I've heard this argument many times. IBM is doing great, and MS could emulate that, but at a cost. In many ways MS is at a crossroads, where the financial success of the company and their ability to impact the market are on different paths. From a purely business perspective, they should just say: "Office and Windows are mature, we will bug fix/polish the experience for the next 50 years; this is a stable platform for your business." To stay as a mover and shaker, they will need to take their focus off of Office and Windows, and put it on mobile, gaming, and "the cloud". There is no law of nature keeping them from doing everything, but I just don't see it. They can't even get the Windows team to back off of tablets, when Windows Phone 7 is a good fit that deserves a chance.

So how do I explain IBM? They made themselves a stronger company by serving the market rather than driving it. Whether MS is about to join them is a question that will be answered in a few short years.

F11?

I didn't refer to the electrical power, I was talking about the graphical power + price.

Something doesn't add up. The Wii has Xbox level graphics, and doesn't have 1080 anything, and just the chip costs as much as this entire device. I think this device is awesome, but the feature-set you listed just doesn't seem to be for the device in the original article.

I think a good way to look at the situation is to refer to the browser wars.

WinPhone7 is Opera. iOS is IE. Android is Firefox. iOS and Android have staked out the ideological mindshares (better integration with current world but locked down vs free and open but rougher around the edges). WinPhone7 offers a good product, just like Opera does, but it doesn't fulfill any real market need except for a functional product with some neat features.

And that is why neither WinPhone7 or Opera can get ahead. Even if the overall experience is better on those products, it's not enough better to pull the market.

PS Chrome browser made headway by attacking another corner, speed and simplicity. WinPhone7 could go that way, but that is not very MS.

So, exactly what kind of business model should Mozilla adopt to pay for h.264's licensing fees?

I don't get what the kindle has to do with this, but it lacks a ton of features, and is great because they "took away" video, color and backlight in exchange it is cheap, very low power and is attractive.

Normal Tablets, I heard of them, usually followed by the term "market failure". Sure it would be great to have these features, but lets face it, Apple made a tablet people actually want, and a part of that was taking away features. It definitely isn't for the Slashdot crowd, but I don't recall us being that keen on tablets with these features either.

Putting things in the cloud doesn't make it impossible to backup. If you don't know by now you need to backup your data, then you will just learn the hardest way.

The key is to ignore all the rumor bullshit leading up to stuff. When the actual launches happen it is actually news, all 5 minutes of actual information. Then ignore all the post show analysis. That way a whole year of Apple news only takes about 45 to process, and that is pretty good bang for you buck.

For better or for worse, Apple has a disproportionate impact on the market. Add to this the fact that they carry only about a dozen products and every refresh and update *does* become relevant. Even if you're the biggest Apple hater on the earth, you must face that every feature they add or take away effects you, some changes will effect you more than others.

I personally don't care about Macs, but the introduction of thunderbolt is important for the industry. This also marks the middle of the end for Core 2. So on the whole I find Apple news relevant and interesting, even though I probably will never buy any of their products again. It's only a few products, they are relevant and newsworthy, the only issue is that we have to hear about it for 3 whole days every fucking update.

You're absolutely right. I was using that phone as an example of just how quickly unsubsidized Android phones will be changing the user/manufacture/carrier relationship. The main advantage carriers have over us is that we can't really afford these phones without a subsidy, and they won't give it to us without expensive plans. Breaking that link is the first step to real hardware/network independence. And you're right, that has nothing to do with software upgrades.

You are also right that OEM will benefit a lot from that change, the but competition will be fierce. The easiest way to lower development costs will be to eliminate any software customization. That will improve the upgrade cycle.

The only other thing I think Google could do to improve the process after that is release a reference hardware to eliminate the development costs for manufactures almost entirely (like nVidia has for their cards), and then take over the software updates on those phones.

That's Ok. Android is a Trojan horse. Sure, right now the handset manufactures and cell phone companies drag their feet it getting things done, but eventually the tech will be so cheap that no one will be able to hold it hostage. Take a look at this phone:

http://thedroidguy.com/2011/01/ces-rewind-huawei-unveils-the-x-5/

It runs stock android, is comparable to the nexus one, and sells for around $250 in the third world, unlocked. That combined with Google Voice means this is the last year you will need a contract to have a smartphone in the US. That will shift the power from the Telcos quite heavily, and sets the stage for what Google needs to finish the power shift, and improve the software update process: release reference specs for their phones, the same way nVidia does their graphics cards.

The logic was that Nokia couldn't differentiate itself in the Android space, and would end up as a generic brand or that competition would trim handset margins so low it wouldn't be worth it.

I disagree, but I see how they could think that. IMHO, Nokia could wipe the floor with Motorola in terms of Android hardware and continue it's tooth and nail fight with Samsung and HTC, but Nokia feels it can do a better job with Win Phone 7. I wish them the best of luck, because the stronger the competition, the better off we all are.

I think what they meant was that Nokia has great brand recognition in developing nations, IE nations where populations who never had smartphones before are starting to grow the middle class that can afford them. I don't don't think they meant people without drinking water will start using Windows Phone 7.

All great points. I just think I should add that for $1000 you could own all 3 current gen consoles with enough money left over for extra controllers. Add to that on-line gaming, one of the biggest advantages of PC gaming, is available on consoles now and having a gaming PC becomes very much a enthusiast product.