backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by n0nsense.. on May 28 at 10:19 AM


Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was pretty mad about the performance of Windows Vista, which is his own words was "not executed well".   (Source: Tech Digest)

Listen up, adds Ballmer -- "There's nothing free about Android."  (Source: Yahoo Video)
Microsoft CEO's keynote was full of juicy comments

This week such noted guests as Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan and Jeff Bezos — chairman, president and CEO, Amazon.com — landed in Redmond, Washington for the annual Microsoft CEO Summit.  Unsurprisingly, the keynote speech was given by none other than the CEO of the world's largest tech company and protege of tech pioneer Bill Gates, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer is one of the most energetic and influential figures in the tech industry.  He is also known as one of the most polarizing, for his wild antics and unscripted sound bytes.  Thus you could virtually guarantee his keynote would be pretty interesting.

At the speech Ballmer let his fellow CEOs exactly how he viewed Windows Vista -- an overambitious product botched by a poor launch and poor timing.  He stated, "Just not executed well. Not the product itself, but we went a gap of about five, six years without a product.  I think back now and I think about thousands of man-hours, and it wasn't because we were wrong-minded in thinking bad thoughts and not pushing innovation. We tried too big a task, and in the process wound up losing essentially thousands of man-hours of innovation capabilities."

The admission was surprisingly forthright, when contrast with Ballmer's early statements on Vista's performance.  Initially, despite poor sales Ballmer blamed factors such as piracy, refusing to blame Vista.  As time has passed he has slowly grown more critical of Vista.  Of course the operating system is no longer Microsoft's flagship product, so that could have something to do with his changing attitude as well.

Many analysts have been highly critical of Windows Vista's performance.  The OS came at a $6B USD research and development cost to Microsoft, yet failed to come anywhere close to surpassing its predecessor, Windows XP, in market share.

The upside to that flop, though, was a rich operating system base that allowed Microsoft to push out Windows 7 -- essentially a performance tuned Vista with some extra gloss.  Windows 7, by contrast, has been a wild hit, passing Windows Vista in seven months and cruising towards passing Windows XP.  While that success can't entirely numb the sting of Vista among Microsoft's brass, it does provide a degree of vindication of their overall strategy.

Despite his candor about Vista, Ballmer had no qualms about saying that the super-hot selling Android smart phone operating system from Google was inferior to Microsoft's own smart phone operating systems.

In an interview with Fortune Ballmer commented, "I think what you mostly what you see in the market is that there's a lot of dynamism.  You know, people are up, they're down, they're sideways, they're this.  The whole market is growing.  But, in terms of share and popularity there's still a lot of opportunities for innovation."

"And I think Apple did some good stuff, but they're not number one in the market.  You know, number one is still Nokia, number two is still RIM.  And they did some good stuff.  And you know Android is done more of a... Google has done more of a software only approach.  Which has advantages.  That's our approach.  They hit the market with a good window relative to touch."

When asked about Android giving away Android for free versus Microsoft, which charges smart phone carriers, Ballmer took issue with that assessment, stating, "And there's nothing free about Android.  I mean at the end of the day as we certainly have asserted in a number of cases you know there's an intellectual property royalty due on that.  Whether they happen to charge for their software or not is their business decision."

Ultimately Ballmer is right -- Android isn't free.  It's certainly an expensive project for Google.  However, it's hard to deny that Ballmer essentially dodged the question.  At the end of the day Android is free to handset makers and consumers.  That answer would be a tough one for Ballmer to give, though, when the upcoming Windows Phone 7 comes with a fee, which is ultimately passed down to the consumer.  And then there's the additional fact that Android currently has some abilities that Windows Mobile does not, like copy and paste and multi-tasking.  Ballmer's response, while technically correct, thus left plenty unsaid.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Google's "Freedom"
By Tony Swash on 5/24/2010 6:43:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you buy music on your uPhone, you might have to use uTunes or an uPod to listen to it. You can't just decide to start using WMP or Rhythmbox when you get sick of uTunes. So you will continue to use uTunes because of the DRM that is attached to it. Or you can forfeit the hundreds of dollars that you spent building your library and start over again with a different content distributor like 7digital or Amazon (which BTW you can use with any media player).


You do realise that you can export iTunes DRM protected tracks as an unprotected MP3 file on a CD anytime you want don't you?

Nobody is locked into anything. Its a bit of a hassle to do it but its doable. As far as I know, based on what Steve Jobs has said publicly, Apple would remove DRM from iTunes in an instant if the music labels would go along with it. Apple don't make much money on selling music - they make it from selling the iPod - and are not particularly interested in DRM except where it is required to get the music labels to sign.


RE: Google's "Freedom"
By The Raven on 5/25/2010 4:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Look bro, as I said I was trying to explain the concept of being locked in by a company. Not tell it how it is with iTunes. That is why I used 'uTunes' instead.

So if you are saying that there is DRM on iTunes you are therefore locked in to using Apple products to use those files. Yes, you can burn a CD and then rip it into some .MP3s. You also can hold a microphone up to your speakers, cut some wax, and slap some vinyl on a victrola. But it is not the same thing. And there are a lot of other things out there that are more difficult to convert (or impossible).

Try opening a .PST file with Thunderbird or Evolution. You can't. Because it is a proprietary format. Though a company could design their software to read it or make a converter if it were an open standard. But no. If you want to read all the e-mails that you have been saving up over the years and look up your old contacts, you'd have to buy Outlook again. I don't know all the details of this particular case, but due to the popularity of Outlook, I'd figure that there are some converters out there that do the job half assed to well. But they won't do a perfect job because it is not Outlook.

The same applies to the DRM protected .AACs that you are talking about. The quality of the files will degrade during the conversion process that you speak of. So you are not able to take what you bought with you when you change music players.


RE: Google's "Freedom"
By elFarto on 5/26/2010 9:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has recently released documentation on the PST file format.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/23350

Regards
elFarto


RE: Google's "Freedom"
By The Raven on 5/26/2010 3:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet! Well I would really care if I used Outlook. But it is nice that it will be easier to get other people away from Outlook if they want to. Thanks, that's good to know.


RE: Google's "Freedom"
By The Raven on 5/25/2010 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also, even if the burning and ripping of CDs did result in a perfect transfer of the .AACs, it is still a hassle as you said, and that would factor into someone's decision to switch to a different program. I mean I have hundreds of CDs myself and if I had bought all that on iTunes, I would probably never pull myself away from iTunes.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki