anon(50597)
New member
- Sep 28, 2014
- 2,209
- 0
- 0
Illustrating how a source is questionable isn't the same thing as defending Microsoft.
Understood, differing opinions.
Illustrating how a source is questionable isn't the same thing as defending Microsoft.
I don't see windowscentral saying that a surface "unicorn" is just around the corner. Are we reading the same website?
Sorry I work for a very large Enterprise Software company. If our head of Europe was misquoted like this we would have forced a retraction the minute it was published and made sure it was covered widely in the trade press. Plus if this report was incorrect Microsoft would have disputed the article. What do we hear from HP and MS, silence.And pretty much all of those sites will report the same one source, and that one source isn't Nick directly but someone saying Nick said it. That's one source, not many.
These days people often just type something into Google and think that as soon as there are many 'hits' that means there are many sources. That's often not the case. Many many times it's just many people referring to the same one source.
You have to follow the rabbit.....
Oh just listen to Jason Ward.
Sorry I work for a very large Enterprise Software company. If our head of Europe was misquoted like this we would have forced a retraction the minute it was published and made sure it was covered widely in the trade press. Plus if this report was incorrect Microsoft would have disputed the article. What do we hear from HP and MS, silence.
You're assuming the company has morals. Look up "stock manipulation" and you'll see what I mean.Sorry I work for a very large Enterprise Software company. If our head of Europe was misquoted like this we would have forced a retraction the minute it was published and made sure it was covered widely in the trade press. Plus if this report was incorrect Microsoft would have disputed the article. What do we hear from HP and MS, silence.
I somewhat get what Microsoft or rather Nadella has been trying to do, thanks to Zac. They are trying to make a modular OS. So instead of having just three versions of UI (desktop, tablet and mobile mode) Windows could have many different forms. Windows could then allow OEMs to customise the OS as per their needs. May be, that's why Microsoft do not want OEMs to waste their energy and money on a platform which will soon become obsolete.
But the only problem with this is that no body has seen the future. What if all this fails? There has to be a fallback plan and the plan always revolves around the stakeholders. By alienating the stakeholders, I fear Microsoft may very well be digging graves for themselves.
I agree a relationship between HP and MS isn't the best right now, but, they have to rely on each.other so the relationship will be saved.I think it is close by. It is closer than we think. OEM partners work closely with Microsoft. Only they know or can share what they know but we know Microsoft never will disclose details...I would be more concerned about Microsofts relationship with HP or other OEMs at this point and going forward. Maybe we will get more insight come Oct 31.
Like right Twix and left Twix?I agree a relationship between HP and MS isn't the best right now, but, they have to rely on each.other so the relationship will be saved.
Twitter: @PhotographyET