Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 21 Oct 2013.
A cow is a mammal. Not all mammals are cows. Geddit?
Because you seem to be claiming it isn't, when the best you can do is claim upgrading from a buggy OS (Vista) to a newer version (7) caused 2 problems and then going on to claim Windows 7 SP1 caused 1 problem. Compare this to the 8.1 upgrade (service pack) causing over 8 known problems, and growing by the day.
And yes you are correct in saying "The two arguably can't be compared because they are different things." But these differences are in the way 8.1 was released and tested for problems. Historically when a service pack or new OS reached release candidate the code was locked.
But in the case of 8.1 Microsoft were still making major changes after it reached released candidate, leaving no time for hardware or software company's to address any issues caused, or work on updated drivers. So in the end Microsoft have caused not only financial loss to their customers but also done massive damage to their reputation of releasing general stable updates.
Sorry, how many problems (also: DVD not found; HP multifunction printers not found; power plan interferes with video playback)?
Yeah, Microsoft got rushed. What with a major re-org, Ballmer leaving and the pressure on to switch from three-yearly to yearly updates with a kernel switch somewhere in there, it has been working very close to the wire. That is a bad show, but I'm a bit hard-pressed to see how it is a worse show than other companies manage with e.g. IOS7 and Android 4+ --or how a hardcore game mouse lagging or a Surface RT tablet bricking is causing financial loss to the customers.
Most mammals in a "dairy barn" are cows. Get it?
So after two days of searching you come up with a few problems caused when upgrading two totally different OS's something as i have said before people recommend not to do. And of the two links you give as evidence, one is caused by someone trying to upgrade Vista to 7 "because Vista had become unstable" and using a unsigned driver meant for XP, Vista, not Windows 7 as the company never released a Windows 7 driver for the hardware he was using.
And the other link list three problems one of which was cause by people trying to use a upgrade product key to install Windows 7 on an empty drive (I.e not upgrading).
We could both site examples of failed updates until we are blue in the face, but since Microsoft's move to a faster release schedule they are starting to become known for botched updates and 8.1 is just another example of how it has been failing in its quality control of late.
Microsoft didn't get rushed, they made the choice to keep altering the code of 8.1 after release candidate, after RTM (low-level features like the NT kernel and hardware abstraction layer), even making changes after the QFE released two weeks before 8.1 hit general availability.
And like i said before one of the reasons Windows became the #1 OS used in both the corporate and home environment was because of the generally stable, well tested updates. This new faster release cycle will do nothing but put people of upgrading or updating their OS.
This is worse than other company's even though you cant see it, as all the other OS's combined don't even make up %10 of the market so if one of those company's release a bad update it affects a much smaller amount of business or customers.
And if you cant fathom why botched updates cause financial loss to customers you really need to think what an average Jo with no computing knowledge would do when faced with a bricked Surface RT, or any other of the problems people are experiencing with the 8.1 update, people are going to pay for someone to fix the problems for them, they are going to be without a device they may rely on for earning a living, etc ,etc.
No, they wouldn't. Direct retail product sales are a minority of AMD and Intel's processor sales. If the major OEMs went away tomorrow and the smaller companies didn't grow to take up the slack - which, as we're in the context of the shrinking PC market here, they wouldn't - the remaining business wouldn't cover either companies' expenses, and they'd go bust. Well, if not bust, then shrink to an unrecognisably small portion of their existing sizes - and you could kiss goodbye to R&D budgets and annual upgrade cycles.
Bzzt. That doesn't work. A cow is a singular thing. If I told you I owned a cow, you would know I owned a domesticated bovine quadruped (or, I'll allow, that I was being rude about my wife.) An 'Android' is not a singular thing. As we've established, if I told you I owned 'an Android' you would have absolutely no idea what I owned: a phone, a tablet, a hybrid, a laptop, a watch, glasses, a TV, an embedded development board, a games console... This is how language works: you create words until you have roughly one word per object, to prevent confusion. Your attempt to turn 'Android' into a singular entity when it is anything but is the opposite of this.
I'm holding another 'Android' in my left hand, by the way. Fancy a second crack at guessing what it is? G'wan. You never know, you might get it right this time.
I disagree, the smaller company's would grow (imo), well actually whats more likely is some of the major OEM's will go bust and the others will be rubbing their hand at the thought of a bigger slice of the pie even if that pie is shrinking.
People predicted the death of the main frame many moons ago just as they are now with desktop PC's but even to this day main frames are in wide spread use and there are even predictions they will make a come back due to the push to get everything on the cloud.
So, most 50-100 tablets arent Androids?
Back on topic:
How? If the OEMs go bust because their customers aren't buying PCs, where are the new customers coming from for the smaller companies? Do you know what percentage of Intel's output the Big Five OEMs account for? It ain't small.
That question makes no sense. All £50-100 tablets are tablets. You even say so in your question: you actually had to say 'tablets' in order to be understood. If your argument was anywhere approaching correct, you would have asked "So, most £50-100 Androids aren't Androids," which is gibberish. It's a simple question of language: a tablet running Android is a tablet running Android, just as a laptop running Windows is a laptop running Windows; unless and until you call your PC a Windows, you can't call a tablet an Android. You can, however, call it a tablet running Android or, for the sake of a smaller sentence, an Android tablet.
Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what type of device the Android I had in my left hand was.
But the point is people are still buying PC's and the OEM's are still selling units, they just aren't selling as many as previous years.
Judging the state of a market based on the top 5 company's gives a very incomplete picture at best.
Even Intel lists 16 major OEM's on their site, as i said the figures say more about the top 5 OEM's declining market than actual sales numbers.
Multiple posts for this conclusion.
Now it can only be the dark grey smartphone with a small little pink heart at the back.
Yes. And if that decline continues, the sales won't be enough to keep the market afloat - which is what I've been saying all along. The number of units sold wouldn't need to reach zero for it to be a serious issue for everyone from Intel downwards.
So you agree. Huzzah! I have brought knowledge to the unenlightened!
Sony Xperia Tablet Z. I was bringing it up into the office to stick it on charge - t'was down to 21%, and I was planning on playing a bit of The Bard's Tale on it this evening.
Always agreed. Was just amused on how throttled up you were.
Notice I wrote Androids as in "50-100 Androids tablets" not "Android".
Ah, the old "I wasn't wrong, I was trolling you" gambit. I counter with a Godwin.
You can't say "Androids tablets," any more than you can say "yellows cars." It's "Android tablets."
Well seeing as Intel has been going since 1968 and AMD since 1969 when most people didn't even know what a possessor was, i think we have a long way to go before we reach a point that no PC's are being sold. Not only that but we would need a very large land fill site to dump the estimated 1.6 billion PC's in use today.
The PC is not dead: it's about usage not units
If a company cant sustain its self with a billion people using its product it doesn't deserve to carry on doing business.
Did you read the part of my post where I said "The number of units sold wouldn't need to reach zero for it to be a serious issue for everyone from Intel downwards"? Just out of interest, how large do you think Intel's overheads were in the 1960s? AMD's in the early 70s? If you answered "a tiny fraction of what they are today," then you're right. The AMD of 2013 could not survive a single day on the annual revenue of the AMD of 1969.
Now you're moving the goalposts. As you well know, this discussion is regarding PC sales. As I've said before, it doesn't help the PC industry one jot if I keep using the box I've got beneath my desk - only that I keep buying new boxes. If I dig my old Dell with its Pentium III CPU and ATI graphics out of the cupboard and start using it, how much revenue do Dell, Intel and AMD generate from that action? I'll give you a clue: it lies somewhere between zero and none.
If I invent a widget, and a billion people buy that widget, and I spend that cash developing the Widget 2 but everybody ignores it and keeps their original widgets, I will go bust. Intel is no different.
Yes i did, but Intel and AMD existed before 1977 when only 48 thousand personal computers were shipped so to say "wouldn't cover either companies' expenses, and they'd go bust." isn't strictly true, just like other companies faced with a shrinking market they restructure, diversify.
I wouldn't say im moving the goalpost, simply stating that just because people aren't buying new boxes now doesn't mean they never will. When television first hit the market they experienced massive rises in sales and then sales declined because almost everyone had one, but eventually TV broke, newer better TV's made people want to get better models and this has and will continue.
Re-read what I said: AMD's overheads in any given 19-something year were a fraction of what they are today. Yes, AMD survived selling a handful of chips when it first started - because it only had ten employees, and one office, and made six products a year. Today, it has roughly 10,000 employees, numerous offices and factories, and overheads totalling around a billion dollars a quarter. A billion dollars a quarter. Each quarter, a billion dollars. A billion dollars. Every three months. $333.3r million a month. Every month. Four billion dollars a year. Every year.
To put that into perspective, AMD went public in 1972 with an initial public offering (IPO) that valued the entire company at $7.5 million. Today, its market capitalisation is $2.41 billion - 321 times higher, and that's at a time when its share price is slumping.
If the market continues to shrink, will companies attempt to diversify rather than going bust? Of course they will. Intel's already doing it, with a belated and not-terribly-successful run on smartphones. Lenovo, too, with its decision to buy back its mobile division just a year after spinning it off. But remember, the scenario we are discussing is what would happen if the Top Five disappeared tomorrow. That wouldn't give anybody time to diversify. Today, I'm receiving a few hundred million in revenue; tomorrow, I'm receiving a few hundred. Bye-bye, company.
I don't need to re-read what you said i understood what you said the first time, maybe you should re-read what i said, when i said company's restructure, diversify, and eventually TV broke, newer better TV's came along, and the smaller company's would grow, etc, etc.
The figures people like to quote to back up their claims that the desktop is dieing and everyone is moving onto tablets measure 5 company's sales 1. Lenovo, 2. HP, 3. Dell, 4. Acer, 5. Asus.
Even going on Intel's list of major OEM's that only two third of the market, how can you judge the overall sales of desktop PC's when you measure less (taking into account other OEM's not on Intel's site) than two thirds of the market.
Its not like thousands of other company's have never faced a saturated market and declining sales, did Ford go bust, did General Electric, etc, etc.
And lastly no we are not discussing what would happen if all the top OEM's vanished over night (even though i used that as an example), we are discussing if the claimed decline in PC sales that some people like to cling to ("You mean that home environment that imploded so hard around a dense core of tablets that PC sales hit an all-time low (for which Microsoft was also blamed, incidentally)?) are accurately reflecting the true state of affairs.
Great examples. Here are some more market-appropriate ones, though: Commodore, Atari, ACT, Sinclair Research, Amstrad, Cambridge Computers, Acorn, Dragon Data, Oric, Sord, Grundy. All massive names in 80s home computing, all bankrupted when the market slumped.
Anyway, you're clearly just going to move the goalposts again, so we'll just have to agree to hold separate positions on this matter.
Separate names with a comma.