FUD Flows Freely Against FLOSS

The FUD attacking Android/Linux is getting stronger by the week, a sure sign that M$’s “technological evangelism” is being fired up:

In fact, sales of Android tablets have been quite good and share of page views from Android tablets are nearly on par with iPads. iPad + iPhone gets 3.93% of page views on Wikipedia compared to 1.19% for Android. Surely Lawrence Latif and others should know that iTunes soaks up lots of megabytes and megabytes do not trounce page-views as usage. In fact, Gartner shows Android is expected to have a 20% share of tablets shipped in 2011, up from 14% in 2010. They project Android will catch iOS after 2015. I think Gartner is way off on that. The Android tablets released lately are spectacular compared to iPad 1 or 2 and the Android tablets produced in 2010. The Android tablets are being widely promoted by heavy hitters and many smaller operations. The exposure of Android tablets to the market is huge. Android tablets are not being “trounced”.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to FUD Flows Freely Against FLOSS

  1. Contrarian says:

    #Pogson I had posted about #oiaohm’s post being hard to understand and misrepresentative of the thread. You posted, seemingly in response:

    “We have visitors from all over the world, some whose native language is not English…. We should not judge people or their messages by the quality of the writing. It’s the thought that counts.”

    I said nothing further until #oiaohm posted his grossly wrong opinion on the conviction for criminal acts that he insisted was ajudged against Microsoft. I think that it is important for everyone to acknowledge that no such criminal behavior was ever alleged or proven. It might help stop the references to Mafia, Nazis, and thugs that seem to flow. It can only work in Microsoft’s favor if their opponents are all seen to be unaware of true facts and/or visciously proliferating false ones.

    “Is providing false evidence during trial not a crime?”

    It looks to me like the issue was whether or not it was easy to install Navigator on your Windows machine and Microsoft said that it was and the DOJ said it was not. My own experience is that it was awful easy, all you had to do was download it and run the installer. Do you think it is hard to do?

    Certainly perjury is a crime although I think there are some conditions attached for it to be so. The incident you reference seems to be more of a nit picking as was pointed out and apparently did not result in any penalty and Microsoft was allowed to re-submit the video.

    “If you did what M$ did you would have a huge fine or jail time or both.”

    What I am sure of is that no one was fined and no one went to jail in regard to anything that might have happened in those trials. Microsoft was fined in the EU, but again those were civil violations and there was no criminal prosecution of anyone.

  2. Contrarian wrote, “Pogson says that you are due some consideration because you are not a native English speaker”

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I know nothing of the language spoken natively by individual visitors.

    What M$ did was a crime no matter how the matter was handled.

    “1. Any violation of law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the commission of an act forbidden by law.
    [1913 Webster]”

    We are not lawyers here. M$ did wrong. Further, during the trial,
    The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft’s videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government’s tape and conceded that Microsoft’s own tape was falsified.

    Is providing false evidence during trial not a crime? etc….

    Arguing that M$ is not an evil corporation and just made a mistake or two or competed strongly is unsupportable. If you did what M$ did you would have a huge fine or jail time or both.

  3. Contrarian says:

    “To be correct the Criminal Action ended in September 6, 2001 with a consent decree.”

    #oiaohm, you are apparently completely misinformed as to the history of this case as well as completely unfamiliar with the process under which it was conducted. Pogson says that you are due some consideration because you are not a native English speaker and so you may not fully understand all of the words written in the documents, but I do not see how you could ignore the plain facts of the matter.

    If you research it a little more and read the Wiki, you would see that the original civil case was adjudicated in the Federal District Court and an order was made to break up Microsoft into multiple companes, and OS company and an office software company, in order to correct the imbalance caused by the monopoly and their exclusive dealing and leveraging practices. This order was overturned in the appeals court and the judge was found to be biased and was fired from the case and a new judge whose initials were the “CKK” on the case documents was appointed to re-hear the case.

    Half of the states and the DOJ came to a settlement shortly thereafter and the rest of the states were given essentially the same deal as a final judgement. The final judgement order was what I found on the DOJ website and posted the link to.

    I cannot see where there is any problem that you might have with English that could cause you to come to the conclusions that there was a criminal case filed after the civil case was completed either. If there were, it would have a case number and lots of documents associated with it and they would all be filed on the DOJ website. Also there would be some reference to it on Google somewhere. Try “Microsoft Criminal Trial” and see. You get nothing.

    You have just created all this idea of a criminal action in your own mind and there is nothing truthful about it.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian another mistake. On your part.

    “Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)” Strangely enough this is one of the flaws in the USA legal system.

    So the anti-trust case started from other cases processed in the Civil Court. Its one of the times a criminal conviction can be handed down in a odd way.

    Reason why is required a Civil Action number is so that it had legal rights to access the documents of the prior Civil Actions.

    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures section a part 4. Yes you are missing documents.

    Basically you have the document where MS lost. Not the document where MS was fined and convicted. That was a no contest.

    Notice the document you have does not contain any reference to anti-trust or the probation until 2007. Because that was done as part of IV section a part 4 and without that section DOJ could not take the evidence from the civil court into the criminal court.

    Yes the enforcement orders are Criminal court and MS pleaded no contest.

    In the Australian legal system. In a equal case the case could be fully processed in the Criminal court with orders to the Civil court to hand over documents. USA system does not allow Criminal court to do orders to the Civil to hand over documents.

    Yes Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) is part of a bigger criminal action case.

    To be correct the Criminal Action ended in September 6, 2001 with a consent decree. Basically MS admitting to the crime. With settlement of the Civil Action that had given DOJ the right early to go after MS in the Criminal Court ending in 2002. Ie Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) that you have found.

  5. Contrarian says:

    “People read this wrong.”

    You are totally wrong, of course. The case was a civil case. That’s what the Wikipedia reference said and that is what the court documents say. See

    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm

    and note the title:

    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)

  6. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian I know where the mistake in the anti-trust case reading comes from.

    “consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act”

    People read this wrong.

    A stack of civil actions were started against Microsoft. DOJ saw that they were evidence of a breach of the “Sherman Antitrust Act” what the DOJ did prove it was. So stepped in and consolidated the case into a criminal case with effected civil parties. The cases in civil were people claim they had been ripped off. Its a completely different charge to the Sherman Antitrust Act in the civil court.

    The pursuant bit means that the DOJ was changing the charges to something they could do.

    Yes someone has broken the anti-trust act you are no longer talking Civil. Without a criminal action the DOJ could not step in. MS was on probation for 6 years after 2001 and by the lose could have been broken up by any new offense until 2007. Also note that MS only started pushing patents after 2007 because doing so before hand might have got their company broken up.

    Yes MS is a convicted Criminal. Yes by the courts they have Served their time. But this does not mean I have to trust them.

  7. oiaohm says:

    “But that is how MS puts the new stuff into the developer’s hands”. The free conf software from Microsoft is not targeted at developers with that stuff. I have got software from all different MS confs even ones just for advertising people. Really what you have stated is an excuse. As a developer something you miss. I can get an extra 15000 dollars worth of software from MS just by filling out a case form. No attending confs required. The conf stuff is just advertising you might say. They also hand out 180 day trial stuff to partners to try new and up coming products to decide if they will buy them.

    Really all the free software is at confs is a kick back.

    Contrarian “anti-competitive” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act in the USA is not civil it is in fact Criminal Law. The law is in fact in the criminal laws. DOJ does not take civil cases to court has never taken a civil case to court. DOJ did not magically start with the MS case doing that. In fact by USA Government requirements the DOJ can never take up a Civil case.

    The civil cases were taken out by many companies after MS settled with the DOJ for damages for licensing refunds. Did not help the companies that did not exist any more due to the actions.

    A Civil action cannot legally force a company to be broken up. Civil action can place requirements for payment. Civil action cannot place fines. The Criminal action in the form of the Sherman Antitrust Act is what the DOJ did. If you lose the DOJ technically gets to decide how you company is broken up. Technically even if you settle the DOJ is still free to break your company up. This is 100 percent not civil. Civil can never order a breakup of a company or any other action that many need law enforcement to police. Anything that requires law enforcement to police is criminal.

    DOJ fold there case in 2001. EU did not fold their case what as over protocols abuse their of and prior trade actions covering the event.

    Basically wake up. It was criminal and MS got away with it. Contrarian I am not trying to demonize at all.

    If you read the EU documents it contains examples from the DOJ case how the having to pay for every machine did it damage and that those were voted on in the EU case and confirmed as illegal actions under USA law by the DOJ. Like companies selling CP/M machines when they started selling MS-Dos since they had to pay for MS-Dos on every machine the result was no more CP/M sales no matter how cheap CP/M or how compatible CP/M was. Remember CP/M become DR Dos. This was repeated for many OS’s that were in existence at that time.

    The worst fact was that the MS contracts with MS Dos did not include an out clause. Only way out was to break the contract.

    Highly destructive action reduced competition in the market. Repairing 20 + years of market damage does take time. Android is what happens when a interference is blocked. Look back to the early 80s and the broad cross section of OS’s in usage. That is how the market should look. We need another 3 to 4 major solutions for it to be in a healthy state.

    MS lost the same case as the DOJ did in the EU courts. But the EU is not in a location to cease and break Microsoft up. Basically by 2001 DOJ fold because they feared if they broke Microsoft up they would have destroyed the computer industry.

    Contrarian
    “Google to recoup their investments outside of charging a commission at their app store”

    Ok what is google main business. Advertising. What are Motorola and other companies making Android devices buying. Advertising lots from Google. Android devices enable people to access Google advertising in more locations and more of the time. So good for Google bottom line all round.

    This is the same problem I had with you and Linux server sales. Google has in fact already recovered their investments in Android so far with profit from Advertising sales it has triggered for Google.

    Also even apple and MS has to pay Google for advertising stronger competition means that Apple and MS have to buy more Advertising space. I was only counting direct Android advertising. So if you are google Android is a perfect move. The appstore is the cream on top. If google made zero from the appstore google will still be ahead by the other Android effects.

  8. No. Work is a good thing. Wish I had more of it… However, if I stopped others from working so that I might have a job, I would be doing evil. That’s what M$ and its “partners” do.

  9. see Microsoft teaches Best Buy employees how to troll Linux users

    “I received [a letter] several years ago from an over-eager employee at Microsoft advising me that I might be in violation of license agreements,” Redmond reader Jim reports. “The letter was from the legal department, as I recall, and seemed to be more of a threat than what it later turned out to be — a marketing solicitation to upgrade Office products we owned. Talk about misleading and heavy-handed “
    see IT Software Audits Gone Bad: Beware the BSA

  10. Contrarian kept repeating, “there is no way for Google to recoup their investments outside of charging a commission at their app store, as Apple does now. But they do not even do that much and the costs are so high and the revenues are so poor that it doesn’t seem likely to me that it can continue for very long.”

    Google knows its business. Google’s key to success is being able to advertise and provide services without being locked out by Apple and M$. Android works for Google.

    There’s this thing about FLOSS. Since the software can be used, examined, modified and distributed, even if Google stopped being the ring-leader, Android/Linux will remain vibrant. A consortium of OEMs using Android will likely be formed to perpetuate it no matter what Google does. Google has started the fire but it does not have to keep feeding the fire. We saw that with NetScape and StarOffice. When the kingpin lost interest the world took over.

  11. Contrarian says:

    #oldman, I agree that Android is here to stay and that the phone manufacturers who are using it are not likely to go with any sort of Microsoft solution like they did with MS DOS and Windows in the PC arena.

    OTOH, I don’t see where Google is going to do any better. They are there first with something that can compete with Apple iOS and so help the OEMs like Samsung, Hitachi, and Motorola to compete. But it looks like Android is “free”, as in zero license cost, and there is no way for Google to recoup their investments outside of charging a commission at their app store, as Apple does now. But they do not even do that much and the costs are so high and the revenues are so poor that it doesn’t seem likely to me that it can continue for very long.

    If the non-Apple phone makers were jointly producing Android, as some were participating in the Symbian effort in the past, then it would make sense and have a future since you can see where the money is coming from. But the way it is with Android today, that is not the case.

    Then, too, there is the Oracle patent action that is likely to cost Google some money down the road. How does GOOG justify this to their stockholders?

  12. Contrarian says:

    “It was just a couple of months ago when the justice department let Microsoft of the leash”

    I actually had seen that item, but I do not think that it has any significance. #oiaohm was complaining about the 1980s and 1990s and the case brought by the US justice department was not in that time period nor was it any criminal matter as anyone can plainly see.

    I guess that I just object to wild, inappropriate efforts to just demonize Microsoft rather than present true and accurate facts. For your own comment, I believe that your use of “on the leash” is a sort of implication that they were doing something illegal, too. As far as I remember, the government watchers never found anything to complain about in the 10 years that they had been watching either.

  13. Contrarian says:

    “M$ keeps its thugs loyal by providing them a large cut of licensing revenue and “promotional incentives” including training. To the balance sheet, these things seem wonderful but stifle competition.”

    #Pogson, I don’t think you are being at all fair in this regard. As a developer, I was certainly aided on a continuing basis by Microsoft’s educational conferences where I initially learned about the changes that were being made to Windows interfaces, database products, development tools, and SDKs that would impact my job and my work product. I don’t see where you cannot expect them to do any less. I found MSDN assistance to be both informative and economical to obtain and they go to extremes to ensure that anyone who has an interest in writing software for use in conjunction with their various products is given everything that is necessary.

    I will freely admit that the last 20 or so years of my career and the great bulk of my savings for retirement were due to being able to work in the Windows environment in providing products to Windows users who needed them in the absence of equivalent functionality from Microsoft or any other vendor. I worked my 40+ hours a week for many years and I feel that I contributed a lot to the well being of our customers who used the results of my work. Of course there were many other developers in my company who also participated in more or less significant roles to the overall product. A few of them were even Linux fans.

    I do not think that this could be classed as “thugery” or anything else that is the least bit shameful or unethical.

    If other framework proponents do not provide equivalent assistance to the OEMs and ISVs who link the Windows technology to their users, you cannot blame Microsoft. You should blame the inadequacy of the others who fail to adeuately promote their own wares. It is wrong to call for Microsoft to stop so that the weak sisters who might want a piece of the action can compete.

  14. oldman says:

    to get back to you FUS train thesis Pog, it seems to me that in the end not much of this amounts to anything. Mobile devices based on the commercial OS Android are here to stay. And there isn’t musch that Microsoft can do about it until “they have a dog than can hunt” in the form of an OS. Windows Phone 7 for whatever isn’t going to be it. Windows 8 May.

    My take is that it this point its Googles to lose. Android 2 was let to be a little two free and as a result ,we have fragmentation, a crappy market that now has been tarnished with malware and vendors crapping up Android with their own sometimes useless junk and who cant/dont want to figure out how to keep things up to date.

    Android 3 right now is under control. If google plays things right Microsoft will not have a snowballs chance of dominating. If not.. well lets see.

  15. oldman says:

    “M$ keeps its thugs loyal by providing them a large cut of licensing revenue and “promotional incentives” including training. To the balance sheet, these things seem wonderful but stifle competition. Businesses who depend on stifling competition are evil and so are their sycophants.”

    Are you saying simply using software to get work done are evil pog?

  16. Richard Chapman says:

    “it was 2001 when the case was settled”

    It was just a couple of months ago when the justice department let Microsoft of the leash. It was in the news. I don’t know how you could have missed it Contrarian.

  17. Android is full of FLOSS. Google uses FLOSS components. They distribute the code too.

    M$ is a tiny company compared to its power/influence. That is because M$ has seduced thousands of businesses and millions of individuals to promote/advocate for them. That is a pyramidal structure just like a medieval nation-state or a more modern dictatorship. Hitler did not need to kill. He had millions do it for him with enthusiasm. M$ does not need to exclude competition. It’s followers are willing to do much of the dirty work.

    M$ keeps its thugs loyal by providing them a large cut of licensing revenue and “promotional incentives” including training. To the balance sheet, these things seem wonderful but stifle competition. Businesses who depend on stifling competition are evil and so are their sycophants. Stifling competition harms thw whole world of IT and costs the world $hundreds of billions annually. Add up the obscene profits of M$, the costs of fighting malware, the costs of keeping PCs going with that other OS, the suppression of innovation globally, and the shortened life of PCs running that other OS and it makes me weep.

  18. We have visitors from all over the world, some whose native language is not English. I know all about language barriers having married such a person… ;-). We should not judge people or their messages by the quality of the writing. It’s the thought that counts.

  19. Contrarian says:

    #oiaohm, you seem to have completely lost it. Nothing you post makes any sense to me at all. For example, I ask Pogson about what he sees as “kickbacks” from OEMs and retailers to MS and you rant about

    “Notice what is going on here. Machine stacked full for trials so that in fact the OEM is not paying for the OS at all.”

    which is hard to see as a bad thing for OEMs or consumers, since the trialware makers are paying for some of the costs and so are keeping the end user price down. Certainly it is not a “kickback” to Microsoft under any interpretation.

    Then you say : “Next I attend a Microsoft conf I most likely will walk way with free Microsoft software” which is true although it usually costs between $1000 to $2000 to attend one of the big conferences such as TechEd or the PDC, depending on your corporate discount. But that is how MS puts the new stuff into the developer’s hands along with some education in what it is and how it is used. That is all good, in my opinion, and helps developers as well as user customers who will benefit from the new methodes.

    Then you rant about a bunch of stuff that I never mentioned even having an opinion about although when you said:

    “Yes MS was convicted of a criminal offense over the 80s and early 90s. So really their complete profits from the 80s and early 90s are profits from criminal actions. Should have been ceased if the law of the USA had been followed. So yes Microsoft golden age is nowhere near golden.”

    I wondered about that, so I looked on

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Settlement

    You should read that since it summarizes what really went on. For one thing, it was 2001 when the case was settled and for another it was not a criminal case at all, just a civil lawsuit where Microsoft was not fined or made to pay any damages to anyone, just to stop doing some things that they had done in the past. Some of those had already been stopped.

    #oiaohm, you have to decide whether you like Linux or just hate Microsoft. Maybe you can do both, but you do not seem to have any sense of balance.

  20. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian the apple FUD I was referring to against IBM was not “effective product promotion” for Apple.

    Its this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

    Yes targeted against IBM. Yes did IBM massive market damage. Did not gain Apple very much market at all.

    FUD. Fear Uncertainty Doubt. Is really not good market method. Parties using it should really be-careful the problem with FUD is what happened to apple from the 1984 add. Yes they destroyed IBM sales. But all their competitors also got to get sales and they still missed out in the end.

    “The reality is that Microsoft is much more admired than hated.” admired for what Contrarian mass murdering person can be admired. Oracle CEO stated it quite nicely. He admired Microsoft means to make 800%+ profit on items. When at best he can only make 200%. Yes you can admire someone and hate them at exactly the same time. More important word is love most people cannot love and hate at exactly the same time.

    “More frothing, I think. What “kickback from OEMs and retailers” do you speak of.” Lets start off simple as a OEM it costs me less than 60 dollar a seat for my first 10 machines of MS Windows with Full MS Office and full range of MS products for my own staff.

    Next is trail software is shipped on OEM machines for free. That trial copy of MS Office on the machine when you register it OEM gets paid. Next those 90 day trial anti-viruses are also paid for items.

    Notice what is going on here. Machine stacked full for trials so that in fact the OEM is not paying for the OS at all.

    Next I attend a Microsoft conf I most likely will walk way with free Microsoft software.

    Most funny I have seen is the video of one MS conf where Linus was attending. I have done it myself at a MS Conf. Where you have a person stand on stage saying Linux cannot do X. Simple fact of the matter Linux has been able to do X for the last 10 years.

    The one with Linus at the Microsoft Conf the Microsoft guy made 32 points. Zero were correct 20 had never been correct even in the first year of Linux existance. 10 were correct 8 years before. 2 were corrections 2 years old. So not a good result.

    There is such thing a difference discrediting your competition and deceiving clients.

    Deceiving your clients is lieing. Like MS staff and confs get caught doing all the time. Discrediting your competition does not require lies.

    Its like the claim Linux does not support old binaries. That statement is false. The true statement is Linux method for support old binaries suxs at times. Reason the support method is setup a chroot and put a old distribution in the chroot matching the old binary you want to run.

    The result of the Linux method is it longer to setup but more likely that the program will work exactly how it use to. http://test.winehq.org/ is a good place to visit beware that NT4, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008 and Win7 coloums are the wine test suite running on those OS’s real. So the variations you are seeing are in fact variations between windows versions. So yes I have test results that can display the issue. There is also a Linux test suits where your demo that current day Linux kernels perform the same as the old kernels with old distributions on top. Reason you are using the same so files. Yes backwards compadiblity is why if you attempt to change the Linux syscall its on pain of death.

    Yes lot of MS myths about Linux are really deflecting away for issues Windows really does have. They have the worse so ours is not that bad solution marketing. This is not good marketing either. Its just away of avoiding have to spend money to solve the problems. Like having proper API test suites and using them to prevent the variation that the wine test suite displays.

    Basically their is a lot of FUD directed against Linux. There is also a lot of deceiving clients from the MS side.

    Linux side is not 100 percent free of this. Like stupid people who try to sell Wine as a solve all. That is deceiving clients.

    Basically I want a higher standard we will not get a higher standard out of open source or closed source marketing. If will tolerate crappy methods like FUD and deceiving clients methods to be used it will still keep on happening.

    Microsoft most effective marketing has been cheep software to schools. To make sure people out of schools know their product and not their competition. That this can happen really shows the weakness in the education system.

    Next most effective marketing was what MS illegal got todo in the 80’s and what they are trying todo today with patents. In the 80’s a maker making a machine to run MS dos had to pay MS for every machine they made if it run MS dos or not.

    Yes MS is trying todo the same thing today with patents.

    Contrarian basically you need a history lesson. MS was the talk in the 80’s because they had it black mailed. Also in the 80’s Gates was not against piracy. Reason it did not matter to him then since he was being paid for machine sold more than what was really running Dos.

    Yes MS was convicted of a criminal offense over the 80s and early 90s. So really their complete profits from the 80s and early 90s are profits from criminal actions. Should have been ceased if the law of the USA had been followed. So yes Microsoft golden age is nowhere near golden.

  21. Contrarian says:

    “If Microsoft had to base its revenues from the results of their ads and promotions they would have folded years ago.”

    You have to make up your mind #lpbbear. Microsoft ads either work to “discredit their competition” and “hamper competing technology” as you complain or “look like they were thought up by the ‘Herb Tarlek’ of the advertising world” as you sneer. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

    The reality is that Microsoft was the talk of the 80’s and 90’s and remains as a cash cow in a mature market. Its main market isn’t going to grow very quickly again; it’s too big and too old for that. Rapid gains are in newer markets, such as the iPad and iPhone. Maybe Microsoft can get a piece of that action, maybe not. I sort of think they have a chance myself, but it is not such a mania with me that Microsoft succeed again as it with you that Microsoft fail. Why is that?

  22. lpbbear says:

    “The reality is that Microsoft is much more admired than hated and #lpbbear is delusional.”

    So sez the M$FT fanbois.

    “Microsoft’s product promotions have proved so effective over the years.”

    I have seen plenty of M$FT ads and promotions over the years. They are almost always terrible and off target and look like they were thought up by the “Herb Tarlek” of the advertising world. They’re kind of on par with ads from “Ronco”. If Microsoft had to base its revenues from the results of their ads and promotions they would have folded years ago.

    What actually keeps Microsoft afloat is their stranglehold on the desktop market.

    As the desktop erodes so erodes Microsoft and you can bet no one will miss them as they exist the IT stage.

  23. Ray says:

    If that happens, then they will simply fight Microsoft.

  24. M$ cannot stand competition. If Android and iOS fight it out, it costs M$ nothing and M$ gets to flood the market with its product later. That’s how they intend to overcome the delay in getting to market. They probably have a marketing scheme in the works already. I can see it now:

  25. I’m a new, improved PC
  26. Your favourite OS now runs on everything
  27. Everything’s a PCtm
  28. Run your favourite application on the cloud, desktop, notebook, tablet, or smart phone
  29. The budget will be in the hundreds of $millions. Maybe they will revive “Get Smart” and do something with the shoe-phone…

    Having Android and iOS confusing the consumers may help M$ by being the “safe” and “familiar” choice. This will work for non-technical consumers who equate “brand” with “product”. I doubt it will sway the OEMs. The OEMs will hedge their bets and support any platform that works. The result will be M$ getting a share but not a monopoly. They will have to compete on price/performance widely and M$ has never had to do that before. It will be interesting. I doubt they can “succeed” without exclusive dealing.