PC obsolescence is obsolete

More than half of MSFT's revenue (http://www.tannerhelland.com/4273/microsoft-money-updated-20...) comes from Windows and Office (and over half the profit, Windows http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-defer-revenue-windows-upgrad...).

Back in the 90s and early 00s, the rate of change in the PC market was amazing. The hardware you could buy in 1998 basically didn't exist in 1996, so there always was something new and exciting to spur new hardware sales.

New hardware sales represent the bulk of Microsoft's Windows licensing (the so-called "Microsoft Tax") revenue and so a large part of MSFT's profits. All MS had to do was be the default OS and their profit would grow without lifting a finger (obviously that's greatly simplified, MS had to do a lot of things).

Now that this hardware revolution is no longer taking place, MS' Windows licensing rev (and thus the huge profits) are threatened. Competition in the PC market have driven hardware profits to zero. MS and their clone makers have painted themselves into a corner.

Contrast this with Apple's strategy - produce desirable hardware that people buy for non-technical reasons (design, fashion, software, etc.) instead of raw figures (CPU, Memory, etc.). Folks will upgrade because they want to, not because they need to. That's a lot harder to pull off, but Apple seems to be doing a great job of it.

Ultimately, I think Apple's strategy is going to make a lot more sense in the long run. Drive the cost of the operating system upgrades to zero (I'd be shocked if the next OSX upgrade costs anything; I was quite surprised that Mountain Lion was {edit: not} a fee upgrade), limit the age of device that can run it, and create products that people want.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Right. It's absolutely necessary for Apple to make the new iPad so that you can't even take it to an Apple Store and get the storage upgraded, and to literally glue the Retina version of the MacBook Pro together so it's almost completely impossible to repair anything if it breaks.

Some integration has a genuine benefit, such as minimising size or weight. But plenty more integration is just artificial, and this trend is increasing. Some of the clients I work with design high-end IT hardware for a living, so I can say with some confidence that if you think the equivalent people at places like Apple couldn't design modern devices in more modular ways than they are, you're just kidding yourself.

Likewise, it's easy to buy non-stupid printers right now, today. But few people want to pay what they cost.

Why can't the colour laser printer I already paid for just work? Printing a black-and-white document with nothing but black toner is not rocket science. Stop apologising for people who deliberately screw their customers.

If you want people to fight the trend, start with yourself. [...] Start by not buying crappy and restrictive printers just because they're cheap.

That printer probably cost the equivalent of $1,500 when I bought it, and was marketed for use in a small office. I'm not talking about cheap consumer junk, not that it would make the slightest difference to my argument if I were.

It was easy to double the processing requirements of software when we were at a low exponent of moore's law, but now that is looked at as poor development. We're able to do more with less code.

Also, since facebook and other web services have diluted the demographic with people who mostly browse the web, the demand for power has waned.

However, I am annoyed with all the posts asserting that desktops are dead. This is far from true. Gamers will not give up their desktops. For power uses, a laptop just won't support 4 1080p monitors. I personally prefer having a desktop so I don't have to mess with docking/plugging in my laptop to a ton of cables when the desktop does a better job anyway. The desktop as serves as my media consumption station and is connected to the TV.