Google and Apple have both found great success in phones while Microsoft has floundered and so the article logically asks, "what's to stop Google and Apple from carving up the desktop (including laptop) space as they have with phones?" The key is inertia. While Microsoft may have had a mobile OS before Apple or Google, it never really caught on. There was no inertia in the smartphone space. When Apple came along with iOS, almost no one had a smartphone. Apple didn't have to convince users to switch from a mobile platform they already felt was ok. Similarly, even when Android entered, the majority of people didn't have to be convinced to switch. Most people didn't have a smartphone.
Most people do have a desktop. They've invested years of time learning Windows and have applications specifically written for it. Desktop Linux has been around for years and hasn't made a dent in Windows. Why would a new desktop Linux distribution change that?
In many ways Android Desktop would be inferior to most desktop Linux distributions because it would be launching with few, if any, apps. Android has many mobile apps, but just like iOS and OS X, we would really need separate apps for both. Google could provide a Linux with Android APIs just as Apple shares much of Cocoa between iOS and OS X. However, traditional linux distributions are quite usable (my complaints about Gnome 3 and Unity aside) and they haven't made much of a dent in Windows. If people don't want those, why would they want Desktop Android?
Branding might help. People might hear Android and think, "oh, I've heard of that or used that before". Still, the "Windows" brand hasn't been helping Microsoft counter Google and Apple in the mobile space. In fact, looking at the mobile space, we can see how important inertia is. Despite coming out with a quite good mobile OS and getting Nokia to commit to exclusivity, that combined force just can't make a dent in consumer inertia toward iOS and Android. Even if Google came out with a premium desktop OS with the Android brand that people know and love, would users change their inertia?
It just seems less likely to me. In mobile, Google and Apple weren't fighting inertia. They were creating a new space.
Inertia doesn't last forever, neither does lock-in. Microsoft was in a classic catch-22: if they don't modernize and shake things up they will lose their lead slowly but surely. If they do they risk alienating their existing users in the short run.
For all of its annoyances, IMO Win8 was necessary. The problem is that they went overboard - the whole OS is just one gigantic pain in the ass for keyboard/mouse users (aka almost everyone), but pretty great for touch users (aka a small portion of everyone who bought a Windows machine in the last 3 months).
I wouldn't count Win8 out just yet. MS seems to be expecting that laptops/desktops move universally towards becoming touch-enabled, at which point Win8 makes a lot more sense. This is a future that's not certain, but quite likely if MS plays its cards right.
I've heard that PC stores are seeing plenty of people interested in windows 8 but walking away when they learn that current laptops don't have touch screens.
I think microsoft underestimated the incompetence of the PC vendors. They sort of assumed that the surface would set the bar for touch devices, and that this meant PC buyers this holiday season would be getting a good touch experience. I don't think they considered it a possibility that the PC vendors largely wouldn't bother with touch (aside from some token devices at the luxury end of the price range). It's like the PC vendors collectively gave up and decided they didn't much care for selling new PC's.
Anyway, we'll see what happens this year. Once the majority of PC's for sale are touch-enabled you could see a turnaround for windows 8, but that really hinges on ability to execute from the PC manufacturers.
> just like iOS and OS X, we would really need separate apps for both
Why? A desktop computer is powerful enough to emulate a smartphone, so existing Android apps could be desktop compatible (especially tablet ready apps).
Because in desktop apps we're expecting resizable windows, right-click ability, menus, mouse-over etc. Apps made for fullscreen touch devices would feel a bit crippled.
I think the main problem there is that they render graphics on the cpu. Also, an android desktop machine would most likely use an ARM architecture, making the point moot.
Most people do have a desktop. They've invested years of time learning Windows and have applications specifically written for it. Desktop Linux has been around for years and hasn't made a dent in Windows. Why would a new desktop Linux distribution change that?
In many ways Android Desktop would be inferior to most desktop Linux distributions because it would be launching with few, if any, apps. Android has many mobile apps, but just like iOS and OS X, we would really need separate apps for both. Google could provide a Linux with Android APIs just as Apple shares much of Cocoa between iOS and OS X. However, traditional linux distributions are quite usable (my complaints about Gnome 3 and Unity aside) and they haven't made much of a dent in Windows. If people don't want those, why would they want Desktop Android?
Branding might help. People might hear Android and think, "oh, I've heard of that or used that before". Still, the "Windows" brand hasn't been helping Microsoft counter Google and Apple in the mobile space. In fact, looking at the mobile space, we can see how important inertia is. Despite coming out with a quite good mobile OS and getting Nokia to commit to exclusivity, that combined force just can't make a dent in consumer inertia toward iOS and Android. Even if Google came out with a premium desktop OS with the Android brand that people know and love, would users change their inertia?
It just seems less likely to me. In mobile, Google and Apple weren't fighting inertia. They were creating a new space.