disable the misleadingly called "Secure" boot is going to be so easy to do.

still easier than convincing users to download and install linux on their desktop computer.

cbanakis
September 14th, 2012, 11:26 PM
I thought the whole point of linux, is that it WILL work.

So they use a different type of chip that linux wont work on.

Doesn't that mean its up to us to make it work?

Pretty sure if someone really wants linux, they will have linux.

Primefalcon
September 15th, 2012, 01:27 AM
I am sure the kernel team will figure this out.....

However I too find Intels new anti-linux attitude foreboding.... consiering Linux/Android run on a lot of tablets and lower end computers...

Oh well I suppose it'll be a win for arm chips on those lower devices...

jones27557
September 15th, 2012, 09:37 AM
I doubt that would fly in the courtroom.
Remember when they tried that with Internet Explorer?

Believe me, they woulda done it years ago if the lawyers hadn't advised them of all the anti-trust lawsuits they would pay out.

Statia
September 15th, 2012, 11:03 AM
Let their treats work and be super succesful. It is time to see MS fall for anti-trust once again.


Yep, the EU will not hesitate to slap them with a hefty fine once again.
They are already under investigation for "forgetting" the browser choice screen in newer versions of Windows.

Paqman
September 15th, 2012, 12:35 PM
Can you please provide me with 2 things that Android has to threaten MS Windows on PC?

PCs aren't the battleground, MS has that sown up already. Where Android threatens to lock them out is tablets, smart TVs and the whole slew of non-PC home computing devices on the horizon that will run on ARM or (so Intel hopes) Atom chips. Microsoft risks missing those markets the way they did with smartphones.

john_spiral
September 15th, 2012, 02:58 PM
I'm using a 7 year old dell computer, originally preloaded with Windows XP, now running Lubuntu.

This type of proposed hardware lockout will only mean more computers will be destined for the landfill, definitely bad news for the environment!

This type of lock out should be made illegal!

alexan
September 15th, 2012, 10:36 PM
Let their treats work and be super succesful. It is time to see MS fall for anti-trust once again.

How much things change...

As we need more "wintel only hardware" trash to fill up even tablet market now.

VTPoet
September 16th, 2012, 01:23 AM
Here's another article (http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-says-clover-trail-atom-cpus-cant-run-linux-20120914/). This article seems to suggest that it's a software issue (deliberately "dis-enabling" Linux?).

Strikes me as a curious decision by Intel. Android/Linux represents somewhere between 20 to 30 percent of the global tablet market. The latest news puts Apple at 68 or 69 percent of global marketshare. (I didn't realize Android on the tablet was getting so thoroughly thrashed). What's in it for Intel? Why lash themselves to a company who has around 1% of the market? I mean, after all, Linux has a greater share of the desktop and Intel isn't marketing Linux-only chips? I smell a rat.

Mikeb85
September 16th, 2012, 01:43 AM
Here's another article (http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-says-clover-trail-atom-cpus-cant-run-linux-20120914/). This article seems to suggest that it's a software issue (deliberately "dis-enabling" Linux?).

Strikes me as a curious decision by Intel. Android/Linux represents somewhere between 20 to 30 percent of the global tablet market. The latest news puts Apple at 68 or 69 percent of global marketshare. (I didn't realize Android on the tablet was getting so thoroughly thrashed). What's in it for Intel? Why lash themselves to a company who has around 1% of the market? I mean, after all, Linux has a greater share of the desktop and Intel isn't marketing Linux-only chips? I smell a rat.

When Microsoft has the same OS running the same kernel on all devices (Windows 8 on PC, Tablet, Phone, and whatever the next gen XBox is) they will have a level of integration others could only dream of.

Whatever meagre marketshare they have now is nothing compared to what they can obtain. I'm no fan of MS, but Windows 8 is a good product, and tons of people will be clamouring for Windows, with a full (touchscreen) Office suite and everything on their mobile devices...

Google doesn't have a desktop OS, Apple is failing to continue innovating, Linux is way too fractured and RIM is asleep at the wheel - Microsoft, for all their failures, might just have a huge hit on their hands.

diable
September 16th, 2012, 03:54 AM
I doubt that would fly in the courtroom.
Remember when they tried that with Internet Explorer?

Believe me, they woulda done it years ago if the lawyers hadn't advised them of all the anti-trust lawsuits they would pay out.

This chip is for tablets not personal computers. Right now Intel has zeero presence in the tablet market and this chip with Win8 preinstalled is probably the only they can get the price of their SOC's down to ARM level.

mcduck
September 16th, 2012, 10:27 AM
When Microsoft has the same OS running the same kernel on all devices (Windows 8 on PC, Tablet, Phone, and whatever the next gen XBox is) they will have a level of integration others could only dream of.

Whatever meagre marketshare they have now is nothing compared to what they can obtain. I'm no fan of MS, but Windows 8 is a good product, and tons of people will be clamouring for Windows, with a full (touchscreen) Office suite and everything on their mobile devices...

Google doesn't have a desktop OS, Apple is failing to continue innovating, Linux is way too fractured and RIM is asleep at the wheel - Microsoft, for all their failures, might just have a huge hit on their hands.

Not really, since the Windows versions running on tablets and the one running on mobile are by no means the same OS (or kernel) as the desktop version is. While they all share the same name, and similar user interfaces, that's pretty much where the similarities end. Neither mobile nor the RT version is compatible with desktop applications, and the level of integration between the different versions really isn't much different to the level of integration you already have between different desktop and mobile operating systems.

Just because it's called "Windows" doesn't mean it would be the same Windows. ;)

vexorian
September 16th, 2012, 12:37 PM
This chip is for tablets not personal computers. Right now Intel has zeero presence in the tablet market and this chip with Win8 preinstalled is probably the only they can get the price of their SOC's down to ARM level.It's like when Microsoft didn't have any presense in the browser market, but used its OS power to gain it. This time they are using their desktop OS leverage to gain the tablet market.

forrestcupp
September 16th, 2012, 12:44 PM
Not really, since the Windows versions running on tablets and the one running on mobile are by no means the same OS (or kernel) as the desktop version is. While they all share the same name, and similar user interfaces, that's pretty much where the similarities end. Neither mobile nor the RT version is compatible with desktop applications, and the level of integration between the different versions really isn't much different to the level of integration you already have between different desktop and mobile operating systems.

Just because it's called "Windows" doesn't mean it would be the same Windows. ;)

That may be true, but the same "Metro" apps work on both the desktop and mobile, and that's what they're pushing now. I think they would have completely done away with the desktop mode if they could have gotten away with it.

vexorian
September 16th, 2012, 12:59 PM
That may be true, but the same "Metro" apps work on both the desktop and mobile, It is like putting a layer to desktop ubuntu to be able to run Android apps (possible through Java, maybe) and then claiming it is the same. But things like screen size and hardware and lack of touch is gonna make it so that metro apps designed for mobile won't work that well in desktop and vice versa. And of course, it is highly unlikely major desktop application makers like adobe will use this stuff. This is also the reason game makers are so wary of windows 8.

VTPoet
September 16th, 2012, 01:59 PM
It is like putting a layer to desktop ubuntu to be able to run Android apps (possible through Java, maybe) and then claiming it is the same. But things like screen size and hardware and lack of touch is gonna make it so that metro apps designed for mobile won't work that well in desktop and vice versa.

By all accounts, office on Windows Mobil is a PITA -- it's very poorly integrated as a touch driven application. Whether the surface succeeds (my prediction) will hinge on whether users want to use it as a glorified laptop - or see that as a clumsy knock-off of the iPad -- (since the surface seems designed for use with a keyboard). It's not yet really a tablet and it's not really a laptop.

All that said, it seems that Ballmer does *not* want users putting Linux on their Surface. That, in itself, seems like absurd paranoia (if that's true). I'm sure that Ballmer is behind Intel's Linux blockade. But still, what's in it for Intel? What do they care? Isn't the point to sell as many chips as possible?

VTPoet
September 16th, 2012, 03:19 PM
OK, I was fixing up some waffles for my kids, and it dawns on me: Ballmer wants to be Apple -- not just rich like Apple, but like Apple. It all makes sense. The thing about Apple is that it has always been a hardware and software company. If you buy an Apple, then you get the entire package. (Jobs always hated licensing Apple's OS to other hardware makers.) The beauty of this system is that one can control the entire ecosystem. Back in 2000 Gates wasn't seeing the advantage to this: it made much more sense to license out ones software to as many hardware makers as possible. Apple's near bankruptcy seemed a clearcut confirmation of the Microsoft strategy.

But the advent of the iPhone, iPad and Android changed all of that. Suddenly Ballmer got religion. He saw the advantages to an insular ecosystem where a co. like Apple controls all the apps, gets an "app tax" on every app created, and has absolute economic control over price, presentation, and exclusion. Google/Android, in the meantime, has adopted a strategy more like Microsoft's in the 90's. They hand out their software to whoever wants it. It's kind of a hybrid though. The upside for Google is that they still provide the ecosystem (though it's much more open than Apple's).

Ballmer wants to be like Apple. He wants to remake the Microsoft brand. The Surface is their first foray in this direction (and it's peeved a lot of hardware makers). So next, Ballmer puts pressure on Intel to produce a "Windows Only" chip. The reason? He wants to create an insular Microsoft Ecosystem that is actively hostile (like Apple) to both hardware makers and projects like the Linux Desktop. He wants to remake the Microsoft image. I don't know if he's written off the desktop, (not sure that he can) but secure boot fits into this overall strategy of slowly creating a "Microsoft Only" ecosystem and trademark on par with Apple's.

Ballmer is trying to get the horses back in the barn. "Secure Boot" is an effort in that direction. The Surface and the Windows Phone 8 are, I suspect, going to remain securely in Microsoft's pocket. If I'm right, I'll be very interested to see if they license out either of these latter versions of Windows, and under what terms. My bet is that they would rather keep the pie for themselves (if they can be successful).

codingman
September 16th, 2012, 03:50 PM
Not unexpected, but a dumb decision.

Now, if it were for netbooks or something, it would make sense, but since this is for tablets, and most tablets are android ones, this isn't a smart move.

I assure you 100% that W8 is gonna become the next Vista, only with a hint of more bad taste.

VTPoet
September 16th, 2012, 04:18 PM
OSNEWS offers a brief little blurb (http://www.osnews.com/comments/26376) on HP's decision to offer a smartphone. It would seem that HP has drawn the same conclusion that I have. Ballmer is rebranding Microsoft. All those computer companies like HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, etc, had better start rethinking their relationship with Ballmer or be left in the cold. The irony of Microsoft's decision is that it's probably going to drive more competition to adopt Android rather than Metro -- at least that seems to be the case with HP.

forrestcupp
September 16th, 2012, 07:14 PM
I assure you 100% that W8 is gonna become the next Vista, only with a hint of more bad taste.

No, this is way worse than Vista. When they worked some of the bugs out of Vista, it really wasn't a bad OS. It sure took XP to a whole new level aesthetically, and it was their first OS to use compositing. Win8 is just atrocious, and in my expert opinion, it's a couple of steps backward for the desktop. :)

KiwiNZ
September 16th, 2012, 08:30 PM
My prediction is, that all the predictions that Windows 8 and related products will fail will be proved unfounded by their success.

Lucradia
September 16th, 2012, 11:13 PM
Second step in the road to a locked computer so that ISPs and government can shut down your comp. remotely id you don't have the OS they want you to have, or other reasons.

First was Intel buying McAfee / etc. for the security systems.

VTPoet
September 16th, 2012, 11:33 PM
My prediction is, that all the predictions that Windows 8 and related products will fail will be proved unfounded by their success.

With the exclusion of the desktop, which they already own ("success" there is rather irrelevant since they're only competing with themselves), what are you calling success?

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 12:02 AM
Commercial success

VTPoet
September 17th, 2012, 12:11 AM
Commercial success

Yes.. well... what are you calling "Commercial success"?

Here's how I would define it: Unless Ballmer can firmly nail down at least 12-15% of global market share within two years, I don't call that a commercial success. I don't see it happening. Their last phone was a dud. Pretty little blue boxes isn't going make everyone drop their Apple or Android devices. I think they probably will have more success with their Surface tablet, but I remain skeptical. I'm not seeing who they are targeting with the Surface tablets? If Android tablet makers finally begin lowering their prices (in recognition of their being drubbed by Apple these last two quarters), I think you can kiss Surface good-bye. But time will tell.:popcorn:

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 12:21 AM
Yes.. well... what are you calling "Commercial success"?

Here's how I would define it: Unless Ballmer can firmly nail down at least 12-15% of global market share within two years, I don't call that a commercial success. I don't see it happening. Their last phone was a dud. Pretty little blue boxes isn't going make everyone drop their Apple or Android devices. I think they probably will have more success with their Surface tablet, but I remain skeptical. I'm not seeing who they are targeting with the Surface tablets? If Android tablet makers finally begin lowering their prices (in recognition of their being drubbed by Apple these last two quarters), I think you can kiss Surface good-bye. But time will tell.:popcorn:

attaining a positive return on investment.

VTPoet
September 17th, 2012, 12:35 AM
attaining a positive return on investment.

Ah... well... in that case I'm sure Ballmer will be thrilled to maintain 1 to 2 % of the global market. I accept the terms of your prediction.

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 12:54 AM
Ah... well... in that case I'm sure Ballmer will be thrilled to maintain 1 to 2 % of the global market. I accept the terms of your prediction.


I don't recall making any predictions of market share. I said a commercial success

VTPoet
September 17th, 2012, 01:09 AM
I don't recall making any predictions of market share. I said a commercial success

Yes you did. You defined commercial success as a positive ROI. 1 to 2 % of the global market, according to what I've read, would likely be a positive ROI. Just sayin'...

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 01:23 AM
Yes you did. You defined commercial success as a positive ROI. 1 to 2 % of the global market, according to what I've read, would likely be a positive ROI. Just sayin'...


Thats correct I said "positive return on investment" that says nothing about market share.

ROI is calculated Gross gain on investment- cost of investment/cost .

Mikeb85
September 17th, 2012, 04:57 AM
Yes.. well... what are you calling "Commercial success"?

Here's how I would define it: Unless Ballmer can firmly nail down at least 12-15% of global market share within two years, I don't call that a commercial success. I don't see it happening. Their last phone was a dud. Pretty little blue boxes isn't going make everyone drop their Apple or Android devices. I think they probably will have more success with their Surface tablet, but I remain skeptical. I'm not seeing who they are targeting with the Surface tablets? If Android tablet makers finally begin lowering their prices (in recognition of their being drubbed by Apple these last two quarters), I think you can kiss Surface good-bye. But time will tell.:popcorn:
Have you checked out the upcoming lineups for Samsung and HTC (the two biggest Android makers)? Each are making several Windows 8 phones, both are making Windows 8 phones on par spec-wise with their top Android phones.

And pretty much every single mobile/PC OEM is making Windows 8 tablets.

While Microsoft's influence on the phone sector has been minimal up to now, they haven't exactly tried too hard either. They're going all in with Windows 8, and for all Microsoft's failures, they still completely dominate on the PC and consoles...

I wouldn't bet against them, in fact, I'd bet that Microsoft owns at least 30% of the new phone/tablet market at this time next year. (and 50+% of both markets in two years)

bra|10n
September 17th, 2012, 06:28 AM
This thread's like a grass fire in the S.F hills...

"To achieve that, Intel worked closely with Microsoft to instrument the chip to allow Windows 8 to control Clover Trail's advanced power management features, which support "always-on" functionality. It's that special sauce in Clover Trail that won't be supported for other operating systems, including Linux, likely in part because of Intelís desire to keep those features close to the vestóand because of contractual obligations to Microsoft."

So I guess if Intel can't legally make the source code available, then they should just go ahead, release it and support it anyway and find themselves being sued by Microsoft?

forrestcupp
September 17th, 2012, 12:00 PM
My prediction is, that all the predictions that Windows 8 and related products will fail will be proved unfounded by their success.

I'm sure that what you're saying will be true, but I wish it weren't. I don't have a problem with Win8 on mobile devices, but I hate how they are treating the desktop. It almost seems like they are wishing to phase out the desktop mode, but I don't see how we could ever totally do away with it. Certain types of software just need that to not lose needed functionality.

I wish Win8 would fail commercially on the desktop so that they would learn from their mistakes when they develop their next version of Windows for the PC. But I'm sure that what you're saying is true, and we'll just have to follow Microsoft into the sheepfold.

alexfish
September 17th, 2012, 12:38 PM
I'm sure that what you're saying will be true, but I wish it weren't. I don't have a problem with Win8 on mobile devices, but I hate how they are treating the desktop. It almost seems like they are wishing to phase out the desktop mode, but I don't see how we could ever totally do away with it. Certain types of software just need that to not lose needed functionality.

I wish Win8 would fail commercially on the desktop so that they would learn from their mistakes when they develop their next version of Windows for the PC. But I'm sure that what you're saying is true, and we'll just have to follow Microsoft into the sheepfold.

Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes, sir, yes, sir,
Three bags full;
One for the master,
And None for the dame,
And None for the little boy
Who lives down the lane

VTPoet
September 17th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Thats correct I said "positive return on investment" that says nothing about market share.

Yes it does. Saying that a commercial success is "a positive ROI" is a vacuous statement. 1 to 2 % share of the global marketshare would currently be several billion dollars. That would, in all likelihood be a positive ROI.


ROI is calculated Gross gain on investment- cost of investment/cost .

Exactly. And based on this definition, one can safely calculate marketshare. It's not rocket science. Look, all I was curious to know was what you thought would constitute "commercial success" for Microsoft. It's obvious that you don't think 1 to 2% would be a commercial success, despite your claim that "a positive ROI" would be a "commercial success". Why so coy? Personally, I don't think "a positive ROI" cuts it. Unless Ballmer wins back at least 10 to 15% of the market, I wouldn't call anything less a "commercial success". A positive ROI? Yes. A commercial success? No.

Paqman
September 17th, 2012, 03:37 PM
Personally, I don't think "a positive ROI" cuts it. Unless Ballmer wins back at least 10 to 15% of the market, I wouldn't call anything less a "commercial success". A positive ROI? Yes. A commercial success? No.

I agree. Taking the bigger view, for Microsoft to continue to fail to exploit these new markets effectively would be extremely damaging to their long-term outlook. If they've got a platform that doesn't have mindshare and that struggles to retain developer interest then they're in trouble.

There's a heck of the lot more to "commercial success" than just scraping a profit. There are plenty of big tech companies that are floundering and couldn't be considered to be succeeding at much despite still turning profits (Yahoo, AOL, etc). Big companies can keep turning a profit well after they fall into decline. Looking at ROI in isolation isn't necessarily a good metric.

I agree that to be considered a success in a new market a player has to have attained significant market share, be pulling in good revenues, and have built a viable developer/software ecosystem. If you're missing any of those pieces you're at risk of getting stomped by those who do.

vexorian
September 17th, 2012, 05:47 PM
"With iOS and Android windows 8 seems unnecessary."

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 07:47 PM
Yes it does. Saying that a commercial success is "a positive ROI" is a vacuous statement. 1 to 2 % share of the global marketshare would currently be several billion dollars. That would, in all likelihood be a positive ROI.



Exactly. And based on this definition, one can safely calculate marketshare. It's not rocket science. Look, all I was curious to know was what you thought would constitute "commercial success" for Microsoft. It's obvious that you don't think 1 to 2% would be a commercial success, despite your claim that "a positive ROI" would be a "commercial success". Why so coy? Personally, I don't think "a positive ROI" cuts it. Unless Ballmer wins back at least 10 to 15% of the market, I wouldn't call anything less a "commercial success". A positive ROI? Yes. A commercial success? No.

Why is a business in business? To provide a profit to share holders.
Does a positive ROI provide for profit ?.......yes.

Voila commercial success.

Does market share equal positive return on investment? No refer Sony.

Paqman
September 17th, 2012, 09:30 PM
Why is a business in business? To provide a profit to share holders.


Is that why Canonical is in business? Raising money by listing on the stock exchange is just one way of doing business.

Granted MSFT is listed, so they do have their shareholders to think of, but I doubt if the shareholders would be satisfied with such a big powerful company simply being content to cover its costs, and not dominate these new important market sectors.

alexfish
September 17th, 2012, 09:44 PM
Is that why Canonical is in business? Raising money by listing on the stock exchange is just one way of doing business.

Granted MSFT is listed, so they do have their shareholders to think of, but I doubt if the shareholders would be satisfied with such a big powerful company simply being content to cover its costs, and not dominate these new important market sectors.

One big market here. think of the potential of return % costed against investment

http://www.newser.com/article/da1442v02/microsoft-hiring-1000-additional-staff-in-china-adding-to-rd-in-mobile-push.html

the mind boggles at this one

vexorian
September 17th, 2012, 09:59 PM
"Success" for windows8 would be seizing Android's market and half of iOS. If it merely gets a 'decent' percentage it wouldn't work that well. MS can't operate well outside monopolies.


Why is a business in business? To provide a profit to share holders. This meme is popular but not so accurate.

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 10:45 PM
Is that why Canonical is in business? Raising money by listing on the stock exchange is just one way of doing business.

Granted MSFT is listed, so they do have their shareholders to think of, but I doubt if the shareholders would be satisfied with such a big powerful company simply being content to cover its costs, and not dominate these new important market sectors.

Canonical does have share holders, not public listed but still share holders.

KiwiNZ
September 17th, 2012, 10:46 PM
"Success" for windows8 would be seizing Android's market and half of iOS. If it merely gets a 'decent' percentage it wouldn't work that well. MS can't operate well outside monopolies.

This meme is popular but not so accurate.

So a business is in business to make losses and eventually fail, hmmm interesting concept.

deadflowr
September 18th, 2012, 07:58 PM
So a business is in business to make losses and eventually fail, hmmm interesting concept.

Interesting concept indeed.

Here's Intel's clarification on the chip decable:

http://www.informationweek.com/development/mobility/intel-clover-trail-will-support-linux-af/240007523

vexorian
September 18th, 2012, 08:14 PM
Is that a clarification or a change of mind?


"[but] Intel has plans for another version of this platform directed at Linux/Android."

...

"No two SoCs are the same," he said in an interview. "It's very important for the OS to be fully integrated and optimized for each chip.

...
The key, rather, is "which one is going to perform better?" It consequently makes sense to focus on one OS at a time, and to add support for others late

I think this is probably the worst news I have read in weeks. And I am including the Samsung-apple trial. It would be devastating that CPUs will now be locked to a kernel. So once you buya Clover Trail made for Linux, you won't put windows in that PC. But a Clover made for Windows, you won't put Linux. Ahem. It sounds craptacular. No more dual boot. Less choice for all.





So a business is in business to make losses and eventually fail, hmmm interesting concept.

The most interesting concept here is the false dichotomy you are taking for granted.

It is a misleading meme. Growth is sure a nice thing for shareholders and more investors and stuff. But at the end, the objective of a business is to make money whilst providing a useful service of benefit to us all and following ethical rules. Shareholders happen to be a sort of secundary objective (you need capital). All I am saying is, we actually do have laws and such stuff that have precedence over that shareholder objective. If you find out a company is breaking the law then "but their shareholders are happy!" thing is not going to be a good defense. Surely it is a must to avoid having losses but there are often multiple ways to succeed at this objective. Also, business-wise there are times in which shrinking a little may improve a company's chances for survival in the later run - Poor shareholders in that case.


Just sayin'.

deadflowr
September 18th, 2012, 08:29 PM
Is that a clarification or a change of mind?

Probably more of a realization, in that regardless of whether they throw support for linux/android or not the community will find a way to get the chip to work anyway. Better to take a lead on that, then have some developers come out later and disprove them, and possibly make it work better than expected.
Even though the chip will be a different version, the gauntlet has already been thrown, and the challenge has been enthusiastically accepted.

KiwiNZ
September 18th, 2012, 08:54 PM
Is that a clarification or a change of mind?


I think this is probably the worst news I have read in weeks. And I am including the Samsung-apple trial. It would be devastating that CPUs will now be locked to a kernel. So once you buya Clover Trail made for Linux, you won't put windows in that PC. But a Clover made for Windows, you won't put Linux. Ahem. It sounds craptacular. No more dual boot. Less choice for all.






The most interesting concept here is the false dichotomy you are taking for granted.

It is a misleading meme. Growth is sure a nice thing for shareholders and more investors and stuff. But at the end, the objective of a business is to make money whilst providing a useful service of benefit to us all and following ethical rules. Shareholders happen to be a sort of secundary objective (you need capital). All I am saying is, we actually do have laws and such stuff that have precedence over that shareholder objective. If you find out a company is breaking the law then "but their shareholders are happy!" thing is not going to be a good defense. Surely it is a must to avoid having losses but there are often multiple ways to succeed at this objective. Also, business-wise there are times in which shrinking a little may improve a company's chances for survival in the later run - Poor shareholders in that case.


Just sayin'.

Ever run an enterprise? I kinda doubt it. If you are not making a positive return on investment you will have unhappy shareholders, keep them unhappy and you will either be removed or the enterprise is sold.

" Also, business-wise there are times in which shrinking a little may improve a company's chances for survival in the later run" yes , that is precisely what MSFT is doing with Windows phone, however the goal is and will remain to have a positive return on investment. To make a profit is what a business is there fore, end of story, if it is not, it is a charity.

VTPoet
September 19th, 2012, 12:49 AM
Why is a business in business? To provide a profit to share holders.
Does a positive ROI provide for profit ?.......yes.

Voila commercial success.

Does market share equal positive return on investment? No refer Sony.

That's all well and fine, but you still do not address the central point: Would Ballmer consider 1 to 2% marketshare a "commercial success", despite being a positive ROI. No he would not and neither would Microsoft's shareholders.

Period.

Does positive ROI equal happy shareholders? No. It's not so simplistic.

KiwiNZ
September 19th, 2012, 12:57 AM
That's all well and fine, but you still do not address the central point: Would Ballmer consider 1 to 2% marketshare a "commercial success", despite being a positive ROI. No he would not and neither would Microsoft's shareholders.

Period.

Does positive ROI equal happy shareholders? No. It's not so simplistic.

I do not have mind reading skills so I am unable to ascertain what Mr Ballmer would be thinking. Also until it is released and sales trends are established the market share is not determinable as is the churn rate from other services to to Windows 8 based products.

Also the MSFT cost structure for the product is not known therefore it is not possible to calculate if a 1 to 2 % market share is the tipping point for a positive return on investment.

thatguruguy
September 19th, 2012, 01:04 AM
That's all well and fine, but you still do not address the central point: Would Ballmer consider 1 to 2% marketshare a "commercial success", despite being a positive ROI. No he would not and neither would Microsoft's shareholders.

Period.

Does positive ROI equal happy shareholders? No. It's not so simplistic.

Apple owns something like 7% of the desktop market. According to this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/android-market-share-q3-2012_n_1893292.html?utm_hp_ref=technology), Android devices are outselling iOS devices 4 to 1. And yet, Apple is still the most valuable company on the planet.

Yes, it is about ROI, not just market dominance.

VTPoet
September 19th, 2012, 02:02 AM
I do not have mind reading skills so I am unable to ascertain what Mr Ballmer would be thinking. Also until it is released and sales trends are established the market share is not determinable as is the churn rate from other services to to Windows 8 based products.

Also the MSFT cost structure for the product is not known therefore it is not possible to calculate if a 1 to 2 % market share is the tipping point for a positive return on investment.

The performance of Windows Phone 7 says it all.

Windows 7 is estimated to have cost 1 billion (http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/08/27/windows-phone-7-launch-to-cost-1-billion-but-will-it-pay-off/) in development and marketing. As of 2011, some estimates placed Windows 7 revenue at under 600,000. That estimate appears to have been based on the second or third quarter of 2011, when market share was falling (or had fallen) to almost 1%. In 2012 it climbed to 3.5 %. The ROI was positive. Ballmer's reaction?


I won't say I'm not saying I love where we are, but I'm very optimistic to where I think we can be...

You don't need mind reading skills. Ballmer wasn't satisfied.

Quibbling over the actual number of the tipping point is a red herring. Whatever it is, it won't be what Ballmer considers a "commercial success" -- just look at past history. Calling WP8 a "commercial success" just because the ROI is positive won't satisfy Ballmer and most definitely won't satisfy MS's shareholders.

VTPoet
September 19th, 2012, 02:10 AM
Apple owns something like 7% of the desktop market. According to this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/android-market-share-q3-2012_n_1893292.html?utm_hp_ref=technology), Android devices are outselling iOS devices 4 to 1. And yet, Apple is still the most valuable company on the planet.

Yes, it is about ROI, not just market dominance.

The explanation for that is easy. There *is* such a thing as a company called Apple; but there is no such thing as a company called Android. If there were, Android might well be on its way to overtaking Apple.

Also, the choice isn't between ROI and "market dominance". That's creating a false dichotomy and a straw man. My point is that ROI does not equal "commercial success". It doesn't cut it. It didn't with WP7 and it won't with WP8.

Mikeb85
September 19th, 2012, 02:36 AM
VTPoet, there's one thing you're missing. Yes, WP7 was a failure, but it was only an introduction.

Windows 8 will be a huge success. I've used it - it's incredibly fast, lightweight, and the most Unix-like Windows I've ever seen. Developers can target not only the ENTIRE new PC market, but Tablets and Phones - with 1 Metro program.

With the existing developer base MS has, W8 will be huge. They're got Nokia, Samsung and HTC on board for phones, and every PC maker on board for PCs/Tablets...

Right now the biggest complaint about tablets is productivity - no Office. W8 fixes that. Despite the lack of legacy desktop apps, it will have real productivity apps. And with Metro on the desktop and tablet being essentially the same, major companies will be making real, full-blown software that runs on the tablets.

MS has always demonstrated an ability to dominate markets - the desktop, and later as a newcomer, the gaming console. If you think they can't dominate tablets and phones, you're wrong.

I still like Linux, will probably always use it, but I'm willing to bet money (and probably will buy some stock to prove it) that W8 will dominate every consumer computing market...

KiwiNZ
September 19th, 2012, 02:44 AM
The performance of Windows Phone 7 says it all.

Windows 7 is estimated to have cost 1 billion (http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/08/27/windows-phone-7-launch-to-cost-1-billion-but-will-it-pay-off/) in development and marketing. As of 2011, some estimates placed Windows 7 revenue at under 600,000. That estimate appears to have been based on the second or third quarter of 2011, when market share was falling (or had fallen) to almost 1%. In 2012 it climbed to 3.5 %. The ROI was positive. Ballmer's reaction?



You don't need mind reading skills. Ballmer wasn't satisfied.

Quibbling over the actual number of the tipping point is a red herring. Whatever it is, it won't be what Ballmer considers a "commercial success" -- just look at past history. Calling WP8 a "commercial success" just because the ROI is positive won't satisfy Ballmer and most definitely won't satisfy MS's shareholders.

You just proved my point.....

Cost = $1 billion
Revenue = $600 million
Equals negative return on investment of $400 Million, thus a commercial failure. If the revenue for Windows phone 7 were $1.5 Billion then there would have been a positive return on investment of half a billion dollars, thus a commercial success.

If Windows phone 8 makes a positive return on the shareholders investment and by extrapolation of that a higher dividend yield for said shareholders then then both Mr Ballmer and the shareholders will be happy. The fulfillment of the company's primary goal will have been met.

forrestcupp
September 19th, 2012, 03:00 AM
somebody needs to split off about 90% of these posts into their own thread so we can get back to talking about Intel making a Windows only chip (which they changed their minds about, by the way).

deadflowr
September 19th, 2012, 03:27 AM
somebody needs to split off about 90% of these posts into their own thread so we can get back to talking about Intel making a Windows only chip (which they changed their minds about, by the way).

+1

This thread has turned into an economics class.

VTPoet
September 20th, 2012, 03:02 AM
You just proved my point.....

Cost = $1 billion
Revenue = $600 million
Equals negative return on investment of $400 Million, thus a commercial failure. If the revenue for Windows phone 7 were $1.5 Billion then there would have been a positive return on investment of half a billion dollars, thus a commercial success.

So you saw the part about 600,000, when it was 1% of the the total market share, but you somehow ignored the rest of it -- the part about its climbing to 3.5%? Revenue for Windows Phone 7 eventually exceeded 1.5 Billion. Not to beat the horse... but this horse is obviously in denial... this was a positive ROI but it was not a commercial success.


VTPoet, there's one thing you're missing. Yes, WP7 was a failure, but it was only an introduction.

Windows 8 will be a huge success.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it won't be. My only question, originally, concerned what percentage of the global marketshare could be considered a "commercial success" for Windows 8. That's it. That was my question. Simple as that.

KiwiNZ
September 20th, 2012, 03:21 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it won't be. My only question, originally, concerned what percentage of the global marketshare could be considered a "commercial success" for Windows 8. That's it. That was my question. Simple as that.

That is a different yard stick for measuring success, if you are using 'numbers sold' then 1% is not a success, however if a product whilst having only 1% of it's market still achieves say a 25% return on investment then it is a commercial success.

Now if Windows phone 8 captures say 4% of the market and nets MSFT a profit then it is a success.

To use an example for the opposite PS3 has a very high market share yet it continues to return a negative return on investment, it has not met it's primary goal, a profit, therefore it is not a commercial success.