That chart states MS would have to include $90 for the OS in a surface tablet yet stating Apple doesn't have to for the iPad. Why? It is MS's baby, as the iPad is Apple's, so that info is inaccurate. Also, the line that includes "other" tacks on another $12 with no explanation.
Until this data is updated correctly, it is totally invalid.
The chart clearly says OEM Surface Style RT tablet. The chart is imagining the costs/profits for Dell or Acer to make a similar machine running Windows. The $90 is what the manufacturer will have to pay MS for the right to use Windows on their tablet (The $90 amount was rumored months ago). The explanation for the extra $12 in "other" is referring to Apple's economies of scale for all the little items that go into the tablet. Apple buys parts by the 10's of millions so they can command significantly better prices than the other manufacturers doing runs of 10s or 100s of thousands. That has been well documented for years.
The data is reasonable and valid as an estimate, think things through and read carefully before spouting off...
Things we don't know about the Surface: Does the intel version of the Surface have an optical drive? If not, how would you existing programs on it. Will you have to buy it again from the Metro Appstore? Will it be limited to 64GB as well? How can you have a full-fledge PC in this day and age with 64GB? What's the battery life?
There are too many unanswered questions.
Will it come with a spare to be quickly sub'd-in when it crashes during an important demo?
Microsoft is creating a very nice eco system, if they get a long term vision and not starting to make the windows 8 app signature bullshit and so on, maybe they have a chance, right now Android is the King, Apple is slowly loosing to Google, and the new OS Mountain Lion don't give much to already called Mac OS X Vista - Lion.
About the prices Microsoft has an advantage here, since Apple only knows expensive word, and Microsoft is know to Make 10 versions of the "same" operating system, so that will be the same with tablets, since Nokia will sell Windows 8 Tablets!!
I do think we are always thinking Apple is the best and greatest, but if we see the last numbers, stock markets and iPhones/Macs sell, things are not looking so good as once did.
HAHA, what a bunch of BS! What world are you living in? Microsoft been playing the catch-up game since 2007 with their failed eco-system of smarphones and music players. Music business failed miserably, smartphones business fell apart, all developers left to Android eco-system and all MS got is a burning NOKIA spraying gasoline all over itself. Check your sources again. Microsoft is in a deep hole that Google keeps throwing dirt on top.
That chart states MS would have to include $90 for the OS in a surface tablet yet stating Apple doesn't have to for the iPad. Why? It is MS's baby, as the iPad is Apple's, so that info is inaccurate. Also, the line that includes "other" tacks on another $12 with no explanation.
Until this data is updated correctly, it is totally invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Was just about to point that out. Makes no sense. My assumption is that a similar spec'd tablet like surface made by Dell, HP, ASUS etc would cost that much but even still, it's just guessing.
The article is about the "dilemma" in pricing the Surface tablets. The $90 is what MS' Partners will have to pay MS to license the Windows 8/RT OS and Office.
Since MS relies on Partners to make the bulk of machines selling MS Software -- it is valid to include the license fees as a cost for the Partners!
... 'course, there could be a Partnering of the ways...
Edit: @Sierrajeff and @GregInPraguebeat me to it... Of course the OP's knew it too -- they were just muddying the waters...
The chart isn't Microsoft's costs, it's 3rd party OEM costs. Third party manufacturers will have to pay MS a licensing fee.
Exactly. Apple doesn't license its OS to other equipment makers. This is the basis of MS business. Therefore if you want to build a Windows machine, you have to pay MS for a Windows license. For MS to compete on a level playing field they have to add back to their hardware costs what they would otherwise charge an OEM. If not, there is no way an OEM would get into the business since they could not afford to compete with MS. It's irrelevant to Apple, who absorbs the cost of the OS development as subsidized by the hardware, and does not risk undercutting its partners from whom they almost solely rely to license its OS --- since Apple does not do this.
Keep daydreaming. MS is only getting into the tablet market so they can steer potential iPad users from Apple because they don't get Windows licensing money from Apple.
Assuming that Microsoft believes in its "one Windows for them all" strategy, and as far as I can see it obviously does, then an attempt of building a best of breed Surface shouldn't go the way of lowest price - surely with time other OEMs will supply that segment.
Surface should be in the desirable plus segment, competitive with the iPad but premium (just as Apple competes with quality and designed computers sold at premium price). That would create the 'aura' Windows needs and allow space to the OEMs.
I could really go for some alternate reality cheesecake. Before I wake up.
Microsoft does have a very nice eco system in place for their OS, it is called the internet. There is nothing I can not find on the internet I need for my PC. One of the biggest complaints I have with my wife's iMac is that I pretty much have to pay for everything, freeware is pretty much non-existent in the MAC world.
People who use Windows and people who buy PC's tend for the most part to be cheap. MS is going to have trouble moving tablets at a price point that is too much for these cheap people to pay.
Exactly... the model was buy the cheapest PC to run the apps you need, which cost over $130 base (Windows+Office)
The iPad is get the the most memory you can afford at the connectivity level you require. Apps are free or really cheap (OS is 'free', most apps are free, and the 'office' apps are... $30)
This kills the OEMs for their only differentiator is price, which is a function of quality in their game.
Can you even use that thing on your lap like a regular laptop?
Whatcha gonna do, put the kickstand in between your knees, while you're typing on that sub standard and grotesquely colored keyboard? It looks like it is meant to only be used on a table.
Keep daydreaming. MS is only getting into the tablet market so they can steer potential iPad users from Apple because they don't get Windows licensing money from Apple.
The article is about the "dilemma" in pricing the Surface tablets. The $90 is what MS' Partners will have to pay MS to license the Windows 8/RT OS and Office.
Since MS relies on Partners to make the bulk of machines selling MS Software -- it is valid to include the license fees as a cost for the Partners!
... 'course, there could be a Partnering of the ways...
I don't think Microsoft has the dilemma anymore. They had a dilemma for 4 years, in waiting for OEMs to come up with something to compete with first the MBA, and then the iPad.
They have solved the dilemma as they are building the reference platform for their MBA attack platform (SurfacePro) and their iPad attack platform (SurfaceRT). They then can spend that $90 in startup costs (sunk) to pay for building out a manufacturing capability,and voila... they get the manufacturer's profit...
Dilemma solved.... oh... those 'partners'... well if they can make the same thing cheaper (more than $90 cheaper)... great. If not, well, they can always become a contract manufacturer for Microsoft. and make 5% margins instead of 44% (more like 20% because of retail 'store/web front' costs...).
No Dilemmas for Microsoft. All dilemma for the 'partners' (beg for crumbs from MS, or switch to Android?)
Ok, so if what you want is a really slim notebook with a magnetically connected keyboard that will constantly be falling off, and want to stay in the Windows world, then I guess I see the Surface Pro.
But the ARM Surface really has me puzzled.
The big selling point seems to be this 'ingenious' keyboard/cover.
But it makes no sense unless you're really using it purely as a mini-laptop.
1) the keyboard only works for landscape mode
2) The camera is apparently tilted 'up' 22 degrees (in landscape orientation) so that when placed on a desk it isn't pointed 22 degrees down to the table surface. So what happens when you want to use this as a tablet in portrait orientation? Going to have to be aiming 22 degrees to the right?
3) Again, if you want to use this as a tablet (you know, the primary use), then when you have the keyboard case folded behind, your hands are holding onto a keyboard. This case is clearly meant to be taken off when used in portrait, so what again is the advantage of this over just a separate keyboard (other than the clever, I'll admit, magnetic charging. That's a nice touch.)
Microsoft is doubling down on the idea that what people REALLY want is an ultra portable laptop that occasionally can be used as a tablet.
But if Microsoft were to compete with the iPad on price, it would "collapse the PC OEM profit pool," he said.
Microsoft will supposedly ask those PC OEMs to pay $85 per copy of Windows RT. That would collapse the PC OEM profit pool all by itself.
The expensive-software-on-cheap-hardware business model won't work in the post-PC era.
Quote:
As for Surface "Pro" tablets running the full Windows 8 operating system, Microsoft has said those devices featuring traditional Intel processors will be priced comparable to Ultrabook notebooks, which usually cost around $1,000.
But Ultrabooks, priced at $1000, aren't even moving the needle. Neither did 10 years of UMPCs and Tablets and Slates running various Windows Tablet PC releases. So now Microsoft is doing what the usually do after a product completely fails in the market. They re-brand it. They're re-branding Slate and calling it Surface. The Surface Pro is really just a jumbo magnesium HP Slate 500: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/22/hp_releasing_799_slate_500_to_take_on_ipad_in_tablet_market.html
I think this is how it will all play out:
Surface for Windows RT will probably be initially priced from $499, just like the low-end 3rd-gen iPad. To drop the price any lower at launch would imply that it isn't as good as iPad. From what little exposure the press was actually given to Surface, it's glaringly obvious that neither Surface is as good as the low-end 3rd-gen iPad, but Microsoft will try hard to avoid admitting that fact in any way. And the few, proud, early adopters will gladly pay that $499. Might as well make hay while the sun shines, no?
Surface Pro will probably be initially priced from $999 on the open market, because that's what the 11" MacBook Air starts at. That's the Surface Pro's real target, isn't it? The target that nobody in the Ultrabook consortium could hit. And, just like RIM tried with the PlayBook, Microsoft will give free evaluation copies to high-profile potential customers. They'll gladly do full turnkey installations, from Surface Pros all the way down to Windows Server 2012 at the back end. All in the hopes that just one Fortune 500 company will actually use them and like them. And just like RIM, Microsoft will fail. (Meanwhile, 92% of Fortune 500 companies are testing or deploying iPad, thanks to the "consumerization" of corporate IT.)
The Surface honeymoon will end quickly. Consumer sales of the Surface for Windows RT will plummet after the die-hards and hobbyists get theirs. Corporate sales will simply never happen. Prices will then drop, inevitably, as Microsoft attempts to use the PC Industy's traditional last resort against Apple: low, low pricing. But, also inevitably, low prices won't boost sales much if any. All it will do is cut Microsoft's margins on Surface hardware. The whole Surface business plan will become unsustainable without massive cash infusions from Microsoft's bread-and-butter Windows + Office businesses. And Microsoft will gladly dump that money into the Surface project because they can't afford to let Surface get thrown down the KIN staircase. It's serious this time.
The blame game will then start in earnest. Maybe even as soon as next summer. Microsoft will point their finger at Intel and say "If you had designed a better faster more energy efficient x86 chip, Surface Pro would have been a smash hit." Intel will point their finger right back and say "Yeah, well then why didn't the Surface for Windows RT sell at all, with its ARM chip?" Microsoft will reply "Because we were forced to maintain backward compatibility with desktop Windows 8 and its apps." To which Intel will reply "Then you shouldn't have built yet another lame iPad clone and tried to jam Windows into it, all over again, in the first place."
And Intel will win the argument with that statement. Microsoft will continue building and selling discounted Surfaces, at a huge loss, funding the project with Windows + Office profits. Ballmer will stay on as Microsoft CEO for two reasons: because he wants to and because nobody else wants to.
The whole Surface thing is great to watch. If Microsoft prices their devices lower to compete (because hey, Microsoft is the only one making money in the Windows ecosystem anyway and is the only one with money to actually spend on putting together a nicer piece of hardware), they'll undercut the manufacturers who have always been the ones cutting each others margins/throats to be Microsoft's b*tches. If they leave the price higher, the other OEMs just keep putting out the crap they do today, and that doesn't sell either.
So does Microsoft want to upset their entire current business model on the off chance they can even compete in mobile if they try, or are they content to watch as Apple continues to dominate and pulls users away from the desktop at an increasing rate? No real guaranteed win in there for Microsoft in any case.
Recognizing the problems Windows is going to feel as consumers don't need it, maybe Ballmer is actually doing the smart thing (pains me to even write that) by trying to (for once) get ahead of the curve, or at least to not fall further behind, but it's a hell of a gamble.
[B]Windows Phone applications will not run on Windows 8. That means whatever applications businesses may write for the phone will have to be rewritten for tablets, laptops and desktops running Windows 8.[/B]
Even more Ballmer Buffoonery - why buy this Surface Slablet when it can't even run mobile apps.
Doesn't this also apply for google? If they come with a low priced tablet it undercuts profit margin for manufacturers. Which would move to windows for bigger profit margins. So maybe not all is lost for them!?
The price estimate for a "surface table" as the title implies are incorrect making the entire article flawed. Microsoft is the OEM therefore why would they have to pay $90 for their own software. So add $90 of profit to each of those estimates to get a more accurate picture.
This is for Windows OEMs making a Surface-like tablet, not for the Microsoft Surface.
I think Microsoft will price the surface with a very low margin to grab market share. They now want Apple's model of selling the software and the hardware. I don't think they care about their "Partners" anymore. For now, most of their "Partners" have no choice with regard to an Operating System anyway.
The thing that seems most relevant to me is the OS. It is listed at $90. If Microsoft is really going to get into the hardware business, needs to look at pricing differently. They need to subsidize the Surface by providing Windows to the OEM for $5-$10 license fee. They have already spent the money developing Windows 8 and the cost of doing that can be returned through sales of standard PC's to the Enterprise and consumers. They don't have to sell RT or the license on the Pro version for $90. Apple will be selling Mountain Lion for $20 and that works out to $4 per computer. If it is delivered electronically than easier still. I was looking at the retail packaging the other day with my copy of Windows Vista and it was a ridiculous in a waste of materials and design. All I wanted was the software, not some elaborately designed case for a disc. I anticipate that MS will find a way to muff this product just like they did with Windows Phone last week.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
That chart states MS would have to include $90 for the OS in a surface tablet yet stating Apple doesn't have to for the iPad. Why? It is MS's baby, as the iPad is Apple's, so that info is inaccurate. Also, the line that includes "other" tacks on another $12 with no explanation.
Until this data is updated correctly, it is totally invalid.
The chart clearly says OEM Surface Style RT tablet. The chart is imagining the costs/profits for Dell or Acer to make a similar machine running Windows. The $90 is what the manufacturer will have to pay MS for the right to use Windows on their tablet (The $90 amount was rumored months ago). The explanation for the extra $12 in "other" is referring to Apple's economies of scale for all the little items that go into the tablet. Apple buys parts by the 10's of millions so they can command significantly better prices than the other manufacturers doing runs of 10s or 100s of thousands. That has been well documented for years.
The data is reasonable and valid as an estimate, think things through and read carefully before spouting off...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Things we don't know about the Surface: Does the intel version of the Surface have an optical drive? If not, how would you existing programs on it. Will you have to buy it again from the Metro Appstore? Will it be limited to 64GB as well? How can you have a full-fledge PC in this day and age with 64GB? What's the battery life?
There are too many unanswered questions.
Will it come with a spare to be quickly sub'd-in when it crashes during an important demo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater
Microsoft is creating a very nice eco system, if they get a long term vision and not starting to make the windows 8 app signature bullshit and so on, maybe they have a chance, right now Android is the King, Apple is slowly loosing to Google, and the new OS Mountain Lion don't give much to already called Mac OS X Vista - Lion.
About the prices Microsoft has an advantage here, since Apple only knows expensive word, and Microsoft is know to Make 10 versions of the "same" operating system, so that will be the same with tablets, since Nokia will sell Windows 8 Tablets!!
I do think we are always thinking Apple is the best and greatest, but if we see the last numbers, stock markets and iPhones/Macs sell, things are not looking so good as once did.
HAHA, what a bunch of BS! What world are you living in? Microsoft been playing the catch-up game since 2007 with their failed eco-system of smarphones and music players. Music business failed miserably, smartphones business fell apart, all developers left to Android eco-system and all MS got is a burning NOKIA spraying gasoline all over itself. Check your sources again. Microsoft is in a deep hole that Google keeps throwing dirt on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
That chart states MS would have to include $90 for the OS in a surface tablet yet stating Apple doesn't have to for the iPad. Why? It is MS's baby, as the iPad is Apple's, so that info is inaccurate. Also, the line that includes "other" tacks on another $12 with no explanation.
Until this data is updated correctly, it is totally invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Was just about to point that out. Makes no sense. My assumption is that a similar spec'd tablet like surface made by Dell, HP, ASUS etc would cost that much but even still, it's just guessing.
The article is about the "dilemma" in pricing the Surface tablets. The $90 is what MS' Partners will have to pay MS to license the Windows 8/RT OS and Office.
Since MS relies on Partners to make the bulk of machines selling MS Software -- it is valid to include the license fees as a cost for the Partners!
... 'course, there could be a Partnering of the ways...
Edit: @Sierrajeff and @GregInPrague beat me to it... Of course the OP's knew it too -- they were just muddying the waters...
Keep daydreaming. MS is only getting into the tablet market so they can steer potential iPad users from Apple because they don't get Windows licensing money from Apple.
Assuming that Microsoft believes in its "one Windows for them all" strategy, and as far as I can see it obviously does, then an attempt of building a best of breed Surface shouldn't go the way of lowest price - surely with time other OEMs will supply that segment.
Surface should be in the desirable plus segment, competitive with the iPad but premium (just as Apple competes with quality and designed computers sold at premium price). That would create the 'aura' Windows needs and allow space to the OEMs.
But to do that, it really needs to be good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Do they serve cake in your dimension?
I could really go for some alternate reality cheesecake. Before I wake up.
Microsoft does have a very nice eco system in place for their OS, it is called the internet. There is nothing I can not find on the internet I need for my PC. One of the biggest complaints I have with my wife's iMac is that I pretty much have to pay for everything, freeware is pretty much non-existent in the MAC world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
People who use Windows and people who buy PC's tend for the most part to be cheap. MS is going to have trouble moving tablets at a price point that is too much for these cheap people to pay.
Exactly... the model was buy the cheapest PC to run the apps you need, which cost over $130 base (Windows+Office)
The iPad is get the the most memory you can afford at the connectivity level you require. Apps are free or really cheap (OS is 'free', most apps are free, and the 'office' apps are... $30)
This kills the OEMs for their only differentiator is price, which is a function of quality in their game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Can you even use that thing on your lap like a regular laptop?
Whatcha gonna do, put the kickstand in between your knees, while you're typing on that sub standard and grotesquely colored keyboard? It looks like it is meant to only be used on a table.
Well it is called a table-t is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Keep daydreaming. MS is only getting into the tablet market so they can steer potential iPad users from Apple because they don't get Windows licensing money from Apple.
No crap statement of the day, duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The article is about the "dilemma" in pricing the Surface tablets. The $90 is what MS' Partners will have to pay MS to license the Windows 8/RT OS and Office.
Since MS relies on Partners to make the bulk of machines selling MS Software -- it is valid to include the license fees as a cost for the Partners!
... 'course, there could be a Partnering of the ways...
I don't think Microsoft has the dilemma anymore. They had a dilemma for 4 years, in waiting for OEMs to come up with something to compete with first the MBA, and then the iPad.
They have solved the dilemma as they are building the reference platform for their MBA attack platform (SurfacePro) and their iPad attack platform (SurfaceRT). They then can spend that $90 in startup costs (sunk) to pay for building out a manufacturing capability,and voila... they get the manufacturer's profit...
Dilemma solved.... oh... those 'partners'... well if they can make the same thing cheaper (more than $90 cheaper)... great. If not, well, they can always become a contract manufacturer for Microsoft. and make 5% margins instead of 44% (more like 20% because of retail 'store/web front' costs...).
No Dilemmas for Microsoft. All dilemma for the 'partners' (beg for crumbs from MS, or switch to Android?)
Ok, so if what you want is a really slim notebook with a magnetically connected keyboard that will constantly be falling off, and want to stay in the Windows world, then I guess I see the Surface Pro.
But the ARM Surface really has me puzzled.
The big selling point seems to be this 'ingenious' keyboard/cover.
But it makes no sense unless you're really using it purely as a mini-laptop.
1) the keyboard only works for landscape mode
2) The camera is apparently tilted 'up' 22 degrees (in landscape orientation) so that when placed on a desk it isn't pointed 22 degrees down to the table surface. So what happens when you want to use this as a tablet in portrait orientation? Going to have to be aiming 22 degrees to the right?
3) Again, if you want to use this as a tablet (you know, the primary use), then when you have the keyboard case folded behind, your hands are holding onto a keyboard. This case is clearly meant to be taken off when used in portrait, so what again is the advantage of this over just a separate keyboard (other than the clever, I'll admit, magnetic charging. That's a nice touch.)
Microsoft is doubling down on the idea that what people REALLY want is an ultra portable laptop that occasionally can be used as a tablet.
I think they're wrong.
Quote:
But if Microsoft were to compete with the iPad on price, it would "collapse the PC OEM profit pool," he said.
Microsoft will supposedly ask those PC OEMs to pay $85 per copy of Windows RT. That would collapse the PC OEM profit pool all by itself.
The expensive-software-on-cheap-hardware business model won't work in the post-PC era.
Quote:
As for Surface "Pro" tablets running the full Windows 8 operating system, Microsoft has said those devices featuring traditional Intel processors will be priced comparable to Ultrabook notebooks, which usually cost around $1,000.
But Ultrabooks, priced at $1000, aren't even moving the needle. Neither did 10 years of UMPCs and Tablets and Slates running various Windows Tablet PC releases. So now Microsoft is doing what the usually do after a product completely fails in the market. They re-brand it. They're re-branding Slate and calling it Surface. The Surface Pro is really just a jumbo magnesium HP Slate 500: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/22/hp_releasing_799_slate_500_to_take_on_ipad_in_tablet_market.html
I think this is how it will all play out:
Surface for Windows RT will probably be initially priced from $499, just like the low-end 3rd-gen iPad. To drop the price any lower at launch would imply that it isn't as good as iPad. From what little exposure the press was actually given to Surface, it's glaringly obvious that neither Surface is as good as the low-end 3rd-gen iPad, but Microsoft will try hard to avoid admitting that fact in any way. And the few, proud, early adopters will gladly pay that $499. Might as well make hay while the sun shines, no?
Surface Pro will probably be initially priced from $999 on the open market, because that's what the 11" MacBook Air starts at. That's the Surface Pro's real target, isn't it? The target that nobody in the Ultrabook consortium could hit. And, just like RIM tried with the PlayBook, Microsoft will give free evaluation copies to high-profile potential customers. They'll gladly do full turnkey installations, from Surface Pros all the way down to Windows Server 2012 at the back end. All in the hopes that just one Fortune 500 company will actually use them and like them. And just like RIM, Microsoft will fail. (Meanwhile, 92% of Fortune 500 companies are testing or deploying iPad, thanks to the "consumerization" of corporate IT.)
The Surface honeymoon will end quickly. Consumer sales of the Surface for Windows RT will plummet after the die-hards and hobbyists get theirs. Corporate sales will simply never happen. Prices will then drop, inevitably, as Microsoft attempts to use the PC Industy's traditional last resort against Apple: low, low pricing. But, also inevitably, low prices won't boost sales much if any. All it will do is cut Microsoft's margins on Surface hardware. The whole Surface business plan will become unsustainable without massive cash infusions from Microsoft's bread-and-butter Windows + Office businesses. And Microsoft will gladly dump that money into the Surface project because they can't afford to let Surface get thrown down the KIN staircase. It's serious this time.
The blame game will then start in earnest. Maybe even as soon as next summer. Microsoft will point their finger at Intel and say "If you had designed a better faster more energy efficient x86 chip, Surface Pro would have been a smash hit." Intel will point their finger right back and say "Yeah, well then why didn't the Surface for Windows RT sell at all, with its ARM chip?" Microsoft will reply "Because we were forced to maintain backward compatibility with desktop Windows 8 and its apps." To which Intel will reply "Then you shouldn't have built yet another lame iPad clone and tried to jam Windows into it, all over again, in the first place."
And Intel will win the argument with that statement. Microsoft will continue building and selling discounted Surfaces, at a huge loss, funding the project with Windows + Office profits. Ballmer will stay on as Microsoft CEO for two reasons: because he wants to and because nobody else wants to.
The whole Surface thing is great to watch. If Microsoft prices their devices lower to compete (because hey, Microsoft is the only one making money in the Windows ecosystem anyway and is the only one with money to actually spend on putting together a nicer piece of hardware), they'll undercut the manufacturers who have always been the ones cutting each others margins/throats to be Microsoft's b*tches. If they leave the price higher, the other OEMs just keep putting out the crap they do today, and that doesn't sell either.
So does Microsoft want to upset their entire current business model on the off chance they can even compete in mobile if they try, or are they content to watch as Apple continues to dominate and pulls users away from the desktop at an increasing rate? No real guaranteed win in there for Microsoft in any case.
Recognizing the problems Windows is going to feel as consumers don't need it, maybe Ballmer is actually doing the smart thing (pains me to even write that) by trying to (for once) get ahead of the curve, or at least to not fall further behind, but it's a hell of a gamble.
[URL=http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258280/windows_8_update_windows_phone_8_apps_wont_run_asis.html#tk.rss_news]http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258280/windows_8_update_windows_phone_8_apps_wont_run_asis.html#tk.rss_news[/URL]
[B]Windows Phone applications will not run on Windows 8. That means whatever applications businesses may write for the phone will have to be rewritten for tablets, laptops and desktops running Windows 8.[/B]
Even more Ballmer Buffoonery - why buy this Surface Slablet when it can't even run mobile apps.
This is for Windows OEMs making a Surface-like tablet, not for the Microsoft Surface.
I think Microsoft will price the surface with a very low margin to grab market share. They now want Apple's model of selling the software and the hardware. I don't think they care about their "Partners" anymore. For now, most of their "Partners" have no choice with regard to an Operating System anyway.
The thing that seems most relevant to me is the OS. It is listed at $90. If Microsoft is really going to get into the hardware business, needs to look at pricing differently. They need to subsidize the Surface by providing Windows to the OEM for $5-$10 license fee. They have already spent the money developing Windows 8 and the cost of doing that can be returned through sales of standard PC's to the Enterprise and consumers. They don't have to sell RT or the license on the Pro version for $90. Apple will be selling Mountain Lion for $20 and that works out to $4 per computer. If it is delivered electronically than easier still. I was looking at the retail packaging the other day with my copy of Windows Vista and it was a ridiculous in a waste of materials and design. All I wanted was the software, not some elaborately designed case for a disc. I anticipate that MS will find a way to muff this product just like they did with Windows Phone last week.