Its a poor carpenter that blames his tools. Complexity in apps require better engineered phones. Benchmark these phones against the competition; do the competitors make the same claims?. Feature bloated apps are hardly going to go away; if anything they will continue to drain performance. The thing is to over engineer not under power the phone. or your competition will. Sad to see this attitude.
I understand why they want to do it. I think that limiting the vendor list to one is a sure death to the product. I think having one vendor will certainly streamline operations and allow for a more vertical integration of the product line but will the practice will severely limit the design innovation necessary to develop the next generation of products. The product that would be necessary to provide a replacement for income to its aging cash revenue producers namely the desktop and the office productivity products. I would expect they are looking at the success of iPhone the way it structured with its seamless vertical integration and content experience. Another model would be the game console and set tops. I am not certain this is a good strategy but it certainly signals that Microsoft is willing to reinvent itself to thrive in the new mobile market.
I cannot think of one positive thing that a university would ultimately gain by doing this.
First, I think it would kill innovation and initiative because can some someone, who already has to bear the risks and personal sacrifices in order to Sheppard an idea to a finished product, bear the additional burden of having their university impose stiff upfront fees and royalty requirements. Think new semiconductors, solar energy, and biotech.
Secondly, what is next? I can imagine former students being sued by their alma maters because the products they invented were based on technology learned at their university.
This is probably a redundant remark but I have to agree with the moderator. Why cant Microsoft ( or any other software maker) focus on improvement of a great products rather foist a Hobsons choice on the consumer, which is to say force consumers to pay a premium for an obsolete o/s rather than make a significant investment in a product that forces you change out nearly all your hardware and a great deal of your software in other to make your computer operate with barely tolerable proformance.
Remember - the United States hasn't had a reasonably free and fair presidential election in over a decade, and there are no sincere efforts to address the enabling tactics or methods.
Yer F*cked!
Oh. Yeah. This is funny as a head-wound, too.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.
