No, this is historically very typical for Microsoft.
Windows ME sucked. Windows XP was great. Windows Vista sucked. Windows 7 was great.
At least that was the perception. Reality is more nuanced, of course.
And business is very conservative, they never upgrade immediately.
For business, the alternative to Windows 8 is Windows 7 or Windows XP. It isn't OS X or Linux or Android. Microsoft does better if they switch to 8, but they don't lose if they don't.
I agree that Microsoft has several chances to get Windows 8 (I.e. the tablet plus computer OS) right, so this is just strike 1.
That said, Windows is already a minority computing platform (in terms of new devices sold) so perhaps it cannot be as complacent as it has been in the past. If Windows 8 flops monumentally, when Windows 9 ships in 2014 we may all be docking our pads or phones to a keyboard and/or 2160p wallscreen to use virtualized Windows (when we have to) running legacy software and ten year old microsoft licenses.
There were no serious threats to their dominance before; now they have iOS, Android and even OS-X is starting to gain more marketshare than I'd be comfortable with if I were ballmer.
I really don't see the point that many HN users keep comparing apples with oranges. iOS and Android have no relevance in this discussion as they are not real OS'es. You cannot develop on them, you cannot do work on them except for replying emails and browsing some webpages. And that's how it will remain.
OSX is great, but please post the link from Apple store where you can get a decent working laptop for under $500. Good luck with that.
From a developer's perspective, I think we should keep a more clearheaded approach to this entire debate and not turn HN into a fanboy forum.
> iOS and Android have no relevance in this discussion as they are not real OS'es... And that's how it will remain.
This sounds seriously shortsighted. So far, Android and iOS are focused on media consumption, but I'm already starting to see them used for 'work', like taking notes in meetings. Asus' transformer line (tablets with a keyboard dock) shows where the next step might be.
There's no rule that 'real work' requires a WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointer) interface. It's perfectly possible to imagine that in a few years it will be possible to develop on Android devices with some peripherals attached. There's no fundamental obstacle to it.
I don't think the PC is dead - there's still a lot of software and user experience built up around it. But it's quite clear by now that tablets/phones are becoming serious competition.
> iOS and Android have no relevance in this discussion as they are not real OS'es.
"Mavicas and Digital Elphs have no relevance in this discussion as they are not real cameras. You cannot expose film with them, you cannot do work on them except for taking candid pictures and sharing them with friends. And that's how it will remain."
It is always dangerous to assume that you're in the market you think you're in, and not the market that your customers are telling you that you're in. Microsoft seems to believe that they're in the "real computer OS" market, but their customers believe they're in the "lets me run my apps" market. And to those customers - whose vote ultimately matters the most - Windows is competing directly with OS X, iOS, and Android as a way for people to run the software they want to run. Increasingly, that software is the kind of stuff that runs on the tablet or smartphone that they're doing most of their computing on.
You cannot develop on them, you cannot do work on them except for replying emails and browsing some webpages.
So? All the employees in our client companies do their work exclusively through email and internal webapps (which are hosted and developed on Linux). And that's true for a whole lot of companies.
I don't see why wouldn't an "Android workstation" - or Chrome OS, or similar - work for them.
1) Windows 8 is changing Windows in pretty fundamental ways (being touch first, leaving the "PC" behind), and I can't foresee anything but minor changes in Windows 9 to this direction. I doubt they will try to go back to making Windows 9 a true successor of Windows 7. That seems very unlikely to me now. Microsoft is all-in with this tile-based version of Windows. Even their logo has changed to reflect that. So businesses who don't want to stay on Windows 7 forever, should take into account alternatives.
2) Even if you hated Windows Vista, there was nowhere to turn in 2005 but Windows XP. Now there are some pretty good alternatives, and people are getting used to using different operating systems than Windows, which I think is a huge deal, because it's usually very hard to convince users to use another OS.
> Windows 8 is changing Windows in pretty fundamental ways (being touch first, leaving the "PC" behind),
I just don't see how someone can say this if they've used windows 8 for any amount of time. I'm never in metro. I don't get it. I don't have any touch devices, and I wouldn't even know that that was an option except for the advertising.
> Microsoft is all-in with this tile-based version of Windows. Even their logo has changed to reflect that. So businesses who don't want to stay on Windows 7 forever, should take into account alternatives.
There is a usability consideration because of interface changes--if the only thing keeping you with windows is the interface, then this makes sense. If a company needs software to work on a platform they're generally familiar with and have support in place for, they're not going to seriously consider switching from windows by the time windows 9 comes around.
Windows ME sucked. Windows XP was great. Windows Vista sucked. Windows 7 was great.
At least that was the perception. Reality is more nuanced, of course.
And business is very conservative, they never upgrade immediately.
For business, the alternative to Windows 8 is Windows 7 or Windows XP. It isn't OS X or Linux or Android. Microsoft does better if they switch to 8, but they don't lose if they don't.