If not, Android and NVIDIA, who do you think will be the next big players in computing? Do you think Intel and Microsoft will still make a big move in mobile?
Link to original article:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/hiner/the-next-wintel-android-plus-nvidia/7454
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I believe it will be Apple and its operating system, may be Motorola as a computing device or processor, I do not know, I know Intel started to pay an attention to the mobile device although they are focusing on WiiMax
I believe that proves that the near future and long term as well will only be to the mobile apps and mobile processing and I think it will take also part of mobile cloud computing ..... Well done Google 
I think I recognize the pattern of darting developments, if it's what I think, then a new baseline is taking form.
I don't actually think it will be "mobile computing", but rather the intermarriage of current mobile and features of more traditional computing.
As the mobile devices can handle more by themselves, they'll also be able to more efficiently hand over requests for processor heavy tasks to external processing, be that "cloud" or a "black box"-type processing unit on a wireless network. I think we'll soon see it being as effective as a desktop setup (well... if desktop setups stagnate ).
"Black box" is the inverse of, say, an ipad : just processing, storage and peripherals, not intended for direct interfacing.
I don't actually think it will be "mobile computing", but rather the intermarriage of current mobile and features of more traditional computing.
As the mobile devices can handle more by themselves, they'll also be able to more efficiently hand over requests for processor heavy tasks to external processing, be that "cloud" or a "black box"-type processing unit on a wireless network. I think we'll soon see it being as effective as a desktop setup (well... if desktop setups stagnate
)."Black box" is the inverse of, say, an ipad : just processing, storage and peripherals, not intended for direct interfacing.
Why? Raw power. How is a tiny device supposed to hold your I5 equivalent chip as the "be all, end all" solution without burning a hole in your pocket (literally)? These tiny mobile devices are cute, but are not the powerhouses we need in the real world. They offer a convenient way to get to the bare minimum at short notice while staying mobile, but what about everything else? CAD, advanced image processing, movie production, and all the other software solutions that require power aren't going to focus on an underpowered mobile device just because it's cool and new. I, as a programmer, will likely pick up an another Android when I'm done with this one, and as a requirement, it must have the desktop option with HDMI, but no one's donating my desktop yet, and I don't see that happening in the near future.
Replacement probably won't be an option any time soon. Not for most people.
Some people, who either don't have, or don't often use, a full PC may end up with just a mobile device. (I almost recommended an iPad to my mom, but she would still need a PC for iTunes... doh!)
For me, it's another tool. I suspect most tech-savvy people will have similar needs.
Some people, who either don't have, or don't often use, a full PC may end up with just a mobile device. (I almost recommended an iPad to my mom, but she would still need a PC for iTunes... doh!)
For me, it's another tool. I suspect most tech-savvy people will have similar needs.
With you and the next poster. It is just another tool for convenience. I've never been personally able to sit on my couch (even with a powerful laptop) and be productive. The keyboard and mouse situation have always seemed unnatural for me, but it does give me a convenient way to surf the web and check e-mail. The adoption of standards by these I-PAD like devices have been slow at best, however, so for many, they will find frustration rather than convenience (Flash, Silverlight, etc).
A proper PC, a big monitor(high-res, not a TV screen) and a separate keyboard that includes a touchpad works great from the couch.
... do people keep talking about it's demise? Why do the writers of these articles keep using language that implies that PCs (ALL PCs given the lack of any qualification in the statements) will be replaced by tablet/smart phones/... some time next week?
A box with a strong processor, big memory, big HDD, one to three wireless link technologies, some ports, and a big powercell. Like a wireless miniserver, no screen, no keyboard, no pointless audio jacks or card readers or anything like that.
Of course it has to have an OS that supports being a microcloud, exchanging tasks and output with the handheld devices it supports.
But in it's specs it will be like a desktop PC. You can plug it into the mains, leave it on you work desk, all the while pulling it's processing power to your tablet while reclining on your couch in another room... if you're into that sort of thing.
Of course it has to have an OS that supports being a microcloud, exchanging tasks and output with the handheld devices it supports.
But in it's specs it will be like a desktop PC. You can plug it into the mains, leave it on you work desk, all the while pulling it's processing power to your tablet while reclining on your couch in another room... if you're into that sort of thing.
I guess you have never heard of CUDA:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
All of the things that you listed run faster on NVIDIA chips than on the newest i7 and they cost a fraction of the ammount. A chip from NVIDIA that costs $250 is shockingly faster than the $1,500 i7 chips.
They have the ability to put this supercomputer power in a small form factor. Also, I would like to try a desktop that is based on this tech.
The point is that the power is there and the form factor is not. I really like the desktop form factor but someday mine might be powered by NVIDIA.
I already use my GTX285 for video processing and it makes format conversion much faster.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
All of the things that you listed run faster on NVIDIA chips than on the newest i7 and they cost a fraction of the ammount. A chip from NVIDIA that costs $250 is shockingly faster than the $1,500 i7 chips.
They have the ability to put this supercomputer power in a small form factor. Also, I would like to try a desktop that is based on this tech.
The point is that the power is there and the form factor is not. I really like the desktop form factor but someday mine might be powered by NVIDIA.
I already use my GTX285 for video processing and it makes format conversion much faster.
It will be interesting to see how Android moving up and Wintel moving down plays out.
Computing is, well, will be, inside everything. So for me the more interesting battle is between the silos and the platforms. One silo/platform is Apple which assumes the know the purpose of the devices. The other, as I note in http://rmf.vc/CES2011.trc, is between the device/appliance markers who struggling to keep the value contained within their products with "smart" TVs and other appliances.
Computing is, well, will be, inside everything. So for me the more interesting battle is between the silos and the platforms. One silo/platform is Apple which assumes the know the purpose of the devices. The other, as I note in http://rmf.vc/CES2011.trc, is between the device/appliance markers who struggling to keep the value contained within their products with "smart" TVs and other appliances.
Apple is a bit short sighted to be the leadership company. As Jason points out, " Apple???s strict focus on vertical integration generates lots of profits and great products, but limits its role as a partner." They will be financially very healthy, but never the leader. For further evidence, check Enderly's article where Apple now wants to charge a tax to use content on their devices.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71795.html?wlc=1297091770&wlc=1297094881
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71795.html?wlc=1297091770&wlc=1297094881
The world is changing, and NVDA has had the vision to see what was coming for some time. Traditional handheld SoC providers (QCOM, TXN) don't have the perspective, product pulse or differentiable technology to compete over the long haul. Intel, the traditional key PC leader, is carrying too much legacy around; x86 will shoe-horn into only so many form-factors before new platforms are no longer possible. CES 2011 witnessed a sea change. I'm sure there are lots of doubters, even with good arguments against this happening, but the truth is NVDA has been planning of this moment for a decade, and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang is too competitive and determined to fail. (Project Denver, where they are going after Intel, is a whole other topic.)
Agree, the world will always need a platform for creation and authoring. But what % systems is that versus the population who just consume content? I'd argue 10-20% of the total population that has PC's or workstations need them today. Everyone else is mostly a consumer (game player, shopper, email reader, texter, power-point displayer, spreadsheet referencer), and that can easily be done on a hand-held device.
But the mobile devices have been slow to adopt the simplest of things like Flash and Silverlight. I'd like to believe in the revolution as my "elderly" parents would be far better off with a phone that plugged into a monitor than a full blown PC, but the reality is neither would be able to do their job (i.e. my mom uses a Silverlight application to fill in her hours for work).
As a consultant who supports technology users, I agree. 80% or more of the users out there do not create content other than a document or spreadsheet now and then or a slide show. Mostly they surf the web, check email, and look at media (photos, video, etc). The convenience of holding a device in your hand and getting their content is what they want. Those of use who create content will always need something much more robust, but I use mobile devices to consume content too.
I only know a handful of people that have smartphones and only a few of them actually use the functionality beyond the occasional foray on the web. This topic would be considered "crazy talk". (BTW, I work in a software development shop, so geeks abound.)
Software people look at screens all day without a pda. For the rest of the world get on a subway and look around, or a college library, or any coffee shop smart phones are everywhere
ARM has a number of licensees, including Qualcomm and TI. What about AMD partnering with at least one of them? This also assumes the Imagination Technologies, developer of the PowerVR chips cannot play at NVIDIA's level. This is the first good implementation of a dual core based mobile device. It is far from the last.
Moreover, what about quad core mobile device chips down the road? Look how fast the desktop/notebook markets have moved into quad core chips.
Moreover, what about quad core mobile device chips down the road? Look how fast the desktop/notebook markets have moved into quad core chips.
There really is not much competition here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
We are not talking about 10% performance increases. This platform has actualized up to 1800% performance gains on math heavy applications.
Remember the math co-processor on the old 386? Yeah those are now standard on every desktop computer. You never see it. It's on die with the CPU. I would say that this is a similar advancement.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
We are not talking about 10% performance increases. This platform has actualized up to 1800% performance gains on math heavy applications.
Remember the math co-processor on the old 386? Yeah those are now standard on every desktop computer. You never see it. It's on die with the CPU. I would say that this is a similar advancement.
It'll be interesting to see how this affects Linux as we know it. It's already fairly platform-agnostic. The type of development necessary to properly support the hardware (i.e., drivers) and user interface are exactly what PC Linux needs anyway. If this development ends up open-source, Linux may actually have their long-awaited "Year of the Linux Desktop".
I also hope Apple doesn't give up on MacOS.
I also hope Apple doesn't give up on MacOS.
Games on a mobile device? I doubt it. Serious gaming geeks have huge systems to handle cooling the processors required to keep the graphics as awesome as the developers intended. Sure, Angry Birds and its ilk are fine for passing time on your commute, but serious gaming? Until there are some serious advances is graphics processors, I don't see it happening.
I agree, to truly have the best experience you need a dedicated system. But the games being played today on a handheld are similar to best of class PC games a few years ago. Tegra2 is being compared to game consoles here in this Utube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpGtu_ZkwqA That's a tegra2 hand held device running the game and being output to the auditorium display at CES in Jan. That gaming experience doesn't suck.
.. various computing sub-techs have a great ability to converge into where leading platform in that field are going at. In 1987 you'd laugh off anyone saying that in 10 years IBM PC compatibles will be mainstream home computers and gaming platforms -- both if you were just user observant of where technology was, or if you were tech savvy enough to compare benefits of AmigaOS over DOS for gaming etc. But it's exactly what happened.
Likewise, but on a different note, in 1992 you'd never assume Windows will be a serious contender to MacOS in fields of DTP and content authoring, but it now is (well at least Mac isn't dead like Amiga). In 1995 you'd never guess Linux will successfully compete with, let alone outnumber traditional Unix, Netware and then emerging Windows NT Server platforms... but it still happened.
And in all these fields coolest new developments easily switched to whatever platform took the lead (happening right now with servers and Linux). Linux Desktop is more/less an utopia, but Android as a leading consumer computing platform is a likely future (not the only likely future tho), and Apple, who are known for their good "feel" for where the industry is going at are already working on bringing the mobile to the desktop. Leading consumer computing platform, whatever that is in the future, will be the one that cool new games will be developed for. Cross platform dev tools (an emerging need with all those consoles around) will only bring that dream closer.
Likewise, but on a different note, in 1992 you'd never assume Windows will be a serious contender to MacOS in fields of DTP and content authoring, but it now is (well at least Mac isn't dead like Amiga). In 1995 you'd never guess Linux will successfully compete with, let alone outnumber traditional Unix, Netware and then emerging Windows NT Server platforms... but it still happened.
And in all these fields coolest new developments easily switched to whatever platform took the lead (happening right now with servers and Linux). Linux Desktop is more/less an utopia, but Android as a leading consumer computing platform is a likely future (not the only likely future tho), and Apple, who are known for their good "feel" for where the industry is going at are already working on bringing the mobile to the desktop. Leading consumer computing platform, whatever that is in the future, will be the one that cool new games will be developed for. Cross platform dev tools (an emerging need with all those consoles around) will only bring that dream closer.
I am not sure if Android and NVIDIA are going to really dominate the market. Android based products are challenging and still have many performance issues. Most users do not want the frustrations that comes from products that lockup or don't perform well. If a product requires modifications (rooting) to get the best performance most people don't want to deal with the risk or the process behind it. There is a reason why Apple is dominating with their mobile products. They make products that are reliable, perform well, and are user friendly. Tech companies must keep the users in mind during development and limit the end frustration.
Just imagine the perfect integration using an nForce board, nVidia CPU and nVidia graphics card.
The following would all need to happen, but I also believe most of it is likely to happen (with variable likeliness):
1. Honeycomb is a big hit and opens up the way for more and more desktop-like Android apps
2. Android becomes dominant mobile platform
3. Google gives up on ChromeOS and focuses all that manpower to Android.
4. Android x86 port gets some backing from the industry (Intel?)
5. Android gets better and better support for native apps
6. Major Linux desktop apps are getting ported
Analogy: this is somewhat how Windows "spread" to server market. Big success of it as a desktop solution created a demand for their server software. Meanwhile MS itself figured that it wanted to spread into that market.
1. Honeycomb is a big hit and opens up the way for more and more desktop-like Android apps
2. Android becomes dominant mobile platform
3. Google gives up on ChromeOS and focuses all that manpower to Android.
4. Android x86 port gets some backing from the industry (Intel?)
5. Android gets better and better support for native apps
6. Major Linux desktop apps are getting ported
Analogy: this is somewhat how Windows "spread" to server market. Big success of it as a desktop solution created a demand for their server software. Meanwhile MS itself figured that it wanted to spread into that market.
Android has a Linux kernel, but it is extremely paired down and essentially is there to run Java. All Android apps are Java, which does not make for a great desktop OS. If Google wants to compete in the desktop marketplace they need to keep plugging away on ChromeOS. And I hope they do, I use Windows because there is nothing better fo rmy needs, but every year I give the new flavors of Linux a try, hoping for the one that will steal my heart.
So you are familiar with Linux? Why would you ever question it's power? Linux can do anything and be anything. It is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. PFM sir. It's PFM.
They could add all the functionality of Ubuntu and still call it "Android". It's just a name.
They could add all the functionality of Ubuntu and still call it "Android". It's just a name.
"A rose by any other name" may smell as sweet, but pond scum will never smell sweet even if called a rose. Similarly Andriod is more than a name, its an OS designed for a specific job. Should it ever grow into a full blown desktop OS it would become too bloated to perform the job it was intended to do. ChromeOS is important for that very reason. They may want to market it as Android Desktop Edition or some such thing, but it will still not be Android under the hood.
not a desktop OS. Google will try to sell it to you as a "Desktop OS" but you will be dependant upon SAS and on-line storage. From what I understand Chrome OS is just the Chrome browser and all apps are webapps. That is a far cry from being able to do the things that we both agree desktops are good for.
"Under the hood" they are both Linux. Not Chrome or Android. My point was that this makes the possiblities very open. Chrome doesn't have to be just a browser (Although it will be) and Android doesn't have to be "pond scum" (Although it might be).
So what is worse? an OS based on Java or an OS based on HTML? They will both need some back-end work to be functional.
"Under the hood" they are both Linux. Not Chrome or Android. My point was that this makes the possiblities very open. Chrome doesn't have to be just a browser (Although it will be) and Android doesn't have to be "pond scum" (Although it might be).
So what is worse? an OS based on Java or an OS based on HTML? They will both need some back-end work to be functional.
Going from a mass of content creators to a mass of content consumers is the natural path of a medium.
For a moment, let's examine the story of the invention of the landline telephone. The landline telephone switchboard was an open standard that allowed telephone networks to interconnect in 1894. More than 6,000 independent phone companies sprouted up and people were even building their own phones. Flash forward to 2011. No one builds their own phones from scratch anymore and most areas have only one carrier that services a specific geographical location. In the landline telephone medium, the population at large have gone from being content creators (small, individual companies and people building their own phones) to content consumers entirely dependent on the telephone companies.
The story of computers is no different. Fewer and fewer people will produce content, but more and more will consume on tablets and smartphones. It's the natural path of an industrial revolution. A technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand flowers bloom, and then through user apathy and corporate capitalism, someone finds a way to own it, turning people into merely content consumers.
For a moment, let's examine the story of the invention of the landline telephone. The landline telephone switchboard was an open standard that allowed telephone networks to interconnect in 1894. More than 6,000 independent phone companies sprouted up and people were even building their own phones. Flash forward to 2011. No one builds their own phones from scratch anymore and most areas have only one carrier that services a specific geographical location. In the landline telephone medium, the population at large have gone from being content creators (small, individual companies and people building their own phones) to content consumers entirely dependent on the telephone companies.
The story of computers is no different. Fewer and fewer people will produce content, but more and more will consume on tablets and smartphones. It's the natural path of an industrial revolution. A technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand flowers bloom, and then through user apathy and corporate capitalism, someone finds a way to own it, turning people into merely content consumers.
As users (have) become adept at using the Android O/S from the phone, they'll begin to see the business dynamics of open systems and the inherent economies of scale. So what does that mean? Tablets are not just the next big thing, users want portability. Users want easy. Users want connectivity without bloatware. Users want to be updated with viable software that's secure. If you can honestly tell me Intel and Windows are fleet of foot in producing these dynamics - you're not aware of what Android is and will become. The majority of users don't need to process millions of rows of data, they want to make decisions on aggregate answers - which can be assimilated from a central resource (cloud). Need to make a presentation from your tablet or the cloud? Xoom will let you do that with it's connectivity. All I can say is I'm embracing what's coming with a leap. It's a safe leap, an exciting leap and it's the future. It's very exciting to be on the side of defining business options while bringing forward an exciting new infrastructure that meets the future. Enjoy!
The new mobil devices are becoming the terminals and the cloud is becoming the mainframe. If standards remain open it will not matter which OS is on either end and consumers don't care as long as it does what they want. This may give rise to many different choices in devices and software. Time will tell...
Never trust the cloud. They already taught an AI to lie. It's only a matter of time. I prefer a slingbox model where I have a mainframe at my house and my mobile device could then be a terminal of my PC. That way I still own my content. I have control of what OS is on both ends. Hopefully I will be able to keep my data away from the Terminators.
Windows 8 is supposed to run on ARM processors, opening Windows up to the portable market in a way never before seen. Add to that Windows Phone 7's support for Xbox integration and you suddenly have a powerhouse OS and a remarkable gaming system rolled into one. Granted, it all depends on how the next version of Windows and Windows Phone converge and grow, but MS has pulled a rabbit out of its hat a few times to maintain market dominance.
Next you'll be wearing M$ clothing and sleeping at a M$ dorm facility. Windows isn't going away. You can put the flag down. . . and the gun.
I'm no MS fan-boy but neither do I demonize the company. My opinion is based on what MS "could" do based on their technologies and their past performance as a company. Try to keep to the discussion instead of making personal comments about the posters.
Microsoft and Intel would respond to the above blog with:
"Reports of my death have been highly exaggerated."
This line: "in 2010 it passed Microsoft to become the world???s largest tech company", relating to Apple becoming the largest tech company is simply false.
Apple did take over the top spot when it comes to "market capitalization", but that's not the same as being the largest technology company. That would still be Microsoft, by a long shot with it's many products and services, and with its reach into every type of service and every type of product and every type of software. Apple can't even come close.
Now, when it comes to Microsoft and Intel being left behind in the new mobile marketplace, well, those 2 companies are already gearing up to compete effectively, and the author of the piece above is being hyperbolic about the new tech revolution leaving those 2 giants behind. Intel is already developing for the mobile market and Microsoft has already entered that market, and in fact, has some very good competition against it's rivals in that mobile space. The mobile marketplace is basically still in its infancy, and to already declare who the winners and losers are is to be less than honest or very nearsighted.
In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.
"Reports of my death have been highly exaggerated."
This line: "in 2010 it passed Microsoft to become the world???s largest tech company", relating to Apple becoming the largest tech company is simply false.
Apple did take over the top spot when it comes to "market capitalization", but that's not the same as being the largest technology company. That would still be Microsoft, by a long shot with it's many products and services, and with its reach into every type of service and every type of product and every type of software. Apple can't even come close.
Now, when it comes to Microsoft and Intel being left behind in the new mobile marketplace, well, those 2 companies are already gearing up to compete effectively, and the author of the piece above is being hyperbolic about the new tech revolution leaving those 2 giants behind. Intel is already developing for the mobile market and Microsoft has already entered that market, and in fact, has some very good competition against it's rivals in that mobile space. The mobile marketplace is basically still in its infancy, and to already declare who the winners and losers are is to be less than honest or very nearsighted.
In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.
Did you write this from your iPhone? Oh, the sweet irony. I would certainly agree that Apple is not the leader of much beyond MP3 Players. Certainly not the world's largest "tech company", whatever that means.
However I disagree with your speculation upon this speculative article. These are all just opinions. Are you going to purchase a Windows mobile device? After writing this glowing praise I sure hope you do. I won't. I won't buy in to Apple either. I think that the strong combonation of NVIDIA and Android is a superior solution. The best do not always win but it's not absurd to bet on the best. Most professionals I know have an Android, some have the iPhone. I can't see M$ Windows phone 7 getting better sales numbers than either of these. M$ phones have had notably poor sales in the past. I doubt this will change.
Whatever happened to TREO? They used to outsell M$ phones every day.
However I disagree with your speculation upon this speculative article. These are all just opinions. Are you going to purchase a Windows mobile device? After writing this glowing praise I sure hope you do. I won't. I won't buy in to Apple either. I think that the strong combonation of NVIDIA and Android is a superior solution. The best do not always win but it's not absurd to bet on the best. Most professionals I know have an Android, some have the iPhone. I can't see M$ Windows phone 7 getting better sales numbers than either of these. M$ phones have had notably poor sales in the past. I doubt this will change.
Whatever happened to TREO? They used to outsell M$ phones every day.
blogger directly and made a mistake by replying to my post.
But, in any case, it's not slander.
Just some pretty bad reporting with some pretty bad assumptions.
But, in any case, it's not slander.
Just some pretty bad reporting with some pretty bad assumptions.
And likely the target sentence was the outrageous unsupported claim "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
But that kind of statements are par for the course in technology trendspotting, so it's not a biggie.
But that kind of statements are par for the course in technology trendspotting, so it's not a biggie.
from the blogger who, in fact, is the one that made "unsupported claims" about the future of computing.
There are far too many bloggers who are full of themselves, and who show too much favoritism for one company or the other. They oftentimes sound just like the fanbois for Apple or Microsoft or Google, and they forget that they're supposed to report rather than to try to steer or show favoritism.
However, I doubt Spitfire_Sysop meant his post as a reply to me.
There are far too many bloggers who are full of themselves, and who show too much favoritism for one company or the other. They oftentimes sound just like the fanbois for Apple or Microsoft or Google, and they forget that they're supposed to report rather than to try to steer or show favoritism.
However, I doubt Spitfire_Sysop meant his post as a reply to me.
Slander:
defamation in some transient form, as by spoken words, gestures, etc
defamation:
false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel;
I thought you were being rude and trying to mar the reputation of the origional poster, Mr. Jason Hiner.
defamation in some transient form, as by spoken words, gestures, etc
defamation:
false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel;
I thought you were being rude and trying to mar the reputation of the origional poster, Mr. Jason Hiner.
You issue an accusation, but fail to state where I "slandered" the blogger.
Look, the bloggers in this site are well-known to, occasionally, do a lot of bad reporting and to report their personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as "facts". That's not "slander", that's the truth.
Apparently, you're quite incapable of noticing that. (Is that now a "slander" against you). To some people, speaking the truth is "slanderous", because, they can't handle the truth.
Look, the bloggers in this site are well-known to, occasionally, do a lot of bad reporting and to report their personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as "facts". That's not "slander", that's the truth.
Apparently, you're quite incapable of noticing that. (Is that now a "slander" against you). To some people, speaking the truth is "slanderous", because, they can't handle the truth.
Microsoft has proven over and over for the past few years they have passed their time as an innovative and creative tech company. I did a project with a group from Microsoft and talk about work pressure. I could only describe as a silicon sweat shop. Then there is a huge off-shoring initiative resulting in cheap labor, but little new, so no I don't have any expectations that Microsoft will continue to do anything but dominate certain markets, but slowly fade away.
What you described in your dealing with Microsoft sounds exactly the way things would be with most other major tech companies, including Apple, Google, IBM, Dell, HP, you name it...
Now, your opinion is the same exact tripe we've been hearing for over 10 years from those that dislike or hate Microsoft, and they'd like nothing less than to have Microsoft close shop.
But, they're still here, and they're actually growing in size and in the number of products and services which they offer, and in case you hadn't noticed, they're very far from closing shop with all the profits they've been making, including with the huge sales they've had from their latest products, such as XBox/Kinect and Windows 7, and their Office suite, and others. Their Windows mobile platform is just getting started and it looks like it's going to be very successful with Nokia jumping on board.
All in all, it sounds like you're very far from the reality concerning Microsoft. And, hey, I don't even own their stock. I just like looking at the reality of things.
Now, your opinion is the same exact tripe we've been hearing for over 10 years from those that dislike or hate Microsoft, and they'd like nothing less than to have Microsoft close shop.
But, they're still here, and they're actually growing in size and in the number of products and services which they offer, and in case you hadn't noticed, they're very far from closing shop with all the profits they've been making, including with the huge sales they've had from their latest products, such as XBox/Kinect and Windows 7, and their Office suite, and others. Their Windows mobile platform is just getting started and it looks like it's going to be very successful with Nokia jumping on board.
All in all, it sounds like you're very far from the reality concerning Microsoft. And, hey, I don't even own their stock. I just like looking at the reality of things.
while I teach you the meaning of words. Let's start with the subject line "The blog is some pretty bad reporting..." You clearly say "the blog" not "this post". This looks like a direct attack upon the writer himself and all of his work here.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world." This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog. You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
You just spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
What a jerk.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world." This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog. You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
You just spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
What a jerk.
I didn't realize you wanted me to hold your hand
First off, I'm pretty sure you're not my type.
Secondly, if anybody here needs to have his hand held, it would be you, because, you sound like you still have a lot of growing up to do.
while I teach you the meaning of words.
Such arrogance, coming from someone who apparently is still a long way from understanding that, nobody is infallible, and that a blogger is not a God, and that a blogger can be just as clueless as anybody out there, and that a blogger can be very biased, and that bloggers oftentimes get paid to present certain points of view. It's quite apparent that the one needing a lot of life-lessons is you.
Let's start with the subject line "The blog is some pretty bad reporting..." You clearly say "the blog" not "this post". This looks like a direct attack upon the writer himself and all of his work here.
And, I stand by what I said!
By blog, I meant the particular report/article to which I was replying, and, since the article was written by a "blogger", then, of course, I was pointing directly at the author of the piece. You don't have to do a scientific analysis of what I said. It's very clear what I said. That you need to go into breaking it down just goes to show that it's you that's having a hard time understanding what others say.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
I've been in the tech field for a very long time, and one thing I know is that, when it comes to predictions, they often turn out to be wrong. Thus, I'm saying the bloggers predictions are nothing more than wishful thinking based on a huge lack of analysis about the history of technology. Predicting the the direction of technology a few years in the future is like predicting the weather 2 years in advance for a particular day of that year. Those kind of predictions are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog.
Let me teach you the meanings of a couple of words.
Opinion, like when two or more people disagree on the issues or on certain subjects, is not slanderous.
Slander is "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" or "An abusive attack on a person's character or good name", or in a more clear fashion, "charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone".
None of what I did comes even close to the definition of slander. I didn't accuse the blogger with sleeping with an underage person, and I didn't accuse him of stealing from an elderly person down the street. Now, if I maliciously accused the blogger with doing any of those kind of things, just to damage his good name and his good reputation, then I could be accused of slander.
However, a difference of opinion, and a retort/response which accuses someone of not knowing what he's talking about, or just being plainly biased in one direction or another, cannot be called slander. It that kind of difference of opinion where to be classified as slander, then there could never be debates in congress, or in talk shows, and "civilized" discussion could never be allowed, and newspapers would never be allowed to have "commentary/opinion" pages.
It you still have a problem wrapping your head around what slander and opinions are, then you have much bigger problems than you can imagine.
You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
The difference being that, I didn't make any bold predictions about what technology would or wouldn't be in the future. My prediction was a generic one, with no specifics in the manner that the blogger used.
However, did you notice how you came around to using the correct wording for what I actually did? I offered my opinion regarding the contents of the blog post, and the blogger's opinion.
But then, you yourself end up indicting the blogger with the statement that the blogger "stated his opinions as fact". That is exactly what I was saying, and now you're saying it yourself. I was disagreeing with the predictions which were being presented as if they were facts. If you believe in any way that opinion should not be presented as facts, then you are admitting that I'm correct in my opinions regarding the blogger.
You spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
When it comes to opinions, I don't try to present them as facts. However, opinions can be based on facts. What I said in my post was an opinion based on how the blogger presented his opinions, and I just merely disagreed with the blogger. Your original premise was that I was being "slanderous" to the blogger. But, you apparently don't even know the meaning of the word.
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
Well, the "fact" is that you appear to be clueless about what constitutes slander and, you don't understand the difference between opinion and slander. For appearing to be so ignorant (and clueless), I sentence you to repeat grade school.
Now, going back to the "contents" of the blogger's piece, and going back to the contents of my original response, what part of those contents did you actually disagree with? Forgetting about your "opinion" that I was being "slanderous", what part of what I said is it that you disagree with? That is what you should have concentrated on in order to prove me wrong.
First off, I'm pretty sure you're not my type.
Secondly, if anybody here needs to have his hand held, it would be you, because, you sound like you still have a lot of growing up to do.
while I teach you the meaning of words.
Such arrogance, coming from someone who apparently is still a long way from understanding that, nobody is infallible, and that a blogger is not a God, and that a blogger can be just as clueless as anybody out there, and that a blogger can be very biased, and that bloggers oftentimes get paid to present certain points of view. It's quite apparent that the one needing a lot of life-lessons is you.
Let's start with the subject line "The blog is some pretty bad reporting..." You clearly say "the blog" not "this post". This looks like a direct attack upon the writer himself and all of his work here.
And, I stand by what I said!
By blog, I meant the particular report/article to which I was replying, and, since the article was written by a "blogger", then, of course, I was pointing directly at the author of the piece. You don't have to do a scientific analysis of what I said. It's very clear what I said. That you need to go into breaking it down just goes to show that it's you that's having a hard time understanding what others say.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
I've been in the tech field for a very long time, and one thing I know is that, when it comes to predictions, they often turn out to be wrong. Thus, I'm saying the bloggers predictions are nothing more than wishful thinking based on a huge lack of analysis about the history of technology. Predicting the the direction of technology a few years in the future is like predicting the weather 2 years in advance for a particular day of that year. Those kind of predictions are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog.
Let me teach you the meanings of a couple of words.
Opinion, like when two or more people disagree on the issues or on certain subjects, is not slanderous.
Slander is "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" or "An abusive attack on a person's character or good name", or in a more clear fashion, "charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone".
None of what I did comes even close to the definition of slander. I didn't accuse the blogger with sleeping with an underage person, and I didn't accuse him of stealing from an elderly person down the street. Now, if I maliciously accused the blogger with doing any of those kind of things, just to damage his good name and his good reputation, then I could be accused of slander.
However, a difference of opinion, and a retort/response which accuses someone of not knowing what he's talking about, or just being plainly biased in one direction or another, cannot be called slander. It that kind of difference of opinion where to be classified as slander, then there could never be debates in congress, or in talk shows, and "civilized" discussion could never be allowed, and newspapers would never be allowed to have "commentary/opinion" pages.
It you still have a problem wrapping your head around what slander and opinions are, then you have much bigger problems than you can imagine.
You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
The difference being that, I didn't make any bold predictions about what technology would or wouldn't be in the future. My prediction was a generic one, with no specifics in the manner that the blogger used.
However, did you notice how you came around to using the correct wording for what I actually did? I offered my opinion regarding the contents of the blog post, and the blogger's opinion.
But then, you yourself end up indicting the blogger with the statement that the blogger "stated his opinions as fact". That is exactly what I was saying, and now you're saying it yourself. I was disagreeing with the predictions which were being presented as if they were facts. If you believe in any way that opinion should not be presented as facts, then you are admitting that I'm correct in my opinions regarding the blogger.
You spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
When it comes to opinions, I don't try to present them as facts. However, opinions can be based on facts. What I said in my post was an opinion based on how the blogger presented his opinions, and I just merely disagreed with the blogger. Your original premise was that I was being "slanderous" to the blogger. But, you apparently don't even know the meaning of the word.
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
Well, the "fact" is that you appear to be clueless about what constitutes slander and, you don't understand the difference between opinion and slander. For appearing to be so ignorant (and clueless), I sentence you to repeat grade school.
Now, going back to the "contents" of the blogger's piece, and going back to the contents of my original response, what part of those contents did you actually disagree with? Forgetting about your "opinion" that I was being "slanderous", what part of what I said is it that you disagree with? That is what you should have concentrated on in order to prove me wrong.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
