« on: July 07, 2014, 11:32:13 AM »
Gotta back claims like that up, Mika. There have been no mentions of a mass of talent leaving the company since Microsoft acquired it. There shouldn't be, either, as it should be business as usual...Microsoft owns the Lumia unit now, that doesn't mean they are going to change everything right off the bat (or change anything...Lumia is the most successful Windows phone, and it's driving the growth of Windows phone in the market...best not mess with something that works.)
PureView is the best camera technology in a phone right now. Why your complaining about that now that it's in Microsoft hands, I cannot fathom.
Re-read what I said. I said the people left when Microsoft strategy was ANNOUNCED, which dates some months before the infamous burning platform memo. Nokia had to offer large cash incentives to keep people working in the house. You may also be interested to know I work in the R&D side of things, and actually in the city where Nokia mobile started. Some of my university time buddies ended up there, and additionally, some of the Nokia people came to us after the announcement. The writing was already on the wall at that time as they knew Microsoft is going to be selected, and elected to get out. I'll try to limit the discussion about mobile stuff from here on as it is so far out of topic.
Again, re-read what I said. I certainly didn't complain Pureview is on Microsoft's hands. I'm saying they didn't get everybody involved in the technology, and the patent deal with Canon; that I interpret as realizing that they don't know enough of image processing in-house as no other Canon patent area is really applicable to their side of business. Alternative interpretations are, of course, possible.
This is again a scrap out of the 1990's. Microsoft has been directly listening to customer feedback for many years now. They have been an extremely open and cooporative company, vs. a monopolistic company, since the whole anti-trust suit. This very deal is a PERFECT example of the NON-competitive nature of the Microsoft of today. Your once again living in the past.
Oh? How many years ago did you say this happened last? Since I think the last time was about two years ago when Microsoft royally ****ed up deals with mobile operators, trying to utilize similar strategy of trying to force their terms to mobile operators (relatively dumb if you ask me, those companies are among the richest on Earth). Unfortunately for them, operators answered "Go home Mr. Nobody". And it really shows in pathetic sales. As for the actual reference, take a look on the shareholders' meeting memos from Nokia. I don't for a second believe that the typical predatory tactics would have changed at all, and they will be used when necessary. Large companies just are like that.
As for Surface...Microsoft's future is dependent upon the entire Microsoft ecosystem being directly competitive with Apple products, specifically. To be quite blunt, Microsoft's hardware partners SUCK ASS. They NEEDED a big, fat, PAINFUL kick in the rear end to knock some sense into them. The mobile windows hardware market has been failing for years...products have gotten cheaper and cheaper, and the quality of those products has tanked right along with price and profit margin.
Well, if that's the way you see it. I see it a bit differently - Microsoft reduced the profitability of these companies up to the point their R&D became mainly small incremental upgrades and now enters the same market, able to out price their hardware due to software licensing costs. Actually, because of this threat, Linux got considerably better video card support from AMD just last year due to Microsoft's actions, and that's just from the top of my head. And what it comes to products getting cheaper, that's probably true. What I don't agree with is quality.
Comparing something to Apple stuff doesn't really impress, it's a company that can't even get their OFFICIAL chargers working (=cutting corners with electrical safety to reduce size of the charger). If we had the same legislation before entering EU, it would not have been even possible to sell the OFFICIAL Apple chargers here due to safety regulation violations.
Generally in Europe, it's considered a bad move to jump to enter the same area as your customers - it is guaranteed to create ill-will, so you really shouldn't be surprised because of this. Funny thing is, this is exactly the recent stuff why Microsoft is not liked, but you're downplaying this example by saying it's a genius move. Well, I don't know, it could be strategical genius at play, but the chances are, you're also taking a risk of alienating your OEMs. It doesn't happen in a second, though, and Microsoft has cash to play. See where I'm getting at?
The ribbon was a DIRECT response to years of customer feedback on the Office UI. People hated having to dig multiple levels deep within menu systems to find features in Word and Excel primarily. Microsoft designed the ribbon in an effort to solve that exact problem, based on explicit CUSTOMER feedback about the problems with their old Office design. Ribbon was a success in that it brought everything right to the surface, one level deep in a series of tabs.
I know the background of the Ribbon. I've to F______ use it every F______ day. Including Paint (seriously, what the hell Microsoft?) and ZEMAX, whose latest update incorporated it, despite the CUSTOMER FEEDBACK not to go there. Luckily, with professional software, they have to implement menu structure - and I've seen no-one using the Ribbon in CAD software in our house. What it comes to the Office, I agree that user feedback triggered the change, but the change itself is still botched.
You are saying that Ribbon put everything on the surface, right? Take a look on the attached PNG. What is the circled button that I see there? You know, the one that EXPANDS the options in Ribbon? The thing that should NOT exist based on the design criteria? This is basically a RE-VAMPED menu structure for you, with the exception that this is actually WORSE. The expansion button is so small that it's harder to hit than the older text based menu. I actually couldn't find the button first time I needed it!
Add on top the fact that the Ribbon icon size is sort of fixed (I only need the text part, not the graphic icon to begin with - deciphering icons is harder than text). I would like to place much more buttons there, but can't! Because of that, I still can't orient the Ribbon vertically to take advantage of the nowadays wide display aspect ratios. And I've made my opinion known on the Microsoft side.
Now your just speculating about Microsoft forcing anything on it's customers. You can still, and will always be able to, buy Office stand-alone. I did. I own a couple stand alone copies. I opted for that, instead of the much cheaper $99/yr Office Cloud standard edition. I prefer to store my data locally...but not everyone does. Some people, some corporations and smaller businesses, much prefer to offload the once-necessary costs and complexities of managing their own computer networks and systems onto a larger business entity that has more talented and effective resources for managing such things.
It could be. And I thought I made it clear this is speculation (though based on several snippets of facts). Getting back there, there's no similar legislation in place for data storage as there is for example book-keeping that small enterprises typically favor too, and data storage is actually much more sensitive area. In Europe, I don't think this would fly - you're simply considered stupid if you do this, until the legal standing is clear. Also add on top that Cloud servers that stay on US soil are suspect for US government actions at any second. This is not to say that your average worker cannot upload anything to Cloud, but he's responsible for the brunt if data loss happens.
Cloud is Microsoft's strength. Their biggest competitor there is actually Amazon, and they are making headway, helping spur a competitive market in the cloud services business.
This doesn't make any sense. You're saying Microsoft's cloud is for the enterprise, but as far as I know, Amazon is for consumers. Which is it?
The way app stores are run isn't really a Microsoft thing. Apple started that trend, and in many ways, it is essential to the protection of consumers. Just look into how many problems and security issues can and have occurred on the Android platform, with it's open app store, vs. how many of those kinds of issues occur on Apple or Microsoft devices. There needs to be some level of buffer, some small barrier to entry, to help weed out the apps that are designed by data and identity thieves for the purposes of data and identity theft, fraud, etc.
I agree with store safety with Android. But, you're saying app store isn't a Microsoft thing. I think here you'll need to look into the future and not in the past as you so readily advised me. Apple is the most profitable high-tech (HAH!) company on Earth, and it stands for a good reason Microsoft has an incentive to go the same way - and this includes orientation towards the consumer. So, the software companies building on Windows ecosystem can also predict that in the future their profit margin drops due to the Microsoft taking a larger share in the Microsoft Store. Which is fine, Microsoft can do whatever they want with their ecosystem and I suppose you get something back for the price, but I'm saying there will be consequences and market share erosion as not everybody will find the properties worth their money. As you are already seeing with the case of Valve. And I never said this had anything to do with Windows 8, but general Microsoft strategy.
FYI, I was actually supporting Windows against Linux when 7 was released. It's only now that 8 is released and Microsoft's strategy is clear, and it seems consistent UI changes are the norm, I'm considering switching to Linux in next computer update. Microsoft actually never made the jump easier.
You have clearly never been part of a software development project, certainly not on any large-scale project that had a large installed base of users. You have to START somewhere.
I could argue this is actually even more important in R&D world. To START somewhere is well-known. However, it's important to listen to the feedback during the start too in my area, as the project gets axed if customer doesn't like it. In other words, exactly what Microsoft did NOT do with 8, and consequently patched in 8.1, but too late to save the name.