Apple's Tim Cook claims competition (Microsoft) is "confused" about PCs

Tim Cook took to the stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco today to begin the company's latest press conference. As he talked about various milestones for the iOS, iPhone and other Apple services, he also took the time to make some gabs at the "competition", and by competition, he clearly meant Microsoft.

Cook told the audience, and the people who watched the event via live streaming, that their competition doesn't seem to have a clear idea about where the PC industry should go. Cook stated, "They're confused; they chased after netbooks. They tried to make tablets into PCs and PCs into tablets." Cook made these comments while the screen behind him showed a graphic of a street sign that was filled with a squiggly street icon.

Cook never mentioned Microsoft by name, but it's clear that he had Microsoft, and its Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 launch, in mind when he talked about mixing PCs and tablets. It seems that Cook is strongly hinting Apple is not planning on launching a touchscreen notebook or a tablet with an optional keyboard anytime soon.

Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

OS X Mavericks will be free, available today

Next Story

Apple reveals iPad Air, thinner and faster

162 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is just Apple trying to hide their lack of a substitute for the much more superiorly integrated OS that Windows 8 is (yes, it has its flaws but that doesn't mean it's bad or that Microsoft is confused), especially when you look at tablets. Sure, if you have a desktop or non-touch laptop, you can just stay in the desktop environment and it's not really that hard to avoid the Modern UI if you don't like using it (as I've explained in my post above), but if you have a tablet, just consider this scenario that I face:

I've been studying Arabic virtually for some time now. My textbook is Arabic from beginning to end and our mode of study is that the teacher will come in and translate the stuff in the textbook and give us new vocabulary, etcetera. Now, for me to write notes, it takes centuries to write in the Arabic alphabet and by the time I'm finished, the teacher is miles ahead of me. Using Windows 8, I can import my pdf textbook into OneNote and write my notes on top so that I don't need to copy the Arabic, which saves loads of my time. Can you do this on an iPad? Sure, you can use Evernote and though it's a very useful application, OneNote is far more robust for note-taking and I don't think importing pdf's as a note is supported on the iPad Evernote app, for example (I know you can do that on desktop Evernote but not sure about the iPad). I can research anything I want, translate a word I don't understand in seconds using the Snap feature, while on an iPad, I'd have to switch applications and mere seconds in a lecture are important (you need to understand what the teacher is saying and also keep writing).

To top it all of, I can get a Windows 8 (not RT) tablet with a dock and 64GB of storage that is powered by an Atom processor and gives 12 hours of battery life for $400 in the form of the Asus Transformer Book T100 ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/...ransformer-book-t100-review) , compared to the $700 iPad only with 64 GB of storage. So, I can literally buy a 32GB tablet (because that approximately is what is left of the total 64GB for the user to use) with a keyboard and a number of ports, including USB 3.0, and a stylus for taking my notes for less than the base 16GB iPad, let alone an equivalent 32GB one! If Apple calls this level of convenience confusion, then I'm happy to like a product that's a result of confusion.

Now, I know the iPad does have certain advantages: better build quality, more apps and a better screen but I can easily make do with the quality for the significantly lower price; the apps problem is not an issue because whatever function I could perform on an iPad, I can easily get an x86 app as a substitute; as for screen quality, I find 1366x768 to be quite enough on a 10 inch device. Sure, extra bells and whistles are nice but if you are willing to pay more for an iPad simply because of a better screen, there are other Windows tablets that give you all the benefits I listed above and also a better screen for more money (and, it's highly probable that you'd still end up paying less than what you would for an equivalent iPad).

And, what most people really use iPads for is just consumption and a Windows 8 tablet can easily deal with anything you might want to throw at an iPad. Couple that with a far superior file management system and all the bells and whistles of x86 Windows and I really can't believe people still buy iPads. Either they are seriously misinformed about other products (which is, unfortunately, often the case with the majority of people even calling tablets in general, "iPads" -_-) or are seriously biased towards Apple.

Edited by Anonymous1b, Oct 23 2013, 11:38am :

He's just projecting his own incompetence on to Microsoft. Just like the iPhone screen. Apple said it was stupid to make the screen bigger and then the iPhone 5 came out. Come on you guys.

Tim Cook has it BANG ON. This is coming from someone who has a windows 8.1 PC, a windows 8 Pro tablet, RT tablet and Nokia phone. Microsoft is very confused. Jack of all trades, master on none.

Luckily most of the stuff I had was given to me by work

As much as I hate to agree, he's damn right on that one. If any one disagree should have a closer or further look at what Microsoft has been trying to do for quite sometimes now. Nothing seems to stick..so well for them. I hope things changes once a new CEO gets appointed. I love choices, competition and innovation.

P.S, I guess there are no difference between Apple fan boys and Microsoft, particularly in this case for sure...whenever someone gets something right on Apple...all the fanboys starts rattling, the same case is here with Microsoft ones. *smh*

Pretty strong words from a company that's never been able to get out of the "Other" category in global PC sales reports. Why should we think Apple knows anything about PCs?

Major_Plonquer said,
Pretty strong words from a company that's never been able to get out of the "Other" category in global PC sales reports. Why should we think Apple knows anything about PCs?
Globally, Apples desktop and laptop products are very profitable. Again, market share does not spell success. For one, Microsoft has many manufacturers building products for their operating system. Many of those products are junk. Just search for the 100's of low quality Windows 8 laptops and desktops. Or walk down the cheap aisles at Best Buy, Frys, or Micro Center and take notice of cheap keyboards, trackpads, screens, and casing. Quality and success cannot be measured by market share.

I wasn't going to say anything but with all the crap about MS being confused and with a lot of you buying it, I thought I'd help bring some things into perspective.

1. Unifying platform - This has been a goal for a while but .net was not going to get them there, especially on the UI front the XAML implementation had to be totally redone. Give them some credit, MS has been battling on multiple fronts for decades now, (flash, java, etc.) to name a few, so it's going to take time. The killing of Silverlight and WPF were some of the first steps. WinRT not the OS but the dev platform is still a 1.0 product.

2. Metro - This like WinRT is in a 1.0 phase, Office Gemini should go a long way in helping move the needle a bit. There are some gaps MS isn't addressing or talking about in terms of alternatives where multi-tasking is concerned. Yes I'm only generally focused on one task at a time but task switching on the desktop is so much more powerful at the moment. Hopefully MS comes up with something better for Metro based apps.

3. Consumption vs. Productivity - We want both and Windows 8.1 moves us closer but once Intel makes extremely more powerful mobile chips, the dream of having your PC in your pocket becomes even closer to reality. Just dock, consume and build to your hearts content, undock and go play. IOS or OSX will not be able to take advantage.

So things look a bit of a mess right now (XBONE/WIN8) but we will starting to see some bigger payoffs with XBONE, WP 8.1 and Window 8.2. Just hold on, never mind the Apple heads...

Look apple has some sort of cult following . Like rush Limbaugh he rails against the people who are responsible for a company like that and he purchases their product and acts like it came from heaven itself . He wont tell you about any of the freezes glitches or other assorted problems with a piece of hardware it seems like his is God given . And without problems . I had ipods and have a apple 5g tower that I use for backup though never had to use it yet . The gui is horrendous it looks like something a dummy would use someone without intelligence . I have never been impressed with apple products they have their faults though like Japanese cars people who pump them up are afraid they'll have to eat crow if it breaks..

He's right. His point is:

- A computer is a computer, with a computer GUI for keyboard/mouse use.
- A tablet is a tablet, with a tablet GUI for finguer use.
- A phone is a phone, with a phone GUI for finger use.

That's the Apple ecosystem. And they are sure about that.

Jolo said,

- A tablet is a tablet, with a tablet GUI for finguer use.

A tablet can be docked and used with a keyboard and mouse, transforming it into a computer. Otherwise a tablet is just an artificially software limited computer with incredible unrealized potential.

The Apple ecosystem exists to preserve itself and its margins. They don't want any convergence of devices because that will shrink their profits (fewer devices sold). They're wondering why Microsoft isn't selling a Surface Pro laptop and a Surface tablet so customers have to buy both.

rfirth said,
A tablet can be docked and used with a keyboard and mouse, transforming it into a computer. Otherwise a tablet is just an artificially software limited computer with incredible unrealized potential.

Like an iPad.

" It seems that Cook is strongly hinting Apple is not planning on launching a touchscreen notebook or a tablet with an optional keyboard anytime soon."

Of course not. Give them three years to "invent" it.

agtsmith said,
" It seems that Cook is strongly hinting Apple is not planning on launching a touchscreen notebook or a tablet with an optional keyboard anytime soon."

Of course not. Give them three years to "invent" it.

It will be two decades after Bill Gates launched the 'tablet pc', but will eventually come around and re-invent it.

i think MS have the best vision for integration of devices and services to serve crossplatform (phone tablet PC etc) and sharing information but you have to remember win 8 is the first step to converging this stuff, you dont have an idea then next version of the OS its all completely integrated, win9 will build on that and then win 10 will be further along all the while getting the apps and stuff together to allow this to happen then its building the foundation and core technology to enable future devices to operate seamlessly like minority report type stuff. They arent looking a few years into the future there looking at like 10 years into the future, sure apple maybe getting integration together but to serve as a large scale deployment in the enterprise sector there Mac pairing is weak sauce compared to windows which will be serving businesses and corporations.

Apple may corner the consumer market but where the REAL productivity happens in the workplace MS will win all the way.

I think many of the comments here are just as confused as Apple and Microsoft. An linux is the only OS that isn't confused about anything.

confused nope really, in fact microsoft have been so focus and have a goal, a vision in mind that its hurting them a lot more than any good. who knows long term but right now its a mess.

Apple its doing the easy way with ios and osx, google with chrome0s and android.

Microsoft its the only one trying to unified its UI and app ecosystem into a true convergence in computing.

its a painful path with bad execution and no customer can be happy, i myself hate windows 8 UI on desktop pc, because it not productive, complicated and not useful for non touch devices.

i still think that ipads its just a bigger ipod touch and it have nothing to do with netbooks, ipads for simple things was ok but for serious works a netbook its more useful

I think Microsoft have a wonderful vision, one that requires everyone to be all-in on the Microsoft eco-system (which is going to be difficult at this point), and require developers to really invest in developing apps the Windows Store (which I haven't seen a bunch of great examples of that happening yet).

Apple seems to be a little more confused to me, adding nothing really great to iOS in a while, while others are over taking them.

Apple is quite confused themselves. They keep refreshing their product line but aren't creating any cool or innovative products still! Why don't the iMacs have touch screens yet? Also why don't the Macbooks have touch displays either? Ever since the passing of Steve Jobs, Apple has been lost and confused. Right now, Apple is in safe mode and are continuing with the hardware updating and not new products. If Apple wanted to get an edge, they should scrap their iOS on the iPad and port Mac OS X onto the iPad along with all the iOS apps also. Apple is no longer the leader in the smartphone market, because of their lack of moving forward with features in iOS. If you look at Windows 8 Phone OS and Android, you can clearly tell that they are much more ahead in features and other things. The iPad is behind still considerably, a lot of Android and Windows tablets have USB ports and microsd slots, but where is it on the iPad? The first generation Ipad didn't have cameras on the back or front but the Motorola Xoom did many months before the Ipad 2 came out. The iPad's iOS really is an enlarged iOS from the iPhone, and its not really anything truly innovative unlike Windows 8/RT.

Edited by Atomic Wanderer Chicken, Oct 22 2013, 6:23pm :

they aint got USB ports becuase they have there super uber thunderbolt port and they havnt got microSD cards becuase how can they then charge extortionate prices for extra onboard flash storage

I think Apple demonstrated really well that the only digits that matter is profits. Market share is insignificant.

I'm more of the camp that computers won't die, but are no longer required for everyone to have to be able to do what they want.

Apple has done will making the leap, and Google was born in the cloud in a way and have done well with adapting. Microsoft, is playing catch up and a bit behind in some area's and are still desktop / software license reliant. That's not saying Microsoft should through in the towel, or will fail. They could become the next IBM, or they can still be a major player in the future of tech.

Apple's more making a jab and MS awkwardness, stumbles, it's been doing.

I feel MS could of had a chance of not only burying Black Berry, but becoming the preferred device for business if Windows Phone 7x/8x, RT fully supported GroupWise, Outlook client from the start.

Edited by Jason Stillion, Oct 22 2013, 6:04pm :

he says that just as the mac is flopping, windows 8 tablets are surging ahead, and android pretty much killed the iPhone. confused? he needs to find a way to keep apple alive before they return to single digits marketshare in everything they make.

neonspark said,
he says that just as the mac is flopping, windows 8 tablets are surging ahead, and android pretty much killed the iPhone. confused? he needs to find a way to keep apple alive before they return to single digits marketshare in everything they make.
Windows 8 tablets are surging ahead? Google or Bing the success of their tablet. SMH!

Microsoft is not confused, they are too focused for All-in-one ecosystem and touch Interface for example in windows 8.1 there are lot of improvements in Modern interface but not a single new feature implemented at "Desktop" side.

I hear lot of people say desktop is dying these days I doubt it but one thing concerns me most if desktop dies how we developers will create software and how Microsoft or any other It companies will create software. To Develop for touch interface we need Desktop so at-least Improve it with every major or miner release.

Actually both companies are not exactly in amazing position in this market, and it is really hard to forecast if one of then or both will dominant players in computer market pc/tab/phone in 10 years from now...

We will wait and see

wingliston said,
The only one confused is Tim Cook.

I think most people here are more confused than either Microsoft and Apple.

What Apple says is true. Right now Microsoft products are not knowing what they want to be. Windows 8 wants to be Business/tablet/consumer hybrid while Xbox One wants to be either home HD Set top box or a pure gaming console?

It is very hard to be jack of trades and master of all.

Most of Microsoft apologists on Neowin will mindlessly side with whatever Microsoft dishes out. But we are horribly outnumbered compared to the average public who want the next best shining toy.

Apple knows that very well. Now that I have extensively used RT based tablet, my next tab is going to be iPad Air.

In this space it's undeniable that Apple seems to have a much clearer vision than Microsoft. They didn't try to turn every device they had into iPhones. Macs remained Macs. Different products for different needs. Microsoft's one-size-fits-all strategy just plain doesn't work and as a result, Windows 7 is bound to become the next XP.

If anything, Microsoft's ecosystem is more and more fragmented: it's Windows Phone vs RT vs Win32, Javascript vs .NET vs native, .NET itself has become a mess of different packages and "Portable Class Libraries" are a sad joke. If there's a unification strategy behind all this I just don't see it, I see the opposite.

Apple seem to concentrate on sharing content between their two platforms seamlessly which they are pretty good at. That's what is important to users in my opinion.

Mr_Self_Destruct said,
Apple seem to concentrate on sharing content between their two platforms seamlessly which they are pretty good at. That's what is important to users in my opinion.

good at? hardly.. unless you mean you accept that you're married to itunes for eternity.

Lots of 3rd party services came into existence to fix the still poor integration of ios devices... people just stopped trying and accepted "minimalism" as ok.

During the keynote I for one was quite impressed with the ability to look up a route on your desktop computer and send the navigation to your phone, really handy.

Asik said,
In this space it's undeniable that Apple seems to have a much clearer vision than Microsoft.

Apple vision is no vision. Stay the course. Incremental updates.

Microsoft has a clear vision. It's just very futuristic and requires millions more lines of code to accomplish and the cooperation of hardware partners. It's bold. It's difficult. But it will pay off.

Please name one service that provides DRM free movies and tv shows. Just name ONE.

If I buy something on Amazon Video On Demand, I have to use things that utilize that service right?

I cannot watch them on my Apple TV since it does not have Amazon VOD. I cannot watch it on my dumb TV (non-internet capable) by creating a DVD of the thing I just got.

Why would they (Apple), it's 2 separate system mean twice the amount of software the iSheep need to buy. You need apps for your iPad/iPhone and you need Photoshop for your iMac.

Surface Pro allows backward compatibility if you already own Photoshop. Surface RT since it has no backward compatibility, what you buy on the apps store can be installed on your window 8 desktop.

Asik said,
In this space it's undeniable that Apple seems to have a much clearer vision than Microsoft. They didn't try to turn every device they had into iPhones. Macs remained Macs. Different products for different needs. Microsoft's one-size-fits-all strategy just plain doesn't work and as a result, Windows 7 is bound to become the next XP.

If anything, Microsoft's ecosystem is more and more fragmented: it's Windows Phone vs RT vs Win32, Javascript vs .NET vs native, .NET itself has become a mess of different packages and "Portable Class Libraries" are a sad joke. If there's a unification strategy behind all this I just don't see it, I see the opposite.

He is right...Microsoft is conflicted. While Microsoft had an excellent idea with "convergence" amongst the various types of devices, its execution of the idea was severely flawed. One UI for all of them? It doesn't work that way, just simple physics dictates that.

TsarNikky said,
He is right...Microsoft is conflicted. While Microsoft had an excellent idea with "convergence" amongst the various types of devices, its execution of the idea was severely flawed. One UI for all of them? It doesn't work that way, just simple physics dictates that.

But not only that. Software compatibility is still an issues. Can i install my cellphone app in my tablet and pc?.
OSX:
Yes for tablet and not (yet) for pc.
Windows:
No for tablet and not for pc.

TsarNikky said,
He is right...Microsoft is conflicted. While Microsoft had an excellent idea with "convergence" amongst the various types of devices, its execution of the idea was severely flawed. One UI for all of them? It doesn't work that way, just simple physics dictates that.

When the UI can scale to fit the device in question then it's not an issue. There's no reason the UI can't be the same from a 4" screen right up to a 10" device, it's the same with iOS and so on. The execution fell short when it came to the traditional desktop but that's going to change with time.

TsarNikky said,
One UI for all of them?

Except that isn't the case. A "user interface" is much more than the colour scheme or some tiles. One "style" for all of them might be closer. Last time I checked I didn't have a charms menu on my WP8 device for example. The functionality and interface on the phones is far simpler, obviously. Whether you like the look and feel is a different debate entirely but to say they're the "same" on all devices misses the mark.

ROFLCOPTERS said,
..... I didn't have a charms menu on my WP8 device for example....

You do, they're capacitive buttons that are always on face, for now.
future updates will enable them to operate like charms bar today.

deadonthefloor said,

You do, they're capacitive buttons that are always on face, for now.
future updates will enable them to operate like charms bar today.

Even accepting that to be true, would you agree that is a different "user interface" to one in Windows 8 on a desktop?

They have another vision for the future of computing. A vision that one day soon we will have one OS that adapts to whatever screen you are behind. This OS can be cloud-based but also on your phone. You connect to a display and the UI adapts to the new conditions (resolution, size, etc.

Are they there yet? No, not by a long shot but they are ahead of the competition. Even Linux is going in this direction. And Apple, lately the least innovative OS developer, that is falling behind.

Exactely. I dont think Tim Cook is capable of understanding this. In his mind a PC is a PC, and a Phone is a Phone. Whereas Microsoft sees production and consumption devices that can replace and complement each other.

I don't think they're confused. I think Apple is a few years away from being right back where Microsoft has been.

The Microsoft platform is soon to have unity across phones, tablets, desktops, laptops and Xbox. This will surely extend into other smart devices. Microsoft won't get complacent again. And I think what they're doing right now is smart. Unfortunately it's taken a while but I think at the end they'll be right back where they need to be.

It is not happening.

Windows 8 has a menu that mimic windows phone interface but nothing more. Windows 8 Desktop is windows 7 sans aero.

Instead the recent OSX looks and feel like IOS, the group elements, the icons and so on. IMHO, OSX feels creep but may be because i am not seasoned with Iphone.

Brony said,
It is not happening.

Windows 8 has a menu that mimic windows phone interface but nothing more. Windows 8 Desktop is windows 7 sans aero.

Instead the recent OSX looks and feel like IOS, the group elements, the icons and so on. IMHO, OSX feels creep but may be because i am not seasoned with Iphone.

Why are you fixated on the UI only when there's more than just that to platform unification. We already have WinRT apps that run on x86 and ARM, soon with a little tweaking they'll probably run just fine on XB1. The goal to bring WP and Windows together store wise is also possible once the underlining APIs match up enough to do so.

I see no reason to think why it's not happening when it's already started to happen in the first place.

Brony said,

Windows 8 has a menu that mimic windows phone interface but nothing more.

Nothing more? The interface is different for the moment, and the apps between WP and Windows 8 might not be comparable now, but next year they will be, along with Xbox One.

And the interface is the only place they are actually different. Underneath that they are the same, and they are working very hard to align the UIs and apps.

Spicoli said,
Apple must be REALLY confused about PCs due to their tiny market share after 30+ years.


Yeah, confused all the way to the bank...

benthebear said,


Yeah, confused all the way to the bank...

It's too bad people generalize things so much as if its Apple vs Microsoft when in reality in the windows world there is Acer, Dell, HP, IBM and a zillion others that i'm sure revenue combined looks as strong as ever..

spudtrooper said,

It's too bad people generalize things so much as if its Apple vs Microsoft when in reality in the windows world there is Acer, Dell, HP, IBM and a zillion others that i'm sure revenue combined looks as strong as ever..


HP, dell and Asus together have a revenue of 186.3billion in 2012. Apple's 2012 revenue is 156.5billion.
MS's revenue might just be 1/3rd of Apple's of that same years. But together is the Windows world revenue many times the revenue Apple has.

Shadowzz said,

HP, dell and Asus together have a revenue of 186.3billion in 2012. Apple's 2012 revenue is 156.5billion.
MS's revenue might just be 1/3rd of Apple's of that same years. But together is the Windows world revenue many times the revenue Apple has.
Problem...as far as the Windows OEM's, 90% of that money is from selling a Windows PC vs Apple who less than 10% of that is from Macs. That is where you lost. Also they are getting all their revenue from one product, while Apple is selling several. Consider those facts before you speak. None of those OEM's sell apps or very many 3rd party items. Also not many 3rd items beyond screens, mice and keyboards are made.

Here is also the different. Those same OEM's have been making billions in profits every year since 1985...while it took Apple 30 years to catch up. You arent even considering the fact those companies already have over $100B in the bank years ago.

Apple, yes sells more PC's above $1000. That's easy when they all cost $1000. However, you can match nearly every Mac PC and you will pay less than $1000.
So yes Apple makes higher profits because they sell an $800 spec'd PC for $1000 or more. The other OEM's due to real competition in using the same OS, where specs are equal can only fight with price to stay relevent. Which is great because that means we get a better deal.

Also consider this fact. Microsoft makes all its money on the same 2 apps which created them, Windows and Office. Apple who has less martket share, constantly has to create a trend to be relevant. MS still makes the same money or more on Windows. Apple makes less today on OS X than it did with Mac OS even with high price points.

MS has more overhead as they actually make the stuff they sell. Apple has everyone else working yet they take 30% without doing any work at all. Look at the apps...Microsoft gets not one single penny of the money devs get from making apps for Windows. Unliek Apple who wants 30% for simply providing a way to make yoru stuff avail. Windows devs dont need a store, they can sell direct, which Apple doesn't. Both have pluses and minuses.

Microsoft has retain it overall size and market...has Apple? NO!
The problem is, your math is faulty. All you are looking at is numbers and sales. How about the fact most OEM's have been selling over 100M PCs per year since 1996 and Apple has taken 30 years to sell 100M total?

How about the fact, MS never needed a help hand to stay relevant while Steve Jobs was on hands and knees begging Bill to help.

iPhone sales are increasing as far as selling in more markets, over all sales are declining...same for iPad, same for iPod and same for the Mac. Windows still to this day retains a 90% market even after 30 years. What other company can claim this? NONE of them.

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Oct 22 2013, 10:18pm :

I like how market share is only relevant when you're not talking about Windows Phone or something of the like.

The chunk Apple holds is still quite significant.

dead.cell said,
I like how market share is only relevant when you're not talking about Windows Phone or something of the like.

The chunk Apple holds is still quite significant.

Spicoli always mentions market share as though its the determining factor in a successful and quality product. Apple continues to rake in the money and fans continue to buy its quality products.

Apple is raking in money on iDevices (large margins on the hardware) and services (the back end - the App Stores and iTunes) - how much of the revenue (not earnings) comes from Apple Macs (or even for software for those same Macs that is NOT sold via the MAS)? The closest company in terms of STRUCTURE to Apple is Google (and especially since the purchase of Motorola's handset business and the spinoff of the rest of Moto that didn't fit) - notice that both companies have cuckoo stock prices as well. The investors look at Apple's hoard of cash (again, devices and services) the same way they look at Google's cash hoard (for the same reason) and salivate - however, because most of that hoard is basically forced to stay where it got earned (repatriating that ton of money would cause massive tax difficulties), it might as well have been used to buy Unobtanium as far as investors are concerned, as they will never see most of it. While Windows Azure is a services play, it's not the same sort of services play that Apple's app stores, iTunes, or Google Play is - even more telling, Microsoft is not the only company selling Azure-based services. (Among the companies selling services based on Azure are companies that "compete" with Microsoft - including Amazon, Oracle and - shockingly - Apple; the back-end for the app stores and iTunes is based on Windows Azure; the same applies to iCloud. We have no idea what runs the back end behind Google Play - could it indeed be yet more Azure? (The same applies to even the linchpin of Google - Google AdServices.) Azure - today - goes places that have been seen as utterly at odds to what we think of Microsoft; quite frankly, just what Azure is used for now is boggling a-plenty.
Do you know what the utterly scary part of Azure and the future of Azure really is? There are no real limits on where Azure can go. None at all. Azure is not merely a Windows-based technology - just how it is used today - and who is using it today - is plenty of evidence of that. It's something that pre-Gerstner IBM could only have seen in a drug-dream, and is the stuff of 1960s/1970s science fiction - Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Spider Robinson stuff. Yet Microsoft - not IBM, or Apple, or even Oracle - made it a reality. And it's becoming a commodity.
If anything, the reach of Azure will get larger - has anyone realized that Windows 8.0 carries part of Azure along for the ride, and that every future Microsoft operating system (for anything) will follow suit? Not alone Windows Phone or even niche versions of Windows (such as Embedded and Windows for Industry, a subset of Embedded), but even non-Windows operating systems altogether - how much longer can Google, or even Apple, resist the lure of Azure? (I mentioned Oracle already, and Amazon.) While Windows is Microsoft's best-known brand, it's actually becoming a gift horse. Azure is the real gift that will be giving - for years, if not decades, to come.

JHBrown said,
Spicoli always mentions market share as though its the determining factor in a successful and quality product. Apple continues to rake in the money and fans continue to buy its quality products.
False. He doesn't. Marketshare however is a better metric than profit or cash on hand and here is why. Especially in the case of Apple where costs are inflated up to a margin as high a 500%. Am I lying? The iPhone we know as a fact cost Apple $200 to make. They most expensive model unlocked is over $1000. That is a 500% markup. In the USA where unlock phones have no benefit as it can only be used with 2 carriers is a high price to pay for nothing. 16GB of nand on retail will cost you less than 20%, while Apple charges you $100 to go from 16GB to 32...and another $100 to get to 64GB, when on retail it only cost roughly $45 for 64GB and $25 for 32GB.

As I said in my above rant, the Mac has roughly $800 worth of components inside, yet Apple sells the Mac pro for $1700. If I go to any brand of PC and change the option to equal the price of the MacBook Pro, I will have a slightly faster CPU, 4x's the storage, double the RAM and a much better screen as 1920x1080 is a standard supported option and I can get 3D too. I also will have USB 3.0 which is more usable and versatile vs Thunderbolt. I will also get Blu-Ray, Bluetooth and more which are options to this day, Apple with their snub attitude refuse to support.

When you sell a product that cost 40 to 50 percent less than anyone else, claiming your junk is better than their junk, profit margins should be taken lighter than marketshare.

The advantages of marketshare which YOU and others are so blind to is this. Technology changes everyday. However, when you have a very large marketshare, that means that product will lilely be king for a very long time. Think of retailers that lasted over a half a century before they died. Sears even tho barely hanging on, in its hayday was top dog for nearly 60 years. Look at Allstate and others. The fact is JH, the bigger you are, the more time you have to make adjustments when things change.

Example, Windows Mobile and Microsoft. MS sat on their butts with Windows Mobile no making any significant strides with their platform. They basically abandoned it. The iPhone or even Blackberry wasn't that much better. Its just Apple simply offered something catchy and hip while MS did not for years an so they got burned. RIM beat MS by not only offering similar services, but offering them in a better way.

In this case, even though Windows Mobile has a fairly large marketshare, it meant nothing when you sit on if for almost a decade and do nothing. If you do nothing you get your butt kicked out of first.

Apple is going to feel this same pain. The iOS platform has remain unchanged since 2007. Here we are 6 years later. Unlike Microsoft, APple isn't quite as big a house hold name. Apple also doesn't have the partnerships MS has. Even Adobe hates APple after Adobe stood behind them for years with low sells even after they bought Macromedia, when Apple was hurting for devs. How did Apple thank them? They spit in Adobe's face with a bunch os BS and lies about Flash. In fact, every company which has ever help Apple, and then decided to compete on some level, Apple has done this. If it wasn't for the jailbreak community, iOS would have been an absolute failure. If iTunes was only avail for the Mac, iOS would have been a complete failure.

Marketshare carries more weight than money. Apple needs this money, because when iTunes and iPhone/iPod/iPad finally trainwreak, Apple won't have anything else to fall back on except the hordes of money they have saved.

This is where Microsoft is better. Their staple product is still Windows and Office. Microsoft can have failures with other products, because Windows and Office is where their money is. Not in fad toys and cheap plastic cases to go with them. MS makes very little hardware, so they stand no to make as much money as Apple. MS doesn't make any money from devs either.

Stock prices mean as much as profit margins. Apple will not be able to sustain their place if they can't replace the iPhone fad with something better. Apple TV? No way. iWatch? Nope. Apple will likely not have another product success they have had with iPod and its siblings.

We already told you iFans when the iPhone was first release. Once their was a more open option, Apple because of their chosen business model would be in trouble. That trouble happened as soon as Google made their deal with Android devs. Apple simply got lucky as they saw Android was coming and they knew they had to be first. Which is why they have in the past 3 years been rushing half-baked products like the iPhone 4, Siri and now this fingerprint scanner. What's next? That Retina Display junk has already lost its benefits thanks to devices support Full HD on march larger screens. Now Apple could be rushing to make a 4.7" inch phone next year which is 3 years behind everyone else.

Oh and Apple is counting on this fact too. They are counting on the fact that holding off on some hardware advances to spur you to keep buying is what they are good at. You think they couldn't have had a Retina Display iPad Mini on the first go round? Why doesn't the new iPad have the biometric sensor? Why wasn't Siri made to work on the iPhone 4 when we all knew it could? Why is it that the original iPad with a high res display cost exactly what it did in 2010, but this year the Mini with the same display cost $100 more? In a case where sales of iPad have dropped in huge numbers, the fact Apple who had a 60% marletshare with the iPad this time last year now has only 38% and Android now has 60%, in a time where Android has 70% marketshare in the world and APple has 14%...in the USA is 50% vs 20% or so, why is Apple playing these games?

Here is why...! Because they have ran out of ideas to steal because no one else is really doing anything new. Because Steve Jobs and that other guy have spoke so badly of many Android features, that now copying them has made them the tech industries biggest hypocrite. Because now, the dated looking and working iPhone is now being riddled with more problems than Android, the fact that the constant repeat in apps on iOS where all they are doing is repainting them is starting to get really stale and people are looking for alternatives. Apple has no time to be playing.

They have over $100B in the bank..and yets they jacked up the Mini $100 for what? NOTHING. What does the iPad Air as they are calling it have over the last years iPad? NOTHING. They are going to need every bit of that money. Because when Apple announces their next earnings call, it is going to show that Samsung has made roughly a 40% increase in profits while Apple fell at least 1/2 that. Mark my words and remember this post.

I agree with Tim. 2012 and 2013 has proven Microsofts confusion with its dismal releases. We'll see if Microsoft can find the right path through the end of this year and into next year.

JHBrown said,
I agree with Tim. 2012 and 2013 has proven Microsofts confusion with its dismal releases. We'll see if Microsoft can find the right path through the end of this year and into next year.

You have to remember that Apple is ahead in the game, thus they can talk that way, or even take pot shots. However, MS' plan will take time, and it will not yield overnight or even a few months - in results.

I think, not only that we are in the time an instant gratitude era, we are also in a time when we always look for instant result - where people are expecting results right away on anything or something that comes along the way. We have to look at process on how things get there, and see the big picture.

RommelS said,
However, MS' plan will take time, and it will not yield overnight or even a few months - in results.

The plan has been going on for two years (WP7 already presented the beginnings of the Metro interface) and results are as of yet dismal. Windows 8.1 while an improvement, it still feels like beta software. Did any Apple product ever feel as beta to you? (other than the maps, that was a disaster and they were forced to it to avoid renewing Google's contract).

Why is it that Microsoft manages to release unfinished products every few years? ME, Vista, Win 8, even the Xbox One will be "beta" as half of it's features won't be available at launch.
What would you do if Ford sold you a car that only sort of worked, without wipers or blinkers because they didn't have time to fit that in for release? Do you take the same stance you do with Microsoft that sells you half baked software/hardware at full price?

So yeah, I don't expect them to rise from poor to riches overnight, but loks like they are not even trying for the long term either.

gonchuki said,

Why is it that Microsoft manages to release unfinished products every few years? ME, Vista, Win 8, even the Xbox One will be "beta" as half of it's features won't be available at launch.
What would you do if Ford sold you a car that only sort of worked, without wipers or blinkers because they didn't have time to fit that in for release? Do you take the same stance you do with Microsoft that sells you half baked software/hardware at full price

I think you are confused calling Microsoft releases windows as beta. As a matter of fact Google should be the one that are most times releases product in beta.

Microsoft looks to the future and channel most of everyone to it. There's a reason that win 3.0 to window 8 are always debatable. Their release from Win 3.0 onward always faces criticism with each version. Whether it's UI, Start button, Start Screen aka Modern, Vista and unified driver etc.

To me without Microsoft and their windows, we will all be using Linux to set up mini server in our homes.

gonchuki said,

The plan has been going on for two years (WP7 already presented the beginnings of the Metro interface) and results are as of yet dismal. Windows 8.1 while an improvement, it still feels like beta software. Did any Apple product ever feel as beta to you? (other than the maps, that was a disaster and they were forced to it to avoid renewing Google's contract).

Why is it that Microsoft manages to release unfinished products every few years? ME, Vista, Win 8, even the Xbox One will be "beta" as half of it's features won't be available at launch.
What would you do if Ford sold you a car that only sort of worked, without wipers or blinkers because they didn't have time to fit that in for release? Do you take the same stance you do with Microsoft that sells you half baked software/hardware at full price?

So yeah, I don't expect them to rise from poor to riches overnight, but loks like they are not even trying for the long term either.

Ok Gonchuki, I'm going to try and make this simple for you.

Apple doesn't have to worry about any OEM or legacy applications, thus they are able to come out with a device that is totally separate from their MBP and such. And here is the funny thing, Apple keep stating that the PC era is at an end, so does that mean that they're also affected by it? The last time I looked around (maybe I missed it), I have not seen any numbers on Apple laptop and workstation sales other than iPad an iPhones.

On MS side, could they have made the same decision that Apple did - come out with a new tablet OS. Yes, they could have, however, they probably decided against it because they are trying to kill two birds with one stone - Windows 8x and its RT variant.

Now with that decision and MS making a drastic change with Windows, MS still has to support other legacy apps (unlike Apple), and they still need to do a slow transition. Part of that transition is making sure that their partners, developers, and customers are able to keep up with the changes.

As for the Xbox you are talking about, and since you are from Uruguay, it is all about localization and deals with the media. It is the same thing that it happening to Sony's PS4 in Japan. They are citing localization as the delay of their launch in their own country.

Here is the thing. Everything is in a time table. In Apple's case, it is a lot easier because they control their HW and OS. With MS, it is not the case, they have to deal with OEMs, developers, business customers, and now the consumers, and they are trying to do it all with one operating system.

Well, glad to see other companies feel the same as I do. I think trying to have one unified system for PC (Desktop), Tablets, Mobile Phones, and Game consoles is not the way to go. Each one has unique requirements and trying to shove them all into one thing isn't going to work.. as we are seeing with sales numbers.

firey said,
Each one has unique requirements and trying to shove them all into one thing isn't going to work

But, Windows scales. Windows 8 works on my desktop. It works on my laptop, and it works on my Surface. I can connect/disconnect peripherals as I please, I can work on the desktop, in Metro, or both as I please. Can Apple devices do this? Apple shoehorns users into one device, requiring the need to carry more than one depending on user's needs. That's not happening here with Microsoft and Windows 8.

Dot Matrix said,

But, Windows scales. Windows 8 works on my desktop. It works on my laptop, and it works on my Surface. I can connect/disconnect peripherals as I please, I can work on the desktop, in Metro, or both as I please. Can Apple devices do this? Apple shoehorns users into one device, requiring the need to carry more than one depending on user's needs. That's not happening here with Microsoft and Windows 8.

Dot, totally agree with you, however, consumers doesn't work or see it that way. As long that they can just do social media, check emails, upload photos and such, that is all what they care.

firey said,
Well, glad to see other companies feel the same as I do. I think trying to have one unified system for PC (Desktop), Tablets, Mobile Phones, and Game consoles is not the way to go. Each one has unique requirements and trying to shove them all into one thing isn't going to work.. as we are seeing with sales numbers.

I don't get this.. Apple is going unified as well, they're just not at the level MS is..

I for one can't wait because i want unified apps/eco system.. why would anyone want to buy a desktop app, a phone app and a tablet app?

Apples ususal formula; Thinner, Lighter, Faster always works on the consumer. Microsoft's More productivity unfortunately doesn't . Id personally go microsoft's way if im thinking rationally. But the apple's pitch is too strong to resist

firey said,
Well, glad to see other companies feel the same as I do. I think trying to have one unified system for PC (Desktop), Tablets, Mobile Phones, and Game consoles is not the way to go. Each one has unique requirements and trying to shove them all into one thing isn't going to work.. as we are seeing with sales numbers.
So, defices have all their own requirements, and users do not? Because with Apple, there is no choise, except between iPad and iPad.

RommelS said,

Dot, totally agree with you, however, consumers doesn't work or see it that way. As long that they can just do social media, check emails, upload photos and such, that is all what they care.

That is where you made your big mistake and so did Microsoft. Microsoft has never been a consumer brand. They are an always will be a business brand as this is 65% of their business. the 35% of consumers aren't Microsoft's biggest pie. Any product that MS had that basically failed is when they tried to pan to consumers. Zune was greta product that failed do to trying to market to consumers. Same for Netbooks. Same for Windows Phone. Windows is not a social platform, its a business platform. They should have kept it that way.

Cook was right in they don't know which way to go. Hardware wasn't the issue, who the hardware was for is the issue. Surface Pro is not a consumer device, its a business one. They tried to make a consumer version with RT...that was wrong. Consumers don't want a Microosft iPad-like device. What they do what which sales show, is a fully function PC, with a 1080p screen that is more portable vs a laptop and they can do equal work and travel. The Surface Pro provides that.

As far as Windows intergration? IT people can benefit from it, consumers can't. That move wont benefit typical users. Again they represent 35% of MS' income. Leave them out. Continue to make what you have work for business. Once the consumers who use Windows in business see this, they will want it too. Which is how Windows got started anyways.

TechieXP said,
That is where you made your big mistake and so did Microsoft. Microsoft has never been a consumer brand. They are an always will be a business brand as this is 65% of their business. the 35% of consumers aren't Microsoft's biggest pie. Any product that MS had that basically failed is when they tried to pan to consumers. Zune was greta product that failed do to trying to market to consumers. Same for Netbooks. Same for Windows Phone. Windows is not a social platform, its a business platform. They should have kept it that way.

Cook was right in they don't know which way to go. Hardware wasn't the issue, who the hardware was for is the issue. Surface Pro is not a consumer device, its a business one. They tried to make a consumer version with RT...that was wrong. Consumers don't want a Microosft iPad-like device. What they do what which sales show, is a fully function PC, with a 1080p screen that is more portable vs a laptop and they can do equal work and travel. The Surface Pro provides that.

As far as Windows intergration? IT people can benefit from it, consumers can't. That move wont benefit typical users. Again they represent 35% of MS' income. Leave them out. Continue to make what you have work for business. Once the consumers who use Windows in business see this, they will want it too. Which is how Windows got started anyways.

Tech, where in my comment to you that I said that MS was a consumer company? In fact, they are trying to become one because they have a product that they need to protect.

The entire landscape has changed. I believe that MS knows that is an uphill battle, and the result is not going to happen overnight - will take time. It is ok for Cook to take a pot shot at MS because from the get go because it sure does look that MS is not heading the right way, and his company is ahead of the game; however, I don't believe that MS is misguided for them to try the consumer market since they were successful with Xbox.

Now, if you stop for a minute and start looking at this at a consumer stand point, rather than from a techie stand point, you will realize that people are not buying full blown PCs or laptops that much anymore. People are realizing that don't need an entire system just to do email and check the web, and even do some online shopping. Apple knows that, and MS knows that, thus they made a business decision to come out with RT / Surface 2. Is it a risk? Yes it is, but it is a risk that they need to take to protect Windows as well.

This makes me think Apple doesnt see the giant train that is about to hit them within the next 3-5 years. Within that time frame X1 will achieve what only Apple TV dreamed of. The parity MS is aiming for with WP, WinRT, and Win is not something I see coming from apple. If MS can achieve its goal of near 80% parity between all its products, well, its a windows world all over again.

While I plan on getting an X1, I think MS is dropping the ball (AGAIN!) by not offering a cheaper, smaller, "non-gaming" version in the $100 price range. I know there was some discussion of it, but they pulled the plug, for some reason. Most families aren't going to drop $500 for an X1 when they don't plan on heavy gaming, and still need to pay for Xbox Gold membership to access the same things they can on a $90 Roku 3 or Apple TV for little to no additional cost. Even one that cost closer to $200 but included Kinect to allow modest gaming and gesture/voice control would be a better option, but they still need to do something about the Gold "paywall."

All those things considered, X1 will still outsell Apple TV every year. Roku? couldnt tell you, I only know one person with a Roku. Ive thought about it, but Im an XBL gold member so it was kinda redundant and with the X1's universal Gold subscription for my household.

I think Apple is the confused one, they are lately trying to pretend the desktop doesn't exist...

Apples world seems to go like this

1) iPhone
2) iPad
3) MacBook
4) Desktop
5) Workstation
6) Who cares about servers, no one uses them..... ditch that line

Astra.Xtreme said,
Guess where the profits are...

Nowhere if you make guff products.

Apple is behind on technology and they're behind on integration too.

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Nowhere if you make guff products.

Apple is behind on technology and they're behind on integration too.

Sales would say otherwise... Sorry, but I'll believe the numbers more than "your opinion"... It also seems you don't understand what the concept of integration is...

You cant base it solely on sales as theyve established themself as a brand that everyone uses. They could sell a phone with a mouse running on a wheel to power it and it would sell in the millions. dont confuse technological advances and stuff based on sales cus they are kind of behind. for example the 64bit processor... is the arm v8 spec and the reaon why competitiors will move to 64bit is becuase there next chips will be based on arm v8 just cus there first to market doesnt mean theyve created anything

Umm... Where did they say they created it? You don't need to be the actual creator in order to be ahead of everybody else... Sales are the number one indicator of what people want. If you honestly think otherwise, then prove it...

Astra.Xtreme said,

Sales would say otherwise... Sorry, but I'll believe the numbers more than "your opinion"... It also seems you don't understand what the concept of integration is...

Conflating sales with profits. Amateur mistake but one that is easy to make. Obviously if you sell your kit with vastly inflated, frankly farcical, markups you'll look great to the layman. It ignores the fact that Apple basically leads the market in no segment aside from music players...and that's not exactly a big growth market.

MS is, as Ballmer said, betting the house on Windows 8 and is making essentially every product they produce run on it or compatible with it from their phones (growing, whereas apple isn't) to the tablets (growing, but well behind) to laptops (windows software is on way more laptops than OSX) to desktops (lol...sup 90% market share) to servers (well ahead of Apple. Linux is king obviously). And then chucking in their console business (where's Apples console again?) and their email/skydrive/search engine aspects (again, where's Apple?)

Apple has been sitting there with Darwin for over a decade and OSX and iOS both use it but do we see the same commitment to make a fluid, streamlined experience on any device? They could but just don't seem to be as committed. They might think it's not the right path but I suspect they'd be wrong.

I have no idea where you've been for the last few years, but anything you input on an iPhone will instantly get synced to any Apple device linked to the same account. All done via iCloud. The only thing not completely compatible between a Macbook and an iPhone is apps. The same can be said about Windows and Surface.

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Astra.Xtreme said,
I have no idea where you've been for the last few years, but anything you input on an iPhone will instantly get synced to any Apple device linked to the same account. All done via iCloud. The only thing not completely compatible between a Macbook and an iPhone is apps. The same can be said about Windows and Surface.

Is there a point you're trying to make?


That's precisely the point. They could be way ahead by now but instead it looks like they're just going to fall behind.

Note that I never mentioned the Windows had cracked it either but they definitely seem the more eager to do it as this point.

Netbooks failed, Surface didn't do much better (we'll see if they can turn this one around), Win8 isn't doing as good as Win7 (although that doesn't mean it's doing "bad")

Rudy said,
Netbooks failed, Surface didn't do much better (we'll see if they can turn this one around), Win8 isn't doing as good as Win7 (although that doesn't mean it's doing "bad")

Netbooks didn't fail. Not in the slightest - they sold like hotcakes. They were just superseded by tablet devices, and subsequently unable to keep up due to too many compromises.

Dot Matrix said,

Netbooks didn't fail. Not in the slightest - they sold like hotcakes. They were just superseded by tablet devices, and subsequently unable to keep up due to too many compromises.

They failed, lots of people bought them and most of them immediately regretted their purchase. They were hard to use and very under powered

Rudy said,
Netbooks failed, Surface didn't do much better (we'll see if they can turn this one around), Win8 isn't doing as good as Win7 (although that doesn't mean it's doing "bad")

Also, we don't forget that :
a) MS is not a newcomer in the world of smartphone. In fact, MS (in part) coined the term smartphone. And, how MS is doing in the mobile market?, so-so.
b) MS is not a newcomer in the world of tablet. In fact, MS (again) coined the term TabletPC with awful results.

Brony said,

Also, we don't forget that :
a) MS is not a newcomer in the world of smartphone. In fact, MS (in part) coined the term smartphone. And, how MS is doing in the mobile market?, so-so.
b) MS is not a newcomer in the world of tablet. In fact, MS (again) coined the term TabletPC with awful results.


Android is really making a killing in the smartphone market, Apple is at a healthy 2nd position. Like you said MS is still way behind (that's what you get for thinking Windows Mobile was good enough for too long)

Rudy said,
They failed, lots of people bought them and most of them immediately regretted their purchase. They were hard to use and very under powered

Early on. ASUS eeePCs were quite popular, and ran well. I still have mine, and don't regret buying it at all, but my Surface RT has become my new travel buddy. It's lighter, has the apps I need, and lasts longer.

Dot Matrix said,

Early on. ASUS eeePCs were quite popular, and ran well. I still have mine, and don't regret buying it at all, but my Surface RT has become my new travel buddy. It's lighter, has the apps I need, and lasts longer.

The EeePc 700 started with a 800×480 resolution, you can't tell me Windows is usable at that resolution (I know later hardware improved this, but my point is one of the weakness of most netbook was often the horrible resolution)

Brony said,

Also, we don't forget that :
a) MS is not a newcomer in the world of smartphone. In fact, MS (in part) coined the term smartphone. And, how MS is doing in the mobile market?, so-so.
b) MS is not a newcomer in the world of tablet. In fact, MS (again) coined the term TabletPC with awful results.

Brony, it is all about timing.
When MS came out with TabletPC, it was more designed for business not consumers.
When Smartphones came out, it was also designed more for business.
Internet wasn't for everyone at that time.

Fast forward, Apple = consumers and social media. That is what Apple brought to the table a few years ago, and (I hate to say this) it sure did revolutionized the industry.

Google saw the potential, hence Android came out. MS, didn't believe that both will be successful.

Dot Matrix said,

Netbooks didn't fail. Not in the slightest - they sold like hotcakes. They were just superseded by tablet devices, and subsequently unable to keep up due to too many compromises.


They were unprofitable and received terrible customer satisfaction.

Rudy said,

Apple is at a healthy 2nd position. Like you said MS is still way behind (that's what you get for thinking Windows Mobile was good enough for too long)
Worldwide Apple is about 1:5 compared to Android and WP is less than 1:2 compared to Apple. The only stronghold for Apple is the US, outside that region they are slowly but surely declining and have been for quite a while with WP growing at a must faster rate.

stevan said,
When it comes to the profits from apps, US is THE region to be #1 in.
Says who? please provide proof of this as I call BS.

Rudy said,
They failed, lots of people bought them and most of them immediately regretted their purchase. They were hard to use and very under powered

Same could be said for tablets..

Brony said,

Also, we don't forget that :
a) MS is not a newcomer in the world of smartphone. In fact, MS (in part) coined the term smartphone. And, how MS is doing in the mobile market?, so-so.
b) MS is not a newcomer in the world of tablet. In fact, MS (again) coined the term TabletPC with awful results.

Microsoft was ready to do that, but the technologie wasn't, that's not Microsoft fault, just bad timing.

Rudy said,
... 800×480 resolution ...... tell me Windows is usable at that resolution ....

It was until Microsoft created that fisher price UI they called XP.

paulheu said,
Says who? please provide proof of this as I call BS.

I don't care what you call it, I tend to call it common sense. People in the US tend to buy high end phones more than those in the rest of the world. They also get access to many apps before the rest of the world.

It's been know that the largest chunk of mobile industry profits come from the US. If you don't believe me go use google.

The only BS around here is the unwarranted trolling you and several other members do.

stevan said,

I don't care what you call it, I tend to call it common sense. People in the US tend to buy high end phones more than those in the rest of the world. They also get access to many apps before the rest of the world.

It's been know that the largest chunk of mobile industry profits come from the US. If you don't believe me go use google.

The only BS around here is the unwarranted trolling you and several other members do.

Wow that's rich coming from you. How about, just for once, you provide some evidence to support your wild claims. Generalisations abd opinions stated as fact are the domain of the troll.

paulheu said,
Says who? please provide proof of this as I call BS.
You must be blind, you must can't read, and you must don't know how to use the Internet.

Apple sales - Apple has 25% of the US market, compared with 14% and sliding market share around the world combined. Apple has 6% market with the Mac in the USA and less than 5% with the rest of the world combine.

Even Android which has almost 70% of the USA, only has about 50% with the rest of the world.

Microsoft has a 89% market share with Windows in the whole world. 65% of that is all USA usage.

The fact is, many country's simply don't have the income levels as the USA. In Europe they complain about a phone cost $900 USD. Here in the USA, many people have $900 phones and tablets even if they bought them on contract.

Our ta structure in the US is different too, which is why many countries pay more than we do.

Rudy said,
The EeePc 700 started with a 800×480 resolution, you can't tell me Windows is usable at that resolution (I know later hardware improved this, but my point is one of the weakness of most netbook was often the horrible resolution)

Those early netbooks didn't run Windows though, they ran custom Linux distros. It wasn't until later that XP was preloaded after complaints from consumers.

Confused? With what? Providing a common ground (Metro Design Language) for all of Microsoft's devices and services to stand on?

Strange, my Surface, Lumia, or desktop don't seem to agree.

Dot Matrix said,
Confused? With what? Providing a common ground (Metro Design Language) for all of Microsoft's devices and services to stand on?

Metro is the Kool Aid of the IT World, it is recognized not by the "taste" but by the color.

Dot Matrix said,
Confused? With what? Providing a common ground (Metro Design Language) for all of Microsoft's devices and services to stand on?

Strange, my Surface, Lumia, or desktop don't seem to agree.

I think the point is, it's a pipe dream that Microsoft is continuing to chase and gives consumers false hope. They've tried to go for this unified platform experience year after year and they've failed every time. They could have done something really good with metro, instead they've forced it up on most people and the rest have simply not made the transfer.
As for other devices (hardware) it's not as unified as Microsoft likes you to believe. Windows Phone 8, Windows 8 RT, and Windows 8 and Xbox one.. all share the same Microsoft account... and that's pretty much it. It's still a disjointed mess, right down to the inability to remove the desktop 'app' on tablet PCs where it's not needed up to the inability to remove the metro experience from PCs where, it's not needed.
Microsoft has mashed these two together (ignoring what we don't know about the xbox one, and Windows Phone's totally different eco system for the moment), they simply don't know what they want, other then the fact they needed to act fast to create an eco system for it's users to latch on to before the mobile market caught up with them and took over. iOS devices alone account far out weight Microsoft at this point, and that's on the desktop too.

Different people, different tastes. Actually, I don't want to see the same UI everywhere, it would become *for me* boring very quickly.

Dot Matrix said,
Confused? With what? Providing a common ground (Metro Design Language) for all of Microsoft's devices and services to stand on?

Strange, my Surface, Lumia, or desktop don't seem to agree.

THIS!

Quite honestly I think Apple is confused as they have no idea how to stop the coming onslaught of a well integrated OS that is uniform in UI and UX across any device instead of producing just another box with the same applauncher and not able to get it going anywhere productive.

MSFT is sneaking up and Apple is just to full of itself to notice. Kind off how Nokia was asleep when the iPhone first appeared (even though they had better and IMO more mature hardware and a feature rich OS).

I strongly don't wish for the modern UI to take over my laptop and desktop PCs. It works exceptionally well for touch displays, but then it doesn't translate fully onto traditional PCs. The desktop will stay for the future and will never go away. The biggest mistake for Microsoft would be to get rid of the desktop in favor of modern. If Microsoft did go down this path, then its good bye to Windows for me. The desktop provides a extremely productive environment and an advanced computing experience, where modern does not. You can have multiple programs on the desktop open but in modern can only have two in split screen.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I strongly don't wish for the modern UI to take over my laptop and desktop PCs. It works exceptionally well for touch displays, but then it doesn't translate fully onto traditional PCs.
My Surface boots into the start screen, my desktop into the desktop and I only go to the start screen when I need it.

sagum said,

As for other devices (hardware) it's not as unified as Microsoft likes you to believe. Windows Phone 8, Windows 8 RT, and Windows 8 and Xbox one.. all share the same Microsoft account... and that's pretty much it. It's still a disjointed mess, right down to the inability to remove the desktop 'app' on tablet PCs where it's not needed up to the inability to remove the metro experience from PCs where, it's not needed.

False, Windows 8, Windows Phone, and XBox One are all fairly unified. Aside from a common GUI, they share the same cores, and only require small changes in code to run on one another. Someday, they'll fully unify these systems were no code changes are needed at all.

And also you say Metro isn't needed on the desktop, I disagree. Being able to run both kinds of apps on my systems is honestly awesome functionality. It's breathed new life into my desktop which I was getting ready write off. I went from XP to Vista to Seven without gaining any new apps, while loosing many. I *lost* apps, what does that tell you about the desktop ecosystem? With Windows 8, I finally gained apps back. Users have access to a wiser ecosystem, no matter what devices they are on.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I strongly don't wish for the modern UI to take over my laptop and desktop PCs. It works exceptionally well for touch displays, but then it doesn't translate fully onto traditional PCs. The desktop will stay for the future and will never go away. The biggest mistake for Microsoft would be to get rid of the desktop in favor of modern. If Microsoft did go down this path, then its good bye to Windows for me. The desktop provides a extremely productive environment and an advanced computing experience, where modern does not. You can have multiple programs on the desktop open but in modern can only have two in split screen.

I'm guessing you haven't upgraded to Windows 8.1, Don't use multiple monitors and haven't really used many Metro apps. The new line of business apps, dashboards and components coming out for many business systems are all shaping up to look great.

I have Windows 8.1 now, and its considerably better than Windows 8. 8.1 works better across both tablets and traditional PCs unlike Windows 8 did before. In 8.1 Microsoft finally added settings suited for traditional PC users like the boot to desktop, disable charms, and view all apps when clicking the start button. Windows 8.1 on my laptop acts much like Windows 7 did with the new desktop oriented settings applied. Windows 8.1 is a big improvement in terms of working across all computers devices.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I strongly don't wish for the modern UI to take over my laptop and desktop PCs. It works exceptionally well for touch displays, but then it doesn't translate fully onto traditional PCs. The desktop will stay for the future and will never go away. The biggest mistake for Microsoft would be to get rid of the desktop in favor of modern. If Microsoft did go down this path, then its good bye to Windows for me. The desktop provides a extremely productive environment and an advanced computing experience, where modern does not. You can have multiple programs on the desktop open but in modern can only have two in split screen.

Surely that's just an example of where its just not quite there yet. Metro could work well as a desktop replacement, we just haven't seen it implemented quite right yet. What is it exactly that you do in the desktop that couldn't be done in a metro environment?

the better twin said,

Surely that's just an example of where its just not quite there yet. Metro could work well as a desktop replacement, we just haven't seen it implemented quite right yet. What is it exactly that you do in the desktop that couldn't be done in a metro environment?

Modern will never will replace the functionality of the desktop and in terms of the power that the desktop has to offer. The modern UI is oriented for touch screens, which is obvious. You do realize how much outrage and anger it would cause if Microsoft for some crazy reason decided to put the desktop in the recycling bin and delete it, right?
Lets see some of the many apps that I use on the desktop,
1. photoshop,
2. office
3. steam
4. audacity,
5. my older windows games
6. live movie maker,
7. video converting software
8. google sketchup,
9. disc burning software
10. and many more.

Edited by Atomic Wanderer Chicken, Oct 22 2013, 7:46pm :

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
..snip..

Nothing on that list could not be put into Metro (for future versions obviously, nobody is planning to, asking for, or even expecting legacy apps to be ported). Metro is fully capable of supporting AAA games and apps such as photoshop, and office. As evidenced by the fact that a version of office for Metro is on the way. No doubt the 1.0 versions will be less featured than their desktop counterparts after numerous iterations, but they'll get there in the end.

To say "Modern will never replace the functionality of the desktop" is not true. Metro is fully capable of doing so if the app developers step up.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,

Modern will never will replace the functionality of the desktop and in terms of the power that the desktop has to offer. The modern UI is oriented for touch screens, which is obvious. You do realize how much outrage and anger it would cause if Microsoft for some crazy reason decided to put the desktop in the recycling bin and delete it, right?
Lets see some of the many apps that I use on the desktop,
1. photoshop,
2. office
3. steam
4. audacity,
5. my older windows games
6. live movie maker,
7. video converting software
8. google sketchup,
9. disc burning software
10. and many more.

Think outside the box.

I personally don't want the modern UI taking everything over. The modern UI works better towards tablets. It does not offer the advanced options and immerse features that desktop programs have, which is why for an example Office 2013 opens in the desktop and not in modern. Microsoft is not stupid and knows that the enormous outcry it would cause in the Windows community, if they did away with the desktop. It would be a very stupid move get rid of the desktop. I respect you opinion that modern should prevail on Windows, but strongly disagree with that whole subject.

sagum said,
I think the point is, it's a pipe dream that Microsoft is continuing to chase and gives consumers false hope. They've tried to go for this unified platform experience year after year and they've failed every time. They could have done something really good with metro, instead they've forced it up on most people and the rest have simply not made the transfer.
As for other devices (hardware) it's not as unified as Microsoft likes you to believe. Windows Phone 8, Windows 8 RT, and Windows 8 and Xbox one.. all share the same Microsoft account... and that's pretty much it. It's still a disjointed mess, right down to the inability to remove the desktop 'app' on tablet PCs where it's not needed up to the inability to remove the metro experience from PCs where, it's not needed.
Microsoft has mashed these two together (ignoring what we don't know about the xbox one, and Windows Phone's totally different eco system for the moment), they simply don't know what they want, other then the fact they needed to act fast to create an eco system for it's users to latch on to before the mobile market caught up with them and took over. iOS devices alone account far out weight Microsoft at this point, and that's on the desktop too.

I have to disagree with the unified platform part, true it's been a long time coming but with Windows Phone 8.1 being released next year the stores on both platforms will be unified across Desktop, Tablet and Phone. This means one purchase across multiple devices, just like Apple, but this also introduces other possible features as well, such as remote purchase and install of desktop, tablet and Xbox One apps from your phone.

Xbox One is also capable of running some of the Windows 8 apps as well, which means that instead of a separate version of Netflix, for example, the console could use the Windows 8 version.

IMHO Apple are the confused ones, looking at how Microsoft are unifying their platforms but can't understand how to do the same thing themselves.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,

Modern will never will replace the functionality of the desktop and in terms of the power that the desktop has to offer. The modern UI is oriented for touch screens, which is obvious. You do realize how much outrage and anger it would cause if Microsoft for some crazy reason decided to put the desktop in the recycling bin and delete it, right?
Lets see some of the many apps that I use on the desktop,
1. photoshop,
2. office
3. steam
4. audacity,
5. my older windows games
6. live movie maker,
7. video converting software
8. google sketchup,
9. disc burning software
10. and many more.

And before the Desktop came out people were in the same mind set "But I use all my programs from CLI!?!?!". Took a few years but we surpassed that.

Shadowzz said,

And before the Desktop came out people were in the same mind set "But I use all my programs from CLI!?!?!". Took a few years but we surpassed that.

The Unix world is still on the CLI for productivity reasons…

MFH said,

The Unix world is still on the CLI for productivity reasons…

Windows & Windows RT has powershell as well.... while a bit more fat in syntax it does everything a unix shell can do and then some - the power shell 3.0 with desired state configs and full MMC capability is a hard thing to ignore

That's great, and how big is Unix nowadays compared to Windows, even if we only count the cooperate world?

Also I never got that 'productivity reasons'. Remembering where to look and click gives you a lot of free time compared to studying the exact phrases you have to enter.
Is more time left for productivity.

Brony said,

Metro is the Kool Aid of the IT World, it is recognized not by the "taste" but by the color.

Yep because when it comes to tastes, it is the winning end after all. Looks are subject to argument, while taste can't be.

Why would Apple need to unify though? iOS and OSX are designed around the devices that deliver said content. One of the biggest complaints I get about Windows 8 is that people feel they're trying to force a tablet experience onto their laptop. Regardless of the fact that Windows 8 behaves much like Windows 7, if not better, it's not what many consumers are looking for. That's one of the big issues here.

You can tell everyone what's good for them until you're blue in the face, but if you're not developing for the things people want, you're going to have a rough time. People want to scoff at Apple, claiming everyone's an iSheep, but Apple's done their homework, their devices sell, and there's a VERY good reason as to why. Businesses will continue to push models that work for them, and until Apple sees reason to move in another direction, they'll continue perfecting the things they do best.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,

Modern will never will replace the functionality of the desktop and in terms of the power that the desktop has to offer. The modern UI is oriented for touch screens, which is obvious. You do realize how much outrage and anger it would cause if Microsoft for some crazy reason decided to put the desktop in the recycling bin and delete it, right?
Lets see some of the many apps that I use on the desktop,
1. photoshop,
2. office
3. steam
4. audacity,
5. my older windows games
6. live movie maker,
7. video converting software
8. google sketchup,
9. disc burning software
10. and many more.
The Desktop will always be there (and so will Start8).

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I strongly don't wish for the modern UI to take over my laptop and desktop PCs. It works exceptionally well for touch displays, but then it doesn't translate fully onto traditional PCs.

well that's exactly the point. you mentioned traditional PC's. that means all PC s are chaging their form factor from bulky chuncks into a slick flat touch screen that you can use with keyboard and touch, probably mouse will stick around for a while while desktop will/.
Kiosks, boths and even Banks are now using traditional PCs and soon they will change to touchscreen All-in-ones as prices drop. less headache. more beautiful apps, immersive apps for less distraction, customized corporate apps and company's app store can even take over windows app store which is ideal for corporate stores.

trojan_market said,

well that's exactly the point. you mentioned traditional PC's. that means all PC s are chaging their form factor from bulky chuncks into a slick flat touch screen that you can use with keyboard and touch, probably mouse will stick around for a while while desktop will/.
Kiosks, boths and even Banks are now using traditional PCs and soon they will change to touchscreen All-in-ones as prices drop. less headache. more beautiful apps, immersive apps for less distraction, customized corporate apps and company's app store can even take over windows app store which is ideal for corporate stores.
In regards to screen size, my minimum for everyday work is 24" (due to the amount of data I need to display at one time with windows side by side). I prefer my screen in a vertical orientation on a stand, not flat across a table. Using a 24" touchscreen in vertical orientation all day would cause quite a bit of arm strain - this is why touchscreens on desktops and notebooks haven't taken off, and probably never will, so Apple are right.

Shadowzz said,

And before the Desktop came out people were in the same mind set "But I use all my programs from CLI!?!?!". Took a few years but we surpassed that.
The desktop was a clear evolution to the CLI, "modern" apps are a devolution, it makes sense on more limited devices (phones, tablets) but on a desktop computer it makes no sense at all (at least in the current implementation)

Shadowzz said,
That's great, and how big is Unix nowadays compared to Windows, even if we only count the cooperate world?

Also I never got that 'productivity reasons'. Remembering where to look and click gives you a lot of free time compared to studying the exact phrases you have to enter.
Is more time left for productivity.

Try issuing a command on 1K computers at once using a GUI.

Microsoft is finally learning the importance of CLI now that they are managing server farms via Azure. As a result, for Windows server the GUI is considered deprecated entirely and the recommended install only supports CLI with no GUI to be found.

http://www.networkedminds.com/...dition-Selection-Screen.png

LogicalApex said,

Try issuing a command on 1K computers at once using a GUI.

Microsoft is finally learning the importance of CLI now that they are managing server farms via Azure. As a result, for Windows server the GUI is considered deprecated entirely and the recommended install only supports CLI with no GUI to be found.

http://www.networkedminds.com/...dition-Selection-Screen.png

All the picture shows is setup selecting the first option by default, not the recommended option.

In a corporate environment you choose the installation options that are appropriate for the role the server is performing. In the case of Server Core installs that's usually for servers that require high performance e.g. an Exchange Client Access Server.

Even Server Core installs have a minimal GUI just to display the Command Prompt.

neo158 said,

All the picture shows is setup selecting the first option by default, not the recommended option.

In a corporate environment you choose the installation options that are appropriate for the role the server is performing. In the case of Server Core installs that's usually for servers that require high performance e.g. an Exchange Client Access Server.

Even Server Core installs have a minimal GUI just to display the Command Prompt.

It might help to read the text. The default selected option is Server Core which is why it is listed as recommended by Microsoft. You'll also notice that Microsoft also says it has no GUI.

It only has the bare minimum to show a command Window. It lacks the rest of the Windows GUI (which requires Windows Explorer, among other things, which aren't installed).

Also, you can't install Exchange on a Server Core install. So, no, you wouldn't be installing MS Exchange with a Client Access Role on a server without a GUI.

We don't support the installation of Exchange 2013 on a computer that's running in Windows Server Core mode. The computer must be running the full installation of Windows Server...

http://technet.microsoft.com/e.../aa996719(v=exchg.150).aspx

Rudy said,
The desktop was a clear evolution to the CLI, "modern" apps are a devolution, it makes sense on more limited devices (phones, tablets) but on a desktop computer it makes no sense at all (at least in the current implementation)

It's easy to see that now, but at the time it was new and many people who had been using a CLI for a decade or more took several years to warm up to even the idea of a GUI. There were people still complaining about GUI's and touting the CLI in the late 1990's.

I really can't believe that so many people have trouble with the Modern UI on desktops. I'm on a desktop most of the time, and I love it. It looks great, and is really slick and smooth.

The thing that really gets me when people complain about how hard it is to use Modern UI apps on the desktop is that the desktop is actually harder to use than the Modern UI on any platform. It's all most people know, so since they know it they think it's easy, but the Modern UI is extremely easy, productive, and functional. The desktop is certainly more well suited to complex apps, like Photoshop, but that list of desktop apps that would be very difficult to translate to the Modern UI is very short.

spudtrooper said,

Windows & Windows RT has powershell as well....

Introduced in 2006, not used by the majority of Windows users… Not the same as the Unix shells…

thomastmc said,

It's easy to see that now, but at the time it was new and many people who had been using a CLI for a decade or more took several years to warm up to even the idea of a GUI. There were people still complaining about GUI's and touting the CLI in the late 1990's.

I really can't believe that so many people have trouble with the Modern UI on desktops. I'm on a desktop most of the time, and I love it. It looks great, and is really slick and smooth.

The thing that really gets me when people complain about how hard it is to use Modern UI apps on the desktop is that the desktop is actually harder to use than the Modern UI on any platform. It's all most people know, so since they know it they think it's easy, but the Modern UI is extremely easy, productive, and functional. The desktop is certainly more well suited to complex apps, like Photoshop, but that list of desktop apps that would be very difficult to translate to the Modern UI is very short.

It's not about difficulty - it's about choice. If Windows were like Linux, I'd be able to choose if I want Metro installed or not. Microsoft should give users this choice (and keep ALL their customer base happy).

If you find that working on a Surface Pro can be just as productive as working on two 27" monitors, then that's good for you. I'm using (CAD) software which just isn't suited for touch screens/Metro, and never will be. If you have a problem with that, I can put you onto the developers to talk to - they'll probably look at your request as a joke. The Desktop must remain for people who heavily rely on it everyday - full stop.

I really don't see why people cry about Metro being "forced" on them if they are using a non-touch laptop or desktop. I take virtual classes everyday and while my teacher uses a smartboard with Windows 8 running, I have never once seen the start screen. He does all his work in the desktop environment and since he doesn't really need to search for apps (there's only a limited number of apps we need and those are launched from the taskbar or desktop), there is literally no need for him to ever go to the Metro Interface. And, this is a semi-professional setting. So, I am sure anyone else can also get by with not using Metro too often (and maybe just use it for searching apps) if they don't have a touch-enabled device.

I don't know how the majority of people feel but I love my Microsoft products. They are simple to use and better than previous products. I like how everything is integrated with the cloud. I really do not use a lot of apps so I would not care if there were 5 million of the same app. I also like that I can run any desktop app I choose on my Surface Pro. Since Apple has it right Tim Cook should only worry about his own products. No doubt Apple makes some nice looking hardware and Android gives people plenty of freedom.

If the desktop app developers choose to they could make a Metro version of there app if Microsoft allowed more access to the OS and hardware in Metro. However, Metro apps are sand boxed and limited on what they have access to. Therefore, the desktop is going no where.

Anonymous1b said,
I really don't see why people cry about Metro being "forced" on them if they are using a non-touch laptop or desktop. I take virtual classes everyday and while my teacher uses a smartboard with Windows 8 running, I have never once seen the start screen. He does all his work in the desktop environment and since he doesn't really need to search for apps (there's only a limited number of apps we need and those are launched from the taskbar or desktop), there is literally no need for him to ever go to the Metro Interface. And, this is a semi-professional setting. So, I am sure anyone else can also get by with not using Metro too often (and maybe just use it for searching apps) if they don't have a touch-enabled device.

Microsoft actively took the decision to remove the start menu (and start button) and make you use the start screen. This was Microsoft's decision. They could have gave us a simple toggle switch that disabled metro start screen for the desktop users who wanted to use the start menu exclusively.

Personally, I don't mind the start screen so much. I'd rather it not be there as there but I can deal with it. I've tried the apps, and they're providing nothing useful so far so the entire metro eco system for me so far is junk on the desktop.
However, What annoys me more then the inability to disable the start screen is the inability to disable the desktop, closely followed by all the little issues that have become a problem since apps have been introduced.

For example, in Windows 7, the import pictures function when you plugged in a camera let you change the settings so you could tag and organize the folders pictures when they are imported to your computer. Even better was the ability to sort pictures and videos into the correct folder. My Pictures for pictures, and My Video for video files.
Even thought you can set these options in Windows 8.1, they are not honoured at all by the photo's app import, and there is no way to change the settings for it. So you get all the images without any name tagging, populated by dated folders in your picture's library, even if they're video too.
To make matters worse, there doesn't seem to be anyway to use the older import option as a quick fix.

Even worse then that, every app seems to use a different picture select screen, with photos being the most up to date. If you try to put a picture on facebook using the new facebook app, you get a rather poor picture selection screen with very tiny icons that makes it next to impossible to use.... strangely the facebook app doesn't even make use of the share charm (!?).
Don't even get me started on trying to use the desktop with app on the split screen, worse with multiple monitors. Ease of access settings metro wide are an utter joke. These are all problems caused by Microsoft forcing metro on us.

For professional type people, we can work around these issues quite easily, but for the majority of people, the experience of using windows 8 with desktop and apps (and even some cases just the apps) feels arbitrary.

sagum said,

Microsoft actively took the decision to remove the start menu (and start button) and make you use the start screen. This was Microsoft's decision. They could have gave us a simple toggle switch that disabled metro start screen for the desktop users who wanted to use the start menu exclusively.

... They did this because the old Start Menu didn't support the new Search features and Metro APIs, among various other incompatibilities. It would have also broke the UX they were working on creating (http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ws-8/page-30#entry595048551).

sagum said,

Don't even get me started on trying to use the desktop with app on the split screen, worse with multiple monitors.

I use this setup everyday. What's wrong with it?

And UNIX is not solely a CLI world - just as Solaris (which is still, along with all of its forks, THE UNIX of today) is no longer based on OpenWindows. (In fact, do you have any idea how long it has been since Solaris dropped OpenWindows as the default GUI - in favor of GNOME?) In fact, if you use Solaris as a desktop OS (which has been quite possible for years), how much of the CLI do you still need to use? Likely less than was the case a mere two versions ago - and that is simply mainstream Solaris? All operating systems are becoming more and more graphically-oriented, despite the "long live the command line" cry of old-school admins that hail back to mainframe-based computing.