> The Redmond, Wash., software giant is set to [hold a launch event](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/03/oct_11_windows_phone_7_launch_event_confirmed.html) on Oct. 11 for new devices powered by Windows Phone 7. And while it was presumed that the event would focus on phones, *Neowin.net* claims that the event in New York City may also be used to introduce [new ‘slate PCs’](http://www.neowin.net/news/exclusive-windows-slates-coming-at-christmas-unveiled-on-october-11) that will hit the market this year. > > “Microsoft has been working closely with several un-named OEMs to produce a genuine answer to the iPad,” the report said. “The software giant is concerned that iPad sales are slowly cannibalizing Windows sales and eating away at the recent boom in netbook sales.” > > Next week’s rumored showcase of Windows tablets coincides with what Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said at an event in the U.K. on Tuesday. Speaking to students, staff and journalists at the London School of Economics, Ballmer said consumers can expect to see new, Windows-powered l[this Christmas](http://www.reuters.com/article/idCALDE69412U20101005?rpc=44), according to *Reuters*. > > The report noted that Ballmer declined to say whether the devices would be on sale before Christmas, or who will make the hardware. Boy, that would be stupid.

Did Apple introduce a new iPhone model when it launched the iPad? No. You know why? Because that would have been stupid.

Windows Phone 7 has enough going against it as it is. It doesn’t need a media blunder to steal any thunder away from the launch event. Microsoft is launching a brand new platform in the most competitive market for any consumer electronics product in history. It is literally three years late in getting back into the game. It’s only managed exclusive deals for its new phones with the weakest of the four major carriers in the US (T-Mobile). Why on earth would they be dumb enough to launch anything else on the same day? Why would they want the press to talk about ANYTHING other than their new phone platform that day?

The goal should be to make every tech news outlet and every major mainstream newspaper and every television news program talk about nothing but Windows Phone 7 for as long as possible. This has to look like the ultimate phone in the universe. The biggest thing since DOS.

Everything I’ve seen about Windows Phone 7 so far actually looks promising. Please tell me Microsoft isn’t going to stumble right out of the gate with a huge media blunder. Tell me Steve Ballmer isn’t that stupid. Someone. Please.

> Sharp’s new phone will have a 9.6 megapixel autofocus camera and will launch with the older 2.1 version of Android. The handset is currently slated for a Japan-only release. And here, again, we see the problem with Android. Someone finally comes up with a screen that is comparable to the iPhone 4’s, but then puts it on a phone with an outdated OS (Android 2.1). And then only ships it in Japan.

I have yet to see any one Android phone that has it all. They all seem to get about 80% of the way there, and then screw up the final 20%. Maybe not everyone cares about that last 20%, but I’m willing to bet enough do to stop Android from ever becoming a serious threat to Apple.

It’s even worse in the tablet arena, as we’re seeing more and more would-be competitors playing the OS version game with Android. Some are even talking about Chrome OS. Where’s the continuity? If I’m buying apps, where’s the assurance that all those apps I paid for are going to work on my next device?

In effect, where’s the motivation for brand loyalty?

It’s very telling that all of Android’s success this year has been in the United States, where carrier lock-in holds back any real competition. In a Verizon store, where the choices are one of three Android phones or a Blackberry, the Android does great. But in a store in Japan or Europe, where the Android phone is sitting next to the iPhone, it’s a very different story.

> As a result of a new agreement where Bing powers Yahoo searches, Compete is now tracking Bing and Yahoo search queries under the heading “Bing-powered.” Bing-powered searches accounted for 26% of the US search market, with 3.8 million queries. > > However, splitting the combined Bing-powered search entity into Bing and Yahoo, it becomes clear that Bing is gaining individual popularity while Yahoo is losing individual popularity. Bing’s 12.4% August 2010 share grew 17% from 10.6% in July 2010 and 37.8% from 9% in August 2009, two months after its June 2009 official launch. Meanwhile, Bing’s query volume grew 20% month-over-month and 45.5% year-over-year. > > In contrast, Yahoo’s 13.5% August 2010 share only grew 3% from 13.1% in July 2010 and dropped 12.3% from 15.4% a year earlier. Yahoo’s volume grew 5.9% month-over-month but dropped 7.7% year-over-year. > > **Google Loses Unique Visitors, Gains Queries per Visitor** > Google attracted 154 million unique visitors in August 2010, down 3.1% from 159 million month-over-month and 11% from 173 million year-over-year. Yahoo and Bing both experienced much milder fluctuations in unique visitor. This is what happens when you take your eye off the ball and start trying to take over every market for every product on earth. You start to lose share in the one area that actually makes you money.

I have no illusions that Bing is going to catch up to Google anytime this century. But any loss of share for Google is bad news.

Notice, when Apple succeeded with the iPod, the iPhone, and then the iPad, Mac share GREW. Apple picks markets that expand the market for all of its products.

Android started off as a way to prevent Microsoft from dominating search on mobile platforms. In that regard, it has been a complete success. But once Google decided to compete with Apple’s iPhone, where it had already solidified a deal for search, Android became a much more risky affair for Google. Now Apple has launched its own ad platform in direct competition with Google, and Bing is an option for iPhone users where it had not been before. Two problems Google would not have had if Schmidt had been content with killing Windows Mobile and Palm and leaving Apple alone.

> Amit Midha of Dell also indicated that his company plans to launch “a whole slew” of new products in the next 6-12 months, including a 10-inch tablet closer in size to Apple’s 9.7-inch iPad. Midha said his company will offer products in multiple sizes, including three and four inches, and some of them will run Microsoft Windows instead of Android. > > He also revealed that Dell will provide tablets running Google’s lightweight Chrome OS operating system, designed for low-cost netbooks and lightweight [portable devices](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/19/google_outlines_chrome_os_plans_for_netbooks.html). Google’s browser-based operating system is set to launch this fall. So the Dell strategy boils down to “release one of everything and see which one does well.” That’s how you lead the industry, let me tell you.

No unification on platform; no unification on form factor. Just a “slew” of products that have little to nothing in common. What could possibly be wrong with that plan?

> But none of the other options we’ve tested have felt as simple, solid, and easy to use as the new Apple TV. Putting content concerns aside (which admittedly is difficult to do), the Apple TV has a lot going for it. The video and audio quality of the Apple TV is to be lauded, the company *is* making a lot of high quality titles available right off the bat, sharing from your current computers is a snap, and if you’re a Netflix user, the inclusion here is perfectly seamless. The question is ultimately about ease versus options — right now it’s hard to whole-heartedly recommend the Apple TV even at its $99 price point given the thin list of partners Apple has courted. If you just want a dead simple movie rental box and you’re not that picky about content, the Apple TV is a no-brainer. If, like us, you’re looking for options good enough to make you can the cable, Apple’s new box still feels a lot like a hobby. As I’ve mentioned about a bazillion times before, Apple TV’s biggest issue is something Apple can’t fix: content.

The reviews for the new version are going to all sound pretty much like Engadet’s here. They’re going to love the device, love the interface, and hate the fact that there is not enough content in the iTunes store.

The part I find odd is that other than the $99 price tag and the inclusion of Netflix, there’s nothing the new Apple TV can do that the old one couldn’t; in fact, the old one was actually a MORE capable device. Yet everyone slammed that one for years as a poor effort. Apple literally took features away, did the bare minimum to get a cheaper version out, and the press rewarded them for it. Buyers will as well, I suspect.

It’s mostly about that $99 of course. The “what the hell” price, as my friend Webomatica likes to put it. And that’s okay with me. I just wish people would admit that they’re cheapskates.

So Apple TV remains a hobby, albeit a hobby that is more likely now to generate some revenue for Apple. Perhaps they’ll finally start giving us sales stats. That’s when you’ll know whether or not this cheap price scheme was a success.

Maybe a larger installed base will give Apple a better bargaining position with the content owners, too. But I’m not holding my breath.