By "second tier," I meant Blackberry and second-tier Android (aka everyone but Samsung). First tier is only Apple and Samsung; they are titans compared to everyone else right now. It's competing better than Blackberry 10 devices are. Unless you assume we're headed toward a two-OS smartphone market so everyone in third place is irrelevant, it's the most successful third-party player in the market right now. And that's something. Windows RT is not Windows Phone, so it's kind of off-topic. But as long as we're going to go there, Windows RT has been left at the wayside because basically everyone who wants a Windows tablet or convertible wants full Windows 8 instead of Windows RT. Lenovo (the most profitable Windows OEM) is continuing to expand its convertible offerings (Thinkpad X230T, Thinkpad Tablet2, Thinkpad Helix, Thinkpad Twist, Yoga 11S, Yoga 13, Lynx, and maybe some others I'm forgetting), but has discontinued its only Windows RT device (Yoga 11, no S). Sony has put a touchscreen (at least optionally) on every single new Windows 8 laptop or convertible it's released in the past nine months, but doesn't offer any Windows RT devices. Etc. Basically, there was no need for a dedicated tablet OS between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. That's why Windows RT, and devices running Windows RT, are on the way out. The "ideal" Apple ecosystem was built around three devices--computer, media tablet, smartphone. The "ideal" Windows 8 ecosystem is increasingly looking like a two-device setup--genre-bending touchscreen PC and smartphone. No room for Windows RT in that mix.
The whole point of Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Phone 8 was to have a single platform across all devices that could essentially run the same apps. That was the hype. So it's not off topic. It is in fact very relevant to the success of Windows Phone 8. Without it Microsoft have absolutely no unique selling point for Windows Phone 8. It's just another minor smart phone OS amongst many. If Microsoft want to compete against tablets that cost £150 to £200. There is a need for Windows RT. Consumers aren't buying laptops, convertible or otherwise and they aren't buying desktops. It's the whole reason Windows RT existed in the first place. We can't just magic that reason away. The desktop/laptop market is in decline.
Traditional laptop sales are down but not nonexistent. And convertible models ARE selling. It's simply not accurate to say that "Consumers aren't buying laptops, convertible or otherwise." And if a consumer can buy a single device that serves the roles of both a laptop and a tablet for marginally more than the cost of a laptop, that's a solid option. This is why Lenovo has had so much success with their Yoga line (which are absolute bargains compared to buying a laptop plus a tablet), why Sony's new flagship PC is its Duo 13 convertible (which, despite premium materials and build quality, sell for hundreds less than the price of a MacBook Air 13 plus an iPad), etc. Intel's CEO has referred to convertibles as the next big thing, discussing 50 convertible models with Haswell or Bay Trail coming in the near future.
Convertibles are heavier than their true tablet counterparts. They're not on an equal footing with tablets. The whole point of a tablet is it's small, compact and as light as possible. Intel's CEO would say that. He has silicone to sell and that silicone isn't being used in many tablets which are out pacing laptops of all descriptions and desktops. In fact x86_64 tablets are something of a rarity and extortionately expensive. Now Windows 8 it seems is so popular Curry's are leaving all their Windows 8 systems in the desktop rather than on the Metro/Tiles/Modern UI/whatever it's called now. I was there today checking out a Sony Vaio convertible. When I noticed a store assistant following me around resetting all the PCs I had messed around with back to the desktop I just couldn't help myself. Every Windows button on every PC in the store just had to be pressed. I confess I knew at the time it was very childish. But the girl selling the washing machines and fridges thought it was hilarious.
This is the effect the failure of Windows RT. If you're a tech company that can't navigate the post PC-era. Investors don't want to know.
I went for the nokia 510, tescos were selling it for £70 a few months ago, although its OS is 7.8 I cant praise it enough, easy to use OS, and I mean really easy to use, tiles are great, free satnav for life which is better than the satnav i normally use at work and which works offline, free office already installed with 7gb of online storage (which makes accessing work stuff easy not to mention having spreadsheets loaded makes recording my workouts a piece of cake), the integrated people tab is great, linking up several e-mail accounts is really easy and the app store isn’t that bad. Accessing the internet is easy, wifi works great and music playback isn’t too bad either Of course it has really poor internal memory space, no flash, and no memory card slot, but did I mention it was only £70?? And since im not a gamer, don’t take photos at night that much (and have a proper camera for that) nor a real downloader off the net its enough for me, and the free 7GB of storage sky drive allows me to download whatever I need which wont fit on the phone All in all for a cheapskate like me it’s a great phone, the problem Microsoft has isn’t that the OS (7.8 or 8) is bad (it isnt) or that the phones are bad (they are not) the problem is they are coming into a market which is already dominated by two big players and people are loath to change from what they know and are familiar with to something new unless that new thing is SO much better than what they are used to, people are really invested in their current operating systems: they have already downloaded all the apps they what, and have their music games etc set up on that OS system, and to get anyone to actually change completely, download all their apps and games again, change their music downloads etc is a big ask
Microsoft appears to be acquiring Nokia: http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/02/stephen-elop-stepping-down-as-nokia-ceo-risto-siilasmaa-takes-h/ While Windows Phone continues to struggle in the US and has lost ground in China, it's rallying in western Europe and some other markets, hitting market share of 11% in France, 9.2% in the UK, 8.8% in Germany, and 12.5% in Mexico. http://www.wpcentral.com/kantar-windows-phone-hitting-8-percent-europe-progress-still-slow-us
Just heard it this morning. It was a fully expected move. Anybody would have thought Microsoft would have learned from the OEM's reaction to Surface tablets. But I guess not. Nokia has "a lot" of mobile patents. Microsoft aren't well known for playing nice in the patents arena and I can only think this is all about the patents. For that reason alone, I hope this deal isn't allowed to go through. We don't need more patent trolling in the mobile market.
This exactly what was predicted would happen and we were all told to go put on your pointy silver foil hats. This sort of predatory entryism should be illegal.
The way Microsoft sends an executive to deliver a company into their hands from the inside. Who then rejoins Microsoft when the job is done. It's a well documented tactic of Microsoft's. Their attempt to buy Yahoo a few years ago was done in the same way. They used the same tactic to kill off HP's Web OS.
How about because it's not in the investors interests to have the company they are investing in run down so Microsoft can pick it up on the cheap. Or perhaps because such practices don't lend themselves to a healthy and competitive market. The end result is big companies that are already "too big to fail" just keep getting bigger. Edit: It stifles competition in the market. Take the Web OS incident I mentioned. HP were intending to put Web OS on PCs, Laptops along side Windows and embed it in all of their devices. With that sort of OEM support Web OS would have become a threat to Windows and thus Microsoft. As Web OS was also Linux based. Microsoft would have been hit with a double whamy as no doubt Linux users would have and in fact did trawl Web OS out as a poster child for how successful Linux was.
Elop was hired by Nokia's board. No one put a gun to their head. Nokia's board could have removed Elop at any time if they doubted his commitment to Nokia. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Elop was sent in with the intention of damaging Nokia so Microsoft could pick them up on the cheap. As usual you are just spouting anti-Microsoft vitriol.
Yeah. The guy that near wrecked HP in a matter of months was hired by their board as well. Thankfully they realised what he was doing and put a stop to it. But not before quite a bit of damaged had been done. These people tend to "resign" from their position at Microsoft. Get snapped up by another company. That company gets delivered to Microsoft or enters a deal to use and sell Microsoft products. The former Microsoft exec returns to the fold. When Elop got the job at Nokia he decided Nokia didn't have the technology to compete with Apple and the Android crowed. Even though they had new products about to come to market that would have easily competed with both as well as having a well developed app store. Nokia had an app store before Apple even knew what a smartphone was. From the outset Elop set about dismantling Nokia. The fact the board didn't act doesn't mean it wasn't obvious what he was doing. Quite a few commentators at the time predicted this outcome and stated quite blatantly Nokia was being dismantled and stripped. Either way it's all academic now. It's done.
This isn't predatory. It's a software company buying the only hardware company who was really putting energy into a hardware platform for their software. I think you're going to have trouble complaining that this is illegal or improper in a market where Google recently bought Motorola, and where Apple and Blackberry have always owned their own hardware divisions.
You're clearly deliberately missing the point or misinterpreting what I said. I didn't complain about Microsoft owning a hardware company or producing their own hardware. I'm totally fine with that. It's a very sensible approach to producing an integrated product. What I did do was express concerns about Microsoft's motives. And then expressed a view that the "method" they used to get their hands on Nokia "should" be illegal. If Microsoft had just gone and made an offer for Nokia then clearly there still would have been concerns about Nokia's patents falling into the hands of such an aggressive company. But there would have been no room for criticism with respect to the actual deal it's self. As it turns out Microsoft are not getting the patents. At least that is what has been reported. So the sale is only half as bad as it first seemed. As for Google and Motorola. Google were only allowed to buy Motorola on condition Motorola continues to operate as an independent company. Separate from Google's main business. Microsoft were one of the primary agitators who claimed that Google were acting in an anti-competitive manner by buying Motorola. It's not clear at this point exactly how the part of Nokia that's been bought by Microsoft will function. But considering Elop is now going to head up an extended devices group. It's not unreasonable to assume that Nokia will just be swallowed by Microsoft. Gradually the Nokia branding will be replaced by Microsoft Windows branding as stock is turned over.
