Tag Archives: Microsoft Windows

Why the Android ecosystem isn’t like Windows

One of the most often-repeated statements about the competition between iOS and Android in mobile phones is that Android is bound to win because it’s following the same model as Windows did in “winning” the PC market. An operating system, licensed to all-comers, with a range of hardware makers all competing should (the theory goes) drive down costs and increase innovation, just as happened in the PC market.

There’s only one problem: The way the Android ecosystem works is nothing like the Windows market.

In the PC market, Dell didn’t get to build its own customised version of Windows, then make its customers wait to get an update – if it supplied one at all.

When a new version of Windows came out, you didn’t have to rely on Dell to get it – you just bought it, direct from Microsoft. You might have to download some drivers, if they weren’t included (for generic PCs, they often were). But that was often from the maker of the particular affected components, not Dell.

In the Android world, if you have (say) an HTC phone you can’t get an update from Google. You have to wait for HTC to provide it – and they have little incentive to create it in a timely manner. Neither do they have the resources: they’re operating on slimmer margins than Google, and don’t have the software chops. They didn’t make Android, they just tinkered with it. And working out what breaks their tinkering in a stock Android update isn’t always trivial.

What Google has created is in danger of ending up far more like the world of Linux: disparate, fractured “distributions” which are semi-compatible as long as a volunteer geek has taken the time and trouble to port, test and package whatever software you want.

It’s not too late to change this, but Google has to take more responsibility if it wants Android to be a long-term success.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Windows Store Revenue Split

Daring Fireball on the Windows Store Revenue Split:

Another big difference from Apple. I wonder though, with the various antitrust agreements Microsoft has made around the world, whether they could even consider an Apple-style “if you use our store, all transactions must go through us” policy.

John’s on to something. Although Microsoft isn’t subject to the same kind of heavyweight formal consent decree that IBM once had, it’s experience with going through anti-trust issues in the past means it has to be particularly careful about what it does and how it does it.

Dumb Windows users write dumb things about malware. News at 11.

Over at PC Pro, my old chum Chris Brennan is conducting a brave experiment. As an ardent Mac user, in the cause of science, he’s put aside his Mac and is living with Windows 7 for a while (catch up with his posts here.)

After a couple of weeks, a story about some Windows 7 security issue prompted him to install Microsoft Security Essential (free, not bad security software). He posted about the experience, and has promptly been jumped on by a bunch of sneering Windows folk, with comments like “totally pointless article” and “He’s clearly a Mac fanboy. Any further articles are totally pointless. He’ll choose a Mac no matter what windows 7 does.”

Now read his post, and there’s nothing there that’s actually wrong – and unlike some Mac commentators, Chris’ writing is entirely reasonable. He’s not jumping up and down and lying about security, which I’ve seen some Mac zealots do. But it appears Chris’ (entirely factually accurate) post has hit a raw nerve with some of the commenters there.

No matter what the reasons, malware is a problem for Windows users in a way which it just isn’t for Mac users. Now I’m largely on the side of the epidemiological theory: Macs are less of a target because there’s less of them, and because there’s less of them it’s much more difficult to spread malware. Malware is a lot like disease: it takes a critical mass of vulnerable people in a population before a disease can spread effectively.

But what the commentors have ignored is the key point that Chris is making: anti-virus software isn’t (and never will be) 100% effective, and different packages protect to different degrees. While Security Essential is a decent package, as PC Pro’s review points out, there are some kinds of malware against which it will offer little protection.

The point is this: if you’re a naive computer user, you need to know not only to install malware protection on Windows, but that not all packages are equal, and how to differentiate between them. Unless you read computer magazines avidly, you might not know any of this.

And that, in my book, is another reason just to get a Mac if you’re not a geek. The Mac’s lack of significantmalware might not last if it ever gets to 20, 30 or 40% installed base – but until it does, take advantage of the lack of worry.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How Microsoft is snatching Windows 7 defeat from the jaws of victory

I made the point with rather more swearing on Twitter yesterday, but Joe Wilcox says it without the bad language:

“After commandingly executing Windows 7 development, Microsoft had run off the track right before the finish line. Suddenly, Windows 7 is a disaster potentially like its predecessor. Could anything be worse than Vista?”

What’s the cause of our ire? The insane hoops that Microsoft is making customers jump through to upgrade to its latest and greatest operating system. In response to a query from Walt Mossberg about the upgrade process for different legacy versions of Windows, Microsoft a chart which consist of  6×11 matrix, 66 different options, and a few hundred words explaining the different options.

On one hand, I can understand Microsoft’s predicament. There are a lot of potential versions of Windows that you can upgrade from, and testing all of them with all the different widgets, bits and pieces is tricky to do and even trickier to explain. 

But it’s not the explanation that is at fault: it’s the fact that Windows XP users, the people who Microsoft most needs to get to upgrade to Windows 7, will have to perform a complete wipe-and-reinstall of Windows, plus every application they have, plus all their drivers, and restore all their files from a backup.

I’ve done this a few times. It’s not trivial. It’s not fun. And for the average consumer, it will be a terrible experience as they have to look through old boxes trying to find original install disks, root through their email for download and license details, and generally go through a day’s work.

Here’s the deal: Microsoft cannot consider Windows 7 finished until there is a single-click upgrade from Windows XP. If it ships the product without one, it will miss out on millions of potential upgrades, cause its users considerable pain, and leave Apple laughing all the way to the bank next time those users upgrade their computer.

Windows 7 is a good operating system – in some ways better than the current version of OS X. If Microsoft messes up its release it will not get another opportunity from a big chunk of its consumer customers, and will be handing Apple another couple of points of market share on a plate. 

This might not sound too bad when you consider the commanding lead that Microsoft has in operating system market share. In my next post, I’ll write about why it’s not only bad news – it could spell disaster for Microsoft, and turn John Gruber’s prediction into reality faster than even he imagines. 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Microsoft drops European Windows plan, so where next for upgrades?

PC Advisor:

“It’s unclear how Microsoft will deal with customers who have already pre-ordered Windows 7E and paid the upgrade price but were told they would receive a full-package edition.

Ironically, the users who may be most affected by the return of two-tier pricing are those who use Macs, but want to run Windows in a virtual machine. While PC owners typically upgrade from an older OS to a new – and so can get by with the cheaper upgrades – users who run Windows in a virtual environment often create the ‘machines’ from scratch, and so require a full-package version.”

One of the ironic things about Microsoft throwing a bit of a tantrum and not selling upgrade versions was that it actually simplified the product line and made it easier to understand. I pre-ordered a copy of Win7 which I’ll use on my MacBook Pro’s Boot Camp partition, because it was a full version – otherwise, I’d have stuck with XP (all I use it for is a couple of legacy apps and one game).

In fact, I was about to order a second copy for my netbook – but we’ll see whether it’s still going to be a full version rather than an upgrade. If it’s an upgrade, I won’t bother. Ubuntu Netbook Remix or Moblin will go on there instead.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Daring Fireball is wrong about Microsoft’s weakness

I am, you’ll have noted, an argumentative sod. This is a great source of irritation to my dear other half, who rolls her eyes as I shout at the television or Internet. But sometimes, you read something and… well… you just have to respond.

Such is the case with John Gruber’s post on “Microsoft’s long, slow decline“. Now I should make this clear: John’s a very smart fellow and a terrific writer. I have huge respect for him. But his post is also riddled with more than a few canards and non sequiturs which make it sound like something is happening which, honestly, isn’t. Continue reading