Microsoft To PC and Tablet Makers: You're Not Our Future

[Sionyn]

Microsoft's plan to build its own Windows 8 tablets puts longtime allies in peril — and it may be the right thing to do. 'In announcing the Surface tablets, due to be released this fall, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer cited Apple's advantage (without mentioning Apple) of integrated software and hardware. "Things work better when hardware and software are considered together," he said. "We control it all, we design it all, and we manufacture it all ourselves.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/technology-business/microsoft-pc-and-tablet-makers-youre-not-our-future-195877

[RJSC]

If they're going the crApple way (We Control All! You Cannot install our software in hardware that's not ours or install programs we did not approve of!) then I think they are going to loose terrain for Android and Desktop Linux again, has they have lost on the smartphones.

One of the reasons they were successful is that one is (or it seems was) allowed to run Windows on anything compatible and install whatever we please.
Thats why ATM's, Test Equipment and Industrial Control Systems, etc, are running Windows.

[Rerouter]

as long as they leave the software open while making there own hardware i do not care, which is a given for windows 8,

however following versions would show far more of the slant if they plan to follow apples non user involved mentality, where if something breaks its time to buy a new shiney box, and if you want to make it work on some generic piece of hardware you need to skip through a few hoops, only to be shot down by the legal agreements when you succeed, 

[amspire]

I am interested to see how this goes.

It may be that Microsoft are providing a reference design to set a minimum standard. I think the reality is that if the Windows 8 tablet market followed the existing notebook market with endless badly designed models, then Windows tablets will fail against the iPad.

If Microsoft sets a minimum standard for partners, provides a reference design and perhaps chipsets, it actually makes it cheaper and easier for partners to match the standard.

I am not saying that Microsoft won't try and capture a healthy slice of the market. But current notebook and PC manufacturers have a problem in that their 4 year old products are still perfectly good for running Windows 7 applications today. People do not need to buy new computers right now. With Windows 8, Microsoft are providing a big incentive to get people to upgrade to new hardware, but the price to the partners is that Microsoft will grab a slice of the hardware market as Microsoft are the only ones rich enough to afford the initial development to match the quality design of Apple's products.

The partners may be a little unhappy, but they will be able to sell more notebooks and tablets anyway.  The PC market will be very much consigned to a third rank in importance.

I wouldn't go too deeply into interpreting Balmer's words. He is never that good at presentations. Definitely he is no Steve Jobs.

The significance of Windows 8 is that it will be hardly used by businesses, and Microsoft know this. If you buy a Windows 8 notebook or PC, you will be entitled to a free Windows 7 license that you can install instead. Businesses will stick to Windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out. Windows 8 is aimed particularly at the home users, individual buyers and the compulsive buyers - the ones who see the tablet in a store window, and it looks so nice that they go in and buy it on the spot. That has been Apple's market.

Windows 8 will be the test bed for a newer easier-to-use software, and Windows 9 will be the refined release that will start to replace Windows 7 in all markets. Windows 8 will have features that do not quite work that great. Windows 9 will keep all the liked aspects of Windows 8 and fix the disliked features.

This is why it is absolutely essential that Windows 8 Microsoft Tablets do directly take a big market share from the potential iPad customers. If they succeed in this, then Microsoft's future will look very good as they get ready for Windows 9. If Windows 8 fails to grab the target markets, then Microsoft has a huge long term problem. Windows 8 is just so important to Microsoft that they cannot just trust partners to get the hardware right.

Richard.

[Mechatrommer]

http://www.infoworld.com/t/technology-business/microsoft-pc-and-tablet-makers-youre-not-our-future-195877

yes! this is the future i'm talking about! no need to pay for expensive stylus.

[AntiProtonBoy]

For MS to truly succeed in the portable device segment, they'd have to be a serious contender against Apple. in both hardware design that the OS. Something tells me Apple will be slightly ahead for a good while.

[SeanB]

Note that windows on ARM is locked down, no ability to load anything else, and enforced by both MS signing and manufacturers risking having all the hardware revoked. All code has to be signed, so it is the worst walled gaeden of them all, no legal ability to load other apps, load alternate firmware, just what Redmond allows.

[amspire]

For MS to truly succeed in the portable device segment, they'd have to be a serious contender against Apple. in both hardware design that the OS. Something tells me Apple will be slightly ahead for a good while.

Apple has a big problem - OS/X and iPad IOS are different operating systems. Windows 8, Windows RT (for the Arm based tablet), and Windows 8 phone will all be compiled from the same Windows 8 core.

If customers like the fact they can run functionally the same software on their PC and tablet, then what will Apple do?

Drop the iPad IOS operating system, or drop OS/X and turn IOS into Apples PC operating system? Neither option is a good one. If they drop IOS, they have no OS/X tablet operating system to replace it with.

The more successful the iPad is, the bigger the problem for Apple.

Apple will be sweating. They could easily find themselves in the same position as Nokia is in today.

A huge business with plummeting sales.

Richard.

[RJSC]

Note that windows on ARM is locked down, no ability to load anything else, and enforced by both MS signing and manufacturers risking having all the hardware revoked. All code has to be signed, so it is the worst walled gaeden of them all, no legal ability to load other apps, load alternate firmware, just what Redmond allows.

I've read rumors that they're planning on doing the same on X86 machines with UEFI which carry the "Windows 8" logo too. That's the scariest!

Many sources say that only applies to ARM devices,but what sense does it make? Just because you've chosen a different architecture you have to be locked down? What sense does it make?

[baljemmett]

Note that windows on ARM is locked down, no ability to load anything else, and enforced by both MS signing and manufacturers risking having all the hardware revoked. All code has to be signed, so it is the worst walled gaeden of them all, no legal ability to load other apps, load alternate firmware, just what Redmond allows.

I've read rumors that they're planning on doing the same on X86 machines with UEFI which carry the "Windows 8" logo too. That's the scariest!

Have you tried doing any actual research instead of just listening to rumours?  The Windows 8 logo programme requirements for Intel-based hardware explicitly require the ability to install additional keys or disable UEFI Secure Boot entirely.  See points 17 and 18 in the System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot section of the Hardware Certification Requirements.

The different policy on ARM systems is presumably because they are intended to be appliance-like devices, rather than general-purpose computers; in addition, ARM vendors are going to be a whole lot less fussed about getting the Windows 8 stickers on their boxes than Intel-based PC vendors are.  (Note, however, that WinRT is only going to be available pre-installed on logo-compliant devices; this seems to tie in with the 'device as appliance' view of the platform.)

[Pack34]

Note that windows on ARM is locked down, no ability to load anything else, and enforced by both MS signing and manufacturers risking having all the hardware revoked. All code has to be signed, so it is the worst walled gaeden of them all, no legal ability to load other apps, load alternate firmware, just what Redmond allows.

I've read rumors that they're planning on doing the same on X86 machines with UEFI which carry the "Windows 8" logo too. That's the scariest!

Many sources say that only applies to ARM devices,but what sense does it make? Just because you've chosen a different architecture you have to be locked down? What sense does it make?

UEFI secure boot will be enabled on x86 machines but you'll still be able to dual boot Linux and install any software you want on the desktop. The ARM version is completely locked down because that's what people expect. No one wants to have to worry about malware on phones and tablets. They're supposed to be simpler machines that you just pick up and go. The Surface Pro is more aimed towards businesses and the niche market who wants to run all their desktop apps on a tablet.

[amspire]

I was just trying to work out the story on developing Metro Apps.

It looks like Metro Apps for Windows 8, Windows RT or Windows 8 phone can be distributed in two ways.

1. the Windows Store which needs a US$49 a year registration.

2. Side loading from Windows 8 Enterprise edition. This is the way corporate customers can install in-house metro apps on a Windows RT tablet. To get Windows 8 Enterprise, you need to sign up for Microsoft's "Software Assurance" which looks like  a starting price of about $109 a year for one computer.

Windows RT and phone will only run Metro apps. All Metro software will need a certificate, but it is from any trusted authority - even your own in-house certificate server if you specify it as a trusted server to your companies Windows computers. This means for in-house company use, you do not have to spend any money for certificates.

For submitting to the Windows Store, I do not think you need to buy any certificates from Microsoft - another trusted certificate server is fine. If that is right, that would mean that there can be competition between providers, just as in the current SSL certificate marketplace.

If you need to develop a bootable application for the Intel based Windows 8 platforms that have a permanently enabled UEFI, you will need to pay Verisign $99 for a UEFI certificate. Every time you build a new version of the boot code, you need a new certificate. I gather the way Linux will handle this is to have a simple signed bootloader that hopefully hardly ever needs changing that then runs the Linux loader that will be regularly updated.

So it may be that Microsoft will not make all that much money from the process of developers getting Apps signed. They will make money from the Windows store - $30% for the first $25,000 of sales and reducing to 20% above this. There is also the $49 a year Windows Store subscription from developers. Aussies get the privilege of paying $55 a year because we love Microsoft so much. Microsoft will make money from corporations signing up to the Software Assurance scheme so that they can buy Windows 8 Enterprise that enables them to distribute Metro Apps in-house without using the Windows Store.

I am guessing that Microsoft will have the ability to tell all connected Windows Metro platforms to revoke a certificate of any rouge App, so in theory, a misbehaving app can be very quickly disabled for all users.

Is all of this a great solution? Probably not, but it seems to be the best working scheme for now. All current models of securing computers based around non-signed software and firewalls have been a massive failure. All current computer systems with no software signing are like houses with a magnificent heavily locked front door, but all the windows are left open.

Will signing cure the security problems, or will attackers keep finding just as many holes? I don't know.

Richard.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Apple has a big problem - OS/X and iPad IOS are different operating systems. Windows 8, Windows RT (for the Arm based tablet), and Windows 8 phone will all be compiled from the same Windows 8 core.

So they say, re. consistent windows core. In a recent video, Linus Trovalds reckons it's nonsense. But I have to admit though, Linus' comments are most likely biased, hahah. (Side note, it was the same vid when he said "fuck you nVidia".)

If customers like the fact they can run functionally the same software on their PC and tablet, then what will Apple do?

Drop the iPad IOS operating system, or drop OS/X and turn IOS into Apples PC operating system? Neither option is a good one. If they drop IOS, they have no OS/X tablet operating system to replace it with.

The more successful the iPad is, the bigger the problem for Apple.

Apple will be sweating. They could easily find themselves in the same position as Nokia is in today.

Historically, Apple managed to pull off architecture changes quite skilfully. I was particularly impressed how they managed PowerPC to x86-64  transition.

I believe iOS was developed specifically to be lightweight on SoC devices. However, I can foresee Apple's tablets and laptops to converge on the hardware front. I'd argue that the latest MacBook Pro seems to be a step towards that direction. Therefore, one can not rule out the possibility that Apple will merge the two Cocoa APIs into something monolithic on future devices. The two APIs are quite similar, so they could either wrap one API with the other, or have both API hooks exposed side-by-side (the differing object "namespace" prefix will allow them to do that).

[amspire]

Historically, Apple managed to pull off architecture changes quite skilfully. I was particularly impressed how they managed PowerPC to x86-64  transition.

I believe iOS was developed specifically to be lightweight on SoC devices. However, I can foresee Apple's tablets and laptops to converge on the hardware front. I'd argue that the latest MacBook Pro seems to be a step towards that direction. Therefore, one can not rule out the possibility that Apple will merge the two Cocoa APIs into something monolithic on future devices. The two APIs are quite similar, so they could either wrap one API with the other, or have both API hooks exposed side-by-side (the differing object "namespace" prefix will allow them to do that).

Definitely not an impossible problem given Apple's resources.

The question is "Can they do it without Jobs?". Is there anyone who is brave enough to touch the iPad and iPhone?

I gather Windows is generating the WinRT API for the different devices from the same code base. Apple I gather is using different codebases to produce API's that are "Similar". It must be scary that so much of Apple's success depends on two products (the iPhone and the iPad), and if you look at Nokia, Palm, Blackberry, etc, the moment your products are not the best feature-wise, sales can turn off in a matter of months.

Thanks to the resounding non-success of Microsoft Windows 7 phone and the Zune, Microsoft has totally ditched both products and was able to start from scratch.

Richard.

[amyk]

Will signing cure the security problems, or will attackers keep finding just as many holes? I don't know.

I don't think it ever will. A lot of malware is spread via social engineering and exploiting the human brain. Meanwhile, it just makes it more difficult to get into development, as someone who is a hobbyist/non-committed is going to be deterred by all the restrictions, and those who want control over their own hardware and software need to jump through more hoops.

[baljemmett]

If you need to develop a bootable application for the Intel based Windows 8 platforms that have a permanently enabled UEFI, you will need to pay Verisign $99 for a UEFI certificate. Every time you build a new version of the boot code, you need a new certificate. I gather the way Linux will handle this is to have a simple signed bootloader that hopefully hardly ever needs changing that then runs the Linux loader that will be regularly updated.

Yes, pretty much; Matthew Garrett has described the Fedora approach to this, which is basically as you describe.  Ubuntu, I understand, is taking another tack -- asking hardware vendors to include their key as well as Microsoft's -- I think Fedora's strategy will prove more reliable in general, in terms of ease-of-installation across the potential userbase.

One minor point -- the $99 payment to Verisign is a one-off, and gives you access to the MS signing portal via a smartcard.  There's no per-signature fee, although since the process apparently involves using MS web apps, Internet Explorer and physical two-factor auth Fedora will be aiming to minimise the number of times they need to go through that faff, I'm sure!

[Pack34]

Will signing cure the security problems, or will attackers keep finding just as many holes? I don't know.

I don't think it ever will. A lot of malware is spread via social engineering and exploiting the human brain. Meanwhile, it just makes it more difficult to get into development, as someone who is a hobbyist/non-committed is going to be deterred by all the restrictions, and those who want control over their own hardware and software need to jump through more hoops.

Not really, you can download all development tools for free with no hassle. You only need to worry about paying for anything if you plan on making money on the project. The cost to register in order to distribute the new start screen apps is very small. If you write a decent application and toss some ads in it you'll be able to make that money back.

[ftransform]

[PeteInTexas]

People often overlook the advantages of a dictatorship.    Believe it or not, people have more technology choices than they know what to do with.  This was Steve Jobs genius.