For Those That Use MSN Messenger

[Stonelesscutter]

Lol at that video.

 

[Joelist]

Actually I think the video falls totally flat. Partly because it is a parody of what Surface was years ago and not what it is today. Also because it conveniently forgets that the old Surface was never intended as a consumer product but was more a proof of concept of what could be done with touch screen technology - and it proved pretty prophetic.

Today's Surface is really pretty cool. I understand Overmind's liking of it and I also like it. It's the first tablet that really is useful for both work and play.

 

[Overmind One]

Not bad on the predictions. One of them has already come to pass (MS folding their messenger into Skype). I likewise see an MS acquisition of Facebook - and when it comes off look for a lot of the irritating things about Facebook to be revised.

As to Google in the enterprise, I suspect that is industry dependent. In my area Google products as well as iOS are specifically classed as security risks and not permitted. We do use Office 365 because MS sets up enterprises in information sensitive industries with special "private" clouds so that they can use the products without violating federal law (in our case HIPAA). Likewise we are starting to move to Salesforce.com because they have demonstrated that their cloud setup meets and exceeds our information security standards.

I agree on that level and we are talking finance and government and medicine and protected entities mostly, arent we? The industrial, service and retail (and related) offices which comprise the bulk of mid and high enterprise do not have these concerns and Google Apps with Google Drive and enterprise Gmail is quickly being adopted for ease of use and cross platform/cross/mobile capabilities. Google is making a fortune on it.

 

[Overmind One]

Hmm... Not so sure about point 3. Google has been very big from the start on providing services without charge. I don't think they will abandon the philosophy that made them easily.

Let me clarify. I think Google will find a way to monetize Android OS by creating a closed system of it. Probably with a different name. By doing this, they can make it proprietary and market it differently. Why do I think this? Because Android and Windows 8 and beyond are far more similar than Android and iOS. I think that Apple's iOS will fall hopelessly behind, and that it's devices will go the way of Blackberry. It will be between Google and Microsoft and Apple will not be a big factor.

Google cannot turn Android into a closed system, ever. It's directly derived from Linux, which is GPL'd. Only proprietary components running in the OS can be closed but nothing attaching itself directly to the kernel code (including dynamically linked libraries) can ever become closed.

Agreed, but I qualify that as saying they might probably create a closed source version of it to market separately, and give it a different name. iOS is derived from Unix/Linux as well.

 

[Illiterati]

When I started using Skype on my Surface RT (the kid got me one for my birthday), I ended up using a different Messenger account for my Skype account (than my main Messenger account) when they made me merge both accounts, so that was fine. But yes, Microsoft has announced (article this last week) that they will be decommissioning Messenger sometime next year in favor of Skype. At that time, I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do with my main account.

 

[Joelist]

They will probably be letting people combine the two accounts into a single Microsoft Account.

Which Surface type did they get you? The regular typing cover or the mechanical keyboard cover?

 

[OMNI]

I doubt I will ever even want to consider thinking about thinking about taking a peek at whatever Microsoft has to offer in the area of webmail.

+1

 

[Bluce Ree]

Let me clarify. I think Google will find a way to monetize Android OS by creating a closed system of it. Probably with a different name. By doing this, they can make it proprietary and market it differently. Why do I think this? Because Android and Windows 8 and beyond are far more similar than Android and iOS. I think that Apple's iOS will fall hopelessly behind, and that it's devices will go the way of Blackberry. It will be between Google and Microsoft and Apple will not be a big factor.



Agreed, but I qualify that as saying they might probably create a close source version of it to market separately, and give it a different name. iOS is derived from Unix/Linux as well.

In order for Google to create a closed source version they would need to write an entirely new OS from scratch. That means not a single line of code would come from android. Such an undertaking would be ludicrous given how much they've invested in android and its level of maturity vis' a-vis its competitors. Even Apple abandoned writing an OS from scratch a long time ago and dumped their original Mac OS for BSD as the base kernel. IOS is OSX adapterd for their mobile device.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

If anyone were to develop a new OS right now I would think Google would be the one to do it.

 

[Tropicana]

I don't mind merging my msn with skype (done it already), since both are owned by Microsoft. Just wish they have an update for Skype on Android so I can access my msn contacts via Skype.

 

[Joelist]

My guess is that when they retire Messenger they will update Skype across all platforms to the new configuration.

 

[Bluce Ree]

If anyone were to develop a new OS right now I would think Google would be the one to do it.

They definitely have the talent and resources but writing an OS from scratch is a massive undertaking. We're talking years to reach a sufficient level of maturity to be considered commercially viable and stable. It would also need to make commercial sense for manufacturers to purchase licensing. Android would continue to evolve, as would Windows and iOS.

 

[Overmind One]

They definitely have the talent and resources but writing an OS from scratch is a massive undertaking. We're talking years to reach a sufficient level of maturity to be considered commercially viable and stable. It would also need to make commercial sense for manufacturers to purchase licensing. Android would continue to evolve, as would Windows and iOS.

I agree with this. But I also feel strongly that Google will write its own OS which is proprietary. Perhaps something only found on tablets or mini PCs, and not necessarily on phones. And I think it will ape Windows 8 and beyond, because MS will be its direct competition. It just seems to be going that way. If you have seen Windows 8 on a Surface tablet, just wow. It blows the iPad experience away, making it seem downright primitive. The transitions are smooth and silky, and you can move around quite fast in it and it will not hiccup. I was pleasantly shocked with the one we have.

 

[Bluce Ree]

I agree with this. But I also feel strongly that Google will write its own OS which is proprietary. Perhaps something only found on tablets or mini PCs, and not necessarily on phones. And I think it will ape Windows 8 and beyond, because MS will be its direct competition. It just seems to be going that way. If you have seen Windows 8 on a Surface tablet, just wow. It blows the iPad experience away, making it seem downright primitive. The transitions are smooth and silky, and you can move around quite fast in it and it will not hiccup. I was pleasantly shocked with the one we have.

Android phones have proprietary components. The UI is independent of the kernel. It communicates with the OS via socket rather than directly linking as a library, thus allowing UIs to be completely closed source. Even Google itself has proprietary components in Android that are not linked to the kernel in any way.

The UI is basically an overlay, which is an inherent strength and beauty of Unix-based systems because it allows not only open-source UIs from the OSS community but completely closed, proprietary UIs to be built as well. Samsung right now dominates the Android market. If it decides to build a new UI concept, one that would directly compete and/or wipe the floor with both MS and Apple, it definitely has the R&D resources to go down that road.

Proprietary OSes are threatened by OSS alternatives and we see this in the market right now. Android currently has 75% of the global market share as of Q3 2012. Hardware makers are heavily invested in Android. If Google abandons it there are plenty of companies out there that would fork it and continue its development. I would not put it past several hardware makers forming a development consortium for Android. If Google ever decides to reinvent the wheel, close it and offer it up for licensing, it will go nowhere.

 

[Overmind One]

Android phones have proprietary components. The UI is independent of the kernel. It communicates with the OS via socket rather than directly linking as a library, thus allowing UIs to be completely closed source. Even Google itself has proprietary components in Android that are not linked to the kernel in any way.

The UI is basically an overlay, which is an inherent strength and beauty of Unix-based systems because it allows not only open-source UIs from the OSS community but completely closed, proprietary UIs to be built as well. Samsung right now dominates the Android market. If it decides to build a new UI concept, one that would directly compete and/or wipe the floor with both MS and Apple, it definitely has the R&D resources to go down that road.

Proprietary OSes are threatened by OSS alternatives and we see this in the market right now. Android currently has 75% of the global market share as of Q3 2012. Hardware makers are heavily invested in Android. If Google abandons it there are plenty of companies out there that would fork it and continue its development. I would not put it past several hardware makers forming a development consortium for Android. If Google ever decides to reinvent the wheel, close it and offer it up for licensing, it will go nowhere.

True, and while I wont insist that Google will write a new OS, I think it would not be surprising. But at the root of my comment is the realization that the new horizons will be between Google and Microsoft and not Apple and Android. iOS is already hopelessly far behind Windows 8 and Android in terms of capabilities. While iOS6 is a little better than iOS5, it is nowhere near Windows 8 and not that close to Android, especially Jelly Bean. Android is feeling more like Windows than it feels like iOS, and Windows has broken new ground as far as tablets. On desktops, however, it sucks. Even though it is the same UI, it just sucks as an upgrade from Windows 7. There are issues with Active Directory and Group Policy that I find unacceptable.

Apple is going to fall from its tree very soon unless they come up with a HUGE surprise.

 

[Joelist]

Android is going to run into issues anyway because it is beginning to get costly for OEMs to use Android because of all the proprietary tech in it that they have to license from people like Microsoft. It's starting to get to the place where they aren't saving any money using Android versus Windows Phone. And at that point you'll see OEMs one by one start to drop Android because it doesn't pay for them to use an OS where they both have to pay to use it and get exposed to legal action - why not pay and be protected from that legal action?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Android is going to run into issues anyway because it is beginning to get costly for OEMs to use Android because of all the proprietary tech in it that they have to license from people like Microsoft. It's starting to get to the place where they aren't saving any money using Android versus Windows Phone. And at that point you'll see OEMs one by one start to drop Android because it doesn't pay for them to use an OS where they both have to pay to use it and get exposed to legal action - why not pay and be protected from that legal action?

I admit I haven't been keeping up with all the latest Android developments but I haven't heard of any tech in Android that requires licensing from Microsoft or anyone else. As far as I know, Android is unencumbered.

 

[Illiterati]

They will probably be letting people combine the two accounts into a single Microsoft Account.

Which Surface type did they get you? The regular typing cover or the mechanical keyboard cover?

Mine came with the Touch Cover (since it was "larger" than the base model, it comes with it) and I just picked up the Type Cover. With all my writing, it's easier to use the Type Cover.

 

[Joelist]

Actually Android has quite a bit of licensed tech in it. Microsoft in particular has been making out on Android licensing fees. exFAT is Microsoft - Android uses it and the OEMs pay licensing fees for it. Ditto ActiveSync, ditto a lot of the underlying database technology driving the address books, mail databases and other such. IIRC something like 70% of Android phones currently come from OEMs with one or more such agreements with Microsoft.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Actually Android has quite a bit of licensed tech in it. Microsoft in particular has been making out on Android licensing fees. exFAT is Microsoft - Android uses it and the OEMs pay licensing fees for it. Ditto ActiveSync, ditto a lot of the underlying database technology driving the address books, mail databases and other such. IIRC something like 70% of Android phones currently come from OEMs with one or more such agreements with Microsoft.

I assume you're talking about additions by the OEMs. Android itself is completely unencumbered. If OEMs choose to implement exFAT that's outside of Android's costing scope.

The Linux kernel has support for the FAT32 and NTFS filesystems that do not infringe any MS patents. FAT32 is the most widespread format for SD and other card-based flash storage for cameras and smartphones.

Android, up until Froyo, used YAFFS for its internal file system. Later Android versions use EXT4. The stock contact manager uses SQLite, which is in public domain. ActiveSync, as far as I recall, is implemented through 3rd party apps and is not part of the Android OS implemented by OEMs unless they're offering their own proprietary app.