A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. The only question is whether Apple will succeed. Microsoft already tried this same revolutionary move with tablet computing and failed. (Because they were trying to drag along Windows. I can see this as I Write this reply on a Windows slate PC.)
From the comments:
The idea of shackling an old business to a new business rings true in so many industries right now.
Watching media companies try to get the web to pay for operating a printing press, for example.
Apple is in danger of falling into this same trap as advancing tech enables form factors that change how people use computers. Their closed strategy could be a serious anchor as such new form factors blossom into a "Cambrian explosion" of unexpected new uses.
The difference between a Jailbroken iPhone and a shackled one is stark. (I can have say app in the background. I use this to make Google Voice calls over Skype on Bluetooth. My normal cell calls are 10¢ a minute Prepaid.) Someone smart could leverage a more open platform correctly and seriously wound Apple. Lucky for Apple, the telecoms are 10x more shackled than they. But that will only save them in the short term.
1) sandboxed apps. Concept isn't new, but consumer PCs have never had sandboxes. A game or word processor you install shouldn't have access to your tax returns. With the iPad nasty apps can't do much damage.
2) backup app installations, settings and documents by syncing with iTunes. iPad breaks or gets stolen? Buy a new one and plug it back in and you're back in business.
3) App Store. Now only used for "gimmick" software on the iPhone, but the potential is enormous. Only apt-get comes close, but apt-get doesn't have an easy payment model. And it has this dependecy-hell and installing updates can wreck havoc.
4) computer with built-in GPS & accelerometer and 3G internet. How many laptops have that?
5) locked-down and DRMed, even for developers. That's certainly revolutionary for a consumer PC.
6) No tree based filesystem. No /home/[user]/Documents, no c:\Users\[user]\AppData. Your files are just "there".
Apple is a famous company. But this doesn't mean that they deserve credit for all of this awesome stuff. They're building on the shoulders of giants and to deny that is a pretty bold thing.
1) Should is a very subjective term. What if I track my taxes in my Word Processor?
2) Doesn't Dropbox do this? And isn't this what git/hg do for developers?
3) The Internet is a much bigger and better app store.
4) So if I made a computer with built-in GPS, accelerometer, 3G Internet, AND a CD drive, would that be "revolutionary" too? I think not. Adding more a more features that already exist make not an idea revolutionary.
5) Since when did Orwellian DRMs become revolutionary?
6) Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the iPad most definitely has a filesystem.
Just listing the ways in which iPad is significantly different from everything else out there. Whether the differences turn out to be a big deal remains to be seen.
1) That's nitpicking. A video game shouldn't have access to your important files, and that's something Mac and PC get "wrong", and iPad gets "right".
2) Nope. If your computer breaks you have to reinstall it, and then reinstall Dropbox and then you get only files back from a single directory. We developers have solutions for every problem, but that's irrelevant for the public at large.
3) For some value of "better". Either way, it's still a big change from the status quo, hence revolutionary.
4) Fair enough.
5) If it's not revolutionary, what would you call it? If because of the iPad the future of personal computing is DRM-ed then I'd say that's a major, major revolution.
6) From a consumer perspective that's exactly what it means. If you can't see it, it ain't there.
So if I made a computer with built-in GPS, accelerometer, 3G Internet, AND a CD drive, would that be "revolutionary" too?
Actually, yes, possibly. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be commercially successful.
The Internet is a much bigger and better app store.
Define "better." I feel a lot safer on the App Store. But I note I can do a heck of a lot more with my jailbroken iPhone thanks to a few select apps not available there.
The valuable realization here is that one should be able to have the cake and eat it too.
> 1) sandboxed apps. Concept isn't new, but consumer PCs have never had sandboxes. A game or word processor you install shouldn't have access to your tax returns. With the iPad nasty apps can't do much damage.
Sandboxes as a concept aren't new, and so are not revolutionary. Consumer PC's have had sandboxes every since you've been able to run a java programs within a browser.
> 2) backup app installations, settings and documents by syncing with iTunes. iPad breaks or gets stolen? Buy a new one and plug it back in and you're back in business.
That's a neat feature, but not a 'make-or-break' thing. Nice to have, not revolutionary.
> 3) App Store. Now only used for "gimmick" software on the iPhone, but the potential is enormous. Only apt-get comes close, but apt-get doesn't have an easy payment model. And it has this dependecy-hell and installing updates can wreck havoc.
Apt-gets strength is that there is no payment model, access to lots of high quality software for the sum of $0. That's not a weakness, that's a strength. Iphone apps in general are trivial, with the occasional exception. There is an enormous body of real world, non-trivial software in the apt-get (and yum) repositories.
The potential is there to re-ignite a new closed source era, and that's definitely not revolutionary.
> 4) computer with built-in GPS & accelerometer and 3G internet. How many laptops have that?
My netbook has all those except for the accelerometer, it runs Ubuntu notebook remix and works pretty good. It also has access to the above mentioned apt-get repositories.
> 5) locked-down and DRMed, even for developers. That's certainly revolutionary for a consumer PC.
That's a complete loss, not revolutionary. Trusted computing through the backdoor. If microsoft were to do something like this there would be shrunken heads on stakes. We definitely wouldn't call it revolutionary.
> 6) No tree based filesystem. No /home/[user]/Documents, no c:\Users\[user]\AppData. Your files are just "there".
I can see how that would be useful if you only have a relatively small number of files. But here on my collective drives there are literally 10's of millions of files. Just being worried about namespace collisions as well as forgetting what a file is named, I usually can find it because my directory structure is organized. I can see how tagging would go a long way towards mitigating that, but the 'tree' based file system works quite well because that happens to be how we normally organize documents.
If the lack of something is revolutionary then I invite you to store all your files in the root directory of your harddrive.
Sandboxes as a concept aren't new, and so are not revolutionary.
You have a huge misconception here. Revolutionary tech takes decades to be fully absorbed by the culture. Or was the Internet not revolutionary because Minitel Videotext terminals were in front of the general public years before it was?
There is a bit of a split I think. The moment when some technology is invented vs the moment when as the result of that technology some revolution happens are not the same, but we can speak about a 'revolutionary invention' as well as the actual revolution without getting mixed up.
So, Minitel, which in turn was a turnkey terminal version of the videotex standard was revolutionary in the sense that it allowed a whole country (France) to use online services.
But the real revolution came when the world wide web allowed everybody to publish and consume content. The videotex services made a big thing out of being an 'information provider' and a 'consumer', which of course suited the telcos that deployed these devices just perfect.
It never crossed their minds that the unwashed masses would want to publish their own content.
The internet pre-dates the minitel system by about a decade by the way.
But the world-wide-web, a relatively simple layer on top of the internet is about as revolutionary a change as we've had since the electronics revolution and the advent of personal computing.
The potential is there to re-ignite a new closed source era, and that's definitely not revolutionary.
Just because the app runs on the iPhone or iPad doesn't mean it has to be closed source.
I can see how that would be useful if you only have a relatively small number of files. But here on my collective drives there are literally 10's of millions of files...
I think the point is that the iPad manages this for you. You just have to remember that you made a document in Pages and the name of it. You don't need to worry about folders or where it was saved to.
That doesn't mean a single, flat directory. Just that users don't have to manage files.
FWIW, while I personally think that the iPad will be an extraordinary change in how the average person uses a computer, I would agree with you that the future isn't set in stone and the only way to know for sure is to wait and see.
I think the point is that the iPad manages this for you. You just have to remember that you made a document in Pages and the name of it. You don't need to worry about folders or where it was saved to. ... That doesn't mean a single, flat directory. Just that users don't have to manage files.
I have had the following conversation multiple times in my career:
"I can not find the file I worked on yesterday. It
was right here before."
"What did you name it?"
"I don't know."
"You don't know what you named the file? Okay, then
where did you put it?"
"I didn't put it anywhere, I saved it where all my
files are saved."
"Okay, then what program did you use to create it?"
"I don't remember."
Based on my experience, just needing to remember which application the file is for and the name of a file isn't enough.
And then this "feature" would negate the majority of the reason to use computers: the ability to share files, both between users and between programs. If you need to use Excel to even find the spreadsheet you want to insert into your Word document, with the divergent interfaces that multiple programs would have for this ability, it would get even more confusing. Rather than a single "attach a file" functionality in an email program, you need to provide email functionality to each program. Now admittedly, Android does offer something like that, many applications have a "share" function that lets you select how you want to share something with users, but you can still browse for files when attaching, but the base is still files that can be individually manipulated without the original program.
Most users don't need to type anything of significant length, and most are better off with a tightly controlled platform than with the ability to do whatever they want. I don't agree with either of those, but they are large changes.
Targeting the general computer market with a console model. PS3's might have had the option to run Linux but the target was clearly the gamer market.
Using multi touch for a general computer not just a hand held device. Might not seem that big a deal, but there is a reason tablets have failed in the past.
These pass for revolutionary ... turing machines, the Internet, the GPL, Smalltalk, graphical UIs from Xerox Park (commercialized first by Apple), personal computing, CDMA/GSM networks, the web, Google's search engine.
The iPad may prove in the end to be revolutionary, but looking back at the advances made in recent history, using "revolutionary" to describe it leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth.
You know, "revolutionary" comes from "revolution" which is more commonly used to describe "the overthrow of one government / replacement with another", whereas "evolutionary" usually means "gradually transforming something into a better form".
One of these is not like the other. If Google's search engine is revolutionary then you have a low bar for "revolutionary". Trusted Coumpting is not the console model the idea of a consle is there is a market place of third party aplications that meet some minimum standerd and revinue from their sale is shared with the consle maker. Network / Trusted Computers don't fit into that catagory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Touchsmart almost, but it runs Windows Vista or Windows 7 as standard not an OS built around the mutli touch concept. They where designed to work best with a keyboard with the option to provide limited touch based interfaces.
You know, "revolutionary" comes from "revolution" which is more commonly used to describe "the overthrow of one government / replacement with another"...
I'm picking nits but it pains me that you missed the original meaning of revolution: that of the earth revolving around the sun and the associated profound change in thinking that the concept brought about.
> full abstraction of system operations (i.e. file and process management) from the user.
There have been plenty of attempts to do that in the past, the iphone does it as well.
Revolutionary is to me something that will literally change the face of computing as we know it, the world wide web was revolutionary, the personal computer was revolutionary.
The ipad is a nice gadget, it may be revolutionary but for that to be the case we will have to wait for the future to happen first, and it definitely isn't revolutionary in all possible futures.
edit: Interestingly enough, I'd peg the ipad's chances at being 'revolutionary' a lot higher if apple decided to make it a completely open platform. Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still.
For some reason 'closed' is the new black and I really don't think that's the right direction, which probably shows from my feelings about all this.
Of course Steve Jobs is in a much better position than I am to say that he's right, but I can't shake the feeling.
btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982...
"btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982..."
And almost no one is using it on a tablet scale yet. Nor has anyone (other than Apple) actually designed a tablet UI consistently around it yet, as opposed to trying to duct tape together a multitouch screen and a desktop UI.
"> full abstraction of system operations (i.e. file and process management) from the user.
There have been plenty of attempts to do that in the past"
And when that approach ultimately succeeds for most users, it will be a combination of web apps and iPad-like clients.
The iPad might be colossal failure overall, it might fail to catch on until it's cheap enough for the average user to have about three, or it might change the world next month--I'm not convinced any of these is true.
"Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still."
If your hypothesis is true, Android is going to become an even bigger success than iPhone. Likewise, there's going to be an open (probably Linux) alternative to iPad, just as there's Android now and there were IBM-compatibles to compete with the Apple II and Mac proprietary hardware platforms.
As it stands, Google's attempt at abstracting the system away is Chrome OS, which limits you exclusively to web apps. While that might be enough, it's hard to praise a design for "openness" when it doesn't let you run more than a web browser on your own machine. (Sure, you can install a different Linux on a Chrome OS netbook, but you can jailbreak iPhones and iPods touch as well--presumably iPads.)
Edit: Can someone explain to me why I'm being downmodded here?
> Can someone explain to me why I'm being downmodded here?
Happens all the time. Very annoying.
I'm not advocating chrome os in favor of the the ipad, it seems a step back. The PC revolution is slowly being rolled back and that's not revolutionary at all, that's regression.
The whole reason open source took off is because we own these machines, if we end up just getting a piece of glass that puts us in touch with all kinds of software that we are allowed to use remotely then we are well on our way to the 60's.
We'll see about android, I'm keeping my fingers (and my toes) crossed that open will win out over closed, no matter how slickly packaged closed can be (that really is it's big advantage, the fact that the 'cathedral' usually has a single architect makes it a lot more aesthetically pleasing to the eye).
"The PC revolution is slowly being rolled back and that's not revolutionary at all, that's a step back."
I used to think the same thing for years. I was always for thick clients and the like, but I've seen how ineptly probably 75% of people are at using a PC. Most people can't be sysadmins, and those of us who can don't always want to be. It's not simply a matter of the UI being poor, because even computers with good UI have intractable usability problems.
If we had high speed network access and graphical terminals everywhere we went in the 1960's, there would have been no PC revolution. As it stands, PC's are going to be a niche in the long run. That's probably fine--a stripped down machine like an iPod or Chrome OS or something would actually be helpful even to, for instance, me because I could segregate serious work (which I do on my MacBook) from wasting time on HN and the like (which I could do on a more limited device.)
That would be a real pity, let me try to put in to words why I think that's the case.
Computers as 'property' and in 'peer-to-peer' mode are a democratic institution. Even if they have their shortcomings, as you rightly observe, they are a powerful tool for information processing in the hands of the masses.
If you take all that power and move it to the other side of a network cable in the hands of a relatively small number of corporations then the knowledge on how to program and operate those machines 'under the hood' will probably become part of some kind of new priesthood.
I think that a real information revolution should not come from locking things up and walling them off but from tools that allow a large majority of the people to enter in to a dialogue with their own computers, where they are in control of their own information and can retrieve at will from large repositories of information.
Unless you're publishing your blog or whatnot on a server that's run out of your own bedroom, you've already lost that. I share your sympathies, but most people don't want what we want. The internet is democratic enough for those of us who don't own our own servers, and computing is going to have to become democratic enough for people who don't own their own general purpose computers.
I don't think PC's will become unavailable, though--there's too much work they're necessary for.
edit: Interestingly enough, I'd peg the ipad's chances at being 'revolutionary' a lot higher if apple decided to make it a completely open platform. Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still.
You just paraphrased my post. To your credit, your version is more succinct and to the point.
btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982...
The culture still lags the research labs by decades. See "The computer revolution hasn't happened yet" by Alan Kay.
So by your use of "revolutionary," the Gutenberg press wasn't because movable type predated it and he just used it to replicate Bibles in 2 better, faster way.
Apologies, I had completely failed to spot that, you are absolutely right.
> So by your use of "revolutionary," the Gutenberg press wasn't because movable type predated it and he just used it to replicate Bibles in 2 better, faster way.
No, te Gutenberg press was revolutionary because it opened up books to the masses.
On a technical level it was a relatively minor improvement over movable type, but the fact that the social consequences were enormous is what makes it revolutionary.
Technology is only revolutionary when it has large effects in the real world.
By that yardstick the laser was revolutionary, even if at the time it was invented we couldn't foresee any of the changes that it would bring. In fact, for the longest time it was called a solution in search of a problem.
I simply take exception to calling the ipad revolutionary before it has had a chance to prove itself. It's hype, and hype leads to over-expectations which almost always lead to disappointment.
Let's just wait and see, what this ipad thing is when you finally get your hands on it, let's see what kinds of uses people will put it to.
Then give it 5 to 10 years, and then we'll be in a position to judge whether or not it was revolutionary.
Remember the Osborne-1 ? that was revolutionary. But only because it made people think that computers didn't have to be stuck in one spot.
Gutenberg press was revolutionary because it opened up books to the masses.
On a technical level it was a relatively minor improvement over movable type, but the fact that the social consequences were enormous is what makes it revolutionary.
Yes. And it took the next 4 centuries for all of them to fully unfold.
Remember the Osborne-1 ? that was revolutionary. But only because it made people think that computers didn't have to be stuck in one spot.
> A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary.
I've seen the ipad referred to as a large iphone that you can't make voice calls with, and I can't really fault that description.
Which general notions about computing embodied in the ipad are the ones that you consider 'revolutionary' ?
The fact that your jailbroken iphone can do a whole bunch of stuff the 'regular' issue ones can't is actually a strong point against apple being 'revolutionary' in this sense.
You totally missed the point I was trying to make. The iPad is the embodiment of the form factor revolution presaged by Alan Kay's Dynabook. It's simply one evolutionary step toward ubiquitous computing, of which the iPhone, Palm Pilot, 2nd tablet PCs were a part.
I talk about the greater utility of my Jailbroken as a mark against Apple and the iPad. As more and more platforms combine the attributes required to compete with the iPad, its lack of openness will become more and more apparent.
People want walled gardens. They just don't want it with a fascist homeowner's association.
Or: they want scheduled maintenance with their car, but without the GPS data going to the dealer and a breathalyzer interlock as required equipment.
Unfortunately, there are also those who don't mind the above.
Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? The culture there is a "prove it works first, ask for approval once you've worked everything through in detail and need a Big Change" one. I would have expected any reasonable manager to just spin up a small team to fully mock up a few devices in concert with a couple of clients and present those up the chain.
I personally would have nixed him on this as well. It's quite easy to say, "we should scrap this and build something else" and another entirely to provide sufficient evidence that you're capable of doing so. If, for example, this guy wasn't able to deliver but was given a charter based on his random memo, Microsoft wouldn't be in third right now. They would be completely out of the game.
Even readers of this site who hate Microsoft have probably experienced it: most bad managers step into a new position and immediately talk about how the old thing needs to be thrown out and a new one built, naturally at great time and expense (and hiring a few of his old "Architect" buddies) but with amazing benefits down the line. How does that story usually end when you say "ok"?
According to his LinkedIn profile, Kodesh started working at MS in 1990. An MS press release says Kodesh was promoted to "vice president of consumer appliances" in august 1998 and he wrote his memo in september 1999.
He'd been at Microsoft for nearly 10 years. Also he was a VP. I don't think he made his proposal because he was somehow unaware of Microsoft culture or operating procedures.
Well, to be fair, It's not clear that Microsoft would have come up with the Zune interface on their own without a number of companies such as Apple, showing how successful such a platform can be.
It's easy to say "Create a simple, consumer oriented, touchscreen device" - it's entirely a different thing to implement. I've been using, and hating, the Windows Touch Screen Kiosks for over 10 years, frequently at Movie Theaters. Someone has taken a Desktop OS, and just ported it to a touch screen, rather than starting over from scratch, and saying "What should a touch screen OS look like" (Hint, it doesn't have a mouse pointer)
Also, note that Microsoft _did_ try and start over with a "simple, icon oriented, technology free" user environment - Microsoft Bob was that technology attempt. It was just a failure.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned about Bob, was that it's important to fail more quickly, so you can tack and take on a new approach. The goal was admirable (eliminate the technology interfering with the user doing their job) - Just didn't have the right team/processing/hardware at the time.
This may be contentious to a less informed audience, but in Many ways, the goals embodied in Microsoft Bob are represented in the iPad.
> Gates rejected the suggestions. “It’s very disappointing you feel that way,” he told Kodesh. “We don’t have time to start from scratch.”
1. "I'm disappointed you feel this way:" This is a direct criticism of Kodesh's personal feelings and an attack on his loyalty of the party line. This would have been so much better had Gates written "I can understand your enthusiasm for starting over, however..."
2. The old, old story: "If you don't have time to do it right, where will you find the time to do it over?" And indeed they did end up doing it over with Zune, having frittered years away with CE.
I share your reaction on Gates' response. I also think it sounds typical Bill Gates.
They did not only start over with Zune, they've been going right and left, what with constant name changes, the Danger acquisition which was a huge failure, the Pink project, to arrive at WinMo 7 which is still dangerously close to vaporware, and it's now March, 2010.
BilL Gates dropping the ball on handhelds/cellphones is in the neighborhood of him and MS almost missing out on the Web in the 90s.
His salary is irrelevant. The point is that Gates criticized Kodesh for having ideas that Gates didn't like. That is a very different matter from criticizing Kodesh's ideas themselves. The message is clear: Think what we tell you to think or leave.
Now you ask, better for whom? And I suggest, Better for Microsoft. It's possible to encourage people to explore different directions without pursuing them all. Gates could have ixnayed the message without ixnaying the messenger, and I hope that I am able to do that when it's my turn to deal with someone suggesting I scrap everything I've worked hard to build.
If 255 billion is fatally wounded, someone please shoot me.
I understand they have their problems. Windows 7 is doing well. Bing has been growing. Mobile they're actually doing something with now. XBox division is wiping the floor with PS3.
I think it's the long term stuff that worries me about MSFT. ie- windows and office will one day disappear. what are their plans for then? Maybe they'll just evolve?
I think the most major issue is managerial - the Xbox division from what I've heard has managed to conquer many of the serious management issues that plague the rest of MS (particularly the "main" teams, Windows and Office). MS is infamous for having a thick, thick layer of middle management that has proven to be detrimental to innovation and productivity.
I think MS's long-term success hinges on being able to determine the managerial how and why of the successful, innovative teams at MS (Bing, Xbox, etc) and transferring that to the rest of the company.
Downmodded why? I. M. Wright's “Hard Code” (published by Microsoft no less) pretty much makes this claim. Apparently they used to laugh at GM's layers of management, and now they have a similar number.
I work in Seattle, and know a number of Microsofties, and this is a pretty reliable consensus too even for people who are still there. The org tree is very, very deep and this causes a lot of problems - especially as a company ages and people go from enthusiastic risk takers to CYA corporate types.
Meh... I think this is part of the story but not the real reason.
If I remember correctly, most handset makers resisted Windows CE out of fear of becoming "just another bunch of box makers" for Microsoft. I think that's why you saw such an embrace of Symbian (or pretty much anything that wasn't Windows).
It may be hard to believe now but there was a time when everyone was terrified of Microsoft.
I don't know that I would call this a fatal wound. In hindsight it may prove to have been a costly mistake but last I looked Microsoft was still around.
Not fatal but it opened the door for everyone else. If everyone was happy with the new Windows Mobile proposed in this article and it had widespread adoption, would Apple have developed the iPhone? They might have, but it wouldn't have been such a slam dunk.
They can still do a slam dunk ... the mobile market is big-enough for everyone to fit in.
Anyway, why in the world would anyone use Windows CE when there isn't a market for third-party apps on WinCE? What incentive does it offer for mobile manufacturers? Pocket Word?
That's what Apple (and also Palm and Nokia) did right ... delivered their own software, their own hardware, created a market for third-parties, delivered a decent design (personally I don't think it's revolutionary. it irritates me actually).
Hopefully Google/Microsoft learns from this. More competition is better for everybody.
Absolutely. They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser for over a decade. The history of Microsoft has been to let other people innovate. They did not invent the PC, the GUI, email, the web, the browser, spreadsheets, word processing or anything else that they now dominate the market in.
So this is what happens when you decide to hold the line, rather than scrapping something that's not working for the next iteration. 11 years and counting on this one...
"To Kodesh, Microsoft’s initiatives were driven by the dictates of the company’s technology, rather than the wishes of consumers."
That's the simplest summary, really. The bureaucracy problems feed into this, but you don't need much more.
When you're designing to please people who won't be using the system, at the expense of those who will, nothing else is going to matter. You will fail.
I wouldn't call Apple's process of developing the iphone and ipad "starting over" software wise though. As far as I know, the OS of both of these devices is based on OS X which of course can be traced back to Nextstep. I believe Microsoft did exactly the same thing with win NT; I've seen "embedded" systems running it.
I would say what held back Microsoft's mobile devices in the past was UI and usability, which Apple seems to have well under control.
Bill Gates' original vision was "a computer on every desk, running Microsoft software". Once he more or less reached this goal, around the mid-90's, of course Microsoft stagnated.
I'd say that Bill's real failure was to not accept this fact and return as dividends or stock buybacks the tremendous amount of money that Microsoft was generating.
I'm getting a bit tired of all this revisionist history from several years ago (this anecdote seems to be 13 years old). Especially on places which don't understand how the inside of MSFT works (and has evolved over time).
Also, I'm willing to bet that BillG had a lot more to say than just those 2 sentences.
10 years ago mobile phones where just microcontrollers with LCDs and Symbian OS on it. Users couldn't even install J2ME software on it. In terms of openness Google Android and Nokia Maemo are now the best mobile operating systems (albeit still not fully open yet). Talking about fataly wounded: iPhone is maybe the last phone which cannot run Java software in our days.
Why has Microsoft found itself in third place, behind Apple and now Google, in the mobile segment of computing?
Because it's not an area they've ever been interested in.
Just because Mobile is the latest and greatest area of tech development doesn't mean everyone will stop using PC's tomorrow (and more importantly - that corporates will stop using PC's tomorrow)
So Microsoft got serious about "mobile" later than Apple - but it's always been a half hearted attempt. It seems as lot like MS wanting a finger in all the markets - "just in case".
So Microsoft scrabbled to jump on the mobile bandwagon
much later
Uhm. MS released Pocket PC in 2000, Windows mobile in 2003.
Apple announced iPhone in 2007. Google aquired Anodroid, Inc. in 2005, Open Handset Alliance was announced also in 2007. So no matter how you count MS jumped mobile bandwagon earlier.
Well I was sort of jumping on the same theory as the blog post. i.e. Windows Mobile was a passing thought - and it is only recently their trying to make more serious inroads.
That didn't really seem to be what the article was getting at. Windows Mobile was a serious push to try and establish itself in that area. It just turned out to be a flawed one, and the main thrust of the article was that at least some people recognized it at the time but were shot down by the head of the company.
Can we cut down on the hype a bit, please?
Whether the ipad is fad, fashion or revolutionary remains to be seen.
Apples track record of late is very impressive but this is extrapolation without any basis in fact.