Well they still have two OS versions (although Windows Phone 8 now shares the Win 8 kernel). The real question is if Microsoft's long bet on tablets and touchscreen PCs being the future of desktops is a good one. For once, I think Microsoft is aiming big with its OS, and that's something to be admired. It's going to piss of techies, but it has a real shot at making tablets and hybrid PCs more useful for everyone else.
Also, it seems pretty clear to me that Win 7 is going to stick around for a long time, perhaps even longer than XP. That'll likely be the go-to OS for techies and people building desktops down the line.
It certainly matters to geeks like us, but I also take a certain amount of comfort in knowing normal users are looking at something great, even if they don't quite understand why it's good. Certainly better than pushing junk on ignorant consumers. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I can't think of too many other companies that would go to these lengths for a consumer product--
Google Music doesn't currently let you stream music that you don't already own, and it's also not tied to any particular music store. I think they're referring to Google launching a legit streaming service together with the music labels in a few months.
> The Cupertino, Calif., tech giant has agreed to pay the labels between $25 million to $50 million each, as an incentive to get on board, depending on how many tracks consumers are storing.
sounds like what Apple is launching is also a music locker service akin to what Google Music is now, and not streaming arbitrary music. Perhaps the author is referring to when Google may remove the invite-only aspect for their service, or maybe just confused.
Author of the post here. Where exactly did you hear that the WSJ app shares more data than the others? The WSJ included their own app in the study, and according to them they only use the UDID internally to count users (http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/2010/12/17/wall-street-journ...). Now I realize that data isn't exactly trustworthy since they're talking about their own app, but I've yet to see anything that disproves it yet.
Honestly, it seems like the desktop is more in danger of dying these days. Laptops have been far more compelling to average users for some time, especially with the rise of netbooks, and the increasing proliferation of cheap full-sized laptops. It's hard to even recommend desktops to users unless they're heavy gamers or dealing with hardcore media editing.
It's hard to say - I think the future of the tower desktop is definitely suspect, but I see a lot of room for the all-in-ones like the iMac or HP's touch thingamajig.
My folks are looking at getting a new computer - and right now I'm torn between getting them a laptop (and then making them buy a real monitor to work on), or just getting them the gorgeous 27" iMac.
I mean, I could buy them a 27" IPS screen + a laptop or Mac Mini, but it seems almost pointless, and would likely be MORE expensive.
I think it's safer to say that the hulking monstrosities of towers, with the requisite puddle of wires and incomprehensible operation - those are on the way out in a big way. A large segment of the population doesn't do any computing on the go - but have in recent years been buying laptops (and then just leaving them in one place) just for the simplicity and the ease of setup/use. If desktops can clone this (and the iMac has for the most part) and give a better user experience (almost guaranteed) there's a lot of room here.
I've never used a desktop as my primary computer. My first real computer was a laptop, in 1992. There are a lot fewer reasons to prefer a desktop now than there were then. I would stick with laptops even if I didn't travel with my computer, just so I could use it on the couch.
I'm not an average user. I'm a programmer, and an occasional gamer. I have a laptop with a fast CPU, real graphics chip and high-resolution screen. Bought refurbished, it was still probably twice as much money as the average user spends on a computer.
> It's hard to even recommend desktops to users unless they're heavy gamers or dealing with hardcore media editing.
Even for gaming, my current laptop can handle everything I've thrown at it at the highest settings and I can take it to lan parties on the tube. The only reason I would ever recommend a desktop is the lower price.
I happen to be using my laptop for gaming now, and it can handle everything, but I fully expect to need a new desktop in a year or two, because I won't be able to update the graphics card. The laptop will be fine for everything but gaming at that point.
