If It’s All About The Apps, “8” Is DOA (Dead on Arrival)

The count of apps available in M$’s app-store for “8” has reached 42K but the rate of new arrivals is a tiny fraction of the first few months… They were getting ~500 new apps per day. Now it’s just a bit over 100. That’s death for a “platform”, eh?
see Windows 8 app releases grind to a near-complete halt | ITworld.

Put it this way. Debian GNU/Linux has about that many packages and many of them are wonderful applications for clients or servers so “8” may have “enough” to do something but combined with lacklustre sales to consumers it looks as if developers don’t want to make the effort if the consumers don’t buy it. Makes sense. Small user-base means no payoff for developers paid by the app. Compare that with Android/Linux which has hundreds of thousands of apps both $free and $non-free.

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 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to If It’s All About The Apps, “8” Is DOA (Dead on Arrival)

  1. oe says:

    MS is really beggining to turn the lock down screws hard and turn their stuff into Crippleware, Adware, headed quickly towards Crapware….
    (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236818/Office_2013_retail_licensing_change_ties_suite_to_specific_PC_forever?taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=1). OO by v3 was good enough to write a technical dissertation and papers with complete with cross-linking, referencing, auto-formatting, equations, etc. Libreoffice has only gotten better…..

    Glad I migrated off this train wreck to various GNU/Linux flavors for extended family and friend when I saw Vista coming a few years back. For myself the “Integrated Package Management” was the killer app, before the term App store had every reached the Big Two commercial payware options. Computer support time for the extended family has dropped by a factor of some 7-8X now. Most support now is adding new features or demonstating capabilities folks were unaware of, now more crises or broken OS fixes.

  2. oiaohm says:

    bw –And they charge a lot for those solutions. As much or more than Microsoft charges for their solutions. Wake up and see.–

    In fact I have done TCO on both. Sorry go and do the TCO and you will find Redhat, Oracle and IBM replacement to sharepoint and exchange has been cheaper per seat with 24/7 phone support than doing Exchange set up with cals.

    Seriously they don’t charge that much. bw Microsoft is the most expensive deal in town.

    bw a long time ago you were correct. The problem is Microsoft prices have either stayed the same or crept up where there competition has come down lots.

    Please note IBM and Orcale if you can design a MS solution without support cheaper that will both drop there price straight away. Not just for you but for everyone using there products include refunds for their error.

    bw 24/7 support for the same price it costs you to buy the Microsoft software. Yes they do work it out as if MS products are really buy once every 10 years.

    So we are not talking a small bit cheaper from the IBM and Oracle offering.

  3. bw says:

    “Bogus. Redhat, Oracle and IBM employ a lot of programmers to work on what is called solutions”
    And they charge a lot for those solutions. As much or more than Microsoft charges for their solutions. Wake up and see.

  4. Dr Loser says:

    So you could say Linux without paying is like windows must reboot. Linux with paying is like most Unix that does not have to reboot as often.

    I could, Hamster, but I’m not going to. I’m not even sure whether that makes any sense whatsoever.

    But, regardless:

    Please concentrate on the point at issue. Old firm Unixen do not use ksplice: please believe me on that.

    Don’t muddy the waters by bringing Linux in. Once we’ve got the superiority of Unix in general established, ksplice or not, you are welcome to point out that Linux beats *nix because it’s free and you can change suppliers.

    If you remember, that was my basic point in the first place.

    I’m not against Unix. (I have my preferences, but sadly the better Multics are no more.) I’m not even against a Linux server, when it makes sense.

    I’m quite easy-going on this level. I just object to completely unsubstantiated claims made by people like you, Hamster, who merely dabble and have no professional qualifications or experience whatsoever.

  5. Dr Loser says:

    No, sorry, Hamster. I have never once heard of a big-league Unix system (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) using ksplice or an equivalent for upgrading.

    But then I’ve been out of the picture since, I think, 2007. I’m sure you have links to prove this insanity.

    (Clue: it’s insane because it’s not safe. And it’s insane because in a networked and clustered world, there is no need whatsoever to patch an individual server just for half an hour’s extra up-time per year.)

  6. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser most good Unix systems like Solaris have in place kernel upgrade. Basically Linux Ksplice.

    Windows is forced to reboot to replace kernel if kernel code is fixed and a lot of other areas.

    This is the difference in applying remedial patches.

    –I would argue that it represents a cavalier attitude towards security on the part of Unix admins. —
    This might be a factor but there is a technical difference between the OS’s that explain the lower of cost most UNIX systems applying remedial patches.

    Linux users there are a nice figure. http://www.ksplice.com/ 2 million paid for the privilege of not having to reboot to install security patches.

    So you could say Linux without paying is like windows must reboot. Linux with paying is like most Unix that does not have to reboot as often.

    Linux does have the advantage it cheep to cluster.

    Really Dr Loser you just proved you did not know the Unix systems you were working on. This is a key difference. If you don’t know it you can reboot the servers way too often.

  7. Dr Loser says:

    From your cite, Robert:

    In general, none of the major server operating systems — Linux, Macintosh, Windows or Unix are today beset by the long list of bugs that plagued their predecessors back in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Suggesting that (a) you are imagining this “stability advantage” and (b) if any such thing exists, it is a consequence of a maturing technology, not of any fundamental design advantage.

    The decreased reliability is due to a series of security alerts Microsoft issued in the summer and fall which cause network administrators to take their Windows Server 2003 machines offline for significantly longer periods of time to apply remedial patches.

    You would argue that this represents shoddy implementation on the part of Windows servers. I would argue that it represents a cavalier attitude towards security on the part of Unix admins. (And remember, I have been there — indeed I have performed a security audit on a telco Solaris — and you have not.)

    Either one of us could be correct. It could be a mix of the two. But your standard of evidence is hardly very high if it is based on a single, selected, tech press article from a completely unbiased source called “Unix Pro News,” is it?

    I’ll freely admit that my evidence is purely anecdotal … but in the case of commercial Unix servers, you’re not even in possession of anecdotes, I believe.

  8. Der Balrog says:

    So, don’t let the fact that you cannot run UNIX reliably fool you into thinking others cannot. The only school I worked in with a bunch of M$’s servers had terrible reliability, lunch-hour ruined once a month and at random times lagging performance.

    Right back at you, Pogson. Because we know that you are unable to run Window reliably. Which, contrary to your self-deluded claims, is very much possible. Just not for you.

  9. Dr Loser wrote, “I’ve spent years on HP-UX and Solaris (serious big iron, the sort of level that Deep Blue ran on) and I can assure you that those machines were no more reliable than the typical Windows server of the day.”

    see http://archive.unixpronews.com/2008/0820.html

    “IBM’s AIX Unix led all server operating systems for reliability with just over 30 minutes per server of annual downtime.

    Windows Server 2003 downtime increased by 25 percent to nearly 9 hours of per server, per year downtime.”

    So, don’t let the fact that you cannot run UNIX reliably fool you into thinking others cannot. The only school I worked in with a bunch of M$’s servers had terrible reliability, lunch-hour ruined once a month and at random times lagging performance.

  10. Dr Loser says:

    Point me at this “rock solid reliability” on Unix servers, Robert.

    I’ve spent years on HP-UX and Solaris (serious big iron, the sort of level that Deep Blue ran on) and I can assure you that those machines were no more reliable than the typical Windows server of the day. Or perhaps the various pagers, support escalations, dial-ins, dongles and key-cards that I needed to carry around in order to do my job were just figments of my imagination.

    It’s never wise to stray into fields where you have no direct experience and the other guy does.

  11. Dr Loser wrote, of M$’s performance with server markets, “Doesn’t sound like much of a failure to me, Robert. And I stand by my cannibalization comment. If you segment the server market further, that’s precisely what happened.”

    For a monopolist, that is failure. They have leveraged their monopoly on business PCs into a good share of servers. That’s because their desktop OS is unmanageable without a server holding its hand… UNIX share has been shrinking for ages. It’s shrunk about as far as it will go. The folks that use it don’t care about the cost. They care about rock-solid reliability. They care that they can continue using it without disruption.

    Anywhere M$ has to compete for server share, they lose: web, HPC, database, file-serving. Where they have serious share is holding the hands of their desktop OS. No one else can make that ugly pig look good. Stats based on revenue grossly exaggerate the share owned by M$. Show me units.

  12. Dr Loser says:

    This is the second time in the past three quarters that Windows has been responsible for driving more than half of all server spending worldwide.

    Doesn’t sound like much of a failure to me, Robert. And I stand by my cannibalization comment. If you segment the server market further, that’s precisely what happened.

    See, unlike you, I am not biased against any particular OS on the server. (I hate the Linux desktop, but that’s from personal experience.) I’m building a website on Red Hat right now, in fact.

    Linux on the server has cannibalized vast swathes of prior *nix deployments, simply because it’s easier to port from *nix to Linux. And that’s a good thing. And if your server runs on Linux, not AIX or Solaris or HP-UX, you don’t have to pay squillions in licensing for what is roughly the same software (the file system usually sucks, but that’s liveable). And you’re not forced to stick with the same hardware manufacturer. And those are good things, too.

    I strongly suspect that most of the “non-cannibalization” growth of Linux servers is basically LAMP stacks, which are theoretically nice simple workflow-based things that take care of themselves and do not need the extra sophistication that Windows Server tools offer. And that, also, is a good thing. Having a variety of tools, each specialised to a particular task, is always a good thing. Sticking to one-size-fits-all, as you do, is a bad thing.

    Oh, and if you’ve ever tried to install something like Catalyst on a LAMP stack, as I just did, you’ll quickly discover that “bloat” and “dependency hell” are by no means restricted to Microsoft products. I just gave up and decided to use Perl Dancer instead. Which means that I will have to integrate all the ORM tools, etc, myself, rather than (say) leave that to .NET.

    But that’s OK. It’s a tradeoff. I am a professional, and I know how to do this stuff.

  13. oiaohm says:

    bw
    –Many have tried to do that and have only found out that the middle man was not so worthless as was originally assumed.–
    Samsung and HTC have both removed middle men and been successful. Samsung makes all the parts in their devices including the intel processor chips they use. So has complete quality control.

    Now that is the problem. Yes middle man might be able to use Michael Jordan to advertise stuff. So can the hardware maker with the middle man removed.

    Its a simple maths thing bw. [hardware production cost][marketing cost][hardware makers profit][marketers profit] Kinda default for a dell setup.

    Now cut the marketer like dell out. [hardware production cost][marketing cost(has to remain about the same)][hardware maker profit + half what the marketers profit was] And the marketer cannot compete. This is basically what samsung is doing with ipad vs their own tablet.

    Cutting the middle man out sees hardware maker get more profit but over all less profit is taken so it leaves other middle men screwed. Also the hardware maker can take marketing profit to Zero and still have there hardware mark up profit what effectively allows them to kill competition.

    bw
    –You could but you are not doing any of that. It is easy to say, but you might find that no one wants to hire you to maintain software unless it is a proprietary product from which they derive an income out of which they can pay for your services. —

    Bogus. Redhat, Oracle and IBM employ a lot of programmers to work on what is called solutions. Solutions can be a combination of complete FOSS software or a mixed of closed and FOSS or full closed. The customer has the a tested and known to work bundle that they pay receive support on. Of course Redhat, Orcale and IBM don’t want to be attempting to provide support on random-ally assembled crap.

    Solutions are not proprietary products. You can get the same solution by get the same parts and assemble them yourself and do the testing yourself. The big but here its like have a pile of bricks and thinking you can build a house. A builder who has built more houses has way more experience so produces a better result with exactly the same materials. Question here is do you trust your staff to have the skill to pull this off. Just like when a building is built the builder is not part of the house. The solution provider does not have to have any part of the solution be theirs.

    Solutions is not a normal proprietary product. Its a common form of FOSS product. Where you are free to look. Also these come with support contracts.

    Please note IBM and Oracle make billions a year providing solutions that at base are fully FOSS because that is what customer asked for.

    bw
    –The reason companies can be in business and sell software programs as a product is because it costs far more to develop your own stuff than it does to just pay to use someone else’s product. —
    You have missed the groups that sell solutions. They are not selling programs.

    Solutions also come with like 12 month support contracts for that solution with repairs to your issues.

    To be truthful businesses more often than not are after to buy a solution. But by mistake go out and by a software package.

    The thing businesses are missing a solution has the support contract with defined response times. You buy a software package and something goes wrong and your staff cannot fix it you are on your own.

    Of course providing solutions you still have to maintain the software in the solution. Failure to do so has legal bad outcomes.

    Now compared that to proprietary product like lets say Microsoft anti-virus. It fails to work or stops you computer for no valid reason you have no legal come back. You did not pay Microsoft to provide an Anti-virus solution you paid Microsoft to provide anti-virus software.

    Yes the two items are similar both you end up with software. Solutions really don’t care if its proprietary or not. Since with solution you will be paying a support contract to keep on receiving the quality of service. This is why Redhat Linux update server is password protected. Not that Redhat Linux is a proprietary software. You might say that Redhat is proprietary solution containing all FOSS software. Redhat does not make any closed source binaries. Yet they can turn over 1 billion+ a year and growing.

    The product is the solution not the programs with Redhat. Oracle and IBM also maintain so many FOSS programs and libraries they use in their solutions. If all of them happen to be using the same part in the solutions they are selling to customers it makes absolutely no sense for each of them to pay for the development alone. Since they do solutions when something breaks customer is breathing down there neck and they cannot wait until one of the other parties get around to fixing the code base.

    The simple point is they are not working on FOSS for free and they are not doing it voluntary.

    bw understanding the difference between selling solutions and programs. You understand how the FOSS profit model works once you wake up what business needs is fully functional solutions not a list of programs they need to integrate.

  14. Dr Loser wrote, “the only thing that Linux has done on the server side is to cannibalise their *nix precedents. “

    I hope that’s sarcasm, otherwise we should suspect Alzheimer’s. The number of web-servers has grown dramatically over the years and most of them are running GNU/Linux. There’s a reason for that. Servers are supposed to serve the customers of the owner not M$. IIS is so mired in M$’s barnyard that no one wants to use it for productions. It’s good there’s no need as well. OTOH, that other OS has not been growing much on servers, so one might just as well say that GNU/Linux has been eating UNIX and M$’s lunch.

    “Microsoft Windows server hardware demand was down 0.9% year over year in 3Q12 with quarterly server hardware revenue totaling $6.2 billion representing 51.1% of overall quarterly factory revenue, up 1.6 points over the prior year’s quarter. This is the second time in the past three quarters that Windows has been responsible for driving more than half of all server spending worldwide.” see IDC

    So GNU/Linux is taking share from M$.

  15. Dr Loser says:

    @bw:

    To be reasonably accurate, what actually happened when Google were launching circa 1997 was that they (literally) built their own hardware and used Linux (it might equally have been BSD, and in fact more logically so in Mountain View, but afaik there were legal issues for three years around that time) simply because it was there, and there was no cost-scalable alternative.

    Had MS offered them such a cost-scalable deal, who knows? They might have taken it. But it would have been raw NT 3.51, I think. Neither side thought it worth pursuing.

    More logical would have been HP-UX (down the road) or Solaris (up the road … I’m literally talking tens of miles in either case) or even AIX. Plenty of dot-com companies were built on any or all of the three.

    It so happened that in the 1990s nobody envisaged a ridiculously huge farm of commodity hardware driven by Map-Reduce. It so happens that Linux conveniently hit that sweet spot … and Good For It! Linux actually won on Map-Reduce servers in the late 1990s, because nobody else saw the business opportunities.

    Which is a shame, really. Leaving MS to one side, the only thing that Linux has done on the server side is to cannibalise their *nix precedents. I’d far rather work with Solaris 2.7 (circa 1998) or HP-UX 10 (ditto) than this rubbish.

    But what can you do? Argue with cannibals who got lucky at the right time?

    Me, I’m just for avoiding the cooking pot.

  16. Der Balrog says:

    Sure I can. I can hire myself out installing/maintaining software or I can produce a salable product like a book. I choose not to do that because it’s not necessary but I do use a lot of FLOSS instead of paying M$ and “partners” for it.

    Is that newspeak for “Nobody would hire me”? Yeah, sounds always better if you choose not to do something. But you should think of all the poor souls who are in dire need of an expert Pascal programmer. Really, Pogson, you are very irresponsible. You have profited immensely from FLOSS, but you’re not giving back. You are very bad.

  17. bw says:

    “I can hire myself out installing/maintaining software or I can produce a salable product like a book”

    You could but you are not doing any of that. It is easy to say, but you might find that no one wants to hire you to maintain software unless it is a proprietary product from which they derive an income out of which they can pay for your services. Maybe you could work as an in-house maintainer of things that some company made for themselves to avoid paying Microsoft, but that is more of a pipe dream than a reality.

    The reason companies can be in business and sell software programs as a product is because it costs far more to develop your own stuff than it does to just pay to use someone else’s product. Unless the software is unique to a company’s business and crucial to their competitive advantage over others, they are going to buy it.

    Google makes their own search engine software and does not disclose how it works to anyone else. They sell copies of it to other companies, too. They can use Linux as a platform and avoid paying Microsoft for server OS, thus saving real money, but you cannot since you do not have such a business and hence do not have any such need.

  18. bw says:

    “Yes a hardware maker could sell a computer to end user cheaper than Dell. Issue is make more profit than selling through Dell. Cut out the middle man making a profit.”

    Many have tried to do that and have only found out that the middle man was not so worthless as was originally assumed. China is a great economic power today because of low labor costs and inattention to their environment, letting companies pollute rather than absorbing the costs of clean operations. They haven’t done that completely, of course, but enough of it to give them an edge. India and the rest of Asia are following suit and giving China a run for it.

    But where the rubber meets the road, it is the sizzle that sells the product and China and the rest of Asia haven’t managed to get to square one in that regard. China makes Nike shoes, but Michael Jordan is the one who gets people to buy them. Windows on a computer is what makes it a PC and not a Mac. Linux on a computer makes it a curiosity.

    And don’t go on an on about phones. Android is not Linux and a phone is not a computer.

  19. bw wrote of getting value from use of software, “That is not the same as making money.”

    The value of things does not need to be measured in terms of money but it is. Money is just a commodity representing value. Lots of people pay money for software or make it themselves or just use it.

    bw wrote, “You cannot, therefore, make a dime from using free software.”

    Sure I can. I can hire myself out installing/maintaining software or I can produce a salable product like a book. I choose not to do that because it’s not necessary but I do use a lot of FLOSS instead of paying M$ and “partners” for it. I have also spent less on hardware because FLOSS runs well on old hardware. A penny saved is a penny earned.

  20. bw says:

    “Nonsense. I get ~$1K value from the software we use in my home per annum”

    That is not the same as making money. If $1000 showed up in a previously empty bank account, you could say you made money, but all you did was fool yourself into thinking that you had a real cost avoidance. In reality, if you did not have access to the free version, you would not have paid for a real product. If, perhaps, you had a real business that required you to use something that cost $1000 and you managed to use a free one instead, then you might have a better case. But you have no such business. From your posting here, you say you do not even have a job. You cannot, therefore, make a dime from using free software.

  21. oiaohm says:

    bw –The Chinese are not going to be able to change that nor would they even want to.–

    Really this is the problem. Pollution from there production is reaching a point where they will have no choice but to change something or have large percentage of population deaths. Enough die and they will have to drop production anyhow not enough humans.

    –Certainly they wouldn’t turn down orders from Dell so that they could try to sell their own stuff direct to end users for lower prices!–

    Foolish. China has announce plans to make 8 of its own super companies one includes a global company like Dell. Problem is when china puts mind to something they normally pull it off. Yes a hardware maker could sell a computer to end user cheaper than Dell. Issue is make more profit than selling through Dell. Cut out the middle man making a profit.

    Its would be highly profitable to turn down orders by Dell and other companies. Has this happened before yes. HTC turning down HP orders for mobile phones so they had less competition from HP. Chinese companies have done this in the past and it works out quite well for them.

    Sorry the belief that china has to keep on producing for you is a very risky idea. Once you have no production anywhere else they can turn the tap off.

  22. Der Balrog says:

    I would be doing what I do whether or not M$ existed.

    That’s nothing more than idle speculation. The fact is that you came to Linux by way of hating Microsoft. You’ve told it often enough.

  23. bw wrote, “If there is money to be made in the personal computer business, and there is quite a bit, it is being made mostly by Microsoft and Apple and their partners.”

    Nonsense. I get ~$1K value from the software we use in my home per annum. Multiply that by the many millions using FLOSS and there’s no contest. Lots of money can be made by businesses pushing FLOSS and hardware running FLOSS but the real benefit goes to the users who get that value without paying much for it. M$ is taking X% of a much smaller pie. Apple’s doing a little better but their costs are higher. Money is not the only value connected with PCs.

  24. Der Balrog wrote, “Pogson ain’t no idealist. His love of Linux is based on his hate for Windows and Microsoft alone.”

    I would be doing what I do whether or not M$ existed. The Digital Divide has been crossed and billions of people are potentially being able to use IT for the first time. That has nothing to do with M$. It’s just technology. I love technology much more than I hate M$. M$ was just a bump on the road to the future. There are whole days when I don’t even think of M$. I don’t have any of their software in my home unless it’s in the bottom of a cardboard box in storage somewhere.

    At the time I went to GNU/Linux, my personal computer was running Lose 3.1 just reliably enough to get me to Comanche. I did some writing and programming on it but File/Save was my most frequent operation… I did not shed a tear when that machine was dropped on a runway and died. My next machine was a Duron with GNU/Linux. Built the machine myself. Love made that happen. In those days, I had no clue where to find GNU/Linux on a reasonably-priced commercial machine.

  25. Der Balrog says:

    Der Balrog funny you tell us to stop talking smack and here you are doing exactly the same thing. So its do as you say not do as you do. You are such a hypocrite Der Balrog.

    What did you say, Peter? Maybe you want to tell me by which sound reasoning it’s a good idea that a grown man spends time hating a company. Because I seriously have a hard time thinking of a reason. Pogson likes to brag claims that he is furthering the cause of Linux.

    No. Frackin’. Way.

    Hating Microsoft doesn’t equal furthering the cause of Linux. It’s all too clear: Pogson ain’t no idealist. His love of Linux is based on his hate for Windows and Microsoft alone. He merely believes in FLOSS so he can oppose CSS. It’s his private little rebellion in retirement. It’s almost like “Old Man’s War”, except for the fact that John Perry ends up being useful.

  26. bw says:

    “So that idea of yours is really not aligned with fact”

    The numbers don’t lie. If there is money to be made in the personal computer business, and there is quite a bit, it is being made mostly by Microsoft and Apple and their partners. Bigger stuff is the bailiwick of IBM and Oracle. The Chinese are not going to be able to change that nor would they even want to. They profit from manufacturing stuff used in this business and I don’t think they would care a bit about the software. Certainly they wouldn’t turn down orders from Dell so that they could try to sell their own stuff direct to end users for lower prices!

  27. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog funny you tell us to stop talking smack and here you are doing exactly the same thing. So its do as you say not do as you do. You are such a hypocrite Der Balrog.

  28. Der Balrog says:

    Pogson being so aroused about all things Microsoft and Windows can only be explained by a serious inferiority complex.

  29. oiaohm says:

    bw the massive data stealing of every type of tech is exactly what the historic starfleet did.

    History could be repeating.

  30. oiaohm says:

    bw
    –I would expect them to keep on making whatever was ordered. They are in business, after all.–

    History of china tells you to beware. The story of the star fleet from china. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

    He exported all the known world and past once china believed they had brought everything good home and they could support themselves they completely shut their boarders.

    If the day comes that china believes they can be self supporting their boarders will closed and production will stop. You know all that city smog and that china has now this was the same problem from the time of the star fleet. Except it was pottery production not electronics production generated back then. Yes this is not the first time in history china had a air pollution problem. The most effective way to reduce the pollution is stop producing items for export.

    bw
    –I would expect them to keep on making whatever was ordered. They are in business, after all.–
    Can you now see why this is a very foolish belief.

    Basically china is in trouble. Not monetary trouble but environmental. Exporting without OS would reduce how much China owes overseas. Cut an import.

    China is a timebomb and its ticking. Microsoft risks being screwed two ways. Most everyone risk being screwed by one of the ways that china simply stops exporting and importing.

    bw
    –People have been using smart phones for years now and have not significantly abandoned buying computers.–
    New markets you are seeing the bend clearly the recent stall in PC sales is also linked to the smart phones and tablets. As people find they can do everything the need so not buying PC.

    So that idea of yours is really not aligned with fact.

    bw my comment about china controlling what PC hardware there is there might be none full stop everywhere. So price explodes threw roof.

  31. bw says:

    How many of the computers actually sold in India and China are sold with Windows and how many are sold with something else? As far as what is actually made in China, that depends on what is ordered from their factories. They make, I believe, a great many of computers sold everywhere. The Dell laptop I am using right now says Made in China on the bottom. I would expect them to keep on making whatever was ordered. They are in business, after all.

    Other than that, all you have are a lot of “ifs” that have no way of being evaluated. People have been using smart phones for years now and have not significantly abandoned buying computers. Sales are down a little, but the Windows software business remains huge for Microsoft. I don’t think that many people are listening to you.

  32. oiaohm says:

    bw China or India is the biggest possible markets world wide. What one is not the biggest the other one is second.

    The big problem here is if either of those markets turn on Microsoft. Both are showing signs of. Even if Microsoft gets 100 percent of everywhere else they still would have less resources.

    bw something you are missing projects like libreoffice are still expanding in number of developers. The interesting thing is more and more new developers home country is india or china.

    Then you have to remember. If china stopped making Windows PC completely how many would you have in the USA and else where. Basically kiss good by to 90%.

    So if you plan to be able to buy a Windows PC in future is very important what direction china goes.

    Pack up and go to china not required. China really does control what computer hardware there is.

  33. Bob Parker wrote, “on the day I write this. Windows 8 is selling as well as Windows 7, an exact dead heat because there are exactly zero offerings of either version on sale for laptops or desktop machines at that store.

    If that is too hard to understand I’ll put it another way. Microsoft Windows is no longer on sale at Big C Extra superstore in Chiang Mai Thailand.”

    Here is an ad from Big C (very slow here, in Canada):
    (links to larger image)

    I don’t see them pushing that other OS and they don’t mention the OS much except for Android. Other ads from Asia mention DOS is available on that model. Lenovo lists Ubuntu GNU/Linux as an option on a similar model in India.

    Here’s another business selling Linpus Linux: http://i.nvade.it/3Fq. If you search their site for “Linux” you find a 29 hits. If you search for that other OS, you only find about three times as many hits which is a remarkable ratio.

  34. bw says:

    That is wonderful news for those here who cannot stomach any further sales of Windows in any way, shape, or form. It should be a simple matter for them to pack up and catch the next plane out. How’s the weather there?

  35. Bob Parker says:

    New computers will come with Windows 8, just like they did with Windows 7 before, and the only problem that could …

    Well here is the situation at Big C Extra in Chiang Mai Thailand on the day I write this. Windows 8 is selling as well as Windows 7, an exact dead heat because there are exactly zero offerings of either version on sale for laptops or desktop machines at that store.

    If that is too hard to understand I’ll put it another way. Microsoft Windows is no longer on sale at Big C Extra superstore in Chiang Mai Thailand.

  36. bw says:

    Why do you think that this matters? Maybe there is a competition aspect to available apps on iPhone or iPad vs the Android phones and tablets, but when it comes to computers, the real criterion is whether or not the apps that people use are available. That is the way that Windows got where it is and those little apps that you might use on an iPad are not very important, it seems to me.

    Besides, all the apps that count are available for Windows 8. And even Windows 7. I had stuff like Quicken and Angry Birds on this laptop even before updating to Windows 8 and they still work. I added Netflix and Hulu and Amazon Prime from the Windows App Store for free although the web-based versions still work too with the browser. Even the browsers from Google and Firefox work just fine with Windows 8.

    New computers will come with Windows 8, just like they did with Windows 7 before, and the only problem that could happen is for customers to not want to keep Windows 8 because it didn’t work with something that they had been using and wanted to continue using. I don’t think there are any such things that would be classed as a show stopper.

Leave a Reply