Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: MS worried about the embedded space

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: MS worried about the embedded space

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuivmk$7du$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fugtgk$j2a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Squiggle wrote:
>>>>>> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:12:09 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm....so Microsoft has 32% of the embedded os market and Linux
>>>>>>>> has 8%.
>>>>>>> What has the other 60%?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real embedded OSes. Vxworks, uC/OS ,ECOS etc.. Some may not even
>>>>>> bother with anything that could realistically be called an OS.
>>>>> I don't believe Microsoft has anything like 32% of the number of
>>>>> embedded operating systems in use on all the embedded CPUs, there are
>>>>> 10 billion ARM processors sold so far and they comprise 75% of the 32
>>>>> bit market
>>>> Only a tiny fraction of all ARM processors are equipped with an
>>>> embedded os. So what's your point?
>>>>
>>>>> In phones, Microsofts share is miniscule, in printers, routers,
>>>>> appliances, industrial controllers, cars, gps, depth sounders,
>>>>> cameras, dvrs, set-top boxes, av receivers, industrial robots,
>>>>> security systems, serial converters etcetcetc ad infinitum nothing
>>>> When you source some actual market-share numbers, we can discuss
>>>> what -- if anything -- here is relevant. But it's clear from your
>>>> laundry list that you really have no clue whatsoever about the market
>>>> for embedded software at all. Phones are the single fastest growing
>>>> market, and we know that Linux is getting beaten badly here by both
>>>> Apple and Microsoft.
>>>
>>> You previously linked to a report prepared for Symbian that showed Linux
>>> was second only to Symbian in worldwide phone operating systems, Apple
>>> only figured in the US figures, where it was beating Microsoft and
>>> didn't rate worldwide. Microsoft was one of the also rans in every other
>>> market outside the US
>>>

>>
>> Am I the only one around here who can read?

>
> You don't have a **** show of understanding what you read, thats for sure.
>


Oh, no. Are you going to make a complete fool of yourself again? Looks like
it...


>>
>> US: "RIM won 42 percent market share, according to Canalys, compared to
>> Apple at 27 percent, Windows Mobile at 21 percent, and Palm at a nine
>> percent. Linux, apparently was so far behind it didn't even deserve a
>> mention."
>>
>> Worldwide: "Symbian dominated with a 65 percent market share, compared to
>> Microsoft's 12 percent, RIM's 11 percent, Apple's seven percent, and
>> Linux's five percent.
>>
>> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3506923462.html

>
> Just smartphones.
>


No. Smartphones and other wireless handhelds that utilise mobile operating
systems.

"According to the market research firm, which looked at "converged devices,"
**including both smartphones and wireless handhelds such as RIM's
Blackberry**, the Blackberry took top honors in the U.S market in the fourth
quarter. RIM won 42 percent market share, according to Canalys, compared to
Apple at 27 percent, Windows Mobile at 21 percent, and Palm at a nine
percent. Linux, apparently was so far behind it didn't even deserve a
mention.

"Linux did show up, however, in the worldwide report. Here, Symbian
dominated with a 65 percent market share, compared to Microsoft's 12
percent, RIM's 11 percent, Apple's seven percent, and Linux's five percent."

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3506923462.html

Now say you're sorry and quit wasting everyone's time.

> Take it across all embedded phone operating systems and have a look at the
> actual Canalys report published by Symbian.
>


**All** phone operating systems? Including the stuff that just dials a
number for you? You've got to be kidding!?! It's like the software for
toasters, washing machines and dvd players's -- summer interns, and other
low-level techs like yourself, produce most of that code, I'm sure. It's all
generic stuff. If you want to claim that Linux dominates **that** market,
such as it is, you're welcome to it. But do post a link with corroborating
data. Your reference to a "Canalys report published by Symbian" is awfuly
vague.

If you're serious about showing where Linux has gained market acceptance,
have the decency to rely on the existing data. You could pick the Japanese
market, for instance, where Linux apparently has a 27% share -- that's
impressive. Why do you always feel compelled to make things up? I don't
really think there's all that much good news out there for you, but honestly
I could do a much better job myself of documenting some reasonable cause for
optimism about Linux's prospect's than you.


>>> But most of the
>>>> devices you mention have no use for **any** os at all, so I don't no
>>>> why you bother bringing them up. Many (especially those in the category
>>>> of industrial controllers and robots) utilise software that is strictly
>>>> proprietary to the hardware manufacturer. Others (especially those in
>>>> the category of household appliances and consumer electronics) involve
>>>> such simple, generic types of coding that it's hardly worth talking
>>>> about this stuff as software at all. So sort out exactly what it is
>>>> you'd like to discuss, do some research for a change that involves
>>>> sourcing real data, and I'll be happy to compare notes with you.
>>> There are plenty of consumer dvrs for instance from the likes of
>>> Panasonic that are now using Linux, just like the TiVo.
>>> None of these figure as revenue in your Microsoft propaganda piece,
>>> because the software is free
>>>

>>
>> The truth hurts, I know, but Linux has a teeny, tiny shae of the embedded
>> market. Deal with it.

>
> Microsoft does offer a packaged solution, but embedded device
> manufacturers are developing the hardware anyway, building something
> better for their purposes with Linux is usually easier.
>


Could be. If only you had some data to back that claim.

>>
>>>>> They might claim that they make 32% of the revenue of embedded
>>>>> operating systems in some arbitrarily defined segment who knows how
>>>>> they derive these PR figures ?
>>>>> But it isn't on 32% of the embedded cpus
>>>> As I said, referencing the article Thingy cited, Microsoft has 32% of
>>>> the embedded os market and Linux has 8%. If you find some evidence to
>>>> contradict that statement, I'd love to see it.
>>> Some consolation, comparing Windows CE license revenue to commercial
>>> revenue for small embedded linux vendors like Montavista, but they don't
>>> show the actual usage as well as this report.
>>> http://www.vdc-corp.com/_documents/p...hment-1394.pdf
>>>
>>> Wintrolls love trying to confuse linux usage with linux sales revenue,
>>>
>>> There are more Linux embedded software users than the total of all
>>> commercial embedded OSs. The competitive advantage they have is that
>>> they don't have to buy it.

>>
>> COLA Trolls seems incapable of distinguishing between sales revenue and
>> usage. If you're running a business -- as IBM, RedHat, and Novelll have
>> discovered to your grief -- this difference is rather important. As I
>> keep telling you -- feel free to make up any usage numbers you like. They
>> are all wild guesstimates, and absolutely meaningless.

>
> If you are running a business selling phones or other embedded devices,
> there is no point paying IBM Redhat Novell or Microsoft for your opeating
> system if you can use an open source distribution like LiMo.
> Linux is an operating system, not a corporation.
>


Amortized over 118 million units, which is the number of
smartphone/handhelds shipped in 2007, the cost of an operating system is
miniscule, as in $0.001. So bottom-feeding makes no sense. Either Linux
developers can deliver the software that consumers want or manufacturers
will look elsewhere -- it's as simple as that.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuj0c5$a7k$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> 8><----
>>>
>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9077838
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm....so Microsoft has 32% of the embedded os market and Linux has
>>>> 8%.
>>> No, commercial versions of embedded Linux a total market share of 8%.
>>>

>>
>> Market=commercial.
>>
>>> Cant get you facts straight can you....
>>>

>>
>> My facts are **always** absolutely accurate and sourced. Yours?
>> Non-existent.
>>
>>> So that's a paid for version as opposed to a downloaded and free used
>>> version, which I think I read somewhere as in the 20~30% range....in
>>> which case ALL Linux's share is near to or exceeds MS's share (28~38%)
>>>

>>
>> Can't you keep your categories straight. There's no **market** for Linux
>> giveaways. So feel free to make up any **usage** numbers you please --
>> they're absolutely meaningless.

>
> Except they supply the embedded device makers and reduce the demand for
> Windows.
> In the market for embedded devices Windows is on a very minor share of
> those devices.
> Saying that Windows makes more from sales than a free operating system
> might give them a nice warm feeling but thats as significant as it gets,
> its like saying that bottled water makes more money than rain.
>


Hmmm....Bottled water does make more money than rain. Windows does make more
money than Linux. I'm willing to suspend judgment for a moment while you
regroup, but this argument of yours does not so far seem to be getting you
anywhere.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuj0c5$a7k$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>> Except they supply the embedded device makers and reduce the demand for
>>> Windows.
>>> In the market for embedded devices Windows is on a very minor share of
>>> those devices.
>>> Saying that Windows makes more from sales than a free operating system
>>> might give them a nice warm feeling but thats as significant as it gets,
>>> its like saying that bottled water makes more money than rain.


... but only idiots or travellers would pay for bottled water.

>It makes more money for bottled water companies, not for farmers and
>horticulturists.


... and again, only idiots would buy bottled water in NZ.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:480d17a2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuivmk$7du$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fugtgk$j2a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> Squiggle wrote:
>>>>>>>> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:12:09 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm....so Microsoft has 32% of the embedded os market and Linux
>>>>>>>>>> has 8%.
>>>>>>>>> What has the other 60%?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Real embedded OSes. Vxworks, uC/OS ,ECOS etc.. Some may not even
>>>>>>>> bother with anything that could realistically be called an OS.
>>>>>>> I don't believe Microsoft has anything like 32% of the number of
>>>>>>> embedded operating systems in use on all the embedded CPUs, there
>>>>>>> are 10 billion ARM processors sold so far and they comprise 75% of
>>>>>>> the 32 bit market
>>>>>> Only a tiny fraction of all ARM processors are equipped with an
>>>>>> embedded os. So what's your point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In phones, Microsofts share is miniscule, in printers, routers,
>>>>>>> appliances, industrial controllers, cars, gps, depth sounders,
>>>>>>> cameras, dvrs, set-top boxes, av receivers, industrial robots,
>>>>>>> security systems, serial converters etcetcetc ad infinitum nothing
>>>>>> When you source some actual market-share numbers, we can discuss
>>>>>> what -- if anything -- here is relevant. But it's clear from your
>>>>>> laundry list that you really have no clue whatsoever about the market
>>>>>> for embedded software at all. Phones are the single fastest growing
>>>>>> market, and we know that Linux is getting beaten badly here by both
>>>>>> Apple and Microsoft.
>>>>> You previously linked to a report prepared for Symbian that showed
>>>>> Linux was second only to Symbian in worldwide phone operating systems,
>>>>> Apple only figured in the US figures, where it was beating Microsoft
>>>>> and didn't rate worldwide. Microsoft was one of the also rans in every
>>>>> other market outside the US
>>>>>
>>>> Am I the only one around here who can read?
>>> You don't have a **** show of understanding what you read, thats for
>>> sure.
>>>

>>
>> Oh, no. Are you going to make a complete fool of yourself again? Looks
>> like it...
>>
>>
>>>> US: "RIM won 42 percent market share, according to Canalys, compared to
>>>> Apple at 27 percent, Windows Mobile at 21 percent, and Palm at a nine
>>>> percent. Linux, apparently was so far behind it didn't even deserve a
>>>> mention."
>>>>
>>>> Worldwide: "Symbian dominated with a 65 percent market share, compared
>>>> to Microsoft's 12 percent, RIM's 11 percent, Apple's seven percent, and
>>>> Linux's five percent.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3506923462.html
>>> Just smartphones.
>>>

>>
>> No. Smartphones and other wireless handhelds that utilise mobile
>> operating systems.
>>
>> "According to the market research firm, which looked at "converged
>> devices," **including both smartphones and wireless handhelds such as
>> RIM's Blackberry**, the Blackberry took top honors in the U.S market in
>> the fourth quarter. RIM won 42 percent market share, according to
>> Canalys, compared to Apple at 27 percent, Windows Mobile at 21 percent,
>> and Palm at a nine percent. Linux, apparently was so far behind it didn't
>> even deserve a mention.
>>
>> "Linux did show up, however, in the worldwide report. Here, Symbian
>> dominated with a 65 percent market share, compared to Microsoft's 12
>> percent, RIM's 11 percent, Apple's seven percent, and Linux's five
>> percent."
>>
>> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3506923462.html
>>
>> Now say you're sorry and quit wasting everyone's time.
>>
>>> Take it across all embedded phone operating systems and have a look at
>>> the actual Canalys report published by Symbian.
>>>

>>
>> **All** phone operating systems? Including the stuff that just dials a
>> number for you? You've got to be kidding!?! It's like the software for
>> toasters, washing machines and dvd players's -- summer interns, and other
>> low-level techs like yourself, produce most of that code, I'm sure. It's
>> all generic stuff. If you want to claim that Linux dominates **that**
>> market, such as it is, you're welcome to it. But do post a link with
>> corroborating data. Your reference to a "Canalys report published by
>> Symbian" is awfuly vague.
>>
>> If you're serious about showing where Linux has gained market acceptance,
>> have the decency to rely on the existing data. You could pick the
>> Japanese market, for instance, where Linux apparently has a 27% share --
>> that's impressive. Why do you always feel compelled to make things up? I
>> don't really think there's all that much good news out there for you, but
>> honestly I could do a much better job myself of documenting some
>> reasonable cause for optimism about Linux's prospect's than you.
>>
>>
>>>>> But most of the
>>>>>> devices you mention have no use for **any** os at all, so I don't no
>>>>>> why you bother bringing them up. Many (especially those in the
>>>>>> category of industrial controllers and robots) utilise software that
>>>>>> is strictly proprietary to the hardware manufacturer. Others
>>>>>> (especially those in the category of household appliances and
>>>>>> consumer electronics) involve such simple, generic types of coding
>>>>>> that it's hardly worth talking about this stuff as software at all.
>>>>>> So sort out exactly what it is you'd like to discuss, do some
>>>>>> research for a change that involves sourcing real data, and I'll be
>>>>>> happy to compare notes with you.
>>>>> There are plenty of consumer dvrs for instance from the likes of
>>>>> Panasonic that are now using Linux, just like the TiVo.
>>>>> None of these figure as revenue in your Microsoft propaganda piece,
>>>>> because the software is free
>>>>>
>>>> The truth hurts, I know, but Linux has a teeny, tiny shae of the
>>>> embedded market. Deal with it.
>>> Microsoft does offer a packaged solution, but embedded device
>>> manufacturers are developing the hardware anyway, building something
>>> better for their purposes with Linux is usually easier.
>>>

>>
>> Could be. If only you had some data to back that claim.
>>
>>>>>>> They might claim that they make 32% of the revenue of embedded
>>>>>>> operating systems in some arbitrarily defined segment who knows how
>>>>>>> they derive these PR figures ?
>>>>>>> But it isn't on 32% of the embedded cpus
>>>>>> As I said, referencing the article Thingy cited, Microsoft has 32%
>>>>>> of the embedded os market and Linux has 8%. If you find some evidence
>>>>>> to contradict that statement, I'd love to see it.
>>>>> Some consolation, comparing Windows CE license revenue to commercial
>>>>> revenue for small embedded linux vendors like Montavista, but they
>>>>> don't show the actual usage as well as this report.
>>>>> http://www.vdc-corp.com/_documents/p...hment-1394.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Wintrolls love trying to confuse linux usage with linux sales revenue,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more Linux embedded software users than the total of all
>>>>> commercial embedded OSs. The competitive advantage they have is that
>>>>> they don't have to buy it.
>>>> COLA Trolls seems incapable of distinguishing between sales revenue and
>>>> usage. If you're running a business -- as IBM, RedHat, and Novelll have
>>>> discovered to your grief -- this difference is rather important. As I
>>>> keep telling you -- feel free to make up any usage numbers you like.
>>>> They are all wild guesstimates, and absolutely meaningless.
>>> If you are running a business selling phones or other embedded devices,
>>> there is no point paying IBM Redhat Novell or Microsoft for your
>>> opeating system if you can use an open source distribution like LiMo.
>>> Linux is an operating system, not a corporation.
>>>

>>
>> Amortized over 118 million units, which is the number of
>> smartphone/handhelds shipped in 2007, the cost of an operating system is
>> miniscule, as in $0.001. So bottom-feeding makes no sense. Either Linux
>> developers can deliver the software that consumers want or manufacturers
>> will look elsewhere -- it's as simple as that.

>
> Here you are, have a good read, look at the graph of worldwide unit sales
> by operating system, its easy to find.
> The orange is symbian, the red is linux, the green if you can find it is
> Microsoft.
> http://developer.symbian.com/main/ge...Oct07FINAL.pdf


Just as I thought. This is smartphone sales data -- same stuff I
referencvd, just 1 Quarter older. We've been through ity all before.

http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....695bc053d33778


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:480d2748$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>>

>>
>> **All** phone operating systems? Including the stuff that just dials a
>> number for you? You've got to be kidding!?! It's like the software for
>> toasters, washing machines and dvd players's -- summer interns, and other
>> low-level techs like yourself, produce most of that code, I'm sure. It's
>> all generic stuff. If you want to claim that Linux dominates **that**
>> market, such as it is, you're welcome to it. But do post a link with
>> corroborating data. Your reference to a "Canalys report published by
>> Symbian" is awfuly vague.
>>

>
> Just about all phones have mp3 players, games, cameras, picture viewers,
> recorders, address books, email, browsers, bluetooth etc, .
>
> Microsoft don't make any software that is any better at that than anyone
> elses, no one cares about exchange clients.
>


Like I said, the functions on these generic phones are all every generic, so
you're right -- no one in their right mind would order up a smart phone
equipped with Windows Mobile to handle such things. In most major markets
these kind of phones are giveaways, and so the software that supports them
isn't likely to rise above that level of sophistiucation because there's
really no point. .But if you're a business person who wants seamless
interoperability with Microsoft Office, then you'll gladly pay a premium to
get that. Similarly, the iPhone attracts a special sort of customer willing
to pay a premium for a very sleek software/hardware package with a
non-business focus. Are these high-end markets -- which happen to be the
fastest growing of all phone markets -- out of the reach of open-source
developers? I wouldn't think so, even if you tend to be thoroughly
dismissive. Perhaps with the fine-tuning of the new OXML document standard,
open-source developers will seize the opportunity to tap into the demand for
MS Office and build a better software tool for the mobile business market.
Alternatively, they could build something altogether different that hooks
into Google's online new apps. Then you'd really have something to crow
about -- and for people to pay good money to use.


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuj0c5$a7k$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>> Except they supply the embedded device makers and reduce the demand for
>>> Windows.
>>> In the market for embedded devices Windows is on a very minor share of
>>> those devices.
>>> Saying that Windows makes more from sales than a free operating system
>>> might give them a nice warm feeling but thats as significant as it gets,
>>> its like saying that bottled water makes more money than rain.
>>>

>>
>> Hmmm....Bottled water does make more money than rain. Windows does make
>> more money than Linux. I'm willing to suspend judgment for a moment while
>> you regroup, but this argument of yours does not so far seem to be
>> getting you anywhere.

>
> It makes more money for bottled water companies, not for farmers and
> horticulturists.
>


Farmers and horticulturists are way ahead of you. They've known for 20 years
or more that competing on price is a losing strategy. You either add value
to your products or you die -- it's as simple as that --because there's
always someone, somewhere in a position to produce the generic stuff cheaper
than you.

> You really should be able to work it out.
> In unit sales, manufacturers who use linux on their phones sell far more
> phones than manufacturers with Windows on their phones.


You have yet to produce any data to support that pipedream of yours. Does
any exist, or this just more wishful thinking.

> Their share of phone sales is increasing, and more major manufacturers are
> joining the Linux Mobile industry group LiMo foundation which includes LG,
> Samsung, NTT/Docomo, Panasonic, Motorola, NEC, Ericcson and Huawei\


You have yet to produce any data to support that pipedream of yours. Does
any exist, or this just more wishful thinking.

> The current growth is in China Korea and Japan with Linux on NEC and
> Panasonic phones. Thats where they make phones.


YES!! Hurray!!! Good for you!

> The US is saturated.


With cheap products, yes -- in the phone market these are simply loss-leader
giveaways. Don't bother tyring to sell in the US unless you have something
special to offer. A la iPhones, Blackberries, other smartphones. Margins
are high there because plenty of people have plenty to spend.

> http://developer.symbian.com/main/ge...Oct07FINAL.pdf



You really need to stop referencing that Symbian link, which is not at all
flattering to Linux. Among the problems with Linux that are cited there:

-- Fragmentation: lack of 3rd party developer native API, and rival factions
-- Incompleteness
-- Viral effect of GPL leeches IP
-- 'Wait or Branch' development model - leads to cost for people who need
mobile specific development
-- Operators are concerned about security.
-- Contributing parts of mobile SW stack lowers barrier to entry.
-- Low relative profitability and high relative costs.
-- Recent patent infringement assertions from Microsoft: Linux, in its
generic form, infringes upon 235 of its patents?!
-- Lack of visibility of kernel roadmaps.
-- Although the Linux Kernel has support for SMP, taking full advantage of
SMP requires co-ordination with other OS services (some services need to be
SMP safe, others tuned to take advantage of running different threads on
different processors) which may be difficult to pull-off in a distributed
Linux ecosystem.
-- Polling and monolithic kernel design.
-- Linux "doesn't mind" breaking the compatibility of internal kernel APIs,
data structures and HAIs: adversely affecting hardware vendors and device
creators.
-- Lack of standard cellular telephony abstraction.
-- Linux-based phone developers have to develop their own equivalent to
DevSound A3F in their platform or integrated into the application (similar
to RTOS)

Anyway, this is old smartphone data -- overall the Linux growth pattern from
2006-2007 is flat, and for 2007 in total the Linux share amounted to that
mighty 5% I referenced long ago.

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3506923462.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuj0c5$a7k$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Except they supply the embedded device makers and reduce the demand for
>>>>> Windows.
>>>>> In the market for embedded devices Windows is on a very minor share of
>>>>> those devices.
>>>>> Saying that Windows makes more from sales than a free operating system
>>>>> might give them a nice warm feeling but thats as significant as it gets,
>>>>> its like saying that bottled water makes more money than rain.

>>
>> .. but only idiots or travellers would pay for bottled water.
>>
>>> It makes more money for bottled water companies, not for farmers and
>>> horticulturists.

>>
>> .. and again, only idiots would buy bottled water in NZ.


>Certainly not manufacturers


No one ever lost money banking on the stupidity of customers. Examples
abound ... bottled water being only one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008

"thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:fuj0c5$a7k$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8><----
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9077838
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm....so Microsoft has 32% of the embedded os market and Linux has
>>>>>> 8%.
>>>>> No, commercial versions of embedded Linux a total market share of 8%.
>>>>>
>>>> Market=commercial.
>>>>
>>>>> Cant get you facts straight can you....
>>>>>
>>>> My facts are **always** absolutely accurate and sourced. Yours?
>>>> Non-existent.
>>>>
>>>>> So that's a paid for version as opposed to a downloaded and free used
>>>>> version, which I think I read somewhere as in the 20~30% range....in
>>>>> which case ALL Linux's share is near to or exceeds MS's share (28~38%)
>>>>>
>>>> Can't you keep your categories straight. There's no **market** for
>>>> Linux giveaways. So feel free to make up any **usage** numbers you
>>>> please -- they're absolutely meaningless.
>>> Except they supply the embedded device makers and reduce the demand for
>>> Windows.
>>> In the market for embedded devices Windows is on a very minor share of
>>> those devices.
>>> Saying that Windows makes more from sales than a free operating system
>>> might give them a nice warm feeling but thats as significant as it gets,
>>> its like saying that bottled water makes more money than rain.
>>>

>>
>> Hmmm....Bottled water does make more money than rain. Windows does make
>> more money than Linux. I'm willing to suspend judgment for a moment while
>> you regroup, but this argument of yours does not so far seem to be
>> getting you anywhere.

>
> makes more money for whom?


In the case of water, it's the bottlers, the wholesale distributors, and the
retailers. And in the case of software, it's the developers and hardware
manufacturers.

> So MS makes money off a handset (assuming it selsls an OS)....the handset
> company makes less....if you are a seller of OSes to handheld
> manufacturers I guess the data is meaningful...to the handheld makers what
> counts is their profit and not someone elses.
>


You know absolutely nothing about buisness, do you? If there is demand for
Windows Mobile, or Symbian, or or the iPhone, people will pay.
Manufacturers make **much more money** selling these products than they do
the generics.


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
"thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> 8><----
>>>
>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9077838
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm....so Microsoft has 32% of the embedded os market and Linux has
>>>> 8%.
>>> No, commercial versions of embedded Linux a total market share of 8%.
>>>

>>
>> Market=commercial.

>
> Nope, market !=commercial, there are lots of makers using a free version
> of linux, they are still in the market.
>


If they get it for free, no, they are NOT in the market for embedded
software.

>>
>>> Cant get you facts straight can you....
>>>

>>
>> My facts are **always** absolutely accurate and sourced. Yours?
>> Non-existent.

>
> No they are not, yours are cherry picked and mis-leading, every time I go
> to your sources or consult others I can see that you have provided maybe
> half the info if that much.
>


If that were true, you could easily reference the data that you think I've
missed. But you NEVER, EVER do, because of course it doesn't exist. Don't
think you can come in here and spin yarns based on wishful thinking. Put up
or shut up!

>>> So that's a paid for version as opposed to a downloaded and free used
>>> version, which I think I read somewhere as in the 20~30% range....in
>>> which case ALL Linux's share is near to or exceeds MS's share (28~38%)
>>>

>>
>> Can't you keep your categories straight. There's no **market** for Linux
>> giveaways.

>
> Only if you are ****selling**** an OS into the embedded space...the
> reality is what is being sold is a device that is the ****real****
> product. So a manufacturer using a free Linux can make more per item than
> if they used an MS OS or a commercial linux OS...
>
> So feel free to make up any **usage** numbers you please --
>> they're absolutely meaningless. Let's see....How many Linux developers
>> does it take to........?....oh, well, there's a joke there somewhere.
>>
>>>> had no idea so many vendors were using Windows. And did you hear? IBM
>>>> just switched from Suse to Windows for all its POS hardware? So that's
>>>> an unexpected setback, eh?
>>> Why? did you read about Newham council? how MS has failed to deliver?
>>> now that is a real set back. A flagship council that MS did a deal with
>>> so open source did not go in, yet 4 years later MS has not performed.
>>>

>>
>> Can't you keep your threads straight? We were talking about embedded
>> operating systems here.
>>
>> Anyway....Newham....yes, congratulations. But beware what you wish for.
>> It sounds like the Newham Council has decided to what IT its whipping
>> boy. And we all know how badly performed the Linux project in Munich
>> turned out to be.

>
> yeah right. Ms failed to perform....
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
"sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:480d5fb4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:480d2748$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> **All** phone operating systems? Including the stuff that just dials a
>>>> number for you? You've got to be kidding!?! It's like the software for
>>>> toasters, washing machines and dvd players's -- summer interns, and
>>>> other low-level techs like yourself, produce most of that code, I'm
>>>> sure. It's all generic stuff. If you want to claim that Linux dominates
>>>> **that** market, such as it is, you're welcome to it. But do post a
>>>> link with corroborating data. Your reference to a "Canalys report
>>>> published by Symbian" is awfuly vague.
>>>>
>>> Just about all phones have mp3 players, games, cameras, picture viewers,
>>> recorders, address books, email, browsers, bluetooth etc, .
>>>
>>> Microsoft don't make any software that is any better at that than anyone
>>> elses, no one cares about exchange clients.
>>>

>>
>> Like I said, the functions on these generic phones are all every generic,
>> so you're right -- no one in their right mind would order up a smart
>> phone equipped with Windows Mobile to handle such things. In most major
>> markets these kind of phones are giveaways, and so the software that
>> supports them isn't likely to rise above that level of sophistiucation
>> because there's really no point. .But if you're a business person who
>> wants seamless interoperability with Microsoft Office, then you'll gladly
>> pay a premium to get that. Similarly, the iPhone attracts a special sort
>> of customer willing to pay a premium for a very sleek software/hardware
>> package with a non-business focus. Are these high-end markets -- which
>> happen to be the fastest growing of all phone markets -- out of the reach
>> of open-source developers? I wouldn't think so, even if you tend to be
>> thoroughly dismissive. Perhaps with the fine-tuning of the new OXML
>> document standard, open-source developers will seize the opportunity to
>> tap into the demand for MS Office and build a better software tool for
>> the mobile business market. Alternatively, they could build something
>> altogether different that hooks into Google's online new apps. Then you'd
>> really have something to crow about -- and for people to pay good money
>> to use.

> That approach condemns Microsoft to a diminishing market share
> The most sophisticated phones at the moment are running Symbian, not
> Windows Mobile. Thats because of Nokias stake in Symbian.
> Its really up to the manufacturers what operating system they use, and
> their objective is to optimize the bill of materials.


No, you're wrong. Customers have shown that they are perfectly willing to
pay for more power, greater speed, and better features. That's why the
smartphone sector is the fastest growing phone sector. Manufacturers make
**much more money** from Symbian, Microsoft, and Apple products than from
the generics. That's why these embedded operating systems are increasing
market share, while the Linux share remains flat.

> 3G phones want video telephony, music, photos, broadband internet browser
> mail chat etc. All as you say generic, and all well suited to linux. But
> ultimately capable of supporting any level of sophistication. Free. Easily
> funded by usage.
> The ball is in Google's court right now, with Android. What would be
> sensible is for Microsoft to forget about mobile operating systems and
> start developing cross platform mobile applications and services that
> connect to their desktop business.






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
worried about cisco pix douglas w scott Cisco 2 11-06-2004 07:40 PM
Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of 8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Christian Seberino Python 21 10-27-2003 04:20 PM
Re: Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Ian Bicking Python 2 10-24-2003 11:15 AM
Re: Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Ian Bicking Python 2 10-23-2003 07:07 AM
Stack space, global space, heap space Shuo Xiang C Programming 10 07-11-2003 07:30 PM



Advertisments