Advanced

Microsoft's ARM blunder: 7 reasons why Windows RT was DOA

Posted by tracyanne on · 7 comments
The Register
Mail this story
Print this story

Redmond's low-rent tablet OS was doomed from the start Analysis Industry doomsayers were circling Windows 8 like buzzards before it even launched, but they picked the wrong carcass. Microsoft's real 2012 roadkill was Win8's ARM-powered cousin, Windows RT.…

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Microsoft, ARM; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (7)

Windows 8 is also unpopular with punters who are considering getting tablets rather than desktops/laptops. If Windows 8 is a disaster then M$ is in some trouble I would think. THAT IS a really big story Journos can smell blood from a big prey.
It's Balmer that is killing Microsoft. Bill Gates might have been an evil CEO, but he was a CEO with vision and he has taken MS places that Balmer never could and never will.

Good for humanity, but the deathknell for MS.
Quoting:It's Balmer that is killing Microsoft.


@trip,

Don't you think you are giving Balmer too much credit and diminishing FOSS's a bit. :-)

MS is bleeding from thousands of cuts induced by the opportunities FOSS helped create.

Microsoft isn't dying. It can live on indefinitely through patent trolling and litigation. Unlike SCO the are big enough and have deep enough pockets to extort their way into profitability. I am also aware of situations where they force partners and vendors to price MS solutions low and FOSS solutions ridiculously high, guaranteeing sales where their solutions should absolutely fail in the free market.
Indefinitely is a long time. Or, as someone once said, "In the long run, we are all dead."
Quoting:Microsoft isn't dying.


I said bleeding not dying. Yes, MS will survive as a financial company but not so sure about being a tech company. When FOSS and FOSS based products are dominant, MS won't be as profitable as it would as a monopoly.

MS sued those who really didn't want to bother with its aggravation and we are not sure whether their contracts were profitable to them or not since none of them were ever disclosed. The question is, why haven't they sued Google yet?

@DrGeoffrey, the one I heard was, "On a long enough time scale, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post