Tablets Grow. Legacy PCs decline. Tablets Poised To Overtake PCs.

“According to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Smart Connected Device Tracker, vendors shipped 367.7 million desktop PCs, portable PCs, tablets, and smartphones – a collective view IDC refers to as "Smart Connected Devices" – in the fourth quarter of 2012 (4Q12), up 28.3% from the prior year. As desktop PCs and portable PCs declined (-4.1% and -3.4%, respectively), the overall smart connected device space continued to surge to just over 1.2 billion shipments cumulatively in 2012. Tablet shipments experienced the largest year-over-year growth in 2012, up 78.4% over 2011, while smartphones grew 46.1% but accounted for 60.1% of all smart connected devices shipped throughout the year.”see Mobility Reigns as the Smart Connected Device Market Rises 29.1% in 2012 Driven By Tablet and Smartphone Growth, According to IDC – prUS23958513.

Well M$ and many others claimed smart thingies were a “flash in the pan” but it’s not looking that way to me. Huge growth sustained over years is not a fad but a movement to smaller cheaper computers. Apple lost dominance in smartphones last year and look to lose dominance in tablets this year. Meanwhile, M$ rides a sinking ship.

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.

39 Responses to Tablets Grow. Legacy PCs decline. Tablets Poised To Overtake PCs.

  1. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser
    –Robert might well be correct in accusing Microsoft of “bloat” — for some value of bloat — but only a bloviating fool would accuse them of lacking development staff.–
    Ok how much does it cost for those 12 development staff. Lots

    Linux kernel itself has a over 1000 known developers. Most who are full time. Those 1000 known developers come from 200 companies. So about 10 each.

    This is the simple reality DrLoser a team of 12 is small. Mature and well developing FOSS projects have many times more developers.

    http://lucene.apache.org/whoweare.html

    One of the many Open Source search projects use to build internal business equals to bing and google. 37 Committees, 24 on the management committee.

    So that one FOSS search engine project itself is double your size at min. DrLoser Microsoft is bleeding money just making Bing.

    DrLoser yes I know you are with a team of 12 you think you have some size because for a commercial internal project team of 12 is large. Problem is from a FOSS project point of view if you development team core is under 20 your project is most likely not mature project and not used by enough parties.

    Yes Bing in developers is the size of FOSS projects that fold and disappear. This is common for a lot of MS departments.

    About time you come into the reality Microsoft from a development staff point of view compared to most of the FOSS equals is heavily lacking.

    Does not matter how many PHD’s the staff have if you don’t have the staff to write the code fast enough.

    Yes you really do need to include your market-specific developers to have enough size. Even with them your size is still questionable.

  2. DrLoser says:

    Lacking staff? Interesting.

    Here’s a pertinent (anecdotal) observation. I work for the “Related Search” bit of Bing. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a tiny, trivial little bit of a single division of That Other Company; indeed, a division that actually loses large amounts of money.

    (You can see the related search bit on the right rail of http://www.bing.com. Don’t worry, you can go right back to googling afterwards. This is for illustrative purposes only.)

    Ingoring the management and HR and office staff and other backup, and in fact (impolitely) ignoring the market-specific developers in places like Beijing, we have an engineering group supporting the platformm of six people. We have a data-mining group (mostly people with PhDs in machine learning) of another six people.

    That’s twelve people in single-minded support of one tiny little function that doesn’t even have 100% coverage and achieves a click-through rate of the order of 1%.

    Robert might well be correct in accusing Microsoft of “bloat” — for some value of bloat — but only a bloviating fool would accuse them of lacking development staff.

  3. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser the big thing you forget Redhat is not facing Microsoft alone. Cern and other makers of Scientific Linux work directly with redhat on development even that they don’t pay Redhat a cent in licensing.

    So Redhat is 1/20 of MS size. Combined group who are are sharing development does excess Microsoft.

    There is a direct disadvantage to Closed source.

    If you Novell income of SUSE and Ubuntu income they do mirror Redhats. 6 to 1 would be a more correct figure vs External Paid Linux. That of course skips over the large boys like Cern who have enough to do there own internal development.

    Size compare Dr Loser is one of your biggest problems. Comparing size of the Linux world development force that is paid full time to that of Microsoft. Microsoft is lacking staff.

  4. DrLoser says:

    Well, Robert, and irrespective of what either of us feel about the Red Hat OS (I notice that you are reluctant to recommend it, even though your preferred XFCE desktop suits it perfectly):

    Let’s start with a billion, shall we? I could question the books, but I’m not going to. (Because I really don’t care either way.)

    Let’s project.

    Let’s give Red Hat 20% uninterrupted growth (unlikely, but this is a Gedankenexperimente) for twenty years.

    At the end of that, they’d be worth $38.34 billion, as far as I can see.

    Nice, isn’t it?

    Not quite so nice as the $18.7billion that Microsoft’s server division alone made this year. Project that outwards, and it will eat Red Hat for lunch.

    I’d go back and do the re-re-re-boot dance, if I were you. It’s no more convincing, and in fact it’s terribly old-fashioned and ignorant, but at least it cannot be refuted by simple mathematical fact.

  5. DrLoser wrote, of RedHat, “I do think they will continue to grow at about 5% a year.”

    History is not bound to repeat but they have been growing at

    2012 revenue $1.133billion change=+24.6%
    2011 revenue $0.909billion change=+42.5%
    2010 revenue $0.638billion change=+17.9%
    2009 revenue $0.541billion change=+20.5%
    2008 revenue $0.449billion

    I think only 5% growth would be an outlier not supported by any facts. The kind of growth Red Hat is sustaining is amazing and due to them providing a great product at a great price in a competitive market. M$’s growth has been the result of lock-in resulting from the monopoly granted by IBM ages ago. They did exclusive dealing and made the OEMs dependent on Wintel. That was illegal and should have been severely punished. It was not so the markets have figured out how to get out from under the lock-in one way or another. Red Hat is one of the ways. Android/Linux is another. ARM is another. M$’s monopoly is about gone. M$’s ability to leverage it’s monopoly dies with it. M$’s growth is a house of cards. Businesses, consumers and OEMs are all heading for the doors.

  6. DrLoser says:

    RedHat does not put a floor under M$ or Oracle. They compete toe to toe with them.

    Interesting observation, Robert. I’m not sure that RedHat “competes” with Oracle. In fact, given the fact that RedHat sells into the corporate sector, I would be immensely surprised to find that they make much less than 50% of their revenue by supporting Linux systems that don’t run Oracle.

    But, this “toe-to-toe” thing (and I wish all of you would stop with the battlefield and boxing ring metaphors):

    M$’s “server” revenue last year: $18.7billion
    RedHat’s revenue last year: $965 million but they also had $167 million in “training” revenue.

    Bully for that $167 million!

    Now, I really don’t care, but don’t you think that a ratio of 20:1 (approx) is less a toe-to-toe and more a David and Goliath sort of thing?

    And before you ask: no, I don’t think that RedHat has a sling-shot. I don’t think they have a chance in hell of overtaking the MS server business, or even coming close. I do think they have a decent business, and I do think they will continue to grow at about 5% a year.

    Just like any other successful large-scale business in the field of IT.

    Like, say, Microsoft.

  7. DrLoser says:

    @BW:

    Purely on a point of interest:

    BTW, I took the “Bing Challenge” that Microsoft has been pushing on-line lately. Google won 3-2 on my searches although it was hard to pick on anyone test. They came up with the same links usually, just different orders.

    Since I work for Bing (and obviously I encourage everybody here to check out http://www.bing.com, simply because nobody here likes a monopoly and in fact Bing is quite good apart from the bits I’ve contributed), I have of course taken the same challenge.

    In fact I took it, I think, three times.

    The results were 3/2, 2/3, 3/2 in favour of Google. The difference wasn’t great, but Google had the edge. (And I will be honest here and point out that in the de-DE market it is probably 20% ahead).

    Both are free, and Bing is in fact losing That Other Operating System scads of money by the quarter. So, what are you waiting for, Mr Pogson? Push Bing as hard as you can! It doesn’t cost you a penny, and it loses Microsoft hundreds of millions!

    What’s not to like?

    PS I do Related Search (it’s on the right rail and inline). I like to think that our related search is more helpful than Google’s related search.

    But I’m willing to be proved wrong.

  8. bw wrote, “There is a place under the sun for just about anyone who can find a new trend and stay with it. You can’t do that very effectively with a totally free thing like Linux, though. All you can do is create a sort of floor under the commercial products that keeps the proprietary products on their toes.”

    That’s nonsense. RedHat does not put a floor under M$ or Oracle. They compete toe to toe with them.

    M$’s “server” revenue last year: $18.7billion
    RedHat’s revenue last year: $965 million but they also had $167 million in “training” revenue.

    IDC reports $billions in server revenue for GNU/Linux so RedHat had a decent share of that globally. So, GNU/Linux while being $free does effectively generate a lot of revenue. bw’s point of view is that M$ does not make “too much” revenue. I think Red Hat and others make enough revenue. From the customers’ point of view GNU/Linux makes a lot of sense. Businesses should give customers what they want instead of steering customers into lock-in and greater expense. M$ gets a free ride for servers by locking people into their whimpy OS which needs a server just to be manageable. They they don’t follow standards so servers also get locked in. That’s definitely good for customers. Customers who are not locked in widely choose GNU/Linux. e.g. HPC and web servers.

    M$ does not compete at all. It leverages monopoly.

  9. oiaohm says:

    bw if you like Google entering the OS market track to Microsoft CEO being stupid. There was really no gain for Google to enter the OS market without a threat to them.

    bw
    –You are obsessing on Microsoft! Microsoft has made a fantastic business out of selling the personal computer OS product and layered applications such as Microsoft Office. They have used the client success to build on a similar success story in servers.–
    Lot of anti-trust issues along the way. Sorry you are only remembering half the history.

    Of course you have to say I am obsessing over Microsoft. Sorry history is history get use to it. Only event on record that could possible explain goggle entering OS market is MS threat.

    bw
    –Why they did that is still a mystery to me, and your explanations are absurd on their face.–
    Researching history you have to at time make informed presumes why particular events happened. The most likely is the one you have evidence for is general rule of history research. So you cannot find any other recorded event other than the one I found that could possibly explain googles action right bw. So it has to be presumed until proven other wise and you look for items attempting to disprove it. Basic science theory work.

    bw
    –There is a place under the sun for just about anyone who can find a new trend and stay with it. You can’t do that very effectively with a totally free thing like Linux, though. All you can do is create a sort of floor under the commercial products that keeps the proprietary products on their toes.–

    You are still a idiot. Commercial supported products is part of the FOSS world. Commercial Products and FOSS do mesh.

    FOSS is about providing the frameworks. Where it goes from there is because of the Freedom it provides. This is why the free in foss refers to Free as in Speech not free as in beer. There is a important difference Free as in Speech if you want something printed or produced you still have to pay.

    Yes Commercial side of FOSS has historic example in commercial print shops providing flyers to people doing free speech. How much harder is it to do a free speech push without means to print in volume.

    This is why your arguments here go on deaf ears because you are foolishly trying to put up arguments that FOSS and Commercial don’t mix when they do.

    bw
    –but the real success is Android and Google’s efforts to popularize it.–

    Why this is wrong is explained in a simple quote.
    “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Isaac Newton

    Exactly where would have Google found the billions required to develop a OS kernel. The reality Android would not be able to exist without a free base to start from. Other OS’s will appear in future from the same Free Base.

    Yes Google has done a good job advertising Android but its existence tracks to Linux. In fact Linux ability to work wellish on arm chips tracks to being used inside routers even before it appears in phones.

    History of Linux evolution is very interesting. Without the prior history the Linux kernel would not have been ready for Google usage in Android. Android stands on top of a lot of historic Linux events that got it to the point Google could customise it for there usage.

    Sorry bw you are like Der Balrog with a very limit understanding.

    Do you think Linux world is going to stop with Android as the only Linux phone OS?? The answer is no its not going to stop as the only one. Has there been Other Linux OS’s in the phone market at the same time as android? Yes there have been.

    The free speech effect of FOSS basically. Commercial parties are expected to take FOSS and take advantage of it. As long as they respect and give back the FOSS world is happy about it.

  10. bw says:

    You are obsessing on Microsoft! Microsoft has made a fantastic business out of selling the personal computer OS product and layered applications such as Microsoft Office. They have used the client success to build on a similar success story in servers. Nothing in the history of computing really comes near that sort of achievement. They had the right stuff at the right time in history. You need to get over that.

    The world has progressed onward to mobile devices and other companies, notably Apple, are the dominant suppliers who set the standard of comparison.

    Google is very successful in their own right and has the dominant lead in internet search based advertising. Facebook and Twitter dominate their niches in social media. Phone suppliers like ATT and Verizon are the leaders in communications network services.

    There is a place under the sun for just about anyone who can find a new trend and stay with it. You can’t do that very effectively with a totally free thing like Linux, though. All you can do is create a sort of floor under the commercial products that keeps the proprietary products on their toes.

    You can claim victories for Linux because Google used some parts of it for Android, but the real success is Android and Google’s efforts to popularize it. Why they did that is still a mystery to me, and your explanations are absurd on their face.

  11. oiaohm says:

    bw there is a little problem.

    Steve Ballmer is still Microsoft CEO right bw.
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html Some very important reading.
    Recorded actions. CEO of Microsoft directly threaten google May 2005 .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29
    Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. 3 months latter bw.

    bw Android predate Chrome OS and Chrome by a long way.

    Chrome September 2, 2008 initial release. First development sometime in 2007. So at least 2 years after Android starts. July 7, 2009 first announcement of Chrome OS.

    Time-lines Google had to start OS development somewhere for the non server market. For the non server market its Android that leads to Chrome OS existence.

    Google never believed Chrome would take off due to the Web browser market being so saturated(or so they believed). Chrome was an example of what could be done to make a Web browser secure.

    So chrome OS existence is more a twist of fate. Android is a response to a threat.

    Also by Goggle tradition run multi products into a single market and see what one lives.

    Google is not going to leave Microsoft in its location with market dominance while there is a direct threat to kill it.

    bw anti-trust regulators are very slow to respond ask Novell over Office suite they have. By the time anti-trust regulators respond Google could be dead.

    Exactly why should not Google believe that Microsoft will attempt any stunt. So is getting prepared for war.

    Start of android has been the collapse of MS Phone OS’s in business.

    DrLoser PS Chrome is not Android browser from start. Both can provide information back to Google. Remember Google rarely plays just one card to get a market. The idea of there own browser feeding information back to Google starts before Google makes Chrome. It starts inside Android a few years before Chrome.

  12. bw says:

    “the more information that Google can mine.”

    That might be a reason to push Chrome, if it were true, but not Android. Very nearly 100% of the Chrome users in the world use it on Windows or Mac, I bet. Google doesn’t need to make an OS to push search usage. Google dominates the search business just like Windows dominates the PC OS business.

    BTW, I took the “Bing Challenge” that Microsoft has been pushing on-line lately. Google won 3-2 on my searches although it was hard to pick on anyone test. They came up with the same links usually, just different orders.

    If Apple or Microsoft tried to use their OS to squash search they would be severely chastised by both the customers and anti-trust regulators. Google is much more likely to get into anti-trust trouble there.

  13. ram says:

    Robert Pogson said: “Huge growth sustained over years is not a fad but a movement to smaller cheaper computers.”

    You got that right! They also want them to use less power, further reducing operating costs.

    I note that today, Intel released its newest NUC boxen. The processor is relatively feeble, but with 8 GB of DDR3, a fair sized SSD, and a price UNDER A$200 each, ex-tax, wholesale, we can expect to be seeing these low power consumption Linux boxen in many corporate offices.

  14. oiaohm says:

    bw
    “That has to be the dumbest idea that I have heard from you to-date.”
    Just because a idea should dumb does not have base in recorded actions.

  15. DrLoser says:

    Actually, dumb though oiaohm consistently is, he may have got it right for once.

    The more Chromes out there, and the less IE10s, the more information that Google can mine.

    Sad little world we live in, isn’t it?

  16. bw says:

    ” Google entered the OS market to protect there existing search market”

    That has to be the dumbest idea that I have heard from you to-date.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog
    –Unfortunately your outrage is unjustified. You claim that there’s an ethical problem, that using BSD code for proprietary purposes is wrong. Well, it’s not, because the license explicitly allows it. That is, in fact, the right way to do IT, giving developers the ultimate freedom.–
    Wine project history.
    http://wiki.winehq.org/WineHistory

    There is a risk that a BSD project will collapse because no one support it. Proprietary purposes is not wrong. There become a issue where everyone doing for Proprietary Purposes forgets advantage of sharing code and gets into a huge dog fight trying to beat each other for market share. Result is there programs get buggy. Yes BSD network stack that was used by most OS’s. Bugs fixed up stream were not making it down stream due to the company to company fighting.

    Der Balrog LGPL might not be ideal but its about the best license to avoid dog fighting. ASL 2.0 is about second best. ASL 2.0 prevents patents being used to block features implemented in something ASL. So a company modify something ASL cannot prevent someone else re-implementing the feature they did not release that they inserted into something ASL.

    Both ASL and LGPL contain clauses to prevent company vs company dog fights getting too bad.

    Der Balrog history does suggest BSD is not that great and items like MIT are not that great either.

    Yes the neglect and bit rot of X11 server also traces to MIT license and commercials doing forks and forgetting to care about the core they depend on.

    Really you like bring up completely pointless arguments Der Balrog.

    –The GPL tries to impose morals, it forces developers to give back. That’s a lot like the compulsory gift-giving in Japan. You’ve habitualized it, and that’s why you do it, but there’s no real emotional value behind it anymore.–

    What if its not Morals. Everyone to live with everyone else in peace requires some rules. Shared code between companies need rules or things can go badly wrong.

    Der Balrog besides I can pull out many cases of BSD people screaming about BSD code being used in a LGPL or GPL project so not able to take the alterations back. Really BSD people hate people not giving back as much as GPL people do but they try to come from the moral high ground. They try to believe a fork will have to come back due to the amount of effort to maintain fork. When a fork is strong enough its never going to come back BSD people show there true colours.

    Proprietary and BSD does not mix forever. Results of this is is normally the same BSD project project becomes weak compared to a Proprietary using its source base or the BSD project at some point ceases to be a BSD project.

    Der Balrog of course I don’t say people cannot release under BSD. But anyone doing so has to accept Proprietary can destroy them. Yes implement features put patents over them so blocking you from having those features so making project second rate.

    Releasing under ASL 2.0 is about the lowest license I would recommend. There is a requirement to protect projects means to develop as well as allow Proprietary to use it in particular ways.

    Der Balrog licensing is a very complex problem.

  18. oiaohm says:

    bw Google entered the OS market to protect there existing search market as much as able. You think if Microsoft or Apple managed to be 100 percent successful they could effectively lock Google out of being default search so cutting off Advertising stream.

    Android is a scorched earth defence item. Google supporting Android makes perfect sense when you see it for what it is.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    –If you insist on applying an irrelevant term from evolutionary biology, then I would suggest that Microsoft wins on the “survival of the fittest” principle.–

    Evolutionary biology is not static. Its part of understanding why you cannot get Linux people to give up. Did our ancestors give up when the earth was ruled by dinosaurs. Dinosaurs was the Microsoft of there day. Yes the descendants of dinosaurs are still here just a lot smaller. Birds and other reptiles. Evolutionary biology very key point is the world is not set in stone it changes. Survival of the fittest does not have a fixed finish line other than dieing out completely.

    Der Balrog
    http://www.linuxforu.com/2011/04/tracking-the-dna-of-your-android-code/
    Google define of non kernel software is very broad.

    The Linux mix inside your normal Android is not much different to the LAMP stack systems in servers.

    There is an old saying. Actions speak louder than words. Actions of Android says it fairly close to normal GNU/Linux distribution with a fancy ASL licensed front end.

    Big variation is in the libc library. Bionic also this is not without historic precedent. The biggest issue Linux world had with Bionic is that it was required reinventing wheel not that it BSD. Interesting right its BSD not ASL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klibc Yes Klibc could be used its GPL with BSD license core is kinda confusing. Google took lets go the least confusing path guess what Bionic is. Reworked Klibc.

    Der Balrog yes a BSD core Linux exists before Android exists. See Android gets really hard to say what it is. Even what is exposed in the development API’s is not pure ASL. Like Webkit that is LGPLv2.

    Very early Androids like Android 1.0 were very GPL free. This was required to get hardware developers to ship Linux. But the newer like 4.2 Android is getting more LGPL and GPL parts as it ages. So its mutating from an ASL/BSD/Linux to be more GNU/Linux.

  20. Der Balrog says:

    Look what happened to BSD. Apple and M$ use it against the world establishing monopolies globally. That worked our really well. Didn’t it? If you’re going to share the source code, share it.

    Unfortunately your outrage is unjustified. You claim that there’s an ethical problem, that using BSD code for proprietary purposes is wrong. Well, it’s not, because the license explicitly allows it. That is, in fact, the right way to do IT, giving developers the ultimate freedom.

    The GPL tries to impose morals, it forces developers to give back. That’s a lot like the compulsory gift-giving in Japan. You’ve habitualized it, and that’s why you do it, but there’s no real emotional value behind it anymore.

    I’m just wondering why you don’t accuse Linux users. I’d bet that of 10 Linux users only one gives back something meaningful to the community.

    Also, Torvalds stated it plainly enough: Linux developers are to a lesser or a greater part egotists. Sharing the source code has an important social function for them: creating the possibility of acknowledgment and appraisal. It’s unwise to think that source code is shared purely out of altruism.

  21. Der Balrog, quoting Google, wrote, “while we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don’t believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would often force them to do so.”

    So, along comes some monopolist paying developers to produce modifications while hiding the source code, competing against Google and all its users, and Google is happy with that? I don’t think so. This is short-sighted.

    Look what happened to BSD. Apple and M$ use it against the world establishing monopolies globally. That worked our really well. Didn’t it? If you’re going to share the source code, share it.

  22. Der Balrog says:

    It’s a peculiar thing that Google would use GPL Linux kernel but prefer everything else ASL… They spent time, money and manpower avoiding GNU. If you are going to distribute the source code for $0 what’s their motive? I don’t know.

    What, Google’s explanation ain’t enough for you, Pogson?

    We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other licenses such as LGPL.

    Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote openness in the mobile world, but we don’t believe it’s possible to predict or dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don’t believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would often force them to do so.

  23. bw says:

    “I don’t know”

    Google’s motives are not at all clear. To me it is still a competition between Apple and a bunch of others who mostly use Android for either phones or tablets. The conventional way to look at this business is as an Apple vs Samsung or Apple vs Sony or Apple vs Motorola kind of competition. There is a major element of Samsung vs Sony vs HTC vs Nokia vs Motorola and so on. Oh, and remember Amazon and Barnes and Nobel are in there, too.

    There is next to no competition between Microsoft’s OS, Apple’s OS, and Google’s OS. All of the competition is between end user purchased devices. The only OS for sale in all that is Microsoft’s phone and table products. The rest is either proprietary to a single device maker or free for the taking.

    Google seems to want to get a commission on app sales via its store and is trying to get into the device side of things with buying Motorola and selling a Google branded tablet. It does not seem very likely that they can make much money that way, but they have made a lot where no one thought they could before.

  24. Adam King wrote, “Android GNU/Linux”.

    There’s no GNU in Android/Linux. It’s all ASL stuff, not GNU. We looked at the source code. It’s a peculiar thing that Google would use GPL Linux kernel but prefer everything else ASL… They spent time, money and manpower avoiding GNU. If you are going to distribute the source code for $0 what’s their motive? I don’t know.

  25. Adam King says:

    Der Balrog, moving the goalposts, wrote”You should be able to understand that Android adoption does not cause Linux adoption — it does so only when you cling to the narrow viewpoint that Android is Linux, and therefore Android adoption means Linux adoption. But everyone with only half a brain knows that this is a big, old fallacy.”

    Android GNU/Linux is the most popular smartphone platform in the world. Just because people don’t know they’re using GNU/Linux doesn’t mean they’re not actually using GNU/Linux. What so-called normal people know or care about is irrelevant. Soon enough they will understand ffreedom.

  26. Dr Loser says:

    I think, oiaohm, that your stated “first mover” axiom of “Survival of the fittest” suggests that Linux is doomed on the desktop.

    We’ve had general purpose computers for about sixty years now. For thirty of those sixty years, the main OS on the desktop has been either MS-DOS or Windows.

    If you insist on applying an irrelevant term from evolutionary biology, then I would suggest that Microsoft wins on the “survival of the fittest” principle.

    All the other guff you came out with is just that — guff.

  27. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog the basic idea you are missing. Survival of the Fittest.

    –You should be able to understand that Android adoption does not cause Linux adoption — it does so only when you cling to the narrow viewpoint that Android is Linux, and therefore Android adoption means Linux adoption. But everyone with only half a brain knows that this is a big, old fallacy.–

    Sorry from Linux world point of view its Android is still Linux adoption.

    Its part of the basic Survival of the Fittest.idea of Linux Distributions.

    Every Distribution tries something different. The strongest live on. The weakest die. The idea a Distribution would appear strong enough to destroy the rest.

    This idea is also the cause war between KDE and Gnome. The theory would be the strongest would destroy the weakest.

    Next of course idiot you Der Balrog have not picked up QT gaining android support. Or wine project getting Android support.

    Or the fact this exists. http://ppaalanen.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/wayland-on-android-upgrade-to-404-and.html

    Yes next generation Linux interface for desktop Linux to fix all the X11 security holes. Yes it allows single applications at a time.

    Der Balrog exactly what is the different long term between android and any other distribution. Not much just the packaging format and style. Android is more a NixOS style Linux. Yes NixOS is a Linux Distribution. APK and NixOS packaging have a lot in common.

    Der Balrog –Because they don’t know and don’t care that it is Linux.–

    Does end user buying product need to care so Linux developers are paid to work on Linux by Hardware companies. Answer no Der Balrog.

    We don’t need end users to care about Linux. We just need end users to accept using it in some form to fund development and provide reasons for hardware makers to supply us with drivers.

    –That the same goes for Windows if a person acquires a computer with Windows pre-installed is self-evident. But that’s not the issue.–
    It is not a non issue. It shows this you are a true moron. If it fine for Windows using person not to care it perfectly fine for a Linux using person not to care. In fact that is one of the stated goals of Ubuntu. I don’t think Ubuntu does a great job of achieving it.

    Market acceptance is measured by if the users use it. Not if they care about it. You are measuring if they care about it you are measuring fans not acceptance.

    Yes the stupid point of acceptance has nothing todo with end users caring. You accept wearing shoes right. You don’t normally care about brand if you are not fan right.

    Der Balrog really you have complained about my english I think you better go away and read what acceptance means.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance

    Simple reality of acceptance if you don’t reject it you accept it. If you knew basic english words like Acceptance you would not be half the idiot you are.

    Android is an acceptable form of Linux that is not causing major rejection.

    Reality using the word Acceptance the way you are is just another Jane & Joe type example just proven you are a bigger idiot.

    How come you an idiot here. There are 5 types of Acceptance. You did not state want one you are referring to. So if any of the 5 apply you are wrong.

    Linux in Android is Implied Acceptance. This is acceptance by action.

    Fan style acceptance is Expressed Acceptance maybe or Social acceptance.

    Adoption only require any one of the 5 forms of Acceptance. Again failure to state type most likely because you are such a english moron that you did not know you had to.

    So yes Android Adoption is Linux Adoption in generic type.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adoption Yes type 3 of adoption has no requirement on you to willing choose. I could say Der Balrog has adoption of english. Because you do use english words just not well. Its a very fancy insult in fact.

    The reality your complete arguement is dead in water about time you accept it unless you rewrite it then I still will hammer you. Because you have already proved windows did not need adoption by personal will.

  28. Der Balrog says:

    You’re making no sense, Hamster. Pogson likes to cite Android adoption as a proof that Linux works and is accepted by people. That can’t be true. Because they don’t know and don’t care that it is Linux. That the same goes for Windows if a person acquires a computer with Windows pre-installed is self-evident. But that’s not the issue.

    You should be able to understand that Android adoption does not cause Linux adoption — it does so only when you cling to the narrow viewpoint that Android is Linux, and therefore Android adoption means Linux adoption. But everyone with only half a brain knows that this is a big, old fallacy.

    Android is ‘cool’, but Linux gives people still the creeps.

  29. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog Little test of knowledge. What was the basic idea that is the reason why Many Linux distributions formed in the first place.

    If Android defeats every other Linux Distribution in existence this would still be following the basic idea that allowed many distributions to form. The idea pre-dates Linux by a long way and its the basic idea of the multi verse of distributions.

  30. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog
    –Jane & Joe do not care that Android is built on top of the Linux kernel.–

    Der Balrog and get this threw your thick head. Linux developers and people like don’t care if Jane & Joe care if Android is built on top of a Linux kernel.

    The thing we care about is funding to continue development. I could say that Jane & Joe don’t care that Windows is installed on a computer either as long as there favorate application works.

    Talking about Jane & Joe examples basically is attempting to prove you are a idiot Der Balrog so basically stop doing it. Reality the general Jane & Joe examples you could say they don’t care if they get flatted by a bus as well.

  31. Der Balrog says:

    Pogson still believes that smartphones and tablets will usher in the age of Linux. Thus there is need to repeat it again:

    Jane & Joe do not care that Android is built on top of the Linux kernel.

  32. bw says:

    “Further look at it from the customer’s point of view. Why should M$ grow fat from their business?”

    That is an important observation, I agree, although I bet we don’t agree on the answer. From a customer’s point of view the important thing is that the customer receives maximum value overall. “This thing pays for itself!” would be the goal where a commercial customer gets a higher benefit out of a product than its raw cost.

    Getting away from software, it is like the difference between paying a dozen laborers with shovels or a single backhoe operator-owner to dig a needed ditch. Paid results can even be better than free ones if the results are more beneficial to the payer. The key number is the difference between what something produces and what it costs, not the cost itself.

    For the consumer, the same sort of thing is applicable. It is really very hard to see any price advantage in using Linux on a computer versus using Windows if all computers, ignoring Macs for the sake of argument, come with Windows anyway.

    In places where people are not so used to getting Windows with a new computer, such as the India or other Asian sources you occasionally cite, there is a slight price difference in some cases that adds to the attraction of a Linux computer, but not in the United States. Or Canada as far as I know.

    As these areas expand and become more affluent, it is likely that Microsoft will not be able to sell as efficiently or as dominantly there as they do here, but that is just business. For today, Microsoft is still building revenues year after year. It is not the go-go sort of thing it once was and the hot areas are now social media companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but it is a very respectable business still and is likely to remain such for a long time to come.

    From a stockholder’s point of view, MSFT has a higher revenue and profit and value per share than they had in the past, particularly in light of the huge share buy back that they have been doing the past 5 or 6 years. They are hardly “sinking”.

  33. oiaohm says:

    bw to make it really clear.

    These are all annual revues.
    All nicely checkable out here. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Microsoft_(MSFT)/Data/Revenue/2012
    MS
    2007 51.12B
    2008 60.02B Ok normal MS revenue growth.
    2009 58.44B Ok what the hell recession caught MS.
    2010 62.48B returning to normal.
    2011 69.94B
    2012 73.72B.
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Red_Hat_%28RHT%29/Data/Revenue/2012
    Redhat what recession.
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_%28AAPL%29/Data/Revenue/2012
    Apple what recession.
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Google_%28GOOG%29/Data/Revenue/2011
    Yes Apple is many times bigger than Microsoft today even that it was smaller than MS in 2007-2008. Apple is showing the same growth curve Redhat is. Redhat just started latter.

    Google interested the recession value shows in
    2008-2009. Exactly where MS takes a major thump. Google stays level where Microsoft goes backwards.

    Google being advertising you would expect it to be effected.

    Apparently Microsoft is not recession proof.
    Recession equals Microsoft income stalling.

    dw when you look at debt things get more worring.
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Red_Hat_%28RHT%29/Data/Total_Liabilities Fairly stable.

    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Microsoft_%28MSFT%29/Data/Total_Liabilities/2012
    Not so much.

    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Microsoft_%28MSFT%29/Data/Long-Term_Debt/2012 Even more worrying. Apple and Redhat both have 0 long term debt.

    Apples liabilities are huge but there income also is way larger than Microsoft. Same with IBM huge income huge liabilities but liabilities are paid and cleared every year.

    Microsoft is not the only company that is looking worrying. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Oracle_%28ORCL%29/Data/Long-Term_Debt/2012
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Oracle_%28ORCL%29/Data/Revenue/2012
    Basically both Microsoft and Oracle are packing on the pounds of debt. This hinders a companies means to deal with failures.

    Yes early warning to a possible failing company is packing on the debt.

    Recession right now neither Microsoft or Oracle are in a good place to weather it. Means to take on debt and pay debt are key to deal with bad outcomes from Recession.

  34. bw wrote, “Microsoft increased their revenues by $13,300M while Red Had only increased their revenues by a measly $600M, making Microsoft some 20 times better in terms of revenue increase than Red Hat.”

    You need to compare apples with apples. How did M$’s server segment do?

    2008 revenue $13189 million

    2012 revenue $18686 million

    That’s an increase of $5.4 billion, not bad but look at operating income:

    2008 $4261 million = 32% of revenue

    2012 $7431 million = 39.7% of revenue

    They are doing well on servers but they have to work for it. The client division has margins twice as large and falling fast.

    Further look at it from the customer’s point of view. Why should M$ grow fat from their business? Why not go with the smaller businesses that really care and work harder for smaller margins?

  35. oiaohm says:

    bw also the other thing to note Redhat is making more products today. Microsoft is making less. You can always increase profits in short term by killing off products.

  36. oiaohm says:

    Sub-prime disaster is 2007. At the start of the subprime redhat http://news.cnet.com/Red-Hat-revenue-up,-profit-down/2100-1014_3-6171824.html

    Yes 217.5 Million income. 2006 there were some financial issues as well before the sub-prime effect fully hit.

    Your time window is wrong bw. It was not only red-hat with the growing revenue in that time frame.

    –unimpeded– I would not say so. You are also missing MS has increased debt over the time frame.

    2008 to 2012 is going over a lot of good times. Remember what I said FOSS does well in the bad. The closed appears todo well in the good. Mirrors to each other. Redhat hit 1 billion by 2010. So from 2007-2010 Redhat quads. Global economy gets back on it feet kinda around 2010 and redhat growth slows.

    2007-2010 MS really did not have a great time. Smaller closed source companies disappeared in that timeframe.

  37. bw says:

    In the period from 2008 to 2012, Red Hat boosted their revenues from $523M to $1,133M (hardly “quaded”, but nevertheless respectable) whereas Microsoft went from $60.4B to $73.7B. Stated as a percentage, Red Hat went up more than 140% and Microsoft only went up some 20%. So Red Hat wins the percentage game by a 7 to 1 margin.

    However, Microsoft increased their revenues by $13,300M while Red Had only increased their revenues by a measly $600M, making Microsoft some 20 times better in terms of revenue increase than Red Hat.

    None of that is pertinent, though. The question was in regard to whether Microsoft’s ship is sinking or not and it is certainly afloat and bobbing ever higher as time goes on. There is no requirement that Microsoft have the only ship at sea and there is no need to compare ships to one another. It is enough that the SS Microsoft is plainly sailing unimpeded through the sea of progress.

    SS Microsoft is a proud ocean liner contrasted to the Little Toot sort of ugly tugboat that is operated by Red Hat.

  38. oiaohm says:

    bw in the recession Redhat quaded their income. Most Linux providers doubled their profits I would not say Microsoft prospered in the recession. Held own maybe yes. Thing to remember Redhats income did not drop when the recession ended.

    Basically recession seams to send Linux companies into over drive with massive growing incomes. Linux companies growth seams to flatten out when there is not a recession.

    The companies that went out of business in the software industry in the recession was the closed source ones. FOSS ones just had a party.

    So basically FOSS seams to act like an exact mirror to MS performance. Closed source does well in boom times and FOSS not that great but holds it own. Closed source does badly in recession and FOSS does great.

    So bring on another recession.

  39. bw says:

    “Meanwhile, M$ rides a sinking ship.”

    It is not easy to see that. They made more money and more profits this year than last year and that has been the case for decades now. True, they had some tougher times during the great recession, but a lot of companies went out of business entirely and Microsoft actually prospered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>