TR Forums

FireGryphon wrote:

A closed system with a single, company-controlled marketplace is central to the Apple software model

For iOS. That is not the case with OS X.

FireGryphon wrote:

and it's also the model that Microsoft is trying.

For the Metro UI. The classic desktop does not use that app store model.

FireGryphon wrote:

The only difference between the two is that Apple does it right, and Microsoft doesn't. Just because one works and the other fails doesn't mean they're different models.

The failure is not with the Metro app store. The failure is a) the Metro UI b) its clash with the classic desktop UI and c) a lack of improvements to the classic desktop UI.

End User wrote:

FireGryphon wrote:

A closed system with a single, company-controlled marketplace is central to the Apple software model

For iOS. That is not the case with OS X.

Apple's smashing success is with iOS, which is why I'm talking about its model. I am not referring to OSX, which, while strong, is nowhere near a threat to Windows' dominance, and follows a very different UI and software distribution model from iOS. OSX is also different from what Microsoft is trying to achieve with the Windows app store.

FireGryphon wrote:

and it's also the model that Microsoft is trying.

For the Metro UI. The classic desktop does not use that app store model.

Correct, but the problem everyone has with Windows 8 is that it tried to suppress the desktop UI into oblivion and push the Metro UI on users. Microsoft clearly wanted users to use Metro UI apps, and have the desktop as a backup for legacy apps. In the case of Windows RT, Microsoft tried to appeal to forward-thinkers and do away with the desktop altogether. It's because of the user outcry (and voting with wallets in the case of RT tablets, and heck, Win8 sales in general) that Microsoft saw it couldn't completely abandon the desktop UI as it had hoped, and is forced to revive it. Note how every successive version of Win8 after its initial release makes the desktop UI more central -- first 8.1 made it possible to hide the Start screen to the point of consigning it to irrelevance, then the rumors of Windows 9 say that Metro UI apps will run windowed in desktop mode.

FireGryphon wrote:

The only difference between the two is that Apple does it right, and Microsoft doesn't. Just because one works and the other fails doesn't mean they're different models.

The failure is not with the Metro app store. The failure is a) the Metro UI b) its clash with the classic desktop UI and c) a lack of improvements to the classic desktop UI.

I didn't say the problem was solely with the Metro app store. I said the problem was with the model Microsoft is trying to follow. It's a model that Apple implemented very well, but Microsoft has so far failed at. That model is: create a new UI and ecosystem for your users that is controlled by your company. When Apple did it, everyone fell into line; iOS caught on and the iTunes store took off. Microsoft tried the same with Metro UI and the Microsoft store, but has clearly met with less success.

A big part of the failure has to do with Metro UI. Another big part of the failure is with the Microsoft app store, that failed to catch on with regular Windows and with Windows RT users. The only way the desktop UI is implicated is that it's so popular, people don't want to abandon it in the desktop space. Windows users want to keep the current desktop UI as it is in Windows 7, not change it.

NovusBogus wrote:

If they don't turn things around with Windows 9 the enterprise world is probably going to deem them unreliable and find other vendors, at which point there's no coming back.

What 'other vendors'? Unbuntu, some flavor of *nix? Surely you jest or have no idea how many in-house applications a normal enterprise creates and/or uses. Talk about bringing down a Fortune 200 company, make them turn to something other than Windows and then have them convert every single app to use said system.

Looking around my corporation there are literally hundreds if not thousands of applications that would need to be re-written and/or wrapped; everything from our fax system to database servers. (all of which are Windows based)

You ask or force a company down that road, especially when IT is not their main business and they will push back. Its just not realistically possible. No Microsoft knows this and is holding the enterprise hostage by it.

FireGryphon wrote:

I said the problem was with the model Microsoft is trying to follow. It's a model that Apple implemented very well, but Microsoft has so far failed at.

Microsoft is not following Apples model. Microsoft has a single OS model. Apple has a dual OS model.

tanker27 wrote:

NovusBogus wrote:

If they don't turn things around with Windows 9 the enterprise world is probably going to deem them unreliable and find other vendors, at which point there's no coming back.

What 'other vendors'? Unbuntu, some flavor of *nix? Surely you jest or have no idea how many in-house applications a normal enterprise creates and/or uses. Talk about bringing down a Fortune 200 company, make them turn to something other than Windows and then have them convert every single app to use said system.

Looking around my corporation there are literally hundreds if not thousands of applications that would need to be re-written and/or wrapped; everything from our fax system to database servers. (all of which are Windows based)

You ask or force a company down that road, especially when IT is not their main business and they will push back. Its just not realistically possible. No Microsoft knows this and is holding the enterprise hostage by it.

Unfortunately, for the global 200, it's most likely that almost all of their apps are now wrapped up into Web Apps which probably could be run on Chrome or Safari (if they don't already do this, in my corp, Chrome and Safari support are required for anything Enterprise IT will support.)

That said, I seriously doubt they will switch to anything else for purely end user training reason. Now if suddenly most users AT HOME were using OSX or something Linux-like (I suspect that'll either be ChromeOS or some desktop Android future version.) THEN those corporations would start thinking about switching.

On the backend front, the majority of servers in the fortune are Linux based not Windows based (least according to shipping statistics.)

I just wanted to sum up via quotes from this thread the *exact* reasoning that Microsoft chose to employ that leads us to this discussion today:

Kougar wrote:

There was no reason they couldn't have kept Win 7's interface with Windows 8 and given the users the option to choose which was best for their type of system. They simply chose to not do so because they wanted to push a unified cross-platform interface across mobile, console, and PCs.

6GTX9 wrote:

Sure, they could sell more if they'd at least install some common sense back into the system. They went from a usable OS to smacking folk in the face with confusion and unfamiliarity. Even if they gave you an option to switch over to a more traditional UI for the home users, that would have been more idea than having the users search all over the place for a back door solution to do the things that came naturally from previous OS builds.

See the common theme here? Give the user the choice to choose between the Metro tile UI OR a Standard flat UI ala Win7. Give the user choice, give the user choice. Microsoft the community would like to know ... are you listening?

Jon wrote:

See the common theme here? Give the user the choice to choose between the Metro tile UI OR a Standard flat UI ala Win7. Give the user choice, give the user choice. Microsoft the community would like to know ... are you listening?

I'd definitely choose a classic desktop option. Rumour has it that Windows 9 will allow Metro apps to run in windows within the classic desktop.

tanker27 wrote:

What 'other vendors'? Unbuntu, some flavor of *nix? Surely you jest or have no idea how many in-house applications a normal enterprise creates and/or uses. Talk about bringing down a Fortune 200 company, make them turn to something other than Windows and then have them convert every single app to use said system.

Looking around my corporation there are literally hundreds if not thousands of applications that would need to be re-written and/or wrapped; everything from our fax system to database servers. (all of which are Windows based)

You ask or force a company down that road, especially when IT is not their main business and they will push back. Its just not realistically possible. No Microsoft knows this and is holding the enterprise hostage by it.

I totally agree with you that dropping legacy x86 would be catastrophic but that's exactly the message that Microsoft is sending, that legacy is dead and we should all welcome our new mobile overlords. This isn't just about 8's terrible UI, it's about the WinDiv/DevDiv showdown and what happened with Silverlight and the general trend leadership is showing that they know what's best for us. For over 20 years it was a given that Microsoft products were stable and wouldn't get pulled out from under you, but now that perception is changing which is why it's so critical that Windows 9 not go farther down the WinRT rabbit hole.

End User wrote:

FireGryphon wrote:

I said the problem was with the model Microsoft is trying to follow. It's a model that Apple implemented very well, but Microsoft has so far failed at.

Microsoft is not following Apples model. Microsoft has a single OS model. Apple has a dual OS model.

There are enough similarities between Microsoft's and Apple's strategies to consider one a copy of the other: both rely on pushing a mobile operating system on users, and having the primary source of products be a company-run store.

In Apple's case, it introduced a new OS aimed at the mobile space, iOS, that only runs apps downloaded from iTunes. In Microsoft's case, it introduced a new OS aimed at the mobile space, Windows RT, that only runs apps downloaded from the Microsoft store. That's a pretty direct, apples-to-apples comparison.

The regular version of Windows 8 is a bit different, but still shares many similarities with Apple's model. Microsoft felt it had to let its users down more softly in the desktop space. It only pushed Modern UI and stressed the Microsoft store rather than requiring either, but made it difficult to get around for new users. It allowed the desktop UI and other avenues of software distribution as a sort of legacy feature.

Both solutions failed so completely that Microsoft has to fix it by returning the desktop ecosystem to the fore in all its OS products. Its full copy of Apple cost Microsoft $900 million, and countless however much else from its inadequate imitation in the x86 space.

FireGryphon wrote:

Both solutions failed so completely that Microsoft has to fix it by returning the desktop ecosystem to the fore in all its OS products. Its full copy of Apple cost Microsoft $900 million, and countless however much else from its inadequate imitation in the x86 space.

Which is why I fear that MS hasn't fully learned the lesson seeing that the new CEO still has to deal with the prime evangelist (Ballmer) and the éminence grise (Gates) still on the MS Board of Directors. Ballmer knows he's blown $900 million+ and from his Board seat he'll do whatever he can to salvage it. The only one who could stop him is Gates and I don't see that sort of fight ever happening.

If I were to walk into the x-storm (solve for the value of x) that will be the new MS CEO slot, I'd say no way unless Gates & Ballmer go. That said, even when off the Board their combined stock-holdings still give them a goodly measure of control. My personal belief is that the only way for MS to survive & thrive is for Gates & Ballmer to publicly walk away and live on the stock they already own. They've spent their creative juices and it's time to let a new generation take full responsibility for creation at MS.

End User wrote:

FireGryphon wrote:

I said the problem was with the model Microsoft is trying to follow. It's a model that Apple implemented very well, but Microsoft has so far failed at.

Microsoft is not following Apples model. Microsoft has a single OS model. Apple has a dual OS model.

And, once again, Apple has realized that different OS' and different use cases require different user experiences. Microsoft has (for the second time*) tried to force a single, unified, Windows-Everywhere approach on everyone.

*The prior attempt was to make Windows Mobile look like the Windows desktop, complete with start menu and everything. Miserable experience on a mobile device. To their credit, they recognized this, but broke the desktop while fixing mobile. Either way, a single Windows-Everywhere approach is broken.

Windows 8 isn't bad at all. Maybe I just get used to it. I think MS learned from their experience in win8 and 8.1 and they improve more if ever they'll plan to do another windows version.

They just need to keep their F500-types happy in order to maintain their dominance in the enterprise world.

W8 was an experiment stemmed from a panic attack that Apple/Google were taking over portable space. MS saw that desktops weren't selling well and needed to get into the gravy train. The original idea/concept was sounded, but execution was absolutely terrible.

Wow. This is bad.

Bwahahahaha, Windows Vista rides again!

End User wrote:

Wow. This is bad.

Dell was starting to make it hard to find Windows 7 systems, most of the cheap stuff didn't even offer the option to ship with Win7 anymore. It will be even more hilarious if Dell and other industry players start copying HP's example.