Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350942

The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC

From	Homer <usenet@slated.org>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC
Date	2016-04-20 11:06 +0100
Organization	Slated.org
Message-ID	<dnp2kmFb1mcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Here are three stories that confirm and explain the death of the Windows PC.

1. Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet

'Those numbers back up the contention that more and more Americans are
opting to cut the cord with their home connections and dump cable or DSL
providers in favor of mobile plans. They also fall in line with the
saturation of handsets and tablets, while desktop PCs and notebooks
suffer plummeting sales.

"Americans’ rapid move toward mobile Internet service appears to be
coming at the expense of home broadband connections," wrote Giulia
McHenry, chief economist for the NTIA's office of policy analysis and
development.

"At the same time, many Americans are using a wider range of computing
devices in their daily lives."'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/one_in_five_us_homes_now_mobileonly

2. Hey Windows 10, weren't you supposed to help PC sales?

'Very few if any ever thought Windows 10 would truly reinvigorate the PC
industry, and they were right - IDC has pulled down forecasts on
traditional device sales for 2016.

The analyst has clipped unit expectations by a couple of per cent,
claiming global notebooks and desktops shipments into channels are now
on course to decline 5.4 per cent to 260.9 million.

That’ll equate to 156.2 million portable PCs and 104.7 million
desk-based units for the year if the beanies are right, but these things
tend to be a moving feast and further corrections are likely.

In the medium term, things aren’t going to get markedly better either -
over the next five years compound annual growth rates of minus 0.5 per
cent are predicted.

The operating system can’t shoulder sole responsibility for unit sales
to date or the crappy outlook but it has played a part, and was fingered
by HP Inc last summer and again more recently.'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/14/pc_sales_forecasts

3. Intel literally decimates workforce: 12,000 will be axed, CFO shifts
to sales

'Intel will axe 12,000 employees globally – more than one in ten of its
workforce – as it moves further away from being a PC chip company.
The layoffs are among the biggest into the company's history, and come
as PC industry continues to tank harder than Intel expected.

The Santa Clara-based biz sees a lot of growth in the worlds of data
centers, memory, and the internet of things – anything that doesn't look
like a traditional desktop computer, the sales of which are dwindling.
As a result, fewer processors for normal PCs, laptops and tablets are
needed, and so Intel is rejigging itself to focus more on these growth
areas – which will mean losing some workers.'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/19/intel_q1_fy2016_job_cuts

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:06 +0100
  Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:57 +0100
    Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 13:49 +0200
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:07 -0400
        Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 19:12 +0200
          Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 11:57 -0700
            Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:42 +0200
              Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 14:55 -0700
                Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:04 +0200
                Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 17:08 -0700
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 09:00 +0200
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 17:00 +0000
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 19:05 +0200
            Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:07 -0700
          Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:09 -0400
            The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-22 11:55 -0700
              Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:27 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 17:55 -0400
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:05 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:20 -0400
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:01 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 19:11 -0400
    Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-20 07:05 -0500
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 12:28 +0000
    Re: The subjective preferences of the dying minority Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 13:58 +0100
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:18 -0400
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 17:09 +0000
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 10:38 -0700
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:11 +0100
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0000
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-20 15:53 -0500
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 22:01 +0000
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:14 +0100
        Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-22 16:37 -0600

csiph-web