A Microsoft PC?

flogen

I couldn't see this topic being raised before after a google search, apologies if it has been.

Reading this post on the possibility of a Google OS raised an interesting point for me (see the conclusion)... if Vista incorporates MSN and Live as well as it should do that can only mean bad things for Google... within the next few years the majority of computer users will be on Vista, and the majority of them won't be bothered if they use MSN search over Vista so if the MSN search box is on the desktop and/or easier to reach, they'll use that.
This is one of the more logical arguments for a google os that I've heard, and it got me thinking about the potential for MS to make a PC.

Obviously at the moment they enjoy complete dominance of the OS market, and moving into PC hardware would just complicate things... but of course they already make the basics like keyboards and mice and while all the components are not theirs, the Xbox, 360 and Zune are all Microsoft-branded hardware appliances (with the 360 being just shy of a PC anyway).

Apple may be slowly clambering back some market share, but they're probably not the real threat to MS... I think linux is (and I say this not as a linux fan... I've never even tried to use it yet). As Linux gets easier to use, more logical and more widespread more people will make the jump... also, it's free so for companies like Dell, selling a PC with Linux is a nice way to shave a few euro off the price without effecting profit (that's assuming there's demand there for it).

So basically, if computer users become a bit more tech savy (which I don't think will happen too quickly) or if Linux manages to prove itself to be an OS that anyone can use there's the potential for the Windows market share to be seriously hit over the next few years.
Trying to keep ahead of the curve won't be easy for MS, and it's expensive work too... they need to come out with a worthwhile new feature to make the money spent worthwhile... then they watch as Linux lifts it or betters it without charging a penny.

The way I see it, and maybe it's a bit naive, if MS make a propriety machine they can safeguard against this threat... I'm sure it's something they've considered and could do if things got really bad.

Anyone else thing this kind of development is at all likely? would it be a last-ditch effort by MS should they become a minority player, or could you see them doing it as a pre-emptive strike against the rise of Linux? Or is it just something that they wouldn't do under any circumstances?

8T8

I've seen this topic come up before and in short wont happen.

Microsoft makes far too much money from Windows + Office selling to system builders and any MS built PC would simply annoy this very important customer base. This is their cash cow & they wont do anything to jeprodize it.

A system like Apple's where they control everything may improve the Windows customer experience a small bit for Microsoft but what is the point they have to support all the other possible configurations/quirks in other systems anyway.

Which is why Microsoft starting with the launch of Vista not too long ago prodded the system builders into starting maker "nicer" systems (code more Sony/Apple like) by concentrating more on the design.

Linux which I sincerely hope will one day be able to dislodge MS still isn't remotely anywhere ready for the average (clueless) user & probably wont be for a long time to come. Microsoft has nothing to worry about in this sector and Apple will remain a niche player as they want to keep control of the entire chain because they make a profit on the hardware & software (plus they don't have to deal with the headaches of an open platform like the Windows PC).

Also I doubt Windows Live will make any dent in Google even if the search is part of Vista, Google is simply too well known & popular at this stage.

Microsoft's biggest & most dangerous competitor in the desktop is Microsoft in the form of XP, Win2K which will continue to linger on for many years to come and those who wont bother upgrading because they see no need.

Capt'n Midnight

One big problem with hardware is you have to support it. For corporate employees doing light admin/accounts/wordprocessing the cost of Microsoft Windows / Office / CAL's for LAN / Exchange etc. easily cost more than an entry level PC. And for that the PC manufacturer has to build the pc and provide support and warranty on each and every PC, and margins are fairly low. Microsoft charge separately for media kits, nicely separating the physical component. The trend to electronic licenses means the incremental cost of production of each extra license is close to zero compared to the cost of production of a PC.

Microsoft already have PC's made for them after all that's what an Xbox is.

Microsoft Technet is a database where ALL the information on it is produced by microsoft, at no time in the last 12 years have I found the microsoft search engine anywhere near as useful as altavista/yahoo/google when searching the microsoft site. Also I'm a bit cheesed off at the way they keep hijacking the home page when you go through the whole process of applying critical updates.

must dig up the links to their links and just how many are commercial - I reckon that's the easiest way to turn off home users from using it.


As for microsoft coming out with new features - name two major ones
that wern't lifted or bought in and provide real consumer benefit

aidan_walsh

As for microsoft coming out with new features - name two major ones
that wern't lifted or bought in and provide real consumer benefit

Who cares if Microsoft is innovative or not?

8T8

I think fast user switching, system restore ? hardly great examples but useful (and ones which Apple saw fit to clone). The readyboost in Vista is genuinely useful but most of the changes in Vista are under the hood which the average person isn't really going to appreciate.

Microsoft does "occasionally" come up with new features but the problem is their OS release cycle is so incredibly slow vs someone like Apple that they can rarely ever execute on it.

For example the eye candy but useless flip3D in Vista was plan B because plan A was an expose like system that Apple uses in OSX. Problem was Vista got reset two years in so starting all over again but by which time the feature was already present in new versions of OSX. Now they couldn't exactly release Vista with their own take on expose as the internet would have a field day with the copying OSX etc. so flip3D was brought in.

For big companies like Microsoft/Apple & Google buying smaller companies that come up with new/interesting software is much easier given their resources & then focus on improving them (iTunes, Picasa, Windows Defender were all projects not born at their respective companies).

is_that_so

There are many examples in business of companies venturing away from what they are good at( can this be said of Microsoft? :rolleyes: ) and getting burnt. Microsoft do software.
Larry Ellison some years back attempted to flog a network computer to no avail and more recently there has been the rumour of an Oracle version of Linux.
As mentioned it pays Microsoft not to get into the mess that can be hardware. Margins are tight and apart from anything else it's only very large volumes that can make you real money. And then there's support. Recall the recent Dell/Sony laptop problem. :eek:

as_seen_on

Heres something to think about when you see PC magazines they always have articlese on guides to remove error messages etc. none of that on mac mags.

8T8

as_seen_on wrote:

Heres something to think about when you see PC magazines they always have articlese on guides to remove error messages etc. none of that on mac mags.

That because Mac's are a tiny percent of the market to which PC advertisers pay little attention. If the situation was reversed those ads would be all over the place with malware creators targeting the dominant system.

OSX isn't magically immune security vulnerabilities are regularly discovered it's just no-one cares enough to bother exploiting them.

Go hang round Mac forums and you will find plenty of folk having general trouble with applications/systems just like with Windows XP but the situation is magnified by vast amount for XP because it's so prevalent. A rogue driver or application can bring down OSX just like XP.

aidan_walsh

flogen wrote:

As Linux gets easier to use, more logical and more widespread more people will make the jump.

flogen wrote:

The way I see it, and maybe it's a bit naive, if MS make a propriety machine they can safeguard against this threat.

Actually, I think it might hold better if it were to work the other way around. Linux should stop trying to be this all encompassing, general purpose operating system, and instead find its feet in dedicated roles, and controlled hardware.

And thats actually where it seems to be finding its greatest success, in places where people don't even need to know its Linux, such as home network hardware, or places where the system will change so infrequently it won't matter if the hardware vendors are slow to adopt, like HTPCs.

IMO the reason it will never gain the same popularity as Windows is partly because Windows has already been there so long, partly because even still companies are less than willing to adopt it, and partly because companies that are developing desktop Linux distros seem to be more engrossed with developing them for Enterprise where they can make money off them with support contracts, than for home users who are often left with a community managed, volunteer driven version that seem to lag behind.

Of course the beauty of it being a freely available and modifiable system means that both can be attempted, but I'm more likely to put money on it being a greater success if it takes the latter path.

the_syco

aidan_walsh wrote:

Linux should stop trying to be this all encompassing, general purpose operating system, and instead find its feet in dedicated roles, and controlled hardware.

That'd work... if Linux was but one company, striving on one path, towards one goal, and not several different people, each trying to make their own version, fo their own purpose's, fitting their own systems, some with a GUI and various applications, some without a GUI, trying to be run off a floppy, but yet still be powerfull.

=-=

As for the comment about people using Vista using MSN to search... anyone with a PC that has Microsoft on it will have already had MSN pushed onto them, but they still use Google. Why? Because someone told them how good Google was. Its feature's. How it can find stuff that MSN can't.

aidan_walsh

the_syco wrote:

That'd work... if Linux was but one company, striving on one path, towards one goal, and not several different people, each trying to make their own version, fo their own purpose's, fitting their own systems, some with a GUI and various applications, some without a GUI, trying to be run off a floppy, but yet still be powerfull.

Ok, I worded it wrong. I always do that. The often forgotten distinction between Linux and Windows, kernel and platform, I guess.

Linux distros should stop trying to be this all encompassing, general purpose operating system, and instead find their feet in dedicated roles, and controlled hardware. IMO.

Capt'n Midnight

aidan_walsh wrote:

Linux distros should stop trying to be this all encompassing, general purpose operating system, and instead find their feet in dedicated roles, and controlled hardware. IMO.

XBox / Windows Embedded / Windows CE / Windows Mobile / The seven faces of Dr Vista / clusters

If microsoft wanted to sell PC's they would just open up the Xbox interface, it's something they have full control over.

The interesting thing is the drop in sales of PDA's as most of the basic functionality is now found in mobile phones.

Unisons were overpriced for what the did, and games consoles are not easy to use as computers.

generalmiaow

aidan_walsh wrote:

Linux distros should stop trying to be this all encompassing, general purpose operating system, and instead find their feet in dedicated roles, and controlled hardware. IMO.

The beauty is that there's no limit to the number of distros possible or the size of the community. Linux being successful on the desktop and embedded are not mutually exclusive nor do I think they preclude eachother. There's been a great deal of interest in embedded linux (although it actually seems to be driven by companies rather than the community).

I don't think Microsoft will make a proprietary computer, to be honest. The success of the platform up till now has had a lot to do with the modularity of its hardware.

Even if they did, it wouldn't stop really hardcore people putting linux on it. My xbox is a microsoft computer running linux Plus I think the majority of users won't change the OS that's preinstalled, so unless the Microsoft computer becomes the majority hardware format, the OSes preinstalled will dictate what has the biggest share.

as_seen_on

I think that Apple have a problem where they charge too much and have their OS only available on Apple hardware, which is good because no faults will exists if it is tested properly. With windows they have their OS on many hardware configurations its easier for them to cut the price down.

8T8

I think that Apple have a problem where they charge too much and have their OS only available on Apple hardware, which is good because no faults will exists if it is tested properly. With windows they have their OS on many hardware configurations its easier for them to cut the price down.

Apple charge too much because they make a healthy profit on the hardware (Mac's now are internally no different from the off the shelf Windows PC's).

The limited hardware scope does benefit Apple in that their software & engineering teams do not have to support anywhere near the level of hardware Microsoft does. OSX is a fine operating system but that still doesn't mean it's perfect & OSX still has bugs in it.

Also OSX is cheaper to buy than Windows retail but there is a significant difference between the two what Microsoft gives away free as service packs Apple charge for as part of the next revision of the OS. So with Apple you end up paying more in the long run but Apple tend to sweeten the deal by adding more features so most Apple users will bite.

Suffice to say if Apple were the dominant player there would be outrage at such practices or if Microsoft ever attempted it. But this model does have one advantage in that is allows them to put more updates/features out on a yearly basis then competitors and make money from it (which is important to Apple).