This is not just a Surface problem (pun intended) -- it is a core problem. Windows 8 is awful, at least on the ASUS laptop I was playing with. Maybe it was the awful bundled software ASUS installed, but Windows 8 is just pitiful.
Add that Windows 8 must include both keyboard, mouse, and touch interfaces, and a wide range of platform functionality, and be backwards compatible with previous Windows version makes this OS a platform only Dr Frankenstein could love.
Current market dynamics suggest that you have no time at all to "tweak" your platform. It has to be done right, fully fleshed-out and ready to go. There is no other way to compete against the already deep and entrenched ecosystems dominating the market, unless MS changes the entire game, which they haven't even come close to doing.
All this "it'll catch on" stuff is total bullshit. This isn't 6 years ago. Metro has, in some form or other, been on the market since the Zune. It still hasn't caught on. All the tweaking in the world won't make any difference against the design, ecosystem and sheer cachet of Apple gear. Then you've got Android exerting pressure from the Universal Licensing end of the market.
The entire MS mobile effort - ALL OF IT - needs a massive re-boot (no pun intended.) But I doubt Ballmer is the one to make it happen. Because he's a clown. And MS stakeholders love the circus.
Saw some kids playing with one of these microsoft ipads last night. I asked them why they got that instead of the apple ipad. One said "this will run microsoft office!" To which I asked "why would you want to do that?" Reply: "..." blank look. crickets chirping.
I suppose you can make a case for the prices getting so low you can have both. Like any tech, it depends on what you want to do with them. There sure is a lot to choose from in apple land. I have no idea what would drive someone to a microsoft product. My own personal opinion is that the folks in Redmond just don't think through actually using this stuff. "People want ipads! Let's make one!" Seems simple enough I guess.
Rule: any technology that requires an instruction manual is failed technology.
As much as I totally agree with the thinking they need to re-think and re-write Windows and stop trying to make every version backwards compatible - the reality is that their profit center comes from this backwards compatibility with legacy enterprise solutions. And they can't get everyone to change because the entire model for enterprise is built around screwing everyone - and there are a LOT of people baked into the system.
All those stake holders make it very, very, difficult to change. If MS had the balls, they'd force the issue, accept pissing off a lot of customers and pissing away a lot of money short-term so they can work towards a future that doesn't revolve around software designed for the '90's. I won't hold my breath because I don't think they have the balls.
I agree that it's evident Microsoft doesn't have the balls to pull an Apple and rewrite their OS from the ground up.
On the other hand, it's probably the only thing that could stem the tide of Switchers at this point.
It's probably way too far out, but what say we have a long-term prediction for when Microsoft finally breaks down and does it? I say when they're down to 50% marketshare. By then Windows 9 will have tried (and failed) to salvage what Windows 8 has destroyed, and they'll be looking toward Windows X… time for an ironic change?
Microsoft's SOP is to shovel version 1.0 out quickly into the market and then to stay in the game for many years, tweaking products until their competitors stumble. They vanquished competitors like IBM, Lotus, Borland, Netscape, Palm, Sony, and Sun that way. Books have been written about their strategy. It's rare for Microsoft to give up on a product, but it happens: Windows Mobile, KIN, Zune. Vista. I don't think they've given up on Tablet PC, which is what Surface is. It's the last stand for Windows.
I have a difficult time calling the Surface a tablet. Sure, it can run without the keyboard but every ad I've seen has the user immediately attaching a keyboard. This is more a thin laptop than a tablet. Nothing's really changed with it other than being touch-enabled. It's still the same old Windows OS trying to everything when it should lose some weight and try to do some things really well. Microsoft will never learn and will always try and give the user the entire mess of capabilities even when they don't need them, want them, or want to figure out how to use them.
why use a speedboat when we can use an aircraft carrier----
Agreed. MS has been advertising Surface Pro exclusively with a keyboard (although I did see ONE ad where they advertised its tablet capabilities). If you're going to use it with a keyboard, it's just a clumsy Ultrabook. They'd have been better off to work on improving Windows for Ultrabooks. Maybe even pushing OEMs to add touch screens to Ultrabooks (although I don't really see the value and the screen's going to get filthy pretty quickly). Then make Surface RT a great product and release Office for RT.
THAT would have made sense. The current strategy does not.
As it is, the Surface Pro is an ultrabook, but considerably more expensive (more expensive than a MacBook Air, even) and you can't really use it on your lap.
Agreed. MS has been advertising Surface Pro exclusively with a keyboard (although I did see ONE ad where they advertised its tablet capabilities). If you're going to use it with a keyboard, it's just a clumsy Ultrabook. They'd have been better off to work on improving Windows for Ultrabooks. Maybe even pushing OEMs to add touch screens to Ultrabooks (although I don't really see the value and the screen's going to get filthy pretty quickly). Then make Surface RT a great product and release Office for RT.
THAT would have made sense. The current strategy does not.
As it is, the Surface Pro is an ultrabook, but considerably more expensive (more expensive than a MacBook Air, even) and you can't really use it on your lap.
But Microsoft fanboys get so offended when anyone says the Surface isn't a tablet. Because they so want to be able to compare it to an iPad and try and make the iPad look like an overpriced toy. Yet when they do compare it to laptops they never compare it to Ultrabooks, only to the MacBook Air. Seems to me better comparison would be to Asus or Lenovo Ultrabooks. And then the only advantage Surface has really is it doesn't come with bloatware.
Current market dynamics suggest that you have no time at all to "tweak" your platform. It has to be done right, fully fleshed-out and ready to go. There is no other way to compete against the already deep and entrenched ecosystems dominating the market, unless MS changes the entire game, which they haven't even come close to doing.
All this "it'll catch on" stuff is total bullshit. This isn't 6 years ago. Metro has, in some form or other, been on the market since the Zune. It still hasn't caught on. All the tweaking in the world won't make any difference against the design, ecosystem and sheer cachet of Apple gear. Then you've got Android exerting pressure from the Universal Licensing end of the market.
The entire MS mobile effort - ALL OF IT - needs a massive re-boot (no pun intended.) But I doubt Ballmer is the one to make it happen. Because he's a clown. And MS stakeholders love the circus.
Your points are well taken, but the end of the day WIndows 8 WILL catch on, simple dure to the fact that it comes pre-installed on every single PC out there.
While I can easily imagine Apple releasing an iWatch product that does a lot of amazing things borrowed from the iPod and iPhone, I find the idea of a Windows Watch rather difficult to grasp. Still, I guess Steve Balmer will be able to think up a reason to laugh at, and stomp on, an iWatch if they appear.
Plan B: keep Windows and Metro separate as they should always have been; let Surface BE a great tablet, not a pretty mess of compromises. Microsoft has some innovative (at the least, great to look at) software ideas here. Set them free! Get rid of Ballmer and his Windows-everywhere blinders.
The surface isn't a tablet, just another laptop with a touch screen, the iPad is a tablet, with a simple to use UI that just works, a rich app ecosystem, and great customer suverce to go along. Sorry but Microsoft, the Mocrosoft Surface and Mocrosoft Stores can't compete. Mocrosoft should go back to writing software and leave the hardware to their partners.
Dosen't matter because the Turdface is a POS no matter Plan A, Plan B or all the way to Plan Z
I thought Surface RT was "plan B."
When Microsoft first shipped Windows NT, they ported the OS to a bunch of workstation platforms including DEC/Samsung Alpha, PowerPC, and SGI MIPS. The Windows CE OS was similarly ported to a bunch of mobile processors: ARM, MIPS, and Hitatchi. They hedged their bets with all these "plan Bs", and let the market decide the winning platform.
Surface RT is their "plan B" in case the market really wants post-PC ARM-powered tablets. They want to make sure that base is covered by some version of "Windows."
The problem is: their post-PC vision is nothing more than Tablet PC with Metro and a neon keyboard cover.
This story is amazing. It's the second one to completely miss the point of the CFO's comments. He wasn't even talking about Surface specifically. He was talking about Microsoft's mobile strategy as a whole.
What you've never failed at something but kept trying? Or do you stay home all the time afraid to do anything?
Oh come on MS only know two things, Apple's early OS aka Windows and Steve Job's Office aka MS Office. They should just be grateful they milked these two things for so long and got away with it. MS should just roll over and die.
Comments
Add that Windows 8 must include both keyboard, mouse, and touch interfaces, and a wide range of platform functionality, and be backwards compatible with previous Windows version makes this OS a platform only Dr Frankenstein could love.
Current market dynamics suggest that you have no time at all to "tweak" your platform. It has to be done right, fully fleshed-out and ready to go. There is no other way to compete against the already deep and entrenched ecosystems dominating the market, unless MS changes the entire game, which they haven't even come close to doing.
All this "it'll catch on" stuff is total bullshit. This isn't 6 years ago. Metro has, in some form or other, been on the market since the Zune. It still hasn't caught on. All the tweaking in the world won't make any difference against the design, ecosystem and sheer cachet of Apple gear. Then you've got Android exerting pressure from the Universal Licensing end of the market.
The entire MS mobile effort - ALL OF IT - needs a massive re-boot (no pun intended.) But I doubt Ballmer is the one to make it happen. Because he's a clown. And MS stakeholders love the circus.
Saw some kids playing with one of these microsoft ipads last night. I asked them why they got that instead of the apple ipad. One said "this will run microsoft office!" To which I asked "why would you want to do that?" Reply: "..." blank look. crickets chirping.
I suppose you can make a case for the prices getting so low you can have both. Like any tech, it depends on what you want to do with them. There sure is a lot to choose from in apple land. I have no idea what would drive someone to a microsoft product. My own personal opinion is that the folks in Redmond just don't think through actually using this stuff. "People want ipads! Let's make one!" Seems simple enough I guess.
Rule: any technology that requires an instruction manual is failed technology.
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
As much as I totally agree with the thinking they need to re-think and re-write Windows and stop trying to make every version backwards compatible - the reality is that their profit center comes from this backwards compatibility with legacy enterprise solutions. And they can't get everyone to change because the entire model for enterprise is built around screwing everyone - and there are a LOT of people baked into the system.
All those stake holders make it very, very, difficult to change. If MS had the balls, they'd force the issue, accept pissing off a lot of customers and pissing away a lot of money short-term so they can work towards a future that doesn't revolve around software designed for the '90's. I won't hold my breath because I don't think they have the balls.
I agree that it's evident Microsoft doesn't have the balls to pull an Apple and rewrite their OS from the ground up.
On the other hand, it's probably the only thing that could stem the tide of Switchers at this point.
It's probably way too far out, but what say we have a long-term prediction for when Microsoft finally breaks down and does it? I say when they're down to 50% marketshare. By then Windows 9 will have tried (and failed) to salvage what Windows 8 has destroyed, and they'll be looking toward Windows X… time for an ironic change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Dear Microsoft,
Now do you see why you shouldn't have dumped the Courier tablet project ?
Sigh.
Seems to me that would've appealed to even more of a niche market than the Surface does.
Microsoft would never cannibalize the PC market with such devices. They would rather the iPad cannibalize the PC market.
Agreed. MS has been advertising Surface Pro exclusively with a keyboard (although I did see ONE ad where they advertised its tablet capabilities). If you're going to use it with a keyboard, it's just a clumsy Ultrabook. They'd have been better off to work on improving Windows for Ultrabooks. Maybe even pushing OEMs to add touch screens to Ultrabooks (although I don't really see the value and the screen's going to get filthy pretty quickly). Then make Surface RT a great product and release Office for RT.
THAT would have made sense. The current strategy does not.
As it is, the Surface Pro is an ultrabook, but considerably more expensive (more expensive than a MacBook Air, even) and you can't really use it on your lap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Agreed. MS has been advertising Surface Pro exclusively with a keyboard (although I did see ONE ad where they advertised its tablet capabilities). If you're going to use it with a keyboard, it's just a clumsy Ultrabook. They'd have been better off to work on improving Windows for Ultrabooks. Maybe even pushing OEMs to add touch screens to Ultrabooks (although I don't really see the value and the screen's going to get filthy pretty quickly). Then make Surface RT a great product and release Office for RT.
THAT would have made sense. The current strategy does not.
As it is, the Surface Pro is an ultrabook, but considerably more expensive (more expensive than a MacBook Air, even) and you can't really use it on your lap.
But Microsoft fanboys get so offended when anyone says the Surface isn't a tablet. Because they so want to be able to compare it to an iPad and try and make the iPad look like an overpriced toy. Yet when they do compare it to laptops they never compare it to Ultrabooks, only to the MacBook Air. Seems to me better comparison would be to Asus or Lenovo Ultrabooks. And then the only advantage Surface has really is it doesn't come with bloatware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Current market dynamics suggest that you have no time at all to "tweak" your platform. It has to be done right, fully fleshed-out and ready to go. There is no other way to compete against the already deep and entrenched ecosystems dominating the market, unless MS changes the entire game, which they haven't even come close to doing.
All this "it'll catch on" stuff is total bullshit. This isn't 6 years ago. Metro has, in some form or other, been on the market since the Zune. It still hasn't caught on. All the tweaking in the world won't make any difference against the design, ecosystem and sheer cachet of Apple gear. Then you've got Android exerting pressure from the Universal Licensing end of the market.
The entire MS mobile effort - ALL OF IT - needs a massive re-boot (no pun intended.) But I doubt Ballmer is the one to make it happen. Because he's a clown. And MS stakeholders love the circus.
Your points are well taken, but the end of the day WIndows 8 WILL catch on, simple dure to the fact that it comes pre-installed on every single PC out there.
While I can easily imagine Apple releasing an iWatch product that does a lot of amazing things borrowed from the iPod and iPhone, I find the idea of a Windows Watch rather difficult to grasp. Still, I guess Steve Balmer will be able to think up a reason to laugh at, and stomp on, an iWatch if they appear.
They tried this approach with the Zune and failed. Why would they think it would work this time?
What you've never failed at something but kept trying? Or do you stay home all the time afraid to do anything?
I thought Surface RT was "plan B."
When Microsoft first shipped Windows NT, they ported the OS to a bunch of workstation platforms including DEC/Samsung Alpha, PowerPC, and SGI MIPS. The Windows CE OS was similarly ported to a bunch of mobile processors: ARM, MIPS, and Hitatchi. They hedged their bets with all these "plan Bs", and let the market decide the winning platform.
Surface RT is their "plan B" in case the market really wants post-PC ARM-powered tablets. They want to make sure that base is covered by some version of "Windows."
The problem is: their post-PC vision is nothing more than Tablet PC with Metro and a neon keyboard cover.
This story is amazing. It's the second one to completely miss the point of the CFO's comments. He wasn't even talking about Surface specifically. He was talking about Microsoft's mobile strategy as a whole.
MS move directly to plan F!
Oh come on MS only know two things, Apple's early OS aka Windows and Steve Job's Office aka MS Office. They should just be grateful they milked these two things for so long and got away with it. MS should just roll over and die.