next »

[ChristophD]

But sometimes something comes along that Microsoft can't conquer, and Microsoft has to adapt to it, contrary to what it wants. I think ARM netbooks, for several reasons, are just that sort of situation.

Very well said! :-)

[teapot]

You say that Microsoft will launch an advertising program to fool people about this. Well maybe so, but it won't work for very long. There is huge attention on the netbook market, word gets around, and I think a lot of oem's will be behind the ARM netbooks, so Microsoft isn't going to get very far this way.

It did last time when Windows CE destroyed PDA and first mini-notebooks. It also did when Microsoft convinced cellular providers to promote Windows Mobile on smartphones while excluding other, superior systems. Even now I see billboards and buses plastered with Windows ads that have pictures of a single image spanning screens of monitors, PDAs and phones, apparently implying that all those devices run Windows. Few months ago it was even more blatant with "Windows had left the building" and similar ads.

Regarding licensing fees, from all I have read it makes an enormous amoung of money from consumer sales.

Microsoft gets a lot of money from that, however it does not see that market as being worthy applying any effort -- it can tolerate high percentage of illegal home desktop copies as long as it keeps desktop Linux at bay. If by any chance 100% of home desktops became illegal, Microsoft will prefer to keep them rather than lose any visible percentage to anything else. Corporate desktops, on the other hand, are something Microsoft sees as a cash cow, and it applies an effort to extract as much revenue from it as possible.

And its lock-in in the corporation is mainly due to its development tools and the immense amount of in-house and propriatary code that run only on Windows

I know everything about those tools and in-house proprietary code. In my experience when it's really tied to Windows, it's such a horrible mess, in-house development for the next Windows-only version would be at least as expensive as a port to any unixlike OS.

On the other hand, off the shelf software, Windows-only consultants and management's ignorance about alternatives are true force behind this the lock-in. But to keep managers ignorant and prevent non-Windows-oriented developers from entering the market (as employees, consultants and off the shelf software developers) Microsoft needs home desktop monopoly at any cost. And by any cost I mean any cost short of subsidizing it with all their corporate revenue. They are dead without it, and they know that.

You say Microsoft wouldn't accept a disruption of its development model. I say this situation may well force it to.

Microsoft can't be forced into doing something it isn't capable of doing. When such a thing happens, Microsoft falls back to its usual tactic -- switching from taking over the market into destroying it until everyone is back on Microsoft-dominated desktops.

I think we have a basic disagreement about how much power and freedom Microsoft has. Yes, it has run over the rest of the market in many areas. But sometimes something comes along that Microsoft can't conquer, and Microsoft has to adapt to it, contrary to what it wants.

Microsoft never ever adapted to anything. At best it can subvert things (ex: servers with NT/2000/ up to Server 2008 line, Internet with Internet Explorer) while keeping the processes and models that are incompatible with those things.

I think ARM netbooks, for several reasons, are just that sort of situation. 

And I predict the only way Microsoft will react to this -- trying to take over, failing, then creating confusion and doing everything to discredit the whole segment. Maybe buddying up with Intel on a "Don't use wimpy processors, use Atom!!!" campaign.

[ChristophD]

Gentlemen, I hate to stop a good discussion but we're getting ever so slightly offtopic here... ;-)

[eduardomontez]

I agree.

[eduardomontez]

An ARM executive says Microsoft isn't porting any os to ARM for netbooks.

http://blogs.ft.com/techblog/2009/03/microsoft-shunning-arm-based-netbooks/

Remember, all this matters to oplc because ARM seems like the best choice for the XO-2, but Negroponte says olpc is supporting Windows because a lot of governments want it.

[ChristophD]

Interesting article, thanks for the link!

[Wayan Vota]

And now its semi-official - the XO-2 will run on ARM:

One Laptop Per Child is set to dump x86 processors, instead opting to put low-power Arm-based processors in its next-generation XO-2 laptop with the aim of improving battery life.

[mavrothal]

And now its semi-official - the XO-2 will run on ARM:

Given the strong OLPC desire for "dual boot" (eg Windows) and the current level of Fedora support for ARM processors,  I'll wait to become official...

[eduardomontez]

"It will take us 12 to 18 months to get the first XO 2.0's out," Negroponte told ZDNet Asia's sister site ZDNet UK via e-mail. "By then, I am convinced Microsoft will have Windows on the ARM."

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62052245,00.htm

I assume from the context of the article he meant Windows 7, not CE, but I can't be absolutely certain.