This is pretty funny, it shows the lack of technical understanding of the author. They maintain two separate encrypted wifi networks, one for each team, the Pat's network went down, they ended up hardwiring some of the Pat's tablets until they could get the wifi fixed. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bashing.
Because everyone should immediately understand that "black screen" means network problems. So maybe Microsoft didn't write the software and doesn't run the network -- nobody cares. All they see is that the device isn't working. MS should have people on the ground working to ensure their devices show well end-to-end rather than just throwing some cash and devices over the wall and hoping for the best.
The problem with the Surface is Windows! Having dealt with Windows for YEARS, starting with Windows 95, it's all the crap that goes alone with that. Anti-Virus software, firewalls, Spyware, Ad-Ware, Malware. So not only do you have to deal with all that crap on your desktop, now you're dealing with that on your Surface Tablet. Maybe some people are fine with that, but not me. I just want my tablet to work.
Apple has never paid for product placement. Here's MS paying 400 million to be the Surface. I don't want one. I actually have a little 7" Winbook Windows tablet. A Cheap one. Just to play around with. It came with Windows 8.1 and let me tell you, It was worse on a tablet then a Desktop. I've since upgraded it to Windows 10 which is a whole lot better on it. That's all Relative. It's still Windows on a tablet. I still like my iPad better. It just works. The OS is designed for a Touch Interface from the ground up. I can do just about anything I want on it.
Windows is really a Overkill Universal Interface. Yes it can do everything, but it's also complex and overkill for many. For many people, a iPad is far more then good enough for a Tablet, and something like a Chromebook is good enough for a Laptop or Desktop computer. Dumping a bunch of money into product placement isn't going to get me to buy it.
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time)...
According to the article, the outage only affected the Patriots sideline while the Broncos were still using their Surfaces without issue. If true then you are going to have to modify your defense a little bit.
I actually posted a comment further down once the NFL posted their confirmation that it was the Patriots network connection that went down that caused this particular outage. Appleinsider only gives you so long to edit a message.
What kind of work do you do on it? There's no version of Xcode for the iPad Pro (yet ) so it's not much use to be as a work device but I'm interested to hear how other people are using it.
In 1960, it took a roomful of people with mechanical calculators on their desks to do the work that later generations could easily perform with a spreadsheet. But when spreadsheets and other business applications came along, the work they made possible was wholly different from the problem they were initially designed to solve.
This is a great point. It's similar to how desktop publishing eventually found its way into manufacturing via CNC and now 3D printing techniques.
I think it is funny that they use the branding when describing the failure. Thinking since they are sponsors they would not use the term "Microsoft Surface" and "Fail" in the same sentence.
I don't know if you were watching the game, but they say the went to "hardwire" to keep going, so they had a plan B that worked.
Since OS X is miles behind Windows, does that means that it's a failure?
From what I know, the Surface is a mobile device. I haven't seen MS denying that. The iPad has better characteristics for some things, but it fails in others where the Surface shines. The same can be said if we compare it to the Macbook.
OS X is one product competing in an entire industry. If you compare apple unit sales 1 to 1 against any single company, then you'll see that Apple is doing very well.
Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.
the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.
The post I answered mention "As for Surface and the iPad Pro, I'm all for letting the numbers describe the success of each. iPad sales for the previous quarter will be known Tuesday after the stock markets close.
So in his POV, numbers define success. I don't necessarily agree with that. If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead. And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone.
There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales. IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications. For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10. Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.
I think it is funny that they use the branding when describing the failure. Thinking since they are sponsors they would not use the term "Microsoft Surface" and "Fail" in the same sentence.
Microsoft apparently failed to verify that the NFL technicians were providing adequate redundancy as part of the sponsorship contract. The MS solution failed regardless of who, what or why.
A system this important, that could actually affect the outcome of the game, should have multiple layers of redundancy.
Microsoft apparently also failed to pay off CBS in order to make sure that any potential failure was not shown or reported on TV.
I suggest you go to Apple forums, and you'll see the long list of problems users have with Apple devices.
So far, the list of problems on the iPad are a trickle compared to the torrent of complaints concerning the surface line. Especially when you consider that the iPad has an install base of over 200 million units.
I don't know how widespread are the issues with Surface Pros or iPads. The original comment mentioned websites with Surface users posting problems, and just pointed out that the same happens with Apple users in their forums.
And I have read of the Surface problems, and most of them are related to power management. I hope they fix those issues soon, since the SP4 and SB are great devices.
I think it is funny that they use the branding when describing the failure. Thinking since they are sponsors they would not use the term "Microsoft Surface" and "Fail" in the same sentence.
Microsoft apparently failed to verify that the NFL technicians were providing adequate redundancy as part of the sponsorship contract. The MS solution failed regardless of who, what or why.
A system this important, that could actually affect the outcome of the game, should have multiple layers of redundancy.
I have seen network failures even with redundancy. It happens.
Microsoft apparently also failed to pay off CBS in order to make sure that any potential failure was not shown or reported on TV.
Why does MS has to pay for silence? That was a part of the game, and they were right to talk about it.
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently.
To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.
Not that I do not disagree with your statement and mostly likely it was more of a back end system issue, however, you have to ask who's product was running the Backend. If you can not guess I will tell you, it was Microsoft, it is their server software which was causing the problem. It does not mater here the solution was all MS and to the world it was seen as surface issue, but it was still a MS issue. Their products lack the robustness, and trust me I been using MS entire solutions for a long time and can not tell you how many times either my computer is telling a program is not responding or our servers are not responding for various reasons.
FAIR GAME here. Don't play dumb, you can bet your ass this wouldn't have happened on Apple's watch. And you can bet IF this had happened with Apple there would be more than one article about the situation. It would have created a media frenzy just like all the other articles that flat out lie about Apple. This would have been bendgate all over again.
While I'm all for constructive criticism of a product, it would appear this has little to do with the surface itself and more to do with networking issues, which the article clearly states. If that really was the issue during the game, Microsoft has nothing to do with it, nor does the surface itself.
The network issues would either be due to the NFL's/Stadium's WiFi and/or the network drivers on the surface (of which Microsoft has nothing to do with at all, as drivers are written by the component manufacturer [Broadcom, Intel, Qualcomm, etc.])
And you can bet your ass if this had happened to iPads, Apple would have been to blame all over media. Youtubers and "journalists" would have a circus regardless of component manufacturers. #WifiGate would have been trending on twitter.
A company that Dun & Bradstreet saw fit to partner with.
" Dun & Bradstreet (DNB)
and 1010data today announced a strategic partnership that aims to
provide a solution to hedge funds and asset managers seeking insights
and analytics that go beyond traditional analysis of financial
statements and key financial ratios. Through the strategic partnership,
Dun & Bradstreet's content, including key business performance data,
will be made available through the 1010data platform, providing an
enhanced solution to customers."
Obviously they are highly disreputable. I believe their goal is to eventually work their way down to DEDs level.
Sorry I have no time for data like that, even if there are times its favorable to Apple. The only data that matters is what Apple and Microsoft provide. I have yet to see any financial data from Microsoft that suggests Surface is outselling iPad.
My analysts friend says microsoft sales more. More salsa than iPads.
Apple Insider just lost a lot of credibility on my end. If they can't report accurately on something like this, why should I bother reading their stories about ANYTHING else?
This Mac, iOS, Android, Windows user says "adios, Apple Insider!"
You have TWO posts.
If everyone READS the headline carefully, it's spot on. Surface was BLAMED and that's the hard pill that comes with forcing your product all over live content.
The NFL doesn't like Surface. These stories aren't going away soon.
The NFL doesn't like Surface. These stories aren't going away soon.
Regardless whether or not the players like the MS Surface, I think the league likes it just fine because they received millions in sponsorship. It is sort of like Apple not liking Google but willing to take their money to feature them as the default search in Safari.
OS X is one product competing in an entire industry. If you compare apple unit sales 1 to 1 against any single company, then you'll see that Apple is doing very well.
Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.
the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.
The post I answered mention "As for Surface and the iPad Pro, I'm all for letting the numbers describe the success of each. iPad sales for the previous quarter will be known Tuesday after the stock markets close.
So in his POV, numbers define success. I don't necessarily agree with that. If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead. And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone.
There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales. IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications. For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10. Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.
youre getting confused and trying to compare apples & oranges. you cannot refute an ipad-to-surface sales volume contest by saying "But Windows sells more than OS X!" that isnt the question. the question is which of these two specific manufacturer devices is selling better. not which desktop OS platform has more units. you also cant suggest that not wanting to compare oranges to this question means he's saying *no numbers anywhere* can be brought up. that hasnt been suggested.
stick to the topic -- sales between two specific devices, ipad vs surface.
Well, I don't know anything about what software was being used on the surface, nor anything about the servers, nor who is responsible for running the software, the servers, or the networks. And I don't know what components of this system failed.
But it doesn't seem anyone on this thread knows either because everyone was taking in general terms not specific, and there seems to have been a lot of assumptions made about the sources of the failure.
But anyway you cut it, it's a black eye for the Surface and Microsoft and a dumb move on their part regardless. For example, it would be highly unlikely Rogers would throw a computer he found valuable to the ground in disgust. Even though it was disgust in himself and the Surface had nothing to do with it, it showed how little the Surface meant to him. He didn't care. He and the team and the league forced him to use it when it may, and it likely was not the choice of sideline computer he or his team would have made. My guess is the team would be using iPads (why else would MS have to pay the league to force them to use the Surface in the first place). My guess also is Rogers would have not pitched an iPad which he and the team had chosen to use -- they would take ownership of that device and treat it with some respect.
The image of an MVP throwing your product to the ground like common trash is an awful image.
At the end of the day, they are jocks, highly paid jocks, but not renowned for their brain power, throwing something to the floor if it showed something they didnt like is about what I would expect. Overpaid, pampered glory hounds..... and as far as bias in the article goes - it is on a site called APPLEINSIDER hardly likely to be fair reporting!
According to the article, the outage only affected the Patriots sideline while the Broncos were still using their Surfaces without issue.
To be fair, the officials should have taken down the Broncos network for an equal amount of time in the same situation such as the defensive squad coming off the field. Back a couple years ago the team was responsible for their own reporting using their own cameras and printers, with images bound in binders. However well they did their job, it was solely their own responsibility. Now with the league taking control of that, it needs to be a level playing field when something goes wrong.
Only the Patriots side went down? Oh that's sweet sweet revenge on Karma's part since opposing teams endlessly report "problems" with their radio communication at the patriots' venue.....
As to the headline and "fair", it states "blamed" and for sure the highly advertised hardware out there for all to see is going to get the finger pointed at it.
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently.
To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.
Not that I do not disagree with your statement and mostly likely it was more of a back end system issue, however, you have to ask who's product was running the Backend. If you can not guess I will tell you, it was Microsoft, it is their server software which was causing the problem. It does not mater here the solution was all MS and to the world it was seen as surface issue, but it was still a MS issue. Their products lack the robustness, and trust me I been using MS entire solutions for a long time and can not tell you how many times either my computer is telling a program is not responding or our servers are not responding for various reasons.
If you were watching the game, you had learned that the issue was a network problem, which they solved temporarily going hardwire. Based on that, there was no problems with Surface devices neither with servers. So looks like the MS software you blame with the issue, kept running, and I think the Denver side can confirm that, since they had no issues at all.
This article is fairly good example of what's wrong with Tech reporting. The apparent goal was to bash a competitors product based on hyperbole and a gross misstatement of the facts. Shame on Apple Insider. (FWIW, I use a lot of Apple products thus, my observations are not based on a fanboyism for Microsoft - or any other manufacturer.)
Comments
So in his POV, numbers define success. I don't necessarily agree with that. If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead. And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone.
There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales. IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications. For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10. Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.
A system this important, that could actually affect the outcome of the game, should have multiple layers of redundancy.
Microsoft apparently also failed to pay off CBS in order to make sure that any potential failure was not shown or reported on TV.
Honestly they'd be better served with iPad Pros.
And I have read of the Surface problems, and most of them are related to power management. I hope they fix those issues soon, since the SP4 and SB are great devices.
Why does MS has to pay for silence? That was a part of the game, and they were right to talk about it.
Since the problem was related to network, how the iPad Pro would have done better?
Not that I do not disagree with your statement and mostly likely it was more of a back end system issue, however, you have to ask who's product was running the Backend. If you can not guess I will tell you, it was Microsoft, it is their server software which was causing the problem. It does not mater here the solution was all MS and to the world it was seen as surface issue, but it was still a MS issue. Their products lack the robustness, and trust me I been using MS entire solutions for a long time and can not tell you how many times either my computer is telling a program is not responding or our servers are not responding for various reasons.
And you can bet your ass if this had happened to iPads, Apple would have been to blame all over media. Youtubers and "journalists" would have a circus regardless of component manufacturers. #WifiGate would have been trending on twitter.
My analysts friend says microsoft sales more. More salsa than iPads.
You have TWO posts.
If everyone READS the headline carefully, it's spot on. Surface was BLAMED and that's the hard pill that comes with forcing your product all over live content.
The NFL doesn't like Surface. These stories aren't going away soon.
stick to the topic -- sales between two specific devices, ipad vs surface.
As to the headline and "fair", it states "blamed" and for sure the highly advertised hardware out there for all to see is going to get the finger pointed at it.