Seeking Alpha

As Microsoft (MSFT) and PC OEMs hope the fall release of Windows 8 systems featuring ARM-based...

As Microsoft (MSFT) and PC OEMs hope the fall release of Windows 8 systems featuring ARM-based (ARMH) processors will give their PC/tablet sales a lift, the OEMs are reportedly struggling to reach tablet price points they consider necessary to compete with the iPad (AAPL) and Kindle Fire (AMZN), due to Microsoft's insistence on a $90-$100 Windows license fee. Concerns also exist about the software compatibility issues facing ARM-based hardware.
Comments (20)
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (20739) | Send Message
     
    $100 for the OS license is about the same as saying the product is dead ... they'll come around to their senses.
    18 May 2012, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13579) | Send Message
     
    MSFT reminds me of RIMM, only larger and even more arrogant. They're going to discover that that's no defense against becoming irrelevant.
    18 May 2012, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    They are both in a race for third place. Ha hah!
    18 May 2012, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • ninjaneer
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    MSFT was much more wise than RIMM. Their Gold Partner network and total corporate buy-in strategy for customers bought them an edge. How many HEALTHY people do you know that use LAMP? And how many sucessful people (beyond making a living) have you known who used Ruby? PHP is like kindergarten scribble vs .NET. Java? Those of us in the business think Larry Ellison looks like a 3rd stage paedophile who would readily rape our daughters. I wouldn't be surprised if Chris Haansen is waiting for the day.

     

    RIMM, on the other hand, had just the BlackBerry server, which was a difficult piece of junk that administrators simply dealt with in silent and wished was gone. And if I hear that BlackBerry push email noise one more time, I may........ move to Siberia and open an ice cream stand, or something along the line of a much more saner alternative. Pull email once an hour or two allows one to get much more done.

     

    MSFT is alright, it just needs to lighten up on its client licensing for tablets. I'd suggest handing it out for free like it does software for its developers and encourage app services centers, which it's good at.
    18 May 2012, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Dmarque@
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Not many companies have virtually "no debt" a $1 BB in cash and a distribution system quite like MSFT. In less than 30 days MSFT was able to introduce a new product (Kinect) and have it generate $1BB to the bottom line. MSFT is still the systemic feeding system for corporate America and most of the home based pc market. IBM was overlooked in much the same way as the evolution of the technology market takes turns most do not ever begin to anticipate.
    21 May 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • BradONeill
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    it costs apple around 330 dollars to make an ipad, msft is basically saying it wants 100 bucks for putting the brain into the tablet and leaving the other profit for the tablet makers. It is a fair demand for the quality of the programming if it is nearly as good as it looks.
    19 May 2012, 12:57 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (20739) | Send Message
     
    No it is not. At the same price the tablets have no chance of competing with the iPad, and with 100 bucks in OS cost, they can only be sold at the same price.
    19 May 2012, 06:33 AM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    And what is wrong with selling at the same price? They should have to compete on product quality while paying for the OS, as it is very expensive to develop and maintain. Everyone has gotten used to Google giving it away for free, but Android wasn't free for Google to develop either.
    20 May 2012, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • dividend_growth
    , contributor
    Comments (2895) | Send Message
     
    Windows tablets might not even have a chance at $200, if the iPad mini with retina display turns out to be true.

     

    In any way, expect drastic margin reductions at Microsoft.
    21 May 2012, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (20739) | Send Message
     
    It's simply too soon to compete at the same price.
    21 May 2012, 05:39 AM Reply Like
  • ttc537dp
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    should start with low fee to capture a bigger market share.
    19 May 2012, 04:20 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (20739) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. VERY low fee or they'll never enter the market to begin with.
    19 May 2012, 06:34 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13579) | Send Message
     
    Like the big, slow-thinking monopoly that they became, Microsoft spent years repackaging a fundamentally unchanged desktop operating system, selling cosmetic upgrades, with no real innovation or aggressive branching into new business. In essence, they were technology tax collectors.

     

    While they were counting their software royalties, Apple changed the computing-communication paradigm, and a void was created for non-Apple devices and software systems. While Microsoft slept, Google stole the march, with Android, and has carved out the world's dominant position in both software and licensed devices in use (yes, far larger than Apple, too). In a way, Android just duplicated in the new paradigm Microsoft's original open-system approach, and it produced similar results. Microsoft, apparently, was just too stultified to see and play along in a timely manner.

     

    From the perspective of this observer, I don't believe there's going to be any feverish rush to Windows 8 phones, and Windows apps development and market is going to lag far behind. Also, two other obstacles face Microsoft, which don't portend well. The new paradigm for device use is heavily weighted toward consumption, i.e., music, video, news, information. The affords the largest opportunity to those that can deliver content (Apple) and those that can take advantage of the advertising (Google) that all those eyeballs represent. How does Microsoft monetize its entry, even if it can make one?

     

    Microsoft has a huge challenge.
    19 May 2012, 06:55 AM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Almost correct. We may see Android pass Windows this year, or perhaps next year.

     

    http://econ.st/FQeqcK

     

    Google Android is definitely the fastest growing operating system. Don't forget that Microsoft gets some revenue from Android.

     

    The next shift is mobile browsers, as content providers shift web content to become more easily viewable on the next generation of devices, expected to be near 720P HD (1280 by 720) somewhat common screen resolutions. Mobile search will also become more important, though whether Google will continue lead over Safari or Bing by a large margin, remains to be seen. Google indirectly generates revenue from Android.
    19 May 2012, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13579) | Send Message
     
    Herr:

     

    Google will lead searches by an ever-expanding margin for the simple reason that as devices become more mobile and comprise a larger share, Google's Android will take an even larger share of the operating systems. Just as Microsoft's Windows influenced, if not controlled, use of browsers, software, etc., Android will dictate the development and use of mobile systems. It's not even the future; it's happening, now.

     

    I have a Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone (1280x720, with larger on the way), and it runs circles around anything an iPhone can do, and it's tightly integrated into Google's cloud data, music, photo and synchronization services, including to all Google services I access on my Windows-based desktop.

     

    Lots of people are wondering what Microsoft's Windows 8 will do to the mobile environment (I think not much; too little, too late), but I ponder what would happen if Android backward integrated into desktops. That would be a hornet in Microsoft's bonnet. I think the only reason they don't is that mobile is expanding so fast and the desktop arena is rather moribund, thankfully for Microsoft.

     

    Personally, as I wouldn't touch Rimm or Nokia with a barge pole, I wouldn't be staking out investments in Microsoft's growth, either.
    19 May 2012, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Google tried that with Chrome OS on a few laptops, but sales volume has remained low. Chrome is more capable than Android. However, moving Chrome to tablets would put a need towards more powerful processors, and likely impact battery life.

     

    Imagine if Apple had placed Mac OS X onto a tablet, instead of iOS. The capability would be greater, though the processor needs and battery life would take a hit. Would people really buy a tablet with battery life matching a laptop, but not having a keyboard, nor various device connection plugs?

     

    What Microsoft is doing with Windows 8 is placing desktop and laptop power into a tablet. Quite likely some people will want that, but the same issues of processor and battery life are there. Supposedly there are stripped down Windows 8 versions, especially one for lower power processors, but at this point we have no idea about battery life.

     

    Competition is good, because it points towards continued development. If one company truly dominated over all others, then there would be almost no need to change anything. This is exactly what happened with Windows on desktops, which largely just got evolutionary updates for many years. The part that every one of these companies misses is that they cannot completely control the contents of mass media accessed on mobile devices.
    19 May 2012, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13579) | Send Message
     
    Herr:

     

    The beauty of Google's strategy is that they don't care whose content you view or on whose device it resides. Trying to monopolize content is almost impossible.
    19 May 2012, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    True, but I still see them simply as a billboard company. The share prices have run up far beyond what I would consider as investment grade. Basically, I don't like the business model nor the hype surrounding share prices, so I gladly avoid investing in GOOG and look for other companies.
    19 May 2012, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    Google makes little off of Android - revenues it will soon be "sharing" with Oracle. Further Android is being hijacked by Amazon, Baidu and even Samsung so the future of Google search revenues are not as rosy.

     

    On the other hand, Microsoft is trying to retain its current licensing margins in a world in which OEMs can get Android for free. This will be an almost impossible battle to win. They may be better off just buying Nokia and owning the experience.
    19 May 2012, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • dividend_growth
    , contributor
    Comments (2895) | Send Message
     
    Oracle will be lucky to get $150,000 from Google.

     

    Judge Alsup just said the 9 lines of code infringed by Google is so commonly used that they are really worth nothing. Oracle's lawyers replied that they don't know how to program in Java.
    23 May 2012, 03:58 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector