3 ms·

Yeah, and Linux will probably have an even longer support period. But MS is in a totally different business. HW manufacturers build and sell new devices to cust

by atleta 4y ago

Yeah, and Linux will probably have an even longer support period. But MS is in a totally different business. HW manufacturers build and sell new devices to customers who then buy software from a different company (MS). One of the selling point of Windows is that it runs on basically all HW. But they can only afford this because they have monopolized the market. The mobile phone business is very different. (But you may argue that that's the problem.) The HW manufacturers sell the SW bundled with the HW. As soon as they have sold the HW, the software is just a liability (while for MS it's a recurrent revenue!). Not only that, but the longer and the better the SW works, the less likely you are to buy new HW from them. (And since that's the only thing they are selling, it means the less likely they will see a revenue from you.) Now this may imply that the business model is flawed and maybe it will change as the market matures and people will stop buying newer and newer phones every year. Just like it happened to desktops and then laptops. (I'm typing this on a 7+ year old Thinkpad and the only thing I miss is +16GB RAM.)

bee_rider 4y ago
Linux is a bit different because you are responsible for supporting yourself really.
- asddubs 4y ago
  not like microsoft is going to help you if you run into problems either. The software supports it in either case
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> But MS is in a totally different business. HW manufacturers build and sell new devices to customers who then buy software from a different company (MS). One of the selling point of Windows is that it runs on basically all HW. But they can only afford this because they have monopolized the market. It's really the opposite problem. Essentially all of the relevant phones run Android; the monopoly doesn't help. And PC/workstation hardware was supported for just as long back in the days of Novell Netware and proprietary Unix. Some of the hardware from those days is still supported now. The problem isn't the lack of a monopoly, it's the presence of one. The majority of the SoCs in phones are from Qualcomm, and they provide neither documentation nor source code, even though the market is clamoring for the longer support lifetimes that would allow, because with limited competition they don't have to. There was some hope that Samsung would do better, and they might increase their market share quite a bit if they did, but a duopoly still isn't much competition. Samsung is already a big enough player that they have to be weighing the increase in market share against the longer repurchasing cycle. The have to decide if they want to be the heroes and capture that much goodwill from the people paying attention and making recommendations to others, or not. So far so fail. We need more competition.

by atleta 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago

Linux is a bit different because you are responsible for supporting yourself really.

asddubs 4y ago
not like microsoft is going to help you if you run into problems either. The software supports it in either case

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> But MS is in a totally different business. HW manufacturers build and sell new devices to customers who then buy software from a different company (MS). One of the selling point of Windows is that it runs on basically all HW. But they can only afford this because they have monopolized the market. It's really the opposite problem. Essentially all of the relevant phones run Android; the monopoly doesn't help. And PC/workstation hardware was supported for just as long back in the days of Novell Netware and proprietary Unix. Some of the hardware from those days is still supported now. The problem isn't the lack of a monopoly, it's the presence of one. The majority of the SoCs in phones are from Qualcomm, and they provide neither documentation nor source code, even though the market is clamoring for the longer support lifetimes that would allow, because with limited competition they don't have to. There was some hope that Samsung would do better, and they might increase their market share quite a bit if they did, but a duopoly still isn't much competition. Samsung is already a big enough player that they have to be weighing the increase in market share against the longer repurchasing cycle. The have to decide if they want to be the heroes and capture that much goodwill from the people paying attention and making recommendations to others, or not. So far so fail. We need more competition.