Bye Bye Andromeda, hello Santorini?

[BajanSaint69]

Saw this article today

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-drops-andromeda-references-in-windows-10-adds-santorini-in-its-place/

About how MS is dropping Andromeda shell references for the code name "Santorini" which is more targeted at laptops and dual screen laptops.

So is this the end of the Andromeda device dream?

I had understood Andromeda to stand for both the device and the shell, perhaps an adaptable shell for a dual screen laptop might be able to accommodate a smaller screen.

What do you guys think?

 

[TechFreak1]

It would be a big mistake as dual screen laptops are nice to look at all but... what is the long term purpose of a dual screen laptop on the mass market anyway?

A) If you are primarily going to use the second screen as a keyboard, why wouldn't you get all the many other traditional clam shell laptops with a physical keyboard that can provide tactile feed back for touch typing.

B) What about the battery life?
It's a well known fact that the screen in most laptops takes the most power draw over time, because when idle cpus can go to a low power state and hardly use much power at all. Other than undervolting the easiest way to increase your battery life is reduce the screen brightness.

I'm not counting laptops with dedicated GPUs because they are effectively mobile work stations and if you are going to hamstring a dedicated GPU just to eak out battery then you've brought the wrong laptop.

With two screens battery life could prove to be an issue plus two OLED screens aren't going to be cheap either.

Not to mention repairing these dual screen laptops is going to be a pain in the rear end unless they allow easy access to the components + they are not soldered on.

3) Microsoft needs a shell that can run on smaller screen devices for profileration of cheap tablets as this is Mediatek's bread and butter. Not so much as Qualcomm's as compared to all the low end android tablets on the market not many run Qualcomm SOCs whereas Mediatek has that market sown up.

Dual screen laptops will be a niche product there are only a few use cases I can see for dual screen laptops.

1) Collaborative device in a design environment.
2) You can use the second screen as a drawing tablet
3) Displaying documents and signing multiple documents
4) Audio mixing and DJing.

Single person media consumption would only make sense if it a kick stand so you'd get the full use of two screens. The place where dual screen video consumption makes any sort of sense is that two people can view the same video albeit on seperate screens. Which sadly would be used by many young parents to nanny two kids with a single laptop albeit they still do that now but now each kid gets their own screen.

You would not want to hold a massive dual screen laptop like a book to read a book....:grincry: unless you have four arms or are 7 ft tall with guerilla arms....:grincry:

You get hell of alot more versatility with smaller dual screen form factors but since Microsoft is keen to hack of their legs I'm not going to bother any more lol. Because without a Windows based mobile play.. there is really no viable long term strategy at all. Since it won't take long for Apple to eat into Surface's profits and Google will continue to gobble up every user that doesn't have disposable cash to enable them to purchase an ios or ipad o/s device.

Windows is only relevant because most people grew up using it via the "PC in every household" initiative and nowadays... most people are growing up solely in either Android ecosystems or Apple's ecosystem. Microsoft have effectively given up the keys to their vast profits by exiting the mobile market.

Once Google and Apple figure out how to scale mobile apps on laptop sized screens then it's game over for Microsoft and for the rest of us?

We'd be stuck between an data sucking succubus and a greedy corporation that wants everything for itself. You can see the profileration of Google already, many websites do not function at all if you disable ajax.googleapis.com.

This does not bode well for the openness of the internet.

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft will make some profit but at the current rate?

Hardly.

Microsoft's only saving grace for any sort of mindshare right now is Xbox because that is the only Microsoft product many households have in their homes.

My intentions are not to end on a sour note but to showcase how dire the situation has become for those who value competition.

Because only via competition you hold everything to a high standard and keep the corporative greed in check because they do not have monopoly on anything.

Case in point, why people in the US pay through their nose for their internet connectivity and are data limited - you guys do not have sort of fair market regulation that promotes competition let alone any basic federal consumer rights laws.

Here in the UK, almost the entire internet infrastructure is owned by BT but due to fair market policies they cannot use their ownership of that infrastructure to undercut the competition or charge extortionate fees or prevent any companies from using their infrastructure to house their own equipment. As a result we have affordable prices for our internet connectivity. TV is another issue, Sky holds the monopoly there as a result they still charge a fee for 1080p channels and some pay upto £70 a month for their TV package.

But anyway, getting off topic with me examples and better stop before I type up a novel :grincry:.

 

[Ryujingt3]

This is typical Microsoft. They start something, then drop it halfway and move to the next thing. I still think Centaurus devices could be interesting though.

 

[sd4f]

I think it's just that MS want to get to mobiles, but are trying to edge towards it from the side of their strengths. They have their vision of what sort of mobile device they want to make, but know that launching it now, it would just fail.

 

[ochhanz]

I think it's just that MS want to get to mobiles, but are trying to edge towards it from the side of their strengths. They have their vision of what sort of mobile device they want to make, but know that launching it now, it would just fail.

, this indeed, while i would like to see an andromeda device now it might be too soon and therefore i think it is better they work towards it step by step. They also need to slowly win back developers anyway.

 

[Drael646464]

Honestly makes sense. "Big" Oses need to slowly inch smaller and more touch oriented, "small" oses need to do the opposite. The next step from conventional hybrids is all touch. Then a surface go sized all touch. Then a pocket book. Then mobile. The software developers need to be herded via a built in user base. Better to play to strengths, at least until PWA grows.

 

[Ryujingt3]

Honestly makes sense. "Big" Oses need to slowly inch smaller and more touch oriented, "small" oses need to do the opposite. The next step from conventional hybrids is all touch. Then a surface go sized all touch. Then a pocket book. Then mobile. The software developers need to be herded via a built in user base. Better to play to strengths, at least until PWA grows.

But why would MS go through all that evolution only to end up back at mobile again, which they failed at?

 

[Drael646464]

But why would MS go through all that evolution only to end up back at mobile again, which they failed at?

Because the entire end goal of windows 10 has always been an adaptable shell overlaying a single OS? The end goal isn't 'phones', it's 'anything'. It's a long game revolving around ubiqitious computing. 'Small' is simply one of the more challenging end goals because windows ten is a 'big scree' OS traditionally. The same interface rules will apply if it's windows on your refridgerator, or in your car, or whatever.

There are other challenges, voice only, no screen, VR. Microsoft has spoken openly about all of this for a long time.

Windows phone, as it was (is?), was never a part of that plan at all. That was balmers play. In the end, I believe it was used more as a testbed of ideas to later intergrate into windows core. In the last days of updates, it seemed very much like that.

They've been working on windows core for a VERY long time, in developer terms. Literally more man hours than any historical commercial project. More effort and time has gone into that than windows 10 itself, or edge/explorer, or any prior windows. They've been working on it since early days of windows 10, more or less, from what I can tell. It's been called 'one core', 'cshell' now 'windows core os'. It was the stated reason they halted windows mobile development earlier on.

What do you think that's all for?

And when they say 'no screen, 3d etc', and 'one windows' what do you think they mean? To me, it's all been very clear communication about the end aim of the semi herculean task of a cross platform, fully adaptable OS running on everything.

I'm struggling to think why they would bother creating windows core OS at all, windows on arm, all of the current history, if it weren't for the end aim of being able to run on anything.

I mean it might not be a phone. Maybe by the time it's all perfect, there won't be any smartphones. Just voice modules, or AR glasses or something. Maybe phones will all be folding tablets by then. Probably their goal has adapted somewhat to be more lightweight and cloud focused.

The point isn't 'smartphone', which arguably will die or evolve someday soon, it's just 'anything', but as I said, one of MSFTs key challenges is 'style of interface' and 'scale', and small touch interfaces are a part of that. Hence, the smart move is to play at it peicemeal, using your strength to very gradually scale and bring development and polish. Hence folding all touch 'laptop's (or whatever they should really be called).

It's like you have something, like say, a PC. And then you have a laptop. And then you have a hybrid. And then you have one of whatever the heck those are. And then a slightly smaller one. And after years of ****** whinging, hits and misses, there you are, small and touch. VR seems to be being handled fairly proactively. Voice has a ways to come, but I think we are in for some big updates there.

MSFT has some big legs to rest on, and invest in. Cloud computing and gaming are both the majority of the companies profits. The logical, but difficult (and risky) goal of creating a truely next gen OS is an expansion effort. If they can create the one, truely flexible, interoperable OS before ubiqitious computing hits, and it's successful, the rest will look like they are still pimping ms dos.

Sure, it's great to be successful at pcs, or phones, or vr or iot or some subcomponent. But if there is computing EVERYWHERE, then it's going to annoy the living crap out of consumers because it won't play together, nor share software or hardware ecosystem, nor be familiar across devices. Such a future either requires all the big players co-operate (ie the opposite of now), share protocols, software, everything in a way that actually works in the opposite way that capitalism usually works, or that there is 'one big winner' of the tech game.

That's the point. MS wants one OS to rule them all. That's biscuits well big enough to bet one, long term commercial profit and power well beyond what smartphones ever delivered.

 

[Ryujingt3]

Because the entire end goal of windows 10 has always been an adaptable shell overlaying a single OS? The end goal isn't 'phones', it's 'anything'. It's a long game revolving around ubiqitious computing. 'Small' is simply one of the more challenging end goals because windows ten is a 'big scree' OS traditionally. The same interface rules will apply if it's windows on your refridgerator, or in your car, or whatever.

There are other challenges, voice only, no screen, VR. Microsoft has spoken openly about all of this for a long time.

Windows phone, as it was (is?), was never a part of that plan at all. That was balmers play. In the end, I believe it was used more as a testbed of ideas to later intergrate into windows core. In the last days of updates, it seemed very much like that.

They've been working on windows core for a VERY long time, in developer terms. Literally more man hours than any historical commercial project. More effort and time has gone into that than windows 10 itself, or edge/explorer, or any prior windows. They've been working on it since early days of windows 10, more or less, from what I can tell. It's been called 'one core', 'cshell' now 'windows core os'. It was the stated reason they halted windows mobile development earlier on.

What do you think that's all for?

And when they say 'no screen, 3d etc', and 'one windows' what do you think they mean? To me, it's all been very clear communication about the end aim of the semi herculean task of a cross platform, fully adaptable OS running on everything.

I'm struggling to think why they would bother creating windows core OS at all, windows on arm, all of the current history, if it weren't for the end aim of being able to run on anything.

I mean it might not be a phone. Maybe by the time it's all perfect, there won't be any smartphones. Just voice modules, or AR glasses or something. Maybe phones will all be folding tablets by then. Probably their goal has adapted somewhat to be more lightweight and cloud focused.

The point isn't 'smartphone', which arguably will die or evolve someday soon, it's just 'anything', but as I said, one of MSFTs key challenges is 'style of interface' and 'scale', and small touch interfaces are a part of that. Hence, the smart move is to play at it peicemeal, using your strength to very gradually scale and bring development and polish. Hence folding all touch 'laptop's (or whatever they should really be called).

It's like you have something, like say, a PC. And then you have a laptop. And then you have a hybrid. And then you have one of whatever the heck those are. And then a slightly smaller one. And after years of ****** whinging, hits and misses, there you are, small and touch. VR seems to be being handled fairly proactively. Voice has a ways to come, but I think we are in for some big updates there.

MSFT has some big legs to rest on, and invest in. Cloud computing and gaming are both the majority of the companies profits. The logical, but difficult (and risky) goal of creating a truely next gen OS is an expansion effort. If they can create the one, truely flexible, interoperable OS before ubiqitious computing hits, and it's successful, the rest will look like they are still pimping ms dos.

Sure, it's great to be successful at pcs, or phones, or vr or iot or some subcomponent. But if there is computing EVERYWHERE, then it's going to annoy the living crap out of consumers because it won't play together, nor share software or hardware ecosystem, nor be familiar across devices. Such a future either requires all the big players co-operate (ie the opposite of now), share protocols, software, everything in a way that actually works in the opposite way that capitalism usually works, or that there is 'one big winner' of the tech game.

That's the point. MS wants one OS to rule them all. That's biscuits well big enough to bet one, long term commercial profit and power well beyond what smartphones ever delivered.

Thanks for the very detailed reply. I hope MS manage to do all this.

 

[sd4f]

I'd add to Drael646464's post that, rightly, MS isn't trying to be on 'smartphones', they're trying to be where the users are. When you consider what they've said, MS have basically admitted that they missed out on smartphones, which is why they're looking at what comes next.

With Bill Gates admitting that them missing phones was a huge mistake (iirc his biggest), just shows how much they're dwelling on it. I think Steve Ballmer resigning also suggests how monumental a failure it was. I have no doubt that they've poured a lot of time into lessons learnt and analysis of what went wrong and why it failed. After all, they were there, really early too, yet somehow, it got snatched from them.

Now the reason why they want to be there is because it's clear, they can retain their prominent position if they live exclusively on desktop PC's and x86 processors. Yes, there's a place for them, but what has become very clear is ordinary users are increasingly using smartphones and tablets to do ordinary computing, not touching a PC at all. MS need people to be in the MS ecosystem, that's their goal. They shape the ecosystem to suit its users just as much as they shape it to suit themselves. Currently, they need a lot more users.

This is why Google is putting effort into chrome books at schools. Get kids in on them early, and then they will probably stay in that ecosystem. You can clearly see that Google is approaching the same problem from the other end, and they also have a different situation where they're also trying to manage issues they've had with android, while Apple appears to be also going at slightly differently.

 

[Ryujingt3]

I'd add to Drael646464's post that, rightly, MS isn't trying to be on 'smartphones', they're trying to be where the users are. When you consider what they've said, MS have basically admitted that they missed out on smartphones, which is why they're looking at what comes next.

With Bill Gates admitting that them missing phones was a huge mistake (iirc his biggest), just shows how much they're dwelling on it. I think Steve Ballmer resigning also suggests how monumental a failure it was. I have no doubt that they've poured a lot of time into lessons learnt and analysis of what went wrong and why it failed. After all, they were there, really early too, yet somehow, it got snatched from them.

Now the reason why they want to be there is because it's clear, they can retain their prominent position if they live exclusively on desktop PC's and x86 processors. Yes, there's a place for them, but what has become very clear is ordinary users are increasingly using smartphones and tablets to do ordinary computing, not touching a PC at all. MS need people to be in the MS ecosystem, that's their goal. They shape the ecosystem to suit its users just as much as they shape it to suit themselves. Currently, they need a lot more users.

This is why Google is putting effort into chrome books at schools. Get kids in on them early, and then they will probably stay in that ecosystem. You can clearly see that Google is approaching the same problem from the other end, and they also have a different situation where they're also trying to manage issues they've had with android, while Apple appears to be also going at slightly differently.

This is another detailed reply - thanks very much. It'd be great for MS to have a Chromebook equivalent that was affordable. Perhaps they just want to license Windows Lite to OEM vendors which would also allow students to get tied to the ecosystem early.

 

[Drael646464]

I'd add to Drael646464's post that, rightly, MS isn't trying to be on 'smartphones', they're trying to be where the users are. When you consider what they've said, MS have basically admitted that they missed out on smartphones, which is why they're looking at what comes next.

With Bill Gates admitting that them missing phones was a huge mistake (iirc his biggest), just shows how much they're dwelling on it. I think Steve Ballmer resigning also suggests how monumental a failure it was. I have no doubt that they've poured a lot of time into lessons learnt and analysis of what went wrong and why it failed. After all, they were there, really early too, yet somehow, it got snatched from them.

Now the reason why they want to be there is because it's clear, they can retain their prominent position if they live exclusively on desktop PC's and x86 processors. Yes, there's a place for them, but what has become very clear is ordinary users are increasingly using smartphones and tablets to do ordinary computing, not touching a PC at all. MS need people to be in the MS ecosystem, that's their goal. They shape the ecosystem to suit its users just as much as they shape it to suit themselves. Currently, they need a lot more users.

This is why Google is putting effort into chrome books at schools. Get kids in on them early, and then they will probably stay in that ecosystem. You can clearly see that Google is approaching the same problem from the other end, and they also have a different situation where they're also trying to manage issues they've had with android, while Apple appears to be also going at slightly differently.

IDK, I feel like that whole 'kids these days don't use computers' is a bit overblown. At least on a global scale, PCs are in every school, and far outstrip iOS and chromeOS. At university, which like the workplace often uses specialist software, that's even more the case. There really is no ordinary situation where someone can have a professional or academic life, and not know how to use a windows machine.

Where I am situated, kids just know how to use it all. They start with smartphones/tablets when young, and then are multi-proficient before adolescence.

The way I see it, is it's not so much that 'people do everything on chrome and android', but rather most spend MORE TIME on those devices, doing more casual tasks like facebook, or snapchat. Time they generally didn't spend on devices in previous generations.

Yeah, it would ultimately help microsoft if they capture that attention, by entering more into the 'social/casual' space, but in terms of productivity or similar, I don't think google has made much ground. Yes, in american schools, and even abroad, gmail and office apps. But outside of that, it pretty much stops at gmail, and only really for small businesses. And that isn't going to change super soon with all that specialist legacy software. If anything ios and the ipad is more of a threat there as some companies are actively developing business and academic apps for that OS.

Even then, it's limited because neither android nor the ipad is a 'real pc'. They don't have proper multitasking and aren't well suited to a full desk setup. It tends to self-limit to specialist applications like surveys, sales.

Again, spaces microsoft should be fighting for, but not a complete overlap with the broad totality of what PCs do in the world.

That brings us back to the original problem; more and more kinds of devices, with less compatibility between them, eventually becoming a tangled mess for the end user. If microsoft can't solve that with their one core OS, who or what can? If they fail, it could be a real crapshow.

 

[Adventurer64]

I think a pocket PC (some sort of stripped down version of Windows 10) that makes calls is the best we can hope for. For example, a foldable Surface Go that fits in a big pocket.

 

[Adventurer64]

Or..... Government intervention declaring Google and/or Apple are monopolies.

 

[Ryujingt3]

Or..... Government intervention declaring Google and/or Apple are monopolies.

That'll never happen. They generate too much money and have far too much power.

 

[Adventurer64]

That'll never happen. They generate too much money and have far too much power.

They are being investigated or will shortly. However, I believe your right in that nothing will come of it which is bad for consumer.

 

[Ryujingt3]

They are being investigated or will shortly. However, I believe your right in that nothing will come of it which is bad for consumer.

It would be nice if something did come out of the investigations.