The Surface is a tablet designed for people that love Windows. But does anyone really love Windows? I mean LOVE it not merely put up with it or use it to run programs they do love. There may be people in the world who truly love Windows but I have never met one.
Yeah, and just imagine what will happen when one of the major reasons to have Windows (i.e. MS Office) is free and provides functionality that meets at least 80% (if not 90% or more) of the requirements of all office suite product users. As many contend (myself included) MS Office advanced functionality, while extremely useful, includes features only a very small number of people ever use (20 years in IT and I used a pivot table one time), the vast majority use none of those advanced features (ever).
It's entirely possible that Apple will offer iWork for free on the web and iWork for free on the Mac and/or iPad, there are already several (many?) other suites available for free, this is a trend that will continue, not reverse. The world of office suite functionality is moving into standard functionality offered with each OS (because it's mature and most likely there simply are no major innovations to come in letter writing or spreadsheet creating or slideshow producing) - it won't be long till they all provide this base functionality, and this particular "lock" into Windows which Office provides will be gone, poof!
Running Office on the Surface is supposed to be one of its major USPs, but if the value of running Office on anything is less (or nothing to most people), then this tablet has lost a lot of its perceived value too. The Surface is just another wail heard from a slowly dying giant, and unless they do something radical, will be merely a sign of yet more things to come (it's not the first time they've failed like this).
Do we really think a v2 of this product will achieve something different?
What a shame! They wasted more money in negative ads and commercials against the iPad instead of promoting the qualities that makes it a standout from iPad. Wrong priorities!
I completely agree. They didn't need to spend how many hundreds of millions in ad spots telling people that attaching the keyboard makes a click. I'm sure some iPad keyboards do that as well.
Advertising has never ever been Microsoft's forte. For that matter, every Android commercial I've seen is like Michael Bay meets 5 Gum. Android phones can crack concrete walls, look like The Matrix inside their cases, and turn a live concert recording into a 160' projection?...
GrangerFX
The Surface is a tablet designed for people that love Windows. But does anyone really love Windows? I mean LOVE it not merely put up with it or use it to run programs they do love. There may be people in the world who truly love Windows but I have never met one.
The closest I've ever found are IT consultants whose careers depend on Windows continuing to be obtuse for normal humans. Which is also why they don't like Win8's push to be more user friendly, though it could just be a reaction to Microsoft's terrible execution in this field, as usual.
Epsico
PhilBoogie
Sad news, actually. I sure hope this doesn't mean the ouster of Ballmer. Man, I like that guy, running ruining MS! Company's value slashed in half over the past decade with him at the helm.
Cook accomplished the same in just over a year.
Referring to a general sense of value to the customer base, or just plain old stock? Because the stock market really doesn't understand how Apple operates. They could sell a billion iPhone 5S next quarter, and if the quarter after that is "only" 0.9 billion, stock analysts scream for everyone to dump their shares because "Apple is doomed."
Poor Xerox, nobody seems to remember that everyone else actually stole from them...
Gates is doing a lot more for the planet than many billionaires ever did or will ever do, and this includes Jobs. Jobs might have contributed to charity, but Gates is funding research. Credit to where it's due.
Here goes again the old myth of Apple stole from Xerox.
Let's straighten some facts.
Apple has pay Xerox with shares to make use of Xerox research. Xerox never was and never want to be a computer company, so they sold all computer research assets to anyone who want to buy it. Soon after most researcher of Parc institute has join Apple and the Lisa team.
There is no poor Xerox here, they received their shares of profit.
Besides, can you name me one thing Gates has ever created? Gates has not put a single dime into research for Basic, DOS, Windows and Office. They bought or copy every piece of technology they own.
ASUS Chairman Jonney Shih said this week that his company had no plans to design or manufacture any more Windows RT devices. The reason? They sell poorly because people still use lots of classic Windows desktop applications, which don’t work with Windows RT.
“The result is not very promising,” Mr. Shih told All Things D’s Ina Fried in a recent interview, referring to poor sales of Windows RT devices. He noted further that of all the bizarre and odd-ball products his company has built—including “teeny-tiny laptops, phones that turn into tablets, and even a seven-inch tablet that can be held to the ear to make phone calls”—only Windows RT has been an actual failure.
Microsoft can't be very happy about that. Looks like it's not just the Zune RT people don't want. No one wants the OS in general.
Poor Xerox, nobody seems to remember that everyone else actually stole from them...
Gates is doing a lot more for the planet than many billionaires ever did or will ever do, and this includes Jobs. Jobs might have contributed to charity, but Gates is funding research. Credit to where it's due.
Wrong. Read this, including the letters from Bruce Horn and Jef Raskin.
Thanks for that, it contradicts the idea that I have, I'll have to didgest that information.
It's a well-known distortion of history that Apple "stole" from Xerox PARC. They gave Xerox PARC options for 100,000 shares at a $10 pre-IPO price in exchange for being able to see their work and use the ideas. Maybe next time you should do a few minutes of research before spewing your anti-Apple screed? Since that's all it would have taken to disprove your claim.
Microsoft has developed one good 1.0 product. One. In 1985. And it didn't run on a PC.
Everything else they bought or stole or it took them 3 tries to get right.
There is no internal creativity within Microsoft, and definitely no ability to develop a consumer desired device.
I do believe they got "Clippy" right on the first try. And Clippy was a very creative product, so that's TWO products. Oh, wait, you said "good" products. Nevermind.
It's a well-known distortion of history that Apple "stole" from Xerox PARC. They gave Xerox PARC options for 100,000 shares at a $10 pre-IPO price in exchange for being able to see their work and use the ideas. Maybe next time you should do a few minutes of research before spewing your anti-Apple screed? Since that's all it would have taken to disprove your claim.
I did not say anything "anti-Apple", at most I said something pro-Xerox. I'm not anti-anything, unlike many people here. The facts that made me post originally remain untouched, though: many of the concepts used on modern computers, ranging from the mouse to network protocols are commonly rooted in Xerox. Perhaps there was an agreement between Apple and Xerox, but there's no denying that Xerox understood the concept long before everyone else, they just didn't see the potential in personal computers, and at that point they had already been found guilty of monopolistic behavior and forced to license their entire patent portfolio, so wanting or not they would have to license their research.
the xbox and xbox 360 have lost billions. And both finished in third place in the console wars. So yeah, there are failures
No, that's how you interpreted my sarcasm. Another way you could have interpreted it was as me stating it's disingenuous to claim that Microsoft copied Apple when the research was actually conducted at Xerox, meaning Apple is not the victim you want to present it as.
No, that's how you interpreted my sarcasm. Another way you could have interpreted it was as me stating it's disingenuous to claim that Microsoft copied Apple when the research was actually conducted at Xerox, meaning Apple is not the victim you want to present it as.
Sure, the initial research was done at Xerox. It does not mean that Apple did not greatly expand upon that initial work or do any innovations of their own. Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow since you have a flawed premise.
As always, we have to question whether Microsoft's numbers reflect net actual sales to consumers (factoring in returns - sales which did not "stick"), or whether this is their usual "injected into channel" numbers.
Sure, the initial research was done at Xerox. It does not mean that Apple did not greatly expand upon that initial work or do any innovations of their own. Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow since you have a flawed premise.
I believe Apple used some concepts that pre-dated Xerox PARC, some concepts from Xerox PARC, and developed new ideas of their own, in order to create a unique, innovative product.
Don't read this as me defending Microsoft, I just think that these comments are ridiculous.
You mean after the stock price doubled in just over a year of his tenure as CEO? Or how the stock price even at its lowest point after the peak was still 10% higher than it ever was prior to him running Apple? Or as he lead Apple during times of its all-time greatest quarters with respect to both revenues and profits? So basically his tenure at Apple is basically nothing similar to what Ballmer has been doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dav
I believe Apple used some concepts that pre-dated Xerox PARC, some concepts from Xerox PARC, and developed new ideas of their own, in order to create a unique, innovative product.
Exactly. Anyone who tries to claim that Apple only copied PARC's work and did nothing of their own are completely ignorant.
The Surface Pro actually is an iPad killer. Its priced too high though for people to be interested. My Surface Pro destroyed my iPad 4 in every area to the point where i stopped using it and sold it. More memory plus 64gb xt card. I can play gsmes like tf2 hl2 cod2 and plenty of other games at nice detail and 60fps for the ones i just mentioned. Nice keyboard. Photoshop and 3ds max. Office. Real applications. Its quiet. Windows full OS. Only heavy for weeny arms. Beautiful screen. Fast ssd and cpu up to 2.7 ghz. Replaced my laptop as well. Usb 3.0. Looks sexy and makes people at work jealous. Way more productivity than my iPad. There is nothing it cant do that my laptop could do. I use it every day at home and work. Windows phone wont replace my iphone and ms fucked up on xbox one hardware but anyone who says a surface pro aint the shit just doesnt know and are free to continue using their toy of an iPad at their leisure.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
Cook accomplished the same in just over a year.
But he also doubled it in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrangerFX
The Surface is a tablet designed for people that love Windows. But does anyone really love Windows? I mean LOVE it not merely put up with it or use it to run programs they do love. There may be people in the world who truly love Windows but I have never met one.
Yeah, and just imagine what will happen when one of the major reasons to have Windows (i.e. MS Office) is free and provides functionality that meets at least 80% (if not 90% or more) of the requirements of all office suite product users. As many contend (myself included) MS Office advanced functionality, while extremely useful, includes features only a very small number of people ever use (20 years in IT and I used a pivot table one time), the vast majority use none of those advanced features (ever).
It's entirely possible that Apple will offer iWork for free on the web and iWork for free on the Mac and/or iPad, there are already several (many?) other suites available for free, this is a trend that will continue, not reverse. The world of office suite functionality is moving into standard functionality offered with each OS (because it's mature and most likely there simply are no major innovations to come in letter writing or spreadsheet creating or slideshow producing) - it won't be long till they all provide this base functionality, and this particular "lock" into Windows which Office provides will be gone, poof!
Running Office on the Surface is supposed to be one of its major USPs, but if the value of running Office on anything is less (or nothing to most people), then this tablet has lost a lot of its perceived value too. The Surface is just another wail heard from a slowly dying giant, and unless they do something radical, will be merely a sign of yet more things to come (it's not the first time they've failed like this).
Do we really think a v2 of this product will achieve something different?
nkalu
What a shame! They wasted more money in negative ads and commercials against the iPad instead of promoting the qualities that makes it a standout from iPad. Wrong priorities!
I completely agree. They didn't need to spend how many hundreds of millions in ad spots telling people that attaching the keyboard makes a click. I'm sure some iPad keyboards do that as well.
Advertising has never ever been Microsoft's forte. For that matter, every Android commercial I've seen is like Michael Bay meets 5 Gum. Android phones can crack concrete walls, look like The Matrix inside their cases, and turn a live concert recording into a 160' projection?...
GrangerFX
The Surface is a tablet designed for people that love Windows. But does anyone really love Windows? I mean LOVE it not merely put up with it or use it to run programs they do love. There may be people in the world who truly love Windows but I have never met one.
The closest I've ever found are IT consultants whose careers depend on Windows continuing to be obtuse for normal humans. Which is also why they don't like Win8's push to be more user friendly, though it could just be a reaction to Microsoft's terrible execution in this field, as usual.
Epsico
PhilBoogie
Sad news, actually. I sure hope this doesn't mean the ouster of Ballmer. Man, I like that guy, running ruining MS! Company's value slashed in half over the past decade with him at the helm.
Cook accomplished the same in just over a year.
Referring to a general sense of value to the customer base, or just plain old stock? Because the stock market really doesn't understand how Apple operates. They could sell a billion iPhone 5S next quarter, and if the quarter after that is "only" 0.9 billion, stock analysts scream for everyone to dump their shares because "Apple is doomed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
Poor Xerox, nobody seems to remember that everyone else actually stole from them...
Gates is doing a lot more for the planet than many billionaires ever did or will ever do, and this includes Jobs. Jobs might have contributed to charity, but Gates is funding research. Credit to where it's due.
Here goes again the old myth of Apple stole from Xerox.
Let's straighten some facts.
Apple has pay Xerox with shares to make use of Xerox research. Xerox never was and never want to be a computer company, so they sold all computer research assets to anyone who want to buy it. Soon after most researcher of Parc institute has join Apple and the Lisa team.
There is no poor Xerox here, they received their shares of profit.
Besides, can you name me one thing Gates has ever created? Gates has not put a single dime into research for Basic, DOS, Windows and Office. They bought or copy every piece of technology they own.
Asus drops WinRT.
Quote:
ASUS Chairman Jonney Shih said this week that his company had no plans to design or manufacture any more Windows RT devices. The reason? They sell poorly because people still use lots of classic Windows desktop applications, which don’t work with Windows RT.
“The result is not very promising,” Mr. Shih told All Things D’s Ina Fried in a recent interview, referring to poor sales of Windows RT devices. He noted further that of all the bizarre and odd-ball products his company has built—including “teeny-tiny laptops, phones that turn into tablets, and even a seven-inch tablet that can be held to the ear to make phone calls”—only Windows RT has been an actual failure.
Microsoft can't be very happy about that. Looks like it's not just the Zune RT people don't want. No one wants the OS in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
Poor Xerox, nobody seems to remember that everyone else actually stole from them...
Gates is doing a lot more for the planet than many billionaires ever did or will ever do, and this includes Jobs. Jobs might have contributed to charity, but Gates is funding research. Credit to where it's due.
Wrong. Read this, including the letters from Bruce Horn and Jef Raskin.
"Burn Before Reading"
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/07/22/the-rebirth-of-windows-mobile/
Quote:
Originally Posted by dav
Wrong. Read this, including the letters from Bruce Horn and Jef Raskin.
Thanks for that, it contradicts the idea that I have, I'll have to didgest that information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
Thanks for that, it contradicts the idea that I have, I'll have to didgest that information.
It's a well-known distortion of history that Apple "stole" from Xerox PARC. They gave Xerox PARC options for 100,000 shares at a $10 pre-IPO price in exchange for being able to see their work and use the ideas. Maybe next time you should do a few minutes of research before spewing your anti-Apple screed? Since that's all it would have taken to disprove your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Microsoft has developed one good 1.0 product. One. In 1985. And it didn't run on a PC.
Everything else they bought or stole or it took them 3 tries to get right.
There is no internal creativity within Microsoft, and definitely no ability to develop a consumer desired device.
I do believe they got "Clippy" right on the first try. And Clippy was a very creative product, so that's TWO products. Oh, wait, you said "good" products. Nevermind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
It's a well-known distortion of history that Apple "stole" from Xerox PARC. They gave Xerox PARC options for 100,000 shares at a $10 pre-IPO price in exchange for being able to see their work and use the ideas. Maybe next time you should do a few minutes of research before spewing your anti-Apple screed? Since that's all it would have taken to disprove your claim.
I did not say anything "anti-Apple", at most I said something pro-Xerox. I'm not anti-anything, unlike many people here. The facts that made me post originally remain untouched, though: many of the concepts used on modern computers, ranging from the mouse to network protocols are commonly rooted in Xerox. Perhaps there was an agreement between Apple and Xerox, but there's no denying that Xerox understood the concept long before everyone else, they just didn't see the potential in personal computers, and at that point they had already been found guilty of monopolistic behavior and forced to license their entire patent portfolio, so wanting or not they would have to license their research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Microsoft has developed one good 1.0 product. One. In 1985. And it didn't run on a PC.
Everything else they bought or stole or it took them 3 tries to get right.
There is no internal creativity within Microsoft, and definitely no ability to develop a consumer desired device.
Xenix was actually quite a good product. At the time, it was one of the most widespread Unix versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
I did not say anything "anti-Apple", at most I said something pro-Xerox.
Well, other than how you wrongfully claimed that they stole from Xerox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
the xbox and xbox 360 have lost billions. And both finished in third place in the console wars. So yeah, there are failures
No, that's how you interpreted my sarcasm. Another way you could have interpreted it was as me stating it's disingenuous to claim that Microsoft copied Apple when the research was actually conducted at Xerox, meaning Apple is not the victim you want to present it as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
No, that's how you interpreted my sarcasm. Another way you could have interpreted it was as me stating it's disingenuous to claim that Microsoft copied Apple when the research was actually conducted at Xerox, meaning Apple is not the victim you want to present it as.
Sure, the initial research was done at Xerox. It does not mean that Apple did not greatly expand upon that initial work or do any innovations of their own. Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow since you have a flawed premise.
As always, we have to question whether Microsoft's numbers reflect net actual sales to consumers (factoring in returns - sales which did not "stick"), or whether this is their usual "injected into channel" numbers.
Cook didn't do anything, Wall Street dropped Apple so they could all buy in again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
Sure, the initial research was done at Xerox. It does not mean that Apple did not greatly expand upon that initial work or do any innovations of their own. Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow since you have a flawed premise.
I believe Apple used some concepts that pre-dated Xerox PARC, some concepts from Xerox PARC, and developed new ideas of their own, in order to create a unique, innovative product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
Cook accomplished the same in just over a year.
Don't read this as me defending Microsoft, I just think that these comments are ridiculous.
You mean after the stock price doubled in just over a year of his tenure as CEO? Or how the stock price even at its lowest point after the peak was still 10% higher than it ever was prior to him running Apple? Or as he lead Apple during times of its all-time greatest quarters with respect to both revenues and profits? So basically his tenure at Apple is basically nothing similar to what Ballmer has been doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dav
I believe Apple used some concepts that pre-dated Xerox PARC, some concepts from Xerox PARC, and developed new ideas of their own, in order to create a unique, innovative product.
Exactly. Anyone who tries to claim that Apple only copied PARC's work and did nothing of their own are completely ignorant.