That Other OS An Also-Ran In Q1 2013 Tablets Shipped

By this time next year, Android/Linux will be the giant of tablet OS.
Tablet_OS_1Q2013

It’s not just the current performance that matters. It’s the growth rate, 247% year over year. iOS with a much smaller share has growth of only 65%. That other OS has a spectacular 700% growth rate, but even if they could duplicate that this year, they would have a smaller share than iOS…

This comes after M$ pulled out all the stops and dictated how UEFI would work and spent hundreds of $millions on advertising. They could not even come close with all their restrictions and leverage. In the last year, the monopoly has died. There are just a few retail shelves to be swept clean of M$’s OS. By next year, */Linux will be swarming all over and M$ will have to pay people to listen.

see Worldwide Tablet Market Surges Ahead on Strong First Quarter Sales, Says IDC

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.

14 Responses to That Other OS An Also-Ran In Q1 2013 Tablets Shipped

  1. bw says:

    “I can pull out the case files as well that say exactly the same thing you bullshit writer bw”

    No, you cannot, you oafish boor. Presumably you mean, although your clumsy word construction did not say, that you can show a contract clause that states that the OEM must pay Microsoft for a license for computers shipped with another, non-Microsoft OS installed. You will not be able to find that.

    What the contract said was that the OEM would ship MS-DOS pre-installed on all units in some named product line. For that agreement, a favorable price was given.

  2. bw says:

    “bw, apparently being schizo, wrote, “There is no antitrust issue here.” ”

    I don’t see how schizophrenia would ever apply to this, but the reason that the two statements appear contradictory is that they are statements from two different topics. You can see the breaks where I cite different statements that I am responding to in the oiaohm post.

    The notion that there is no antitrust issue is in response to oiaohm’s notion that collecting patent royalties is somehow an antitrust issue. It plainly is not.

    The bit about exclusive use of MSDOS was in reply to an inane rehash of my previous post that plainly said that the intent of the contract was to deal exclusively and that was challenged by the US government and Microsoft agreed to stop doing it.

    You need to read it all to get the context.

    One interesting aspect of all this is that the antitrust dependency of many of these actions is based on a finding that the violator had effective monopoly power. If Microsoft loses that power, as you claim they already have, is Microsoft free to resume such practices?

  3. bw, apparently being schizo, wrote, “There is no antitrust issue here.” and “Microsoft was giving a discount for exclusivity and the OEM agreed to ship nothing but MSDOS as part of a contract.”

    Clearly, exclusive dealing is an anti-trust issue.

    “The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.”

    15 USC 2: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

    From the US DC Court of Appeals:
    “Ginsburg, Chief Judge: In United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Microsoft III), we affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court holding Microsoft had violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, “

  4. oiaohm says:

    bw yes if you like it or not alternative OS’s where shipping before Linux was released. They lost because it was pay MS for MS Dos and Pay the maker of the OS for there OS as well.

    So they were priced out the market by MS anti-trust action.

  5. oiaohm says:

    bw
    –Microsoft was giving a discount for exclusivity and the OEM agreed to ship nothing but MSDOS as part of a contract.–
    I can read. And what you are saying is not the contract that was at issue. The contract with Microsoft was not exclusivity of shipping only MS-Dos.

    –1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system.–

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

    Its a case you cannot read again and are making things up bw.

    The case was to ship MS Dos they OEM had to agree to pay for every machine they made.

    I can pull out the case files as well that say exactly the same thing you bullshit writer bw.

    The usage of patents today by Microsoft is almost exactly the same and what Microsoft got pulled up on anti-trust in the past.

  6. bw says:

    “bw the per processor license is very much like the patent license game Microsoft is playing.”

    I guess that you do not understand the difference between a contract and a patent then.

    “This is the same anti-trust problem.”

    No it is not. There is no antitrust issue here.

    “There were MS Dos clones the complete time of MS Dos.”

    None of which were very popular with customers. I meant “no other choice” from a business standpoint. It was a lot like Linux. They existed, but no one wanted them.

    “If a OEM under this license shipped computer without OS they still had to pay it to Microsoft for MS Dos.”

    That is what I already said. Can’t you read? Microsoft was giving a discount for exclusivity and the OEM agreed to ship nothing but MSDOS as part of a contract. They would never ship a computer without an OS in that case. They had agreed to not do that.

    “Microsoft is not going to win against Android with patents.”

    I don’t think that they care about any contest “against Android”. Their purpose is to make money and they are making money when an Android device ships. That is their game and they are clearly winning.

  7. oiaohm says:

    bw the per processor license is very much like the patent license game Microsoft is playing.

    bw MS does not change there patent usage licenses when the hardware contains MS software. Yet then is attempting to change as much in patent licenses when running Android as what they sell there OS to OEM’s for.

    This is the same anti-trust problem.

    Either OEM’s have to pay for the patents or they don’t.

    If they have to pay for the patents this is independent to software.

    “there really was no other choice”
    There were MS Dos clones the complete time of MS Dos. In fact same price or lower at times. Multi year contracts kept them mostly out market.

    bw its not the first time that a company that has had 2 anti-trust cases that the judge of the first cannot be the judge of the second. Its a case the judge has seen more information than applies to the current case at hand.

    Also you need to read “per processor” license. If a OEM under this license shipped computer without OS they still had to pay it to Microsoft for MS Dos.

    The patents are a redo of the same thing.

    bw Microsoft is not going to win against Android with patents. All Microsoft will successfully do is push the cost of their products up.

    Patents don’t work for anyone other than Patent trolls.

  8. bw says:

    “Also you have to remember the first anti-trust case against Microsoft was for charging money for hardware they did not have there OS on.”

    I have heard words to that effect so often that I finally looked into it. The issue is almost always misstated as was done here. Microsoft was threatened with antitrust litigation over its practice of offering a substantial discount for MSDOS to OEMs who would agree to use it exclusively on a product line. The OEMs paid for each computer shipped under that agreement so that their entire production count was simply multiplied by the license fee per unit to get a total.

    That became known as the “per processor” license, but the real intent was for exclusivity. It was assumed that the OEM would not ship anything but MSDOS since a) there really was no other choice and b) they had already paid for the MSDOS license. This was compounded by signing up OEMs for multiple year terms.

    The net effect was to lock up the OEM’s business for a significant time and virtually guarantee that competitors would not have much of an opportunity to get into the business. The US government disagreed with that and Microsoft came to a settlement in 1994 that was affirmed a year later, ironically by the very judge who was later dismissed from a subsequent antitrust case due to the appearance of bias.

    In that settlement, the forced exclusivity was eliminated along with multi-year contracts. It had nothing to do with “charging money for hardware they did not have there OS on” even if you spell it correctly.

  9. oiaohm says:

    bw “Only if hell freezes over, oiaohm. Keep up the desperate thoughts! lol”

    Sorry its not if hell freezes over. Standard required patents Microsoft has proven limited rights to charge fees on.

    Yes the Motorola case that Microsoft has just won threatens to bite them. Fat patents and many other MS patents are in fact required to implement particular standards. Yes Microsoft got exfat for example written into solid state media specs.

    The patent battles are long from over.

    Also you have to remember the first anti-trust case against Microsoft was for charging money for hardware they did not have there OS on.

    There are a stack of ticking time bombs. bw. Even when Motorola appears to be losing in there battle with Microsoft they are not. The rulings against Motorola can be applied to MS patents charge rates.

    The issue here Motorola has more patents than Microsoft. So do most of the hardware makers. Limit the price of all patents to a fixed value. Microsoft loses.

  10. bw says:

    “So everything Microsoft gets in on patents could be lost paying out the patents making there products.”

    Only if hell freezes over, oiaohm. Keep up the desperate thoughts! lol

  11. oiaohm says:

    bw in fact Android patents are not a free lunch. Motorola was successful at proving that its legally fine to charge Microsoft for patent usage and change no one else.

    So everything Microsoft gets in on patents could be lost paying out the patents making there products.

    Patents could be the reason why Microsoft stops making products at all.

  12. bw says:

    Percentages are one thing, but total revenue is quite another. I was surprised to see that Surface sales are as high as reported. 900K units in the last quarter with strong growth bodes for maybe 4 million units or more annually and a corresponding sales revenue greater than $2B. That isn’t a lot compared to other gold mines in the Microsoft collection or to Apple’s huge revenues, but it is almost twice the annual revenue of the Linux leader, Red Hat.

    Then there is the patent royalty revenues being paid by the Android device makers. Such a surge in Android units can only be a real boon for Redmond whose only effort will be in hauling all that money to the bank.

    Tablets and even phones are proving to be a good source of income for Microsoft even in the face of declining PC unit volume.

  13. Why is that Other OS even on the pie chart? Blackberry and Chrome probably are bigger. “Selling” an OS is so 1980’s. The money is now following Apple’s model of selling the hardware and using the software to facilitate sales. I guess that’s why their turning to patent extortion, but I think even that won’t be big enough to save them.

  14. Mats Hagglund says:

    Why to invest 500 or even 1000 € for a tablet if you can do the same with less than 200 €?

    Now even Mr Wilson might realize that both Apple and Microsoft ecosystems are absolutely too expensive for modern global mobile markets. All they have to offer now is just hype, FUD and patent trolling.

Leave a Reply