4 ms·

It's pretty obvious why this is happening and it was expected. Microsoft doesn't want you to go cross-platform. Going fully closed-based means they won't have a

It's pretty obvious why this is happening and it was expected. Microsoft doesn't want you to go cross-platform. Going fully closed-based means they won't have as much power on the OS side. Plus, they make a lot more money from the OS and software (Office) and they don't think they'll make as much from the cloud services. So it's Microsoft's profit incentive to keep you locked in on their OS, while Google's profit incentive is to make u go cross-platform and use the cloud. The web is Google's home turf where they make most of their money, so it's in their best interest to do that. Both Microsoft and Apple will never be really serious about the web, because at the end of the day that's not their main priority. Their main priority is to get you to use Windows/iOS and to buy their (Apple's) devices.

127001brewer 15y ago
... Microsoft's profit incentive ... Exactly right: it's in Microsoft best interest to not to enter the "Post-PC Era". However, I have often wondered when will Microsoft be irrelevant? Will there be a technology world without Microsoft (or a vastly different Microsoft)? Or will Microsoft's intrenched position in the corporate (and enterprise) environments ensure its continued (and varied) success? People "accept" Microsoft products in a work environment largely because of inertia and a distaste of change. Very good arguments can be made whether or not there are just-as-good or better alternatives, but I believe that organizations can thrive without Microsoft technologies. And maybe the inertia and distaste of change is a generational phenomena, because I cannot imagine a future world where my children are using Microsoft products. When I was growing up, I learned how to program using a Commodore 64 (and the "cool kids" had beepers) and then Microsoft was a blessing of sorts since it was accessible and affordable. But now we truly have technological advances in terms of hardware and software, so why will our future accept technology based in the past? (Really, how much of Windows 7 isn't based on the old Win32 APIs?) As a casual observation, it seems to me that the battle for corporate e-mail will be the next major "battle ground"...

127001brewer 15y ago

... Microsoft's profit incentive ... Exactly right: it's in Microsoft best interest to not to enter the "Post-PC Era". However, I have often wondered when will Microsoft be irrelevant? Will there be a technology world without Microsoft (or a vastly different Microsoft)? Or will Microsoft's intrenched position in the corporate (and enterprise) environments ensure its continued (and varied) success? People "accept" Microsoft products in a work environment largely because of inertia and a distaste of change. Very good arguments can be made whether or not there are just-as-good or better alternatives, but I believe that organizations can thrive without Microsoft technologies. And maybe the inertia and distaste of change is a generational phenomena, because I cannot imagine a future world where my children are using Microsoft products. When I was growing up, I learned how to program using a Commodore 64 (and the "cool kids" had beepers) and then Microsoft was a blessing of sorts since it was accessible and affordable. But now we truly have technological advances in terms of hardware and software, so why will our future accept technology based in the past? (Really, how much of Windows 7 isn't based on the old Win32 APIs?) As a casual observation, it seems to me that the battle for corporate e-mail will be the next major "battle ground"...