Contrary to some people here who think their own needs in some way represent everyone's needs, I do see a place for a netbook + tablet hybrid, even an ARM-based version of it, especially one with Microsoft Office installed.
An iPad is a content delivery platform, and not always an optimal one at that, as the lack of physical controls makes it unsuitable for most kinds of hardcore handheld gaming, and even simpler tasks such as chatting online can be quite unpleasant on the iPad. It's good to deliver media, but unsuitable for anything else. Those are areas where netbooks shine, except netbooks usually don't come with UMTS/LTE connectivity, decent cameras, high-definition displays, or GPSes, whereas tablets do.
As a developer with both kinds of needs, I have to carry both an iPad and a MaBook Pro whenever I leave home for extended periods of time (not to mention an iPhone, but I carry that everywhere) when a proper netbook + tablet solution would suit me perfectly. Unfortunately I've tried many OEM solutions in the past and they all sucked in more than one way such as by lacking mobile connectivity, GPS functionality, using TN screens in devices that are expected to rotate, and relying on crappy resistive touch screens. Assuming that Microsoft does it right, the Ivy Bridge version of Surface will suit my needs perfectly!
The need for a general-purpose netbook + tablet solution is not restricted to my kind of profile, however. For example: how many of you use Pages, Numbers, or Keynote on the iPad? How many of you use Office on the iPad? I doubt that many of you do, because it's impractical without a keyboard clam shell case. And what do you get when you stuff an iPad into a keyboard clam shell case? A netbook + tablet hybrid with a huge battery life! Problem is, the iPad is not designed to be a netbook; it is very far from behind a general purpose computer; you can't connect a mouse or any kind of game controller to it even if you want to (because the bluetooth HID profile on it is restricted to keyboards); you can't attach external drives to it, so you are always limited to its own storage (and no, the cloud is no replacement, you won't be downloading gigabytes of data through your mobile connection only to watch a movie). These are all needs that the ARM version of Surface can address!
I'm glad that, for the first time, Microsoft is actually coming out to (at least try to) show OEMs how they expect it to be done. Will they succeed? Only time will tell! I'm not too hopeful, since Microsoft doesn't seem to have what it takes to pull this kind of stunt, but I am not one to underestimate anyone, and I truly wish that they come up with something great for a change, because I need a proper netbook + tablet hybrid and Apple won't be doing it.
Look at Acer Iconia sales. That'll give you some idea of how the "netbook + tablet hybrid" concept is doing.
You'll note that it isn't really blowing away consumers. I doubt a clever Smart Cover-with-keyboard will make much of a difference.
Yes, the partners in all likelihood would have produced excellent products based on a reference specification, probably exceeding it. I do not understand what MS is playing at by offending their partners.
Lots of very valid, reasonable opinions about how MSFT is going about this and about the product itself. No matter what, at least at this time, it has had the intended effect. Lots of chatter on the street. As much as some may like or dislike the product as we know it right now, we are all still talking about it. That is a positive for MSFT. The question is whether the buzz will continue. Some of this will depend on when more information is forthcoming from MSFT.
I also think one of the reasons for this announcement was to keep consumers/business from going with an iPad or an Android tablet. From a consumer standpoint, I am not sure that will be a success. I think when people want a tablet and have the money or reason to purchase a tablet, they will go ahead and do it. Business/enterprise might be another story. There might be enough in this announcement to freeze some plans to go with an iPad or Android tablet. The IT infrastructure may still have enough sway to try to force at least a consideration of a MSFT tablet with the promise of interactivity with the desktop not available on an iPad. This may also be a bit of a stretch because it will probably take a while for corporate infrastructure to cozy up to Windows 8 or will this be a bit of a carrot to get them to upgrade? Still lots of questions but not a lot of answers because of the vagueness of the MSFT offering at this time.
I am also of the camp that MSFT felt they had to do things this way. The questions I would have is did they try to sit down with Dell and HP and come up with some minimal specs and were rebuffed? Did MSFT let HP and Dell come up with plans of their own and decided they didn't like them and went their own way? Or did MSFT want to do this from the start, thinking they could do the best job and put their best foot forward with this tablet, realizing that if they don't hit a home run with this, it puts them deeper in the hole in their battle with Apple and Google? My guess is the last scenario. The feeling I get from the announcement is that there is a hint of desperation at MSFT right now. Maybe it is because Ballmer has a lot riding on this. If this fails, then I think he will be gone.
HP, Dell and the other PC makers were hung out to dry by this tablet. No doubt about it. I think they were all hoping to come up with the Windows tablet holy grail that would increase corporate profits, pride and visibility. But there is still a way for them to profit from this. If they can come up with a system that interacts with the tablet in a novel way that adds some unforeseen functionality that catches on, that could be a winner. Of course, it wouldn't take long for the copy machines at the other manufacturers to ramp up so the window of opportunity would be somewhat short lived.
Without a tablet to help drive increased profits for the PC makers, does that mean we will see a round of consolidations in the pc arena? Does Dell cozy up to someone that has their own operating system that they can call their own? Does HP quietly develop for WebOS? Does it make sense for HP and Dell to get together and try to drive WebOS as a secondary system and come up with an ecosystem that is outside of windows? I am invested in Apple and I want them to continue to succeed but I would like to see a company like HP get back to their roots and innovate something nice. My first programmable calculator was one of those HP handhelds many years ago in college and I do have a soft spot for them and would like to see them rise up again.
As always time will tell what will happen but until we see what unfolds, it is fun to speculate(or is it gossiping) around the old server rack.
Zune is introduced leaving PFS partners in the toilet.
Zune has some interesting features but nothing terribly exciting or anything that hasn't been done before.
Zune cannot displace the iPod lineup no matter how superior it might have been considered next to the iPod lineup.
Microsoft basically calls it a night on the Zune focusing on integrating technologies and UI/UX from Zune into WP7.
Surface is introduced leaving W8/Metro tablet/ultra-book partners making their way to the toilet.
Surface has some interesting features but nothing terribly exciting or anything that hasn't been done before. (yes the keyboard cover is interesting but the technology to make a keyboard that thin has been around for a while)
Surface doesn't exist outside of a demonstration and is likely right now still in the bespoke one-off stages of development even though the demonstration model(s) looked quite finished and polished.
Microsoft will market it to consumers but nobody will do a "Surface Release Party". The product will likely sell to Microsoft enthusiasts and techies that abhor Apple because its Apple and are tired of the garbage coming from the Android camp. This assumes that it actually gets produced in sufficient numbers and avoids Microsoft's love of turning interesting ideas into vaporware and never producing anything beyond mock-ups.
Seriously. This is desperation. When Apple reveals a new device or a new OS, they show you all the amazing things said device/OS can do and hint at and show what some developers/accessory makers already have in the pipeline. They already have production pretty much ramped up to full-steam-ahead and everything will be ready in a week or two. Even amidst criticism about the device in those two or so weeks, the sales numbers tell the story. When Microsoft reveals a new device, the demonstration model crashes and everyone on stage ends up with a bit of egg on their face. There's no real timeline in place for production. There's no price range. There's no idea as to what it can really do beyond mobile office/Internet browsing. Nobody gets to really see what this thing is capable of as there's really nothing to show beyond a few tappable items and some text fields. Where are the apps? Where are the games? What will this thing do that Apple's iPad can't do? Or rather, what will this thing do that Apple's iPad can't do that people will actually want to do? This thing has no defined eco-system. It has no defined level of developer interest. If Microsoft can pull all of this together before the Surface comes out, they may have a shot at cutting deep into Android tablet sales. I just don't see it doing anything but maybe a mere dent in iPad sales. If even.
HDMI and USB are nice but the lack of those built-in ports hasn't stopped millions from buying iPads (myself included). So while technically, this thing maybe considered superior to the iPad in terms of specs and hardware...will it displace the iPad? I'm not convinced. A lot of Apple critics are...but they'll buy into anything (even vaporware) that could potentially destroy Apple's lead. So far the only real way Apple has lost ground is when Android does BOGOs up the wazoo. In other words, Microsoft is gonna have to give one Surface away per every unit sold. Profits be damned.
Cue Balmer feverish, sweat-induced-chair-throwing in 3...2...1.
Contrary to some people here who think their own needs in some way represent everyone's needs, I do see a place for a netbook + tablet hybrid, even an ARM-based version of it, especially one with Microsoft Office installed....
Unfortunately, although a "netbook + tablet hybrid" may not be entirely a solution in search of a problem, buying one will be like buying a Crescent wrench to maintain your car: you'll end up with a lot of stripped nuts, skinned knuckles and it just won't work at all for you in some cases.
Chrome OS is still an infant (and web-only at present) but, say what you like about their scruples, Google is much, much smarter than MS. If it's in their interests to develop a full PC OS they can and will. Remember Netscape Constellation? It was headed off and killed by MS but Mr Gates was in charge of things then.
IMO, Chrome OS just shows Google's blinders in the same way as this new Surface hardware illuminates the blinders Microsoft is wearing.
To Google, everything is a web page, (just as everything looks like a nail if you are a hammer), and let's face it, Chrome OS is at root, just a browser. Google thinks the web is all there is, and that no more innovation is necessary other than getting more people connected to more web pages. They don't understand why anyone would see the web any other way.
Of course they did. He's still whining like an infant over the fact that he wasn't allowed to blackmail a company with tens of billions of dollars worth of their stolen intellectual property.
"Allies"? Gizmodo is staunchly anti-Apple, and they're banned from all Apple events.
What's amazing to me is how desperate the general tech media pundits are to tout this PC with a detachable keyboard as new, innovative, and competitive with Apple. Of course the articles typically have Apple in the title and mention Apple in every sentence to ensure they get more hits. The keyboard is a necessity when you're running that metro UI/desktop kluge known as Win 8. No ship date, no price, and the tech pundits are calling it an iPad killer and the Apple loathing goons at Gizmodo think it's a MacBook Air killer too. I'd actually like to see Microsoft come up with a great tablet but this isn't it.
The trouble with firing Balmer is that like many corporations in their situation, Microsoft's executives have been purged so many times there isn't any likely person hanging around that can step in and take the CEO's place. Also, as much as we love to hate him, Balmer actually represents both hope, as well as the days of past glory for Microsoft's board and shareholders. It's hard to decide to give that up.
The rational thing to do would be to fire Balmer and do a basic re-organisation of the company as is always done in cases like this, paring off the less profitable areas of the company and the bloat and re-focussing on their core strengths. To do that however, they have to get rid of all the cool stuff like X-Box etc. and turn back into the most boring software company on earth just making regular old windows (updated each year though) and Office. They could get a bit of pizzaz back by making Office actually compatible, and by extending it's reach into all the other OS's that they previously eschewed, but that's about it.
So ... to get rid of Balmer, they have to basically give up on all their dreams of conquering Apple and the greater PC market.
Not only that, the price of software, especially OS's and productivity software is falling through the floor. Even if they get back into their core market of software production, they'd have to reduce costs by multiple orders of magnitude just to stay profitable.
I don't understand why the media have been so conned into reporting this as the product that will knock down the iPad. That story has been done so often it's become ridiculous. The only thing Microsoft adds to the game is some hardware innovation that no one really wants.
Clearly you weren't around during the iPod-killer era! I think there was a new "killer" every few months. Unfortunately for every one else, it was the iPhone that ended up killing the iPod.
And then of course came the iPhone-killers. The only phone that has come close to iPhone like sales are the Galaxy phones, which look a lot like the iPhone... go figure.
What's amazing to me is how desperate the general tech media pundits are to tout this PC with a detachable keyboard as new, innovative, and competitive with Apple. Of course the articles typically have Apple in the title and mention Apple in every sentence to ensure they get more hits. The keyboard is a necessity when you're running that metro UI/desktop kluge known as Win 8. No ship date, no price, and the tech pundits are calling it an iPad killer and the Apple loathing goons at Gizmodo think it's a MacBook Air killer too. I'd actually like to see Microsoft come up with a great tablet but this isn't it.
Not to mention that the keyboard doesn't actually work, given that Microsoft wouldn't let anyone type on it.
The reality is that the "surface tablet" Microsoft announced doesn't actually exist. It's an open question whether it ever will exist in the exact form they presented.
PC manufacturers should have banned together long ago to get out of the Microsoft monopolistic funk. Surely, the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, and Acer could have commissioned a new OS that all of them could take part in, and throw MS to the curb. Linux could have also been a project that they could have bought into, and done the same thing. Just a couple of years ago it was reported that the PC manufacturers met with Microsoft to tell them how to make Windows 7, as they knew things that MS did not. Either way, they didn't plot their own course, and stayed the course with MS, so now they are going to pay for it in a variety of ways.
I like how MS cites peripheral innovations such as the 'mouse'. Wasn't that stolen from Xerox eons ago? DOS was also basically ripped off. This company is the antithesis of innovation, and has a whole host of execution problems. The rubber will meet the road when a real copy of the Surface can be reviewed, and I don't have any confidence in ball sack to launch this thing.
They only have themselves to blame for being a "partner" of Micro$oft. Micro$oft _always_ stabs their "partners" in the back. Always. Do these idiot clone makers not keep track of history? I never understood why the Dells, HPs, Nokia, etc... would ever be a slave to Micro$oft but there are clueless CEOs all over the place. After the cloners pay the Micro$oft tax, they have pennies left over. What is the difference between the cloner machines? there is none.
The trouble with firing Balmer is that like many corporations in their situation, Microsoft's executives have been purged so many times there isn't any likely person hanging around that can step in and take the CEO's place. Also, as much as we love to hate him, Balmer actually represents both hope, as well as the days of past glory for Microsoft's board and shareholders. It's hard to decide to give that up.
The rational thing to do would be to fire Balmer and do a basic re-organisation of the company as is always done in cases like this, paring off the less profitable areas of the company and the bloat and re-focussing on their core strengths. To do that however, they have to get rid of all the cool stuff like X-Box etc. and turn back into the most boring software company on earth just making regular old windows (updated each year though) and Office. They could get a bit of pizzaz back by making Office actually compatible, and by extending it's reach into all the other OS's that they previously eschewed, but that's about it.
So ... to get rid of Balmer, they have to basically give up on all their dreams of conquering Apple and the greater PC market.
Not only that, the price of software, especially OS's and productivity software is falling through the floor. Even if they get back into their core market of software production, they'd have to reduce costs by multiple orders of magnitude just to stay profitable.
I agree... basically, Ballmer is a symptom, he's not the disease.
Just a few days ago Apple had their WWDC keynote, where it was duly noted and complained about, that the 15" Retina MBP is now the sole "Pro" machine offered by Apple, and the 17" would no longer be available.
Here at AI and on some other boards I frequent.... it was stated numerous times how "pros"... to get "real work" done mind you... need all of that real estate and power that only a 17" can deliver. They threatened and vowed many times to leave Apple devices and move on to "????".
So now the "pros" are all going to go out and buy a 10", 16:9 device with lower resolution instead? For north of 1k? Just because of the keyboard/clickpad, mouse... and a battery-powered stylis? Do people really think that they are going to get responsive performance from the Surface Pro?
I'm reading how everyone is taking Angiula at his word, and looking forward to playing Crysis, loading AutoCad, Photoshop, etc. Well I have a problem with the presentation that maybe some others have noticed.
I think the Lightroom demo was faked and a video.
1) LR was opened after an impressive fast USB3 copy of 1 gb worth of pictures, and made to look like it was they that were being ingested into LR. Well anyone that knows LR, also knows there is a dialog field; or at the very least... if the entire desktop is auto-synced, the grid-view would be the first you would see.
2) The LR opening progress-bar never made it past 1/4. While this does happen sometimes with all Adobe software, in this case when the picture came into view, there was a nasty flicker of the screen, and an odd resizing of the window. Just the projector?
3) When Angiula was playing with the trackpad (or mouse) which we couldn't see, and explaining how he was going to adjust something.... nothing happened. In fact the curser never moved.
I've downloaded the entire presentation for posterity sake, and have watched just that passage a few times now because it's so important to a number of my photo clients. Curious if anyone else noticed that.
While I want to believe MS.... and I have potential clients that would love to believe this device is better than an iPad for what they do... why do I have a funny feeling that this could be delayed... and may never even make it to market. Just like the Courier.
No doubt whatsoever...and it was painfully obvious, that those devices on display were only prototypes. No one... whether Sinofski, Angiulo or Panay... who all held it like a platter of fish... and later including the invited guests.... no one really "played" with the devices or were allowed to.
I'm not pointing to some conspiracy... this was all on display... or not as you may have it... for everyone to see.
Last shred of "Amateur-Hour Presented by Microsoft" evidence: it has been noted that on the Surface.com website, there is the disclaimer at the bottom that the actual pictures are RENDERINGS, not photos.
Because MS has done this before... AND has stuck themselves in hot water with their OEMS over this... and that Surface Pro is supposed to launch 3-4 months AFTER the launch of Surface RT.... hmmmm....?!?!
What if the little Lipstick-Piggy never makes it to market? What then? Or even delayed and scheduled to arrive just about the same time as the next gen iPad? Will they push it out unfinished? Wait until after Apple?
Just some, "Get the popcorn... this might be entertaining" guessing
We know MS can spin **it with the best of 'em... so what's your thoughts?
That is if anyone is still here.... or... anyone still care????
What's amazing to me is how desperate the general tech media pundits are to tout this PC with a detachable keyboard as new, innovative, and competitive with Apple. Of course the articles typically have Apple in the title and mention Apple in every sentence to ensure they get more hits. The keyboard is a necessity when you're running that metro UI/desktop kluge known as Win 8. No ship date, no price, and the tech pundits are calling it an iPad killer and the Apple loathing goons at Gizmodo think it's a MacBook Air killer too. I'd actually like to see Microsoft come up with a great tablet but this isn't it.
Actually, when it comes to the press, they always find a narrative context, because it gives meaning to the 'story' they're trying to tell. However, this ends up amping minor conflicts and mistakes into 'stories of the week' which has really started to make me wonder: how much of what we think is going on is spun by the press. Instead of: here are the facts: "Surface specs, no prices, no date, Windows 8, you decide" we get "Microsoft wants to out-Apple Apple and betrayed hardware partners to get it!" Is that what's really going on, or are the press writing another episode of a reality TV show called Microsoft vs. Apple: The Epic Miniseries? I really don't care for the press to tell me what it means, just give me the facts, and let me think for myself. And it doesn't matter whether it's AppleInsider or Wall Street Journal. I mean, the only difference between them is one pays better and spell-checks their content.
Look at Acer Iconia sales. That'll give you some idea of how the "netbook + tablet hybrid" concept is doing.
You'll note that it isn't really blowing away consumers. I doubt a clever Smart Cover-with-keyboard will make much of a difference.
As I mentioned in my post (which I suppose you read), I have actually tried a few of these OEM hybrids before and have always been dissatisfied for a number of reasons, ranging from the use of TN screens, to the use of resistive touch screens, to lack of proper support from the OS (Windows 7 isn't exactly ideal for a tablet), to lack of mobile connectivity, to lack of GPS, etc. All the tablets I tried were either too focused into being cheap netbooks with tablet functionality (the overwhelming majority) or tablets with keyboards) or into being too tablet-y thus not resembling a PC at all other then by having a physical keyboard.
Microsoft has a chance to change the entire game with Windows 8 and their own tablet here, though. With software specifically designed with a tablet interface in mind and a tablet specifically designed to take advantage of it, the potential to make the perfect hybrid is there, and there's nothing currently in the market that you can use to predict what it will be like, because what Microsoft is attempting is something genuinely new; they finally grew the balls to come out and tap into a market in which Apple refuses to participate. They might not have created the tablet market, but they can improve it tremendously.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Contrary to some people here who think their own needs in some way represent everyone's needs, I do see a place for a netbook + tablet hybrid, even an ARM-based version of it, especially one with Microsoft Office installed.
An iPad is a content delivery platform, and not always an optimal one at that, as the lack of physical controls makes it unsuitable for most kinds of hardcore handheld gaming, and even simpler tasks such as chatting online can be quite unpleasant on the iPad. It's good to deliver media, but unsuitable for anything else. Those are areas where netbooks shine, except netbooks usually don't come with UMTS/LTE connectivity, decent cameras, high-definition displays, or GPSes, whereas tablets do.
As a developer with both kinds of needs, I have to carry both an iPad and a MaBook Pro whenever I leave home for extended periods of time (not to mention an iPhone, but I carry that everywhere) when a proper netbook + tablet solution would suit me perfectly. Unfortunately I've tried many OEM solutions in the past and they all sucked in more than one way such as by lacking mobile connectivity, GPS functionality, using TN screens in devices that are expected to rotate, and relying on crappy resistive touch screens. Assuming that Microsoft does it right, the Ivy Bridge version of Surface will suit my needs perfectly!
The need for a general-purpose netbook + tablet solution is not restricted to my kind of profile, however. For example: how many of you use Pages, Numbers, or Keynote on the iPad? How many of you use Office on the iPad? I doubt that many of you do, because it's impractical without a keyboard clam shell case. And what do you get when you stuff an iPad into a keyboard clam shell case? A netbook + tablet hybrid with a huge battery life! Problem is, the iPad is not designed to be a netbook; it is very far from behind a general purpose computer; you can't connect a mouse or any kind of game controller to it even if you want to (because the bluetooth HID profile on it is restricted to keyboards); you can't attach external drives to it, so you are always limited to its own storage (and no, the cloud is no replacement, you won't be downloading gigabytes of data through your mobile connection only to watch a movie). These are all needs that the ARM version of Surface can address!
I'm glad that, for the first time, Microsoft is actually coming out to (at least try to) show OEMs how they expect it to be done. Will they succeed? Only time will tell! I'm not too hopeful, since Microsoft doesn't seem to have what it takes to pull this kind of stunt, but I am not one to underestimate anyone, and I truly wish that they come up with something great for a change, because I need a proper netbook + tablet hybrid and Apple won't be doing it.
Look at Acer Iconia sales. That'll give you some idea of how the "netbook + tablet hybrid" concept is doing.
You'll note that it isn't really blowing away consumers. I doubt a clever Smart Cover-with-keyboard will make much of a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
That is very good advice!
I posted this on another thread...
Yes, the partners in all likelihood would have produced excellent products based on a reference specification, probably exceeding it. I do not understand what MS is playing at by offending their partners.
Lots of very valid, reasonable opinions about how MSFT is going about this and about the product itself. No matter what, at least at this time, it has had the intended effect. Lots of chatter on the street. As much as some may like or dislike the product as we know it right now, we are all still talking about it. That is a positive for MSFT. The question is whether the buzz will continue. Some of this will depend on when more information is forthcoming from MSFT.
I also think one of the reasons for this announcement was to keep consumers/business from going with an iPad or an Android tablet. From a consumer standpoint, I am not sure that will be a success. I think when people want a tablet and have the money or reason to purchase a tablet, they will go ahead and do it. Business/enterprise might be another story. There might be enough in this announcement to freeze some plans to go with an iPad or Android tablet. The IT infrastructure may still have enough sway to try to force at least a consideration of a MSFT tablet with the promise of interactivity with the desktop not available on an iPad. This may also be a bit of a stretch because it will probably take a while for corporate infrastructure to cozy up to Windows 8 or will this be a bit of a carrot to get them to upgrade? Still lots of questions but not a lot of answers because of the vagueness of the MSFT offering at this time.
I am also of the camp that MSFT felt they had to do things this way. The questions I would have is did they try to sit down with Dell and HP and come up with some minimal specs and were rebuffed? Did MSFT let HP and Dell come up with plans of their own and decided they didn't like them and went their own way? Or did MSFT want to do this from the start, thinking they could do the best job and put their best foot forward with this tablet, realizing that if they don't hit a home run with this, it puts them deeper in the hole in their battle with Apple and Google? My guess is the last scenario. The feeling I get from the announcement is that there is a hint of desperation at MSFT right now. Maybe it is because Ballmer has a lot riding on this. If this fails, then I think he will be gone.
HP, Dell and the other PC makers were hung out to dry by this tablet. No doubt about it. I think they were all hoping to come up with the Windows tablet holy grail that would increase corporate profits, pride and visibility. But there is still a way for them to profit from this. If they can come up with a system that interacts with the tablet in a novel way that adds some unforeseen functionality that catches on, that could be a winner. Of course, it wouldn't take long for the copy machines at the other manufacturers to ramp up so the window of opportunity would be somewhat short lived.
Without a tablet to help drive increased profits for the PC makers, does that mean we will see a round of consolidations in the pc arena? Does Dell cozy up to someone that has their own operating system that they can call their own? Does HP quietly develop for WebOS? Does it make sense for HP and Dell to get together and try to drive WebOS as a secondary system and come up with an ecosystem that is outside of windows? I am invested in Apple and I want them to continue to succeed but I would like to see a company like HP get back to their roots and innovate something nice. My first programmable calculator was one of those HP handhelds many years ago in college and I do have a soft spot for them and would like to see them rise up again.
As always time will tell what will happen but until we see what unfolds, it is fun to speculate(or is it gossiping) around the old server rack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Then, they'll do what they should have done in the first place.
Fire Ballmer?
This wreaks of the whole Zune debacle.
Zune is introduced leaving PFS partners in the toilet.
Zune has some interesting features but nothing terribly exciting or anything that hasn't been done before.
Zune cannot displace the iPod lineup no matter how superior it might have been considered next to the iPod lineup.
Microsoft basically calls it a night on the Zune focusing on integrating technologies and UI/UX from Zune into WP7.
Surface is introduced leaving W8/Metro tablet/ultra-book partners making their way to the toilet.
Surface has some interesting features but nothing terribly exciting or anything that hasn't been done before. (yes the keyboard cover is interesting but the technology to make a keyboard that thin has been around for a while)
Surface doesn't exist outside of a demonstration and is likely right now still in the bespoke one-off stages of development even though the demonstration model(s) looked quite finished and polished.
Microsoft will market it to consumers but nobody will do a "Surface Release Party". The product will likely sell to Microsoft enthusiasts and techies that abhor Apple because its Apple and are tired of the garbage coming from the Android camp. This assumes that it actually gets produced in sufficient numbers and avoids Microsoft's love of turning interesting ideas into vaporware and never producing anything beyond mock-ups.
Seriously. This is desperation. When Apple reveals a new device or a new OS, they show you all the amazing things said device/OS can do and hint at and show what some developers/accessory makers already have in the pipeline. They already have production pretty much ramped up to full-steam-ahead and everything will be ready in a week or two. Even amidst criticism about the device in those two or so weeks, the sales numbers tell the story. When Microsoft reveals a new device, the demonstration model crashes and everyone on stage ends up with a bit of egg on their face. There's no real timeline in place for production. There's no price range. There's no idea as to what it can really do beyond mobile office/Internet browsing. Nobody gets to really see what this thing is capable of as there's really nothing to show beyond a few tappable items and some text fields. Where are the apps? Where are the games? What will this thing do that Apple's iPad can't do? Or rather, what will this thing do that Apple's iPad can't do that people will actually want to do? This thing has no defined eco-system. It has no defined level of developer interest. If Microsoft can pull all of this together before the Surface comes out, they may have a shot at cutting deep into Android tablet sales. I just don't see it doing anything but maybe a mere dent in iPad sales. If even.
HDMI and USB are nice but the lack of those built-in ports hasn't stopped millions from buying iPads (myself included). So while technically, this thing maybe considered superior to the iPad in terms of specs and hardware...will it displace the iPad? I'm not convinced. A lot of Apple critics are...but they'll buy into anything (even vaporware) that could potentially destroy Apple's lead. So far the only real way Apple has lost ground is when Android does BOGOs up the wazoo. In other words, Microsoft is gonna have to give one Surface away per every unit sold. Profits be damned.
Cue Balmer feverish, sweat-induced-chair-throwing in 3...2...1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Contrary to some people here who think their own needs in some way represent everyone's needs, I do see a place for a netbook + tablet hybrid, even an ARM-based version of it, especially one with Microsoft Office installed....
Unfortunately, although a "netbook + tablet hybrid" may not be entirely a solution in search of a problem, buying one will be like buying a Crescent wrench to maintain your car: you'll end up with a lot of stripped nuts, skinned knuckles and it just won't work at all for you in some cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos
Chrome OS is still an infant (and web-only at present) but, say what you like about their scruples, Google is much, much smarter than MS. If it's in their interests to develop a full PC OS they can and will. Remember Netscape Constellation? It was headed off and killed by MS but Mr Gates was in charge of things then.
IMO, Chrome OS just shows Google's blinders in the same way as this new Surface hardware illuminates the blinders Microsoft is wearing.
To Google, everything is a web page, (just as everything looks like a nail if you are a hammer), and let's face it, Chrome OS is at root, just a browser. Google thinks the web is all there is, and that no more innovation is necessary other than getting more people connected to more web pages. They don't understand why anyone would see the web any other way.
Of course they did. He's still whining like an infant over the fact that he wasn't allowed to blackmail a company with tens of billions of dollars worth of their stolen intellectual property.
"Allies"? Gizmodo is staunchly anti-Apple, and they're banned from all Apple events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Fire Ballmer?
The trouble with firing Balmer is that like many corporations in their situation, Microsoft's executives have been purged so many times there isn't any likely person hanging around that can step in and take the CEO's place. Also, as much as we love to hate him, Balmer actually represents both hope, as well as the days of past glory for Microsoft's board and shareholders. It's hard to decide to give that up.
The rational thing to do would be to fire Balmer and do a basic re-organisation of the company as is always done in cases like this, paring off the less profitable areas of the company and the bloat and re-focussing on their core strengths. To do that however, they have to get rid of all the cool stuff like X-Box etc. and turn back into the most boring software company on earth just making regular old windows (updated each year though) and Office. They could get a bit of pizzaz back by making Office actually compatible, and by extending it's reach into all the other OS's that they previously eschewed, but that's about it.
So ... to get rid of Balmer, they have to basically give up on all their dreams of conquering Apple and the greater PC market.
Not only that, the price of software, especially OS's and productivity software is falling through the floor. Even if they get back into their core market of software production, they'd have to reduce costs by multiple orders of magnitude just to stay profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm
I don't understand why the media have been so conned into reporting this as the product that will knock down the iPad. That story has been done so often it's become ridiculous. The only thing Microsoft adds to the game is some hardware innovation that no one really wants.
Clearly you weren't around during the iPod-killer era! I think there was a new "killer" every few months. Unfortunately for every one else, it was the iPhone that ended up killing the iPod.
And then of course came the iPhone-killers. The only phone that has come close to iPhone like sales are the Galaxy phones, which look a lot like the iPhone... go figure.
And naturally, now we have the iPad-killers.
It's not a difficult hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
What's amazing to me is how desperate the general tech media pundits are to tout this PC with a detachable keyboard as new, innovative, and competitive with Apple. Of course the articles typically have Apple in the title and mention Apple in every sentence to ensure they get more hits. The keyboard is a necessity when you're running that metro UI/desktop kluge known as Win 8. No ship date, no price, and the tech pundits are calling it an iPad killer and the Apple loathing goons at Gizmodo think it's a MacBook Air killer too. I'd actually like to see Microsoft come up with a great tablet but this isn't it.
Not to mention that the keyboard doesn't actually work, given that Microsoft wouldn't let anyone type on it.
The reality is that the "surface tablet" Microsoft announced doesn't actually exist. It's an open question whether it ever will exist in the exact form they presented.
PC manufacturers should have banned together long ago to get out of the Microsoft monopolistic funk. Surely, the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, and Acer could have commissioned a new OS that all of them could take part in, and throw MS to the curb. Linux could have also been a project that they could have bought into, and done the same thing. Just a couple of years ago it was reported that the PC manufacturers met with Microsoft to tell them how to make Windows 7, as they knew things that MS did not. Either way, they didn't plot their own course, and stayed the course with MS, so now they are going to pay for it in a variety of ways.
I like how MS cites peripheral innovations such as the 'mouse'. Wasn't that stolen from Xerox eons ago? DOS was also basically ripped off. This company is the antithesis of innovation, and has a whole host of execution problems. The rubber will meet the road when a real copy of the Surface can be reviewed, and I don't have any confidence in ball sack to launch this thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishstick_kitty
Soooo...In summary: Change is uncomfortable.
Soooo....In summary: Microsoft 'betraying' its own hardware partners is uncomfortable.
They only have themselves to blame for being a "partner" of Micro$oft. Micro$oft _always_ stabs their "partners" in the back. Always. Do these idiot clone makers not keep track of history? I never understood why the Dells, HPs, Nokia, etc... would ever be a slave to Micro$oft but there are clueless CEOs all over the place. After the cloners pay the Micro$oft tax, they have pennies left over. What is the difference between the cloner machines? there is none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The trouble with firing Balmer is that like many corporations in their situation, Microsoft's executives have been purged so many times there isn't any likely person hanging around that can step in and take the CEO's place. Also, as much as we love to hate him, Balmer actually represents both hope, as well as the days of past glory for Microsoft's board and shareholders. It's hard to decide to give that up.
The rational thing to do would be to fire Balmer and do a basic re-organisation of the company as is always done in cases like this, paring off the less profitable areas of the company and the bloat and re-focussing on their core strengths. To do that however, they have to get rid of all the cool stuff like X-Box etc. and turn back into the most boring software company on earth just making regular old windows (updated each year though) and Office. They could get a bit of pizzaz back by making Office actually compatible, and by extending it's reach into all the other OS's that they previously eschewed, but that's about it.
So ... to get rid of Balmer, they have to basically give up on all their dreams of conquering Apple and the greater PC market.
Not only that, the price of software, especially OS's and productivity software is falling through the floor. Even if they get back into their core market of software production, they'd have to reduce costs by multiple orders of magnitude just to stay profitable.
I agree... basically, Ballmer is a symptom, he's not the disease.
Just a few days ago Apple had their WWDC keynote, where it was duly noted and complained about, that the 15" Retina MBP is now the sole "Pro" machine offered by Apple, and the 17" would no longer be available.
Here at AI and on some other boards I frequent.... it was stated numerous times how "pros"... to get "real work" done mind you... need all of that real estate and power that only a 17" can deliver. They threatened and vowed many times to leave Apple devices and move on to "????".
So now the "pros" are all going to go out and buy a 10", 16:9 device with lower resolution instead? For north of 1k? Just because of the keyboard/clickpad, mouse... and a battery-powered stylis? Do people really think that they are going to get responsive performance from the Surface Pro?
I'm reading how everyone is taking Angiula at his word, and looking forward to playing Crysis, loading AutoCad, Photoshop, etc. Well I have a problem with the presentation that maybe some others have noticed.
I think the Lightroom demo was faked and a video.
1) LR was opened after an impressive fast USB3 copy of 1 gb worth of pictures, and made to look like it was they that were being ingested into LR. Well anyone that knows LR, also knows there is a dialog field; or at the very least... if the entire desktop is auto-synced, the grid-view would be the first you would see.
2) The LR opening progress-bar never made it past 1/4. While this does happen sometimes with all Adobe software, in this case when the picture came into view, there was a nasty flicker of the screen, and an odd resizing of the window. Just the projector?
3) When Angiula was playing with the trackpad (or mouse) which we couldn't see, and explaining how he was going to adjust something.... nothing happened. In fact the curser never moved.
I've downloaded the entire presentation for posterity sake, and have watched just that passage a few times now because it's so important to a number of my photo clients. Curious if anyone else noticed that.
While I want to believe MS.... and I have potential clients that would love to believe this device is better than an iPad for what they do... why do I have a funny feeling that this could be delayed... and may never even make it to market. Just like the Courier.
No doubt whatsoever...and it was painfully obvious, that those devices on display were only prototypes. No one... whether Sinofski, Angiulo or Panay... who all held it like a platter of fish... and later including the invited guests.... no one really "played" with the devices or were allowed to.
I'm not pointing to some conspiracy... this was all on display... or not as you may have it... for everyone to see.
Last shred of "Amateur-Hour Presented by Microsoft" evidence: it has been noted that on the Surface.com website, there is the disclaimer at the bottom that the actual pictures are RENDERINGS, not photos.
Because MS has done this before... AND has stuck themselves in hot water with their OEMS over this... and that Surface Pro is supposed to launch 3-4 months AFTER the launch of Surface RT.... hmmmm....?!?!
What if the little Lipstick-Piggy never makes it to market? What then? Or even delayed and scheduled to arrive just about the same time as the next gen iPad? Will they push it out unfinished? Wait until after Apple?
Just some, "Get the popcorn... this might be entertaining" guessing
We know MS can spin **it with the best of 'em... so what's your thoughts?
That is if anyone is still here.... or... anyone still care????
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
What's amazing to me is how desperate the general tech media pundits are to tout this PC with a detachable keyboard as new, innovative, and competitive with Apple. Of course the articles typically have Apple in the title and mention Apple in every sentence to ensure they get more hits. The keyboard is a necessity when you're running that metro UI/desktop kluge known as Win 8. No ship date, no price, and the tech pundits are calling it an iPad killer and the Apple loathing goons at Gizmodo think it's a MacBook Air killer too. I'd actually like to see Microsoft come up with a great tablet but this isn't it.
Actually, when it comes to the press, they always find a narrative context, because it gives meaning to the 'story' they're trying to tell. However, this ends up amping minor conflicts and mistakes into 'stories of the week' which has really started to make me wonder: how much of what we think is going on is spun by the press. Instead of: here are the facts: "Surface specs, no prices, no date, Windows 8, you decide" we get "Microsoft wants to out-Apple Apple and betrayed hardware partners to get it!" Is that what's really going on, or are the press writing another episode of a reality TV show called Microsoft vs. Apple: The Epic Miniseries? I really don't care for the press to tell me what it means, just give me the facts, and let me think for myself. And it doesn't matter whether it's AppleInsider or Wall Street Journal. I mean, the only difference between them is one pays better and spell-checks their content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Look at Acer Iconia sales. That'll give you some idea of how the "netbook + tablet hybrid" concept is doing.
You'll note that it isn't really blowing away consumers. I doubt a clever Smart Cover-with-keyboard will make much of a difference.
As I mentioned in my post (which I suppose you read), I have actually tried a few of these OEM hybrids before and have always been dissatisfied for a number of reasons, ranging from the use of TN screens, to the use of resistive touch screens, to lack of proper support from the OS (Windows 7 isn't exactly ideal for a tablet), to lack of mobile connectivity, to lack of GPS, etc. All the tablets I tried were either too focused into being cheap netbooks with tablet functionality (the overwhelming majority) or tablets with keyboards) or into being too tablet-y thus not resembling a PC at all other then by having a physical keyboard.
Microsoft has a chance to change the entire game with Windows 8 and their own tablet here, though. With software specifically designed with a tablet interface in mind and a tablet specifically designed to take advantage of it, the potential to make the perfect hybrid is there, and there's nothing currently in the market that you can use to predict what it will be like, because what Microsoft is attempting is something genuinely new; they finally grew the balls to come out and tap into a market in which Apple refuses to participate. They might not have created the tablet market, but they can improve it tremendously.
EDIT: Finished the first paragraph.