← Back to context

Comment by signal11

4 years ago

Strategically, worrying about the low end “worse” competitor is more worthwhile than the higher end competitor. Eg IBM were not undone by a better mainframe.

In Windows’s case the “worse” competitor is ChromeOS and Chromebook, and Microsoft’s basically thrown in the towel when it comes to native apps, so with time everyone who doesn’t need pro Photoshop or AutoCAD could just use a Chromebook.

Note that you can run Word for Android on Chromebooks full-screen already.

You forgot about PC gaming. Kid growing up with Windows is a huge advantage. I think it cannot be overstated and Mircosoft played this game well.

  • I know stadia is so poorly managed that it is not even a worthy competitor but the concept is sound and nVidia’s GeForce Now and Microsoft’s x cloud will eventually work well enough on Google Chrome that between that and Proton, Windows’ gaming advantage should become a little diminished over time?

    I haven’t used android games on chrome os but things like candy crush should work just fine in chrome os by now?

    • The problem is the massive gulf between "works well enough" and "pleasant experience". Console users would still balk at the terrible performance of Stadia... let alone PC users that are used to being first class citizens in terms of experience and responsiveness.

      Assuming you have a really low latency to a Google datacentre, the Stadia experience is not particularly compelling enough to ditch running the game on bare metal.

      All of the above is moot though if you are not within a few ms latency of a Google datacentre though... which for most of the world is absolutely the case.

    • Interesting thought. Is it really stadias management to blame or are there other limits hard to overcome?

  • I would say that happened unintentionally, given how hard they tried for years to undermine the PC gaming market in favour of Xbox.