Of course there’s a lot more points of failure for thin client than just the server. Anything that dings the network will kill all your thin clients. And of course it’s even worse with the cloud (how we started this) because with the cloud it’s not your server, so not only internal network problems hose you, external ones do to. With desktop machines if the internet goes down productivity usually rises because people can’t screw around on FR, if you’re on the cloud with thin machines and the internet goes down productivity ends. This is why the cloud is a joke, and will stay that way.
Most computer sales are still for business. A laptop with a 17” monitor starts at $1000, for $1000 you can get a desktop machine with twice the RAM, 3 times the HD space, a 17” monitor and still have money left over. That’s why businesses only buy laptops for people that will be mobile, people that will do their productivity at a desk get desktop machines.
Well if MS and HP put out tablets before Apple then they weren’t following, which kills you’re whole initial point that MS is a follower.
It doesn’t matter whether your looking US or world, all the numbers point to exactly what my point was: following can be a good business practice. You just said it yourself, the numbers are impressive and were expected to be so, that is my ENTIRE point. There’s nothing left to argue, you’ve agreed with me.
But thin clients have far fewer problems than desktops. Most failures will be in the network or servers, almost none in the desktops. People forget desktops are a huge source of failure because most people only see their desktop. Hey, it's problems only cost me a day last year. Multiply that by 5,000 employees.
And of course its even worse with the cloud (how we started this) because with the cloud its not your server
When I was talking about the iPad and cloud, I didn't mean that for constant operation, as I mentioned using the cloud instead of a host PC so a person could buy one as his only computer. You may have had some vision of people hauling around an iPad still attached to its host PC. And iPad certainly doesn't become unusable when you detach it from the host PC as a thin client does when you detach it from the server.
A laptop with a 17 monitor starts at $1000, for $1000 you can get a desktop machine with twice the RAM
... Talk to the sales figures. They don't lie. Laptops have been replacing desktops for years. Desktops will certainly have their place, but their numbers are dwindling.
Well if MS and HP put out tablets before Apple then they werent following, which kills youre whole initial point that MS is a follower.
By early 2009 most aspects of the iPad were publicly known, touch screen around 10", iOS, App Store, etc. The release date was the biggest question. Microsoft demonstrated the HP tablet almost a year later, most likely to beat Apple to market for a tablet. It never hit the market because they killed the project after the release of the iPad.
You just said it yourself, the numbers are impressive and were expected to be so, that is my ENTIRE point.
Here's your problem: Those numbers are impressive across several manufacturers, none of which have been reaping the same kind of mad profits on phones as Apple has. These are the PROFITS (what matters to a business) for cell phones:
Apple: 4% of market, 51% of profit. And this includes all phones, which skews the advantage towards companies like Nokia and Samsung that sell hundreds of millions of non-smart phones.