The "5000 app" critique is probably short hand for "we didnt' really have time to review it, but it fell short, and it was easier to bring out this poor comparison than to say that the native apps were unfinished, poor performing, and shoddy."
MS has botched a lot of interface ideas; "Metro, the Ribbon, to name two biggies."
I like the keyboard/case and the periphereals, but I have a blue tooth keyboard that wraps around my iPad and I never use it. The screen keyboard is "good enough" for whenever I do use it. That's because the touch interface is just really good and you don't use these like NetBooks. Has Microsoft learned that, and do they have touch VERSIONS of their office apps or are we going to see their menu-laden monstrosities torment users where one finger covers 4 icons? Can anyone even get that little triangle that exposes the "advanced settings" that you and I use 90% of the time?
The add-ons are nice and all -- but people don't like to lug everything around. The iPad give a user a lot of freedom, and when I'm not using a laptop, I really don't want to recreate it on a utility device.
>> I'll stand by my prediction; in a year, it will be on Craigslist for $99.
Anandtech actually gave it a very strong review, and I have to say, of all the review sites out there, I value their (and Arstechnica) reviews the most. They're certainly not biased and aren't just chasing clicks (like Gizmodo ot The Verge).
They also have some decent background on what MS intends Surface to be, which is interesting. Basically, it is not intended to be an iPad competitor in the way you might imagine, but really an extension of the PC.
I wouldn't want one, and think MS is trying to do too many things with one device, but I think the Anandtech review is worth reading.
I completely disagree about the neutrality of the two other sites you mentioned. They might be regarded as "neutral" from a brand-allegience point of view, but that doesn't mean they are without bias. Since they cater to tech enthusiast readership, they are going to share a particular viewpoint. Tech enthusiasts value specs and benchmarks of components over everything else: especially over touchy-feely "liberal arts" aspects such as design ("it's just rounded rectangles"), or quality ("Apple over charges despite having the highest customer satisfaction ratings") or ease-of-use ("who needs that scrolling rubber band effect").
This is a reductive approach that makes sense in the PC world where all Windows boxes are more or less slapped together from the same parts, and they all run the same OS (Windows or Linux) so it was natural to evaluate the whole PC by evaluating its components (CPU, GPU, etc). In addition, tech enthusiasts also tend to care more about stuff like "choice" and "open source licensing" than the general public. For them, the very idea of a walled garden is worse than plethora of choices that's actually available in the garden. That is the bias of the tech enthusiast. You're not going to recognize this bias unless you are an outsider.
Apple has always tried to do the opposite of what tech enthusiasts do: view the product as more than the sum of its parts. Accordingly, Apple focuses on capabilities that ordinary (non-tech) users can relate to: FaceTime, iCloud, PhotoStream, AirPlay, Siri, etc. Tech enthusiasts are quick to dismiss this as marketing. They'd rather know that some 120mm fan can move 85 cubic feet of air per minute and reduce the temperature of a PC by 10 degrees C, so they can overclock their GeForce and run Crysis at 103 fps. No, tech sites are not "neutral" with regards to Apple by a long shot.
[...] Apple focuses on capabilities that ordinary (non-tech) users can relate to: FaceTime, iCloud, PhotoStream, AirPlay, Siri, etc.
Yeah! Facetime! Now I can show my wife the shelf at Safeway and she can tell me which item to buy. Oh wait, no WiFi at Safeway. Oh well.
iCloud! No more worrying about storage space for those documents! Hmmm, it's taking a while for that 2GB project to open... Might be a great idea for some people but probably not for those who use their Mac for content creation. Edit sessions run double-digit GB.
And without a hint of sarcasm I declare my LOVE for AirPlay. I just wish I could try it. Unfortunately my Mac is more than two years old.
I was also enamoured of the idea of iMessage. My family is crazy for text messaging and I hate typing on an iPhone so I was looking forward to using the Mac for messaging instead. Unfortunately it just doesn't work worth a damn. What they've PROMISED is exactly what I want, but it doesn't keep sync between the Mac and the phone and it constantly drops messages.
I'm honestly not trying to slam Apple here. What I *am* trying to say is that what is promised exceeds the actual utility of these value-added benefits in real life. I appreciate them, but no longer accept them as justification for substantially higher prices and margins than other suppliers.
It’s not for me—I like my MacBook Air and my iPad (which even has Office via Onlive + bluetooth keyboard)—but someday it could be great for some people.
I wouldn’t want to be an early adopter, but MS has the cash to survive a couple weak generations and eventually turn an interesting start into a very good product. I hope they don’t screw it up, because it has some real innovation. Not a copycat iPad. That’s the kind of competition that's good for all of us.
I can imagine a pretty nice future in 5-10 years:
“Trucks”—mainly Macs. Some legacy Microsoft stuff surviving on the back end, but major decline on the desktop. Macs compete against all tablets more than against Windows.
Tablets/touch devices—the mainstream computer type for most purposes. Apple in the lead, Microsoft thriving too. Google will have abandoned Android by then, but Android will live on in others’ hands, especially Amazon’s. Three-way competition.
And Microsoft may still have Xbox as well, in some form.
I like your optimism. To transfer tablet market share numbers right to the work environment desktop market share. So you're after those winblows 90%.
Lol. Good luck.
The problem with all these toys IMO is that facebook&twitter&co. "business" chat all day long won't be enough to survive in so called western civilization. When these toys someday transform into usable toys, then I'm afraid winblows is here again with those 90%. Right now I can't even create and design a simple fcuking invoice with these toys.
It is mildly interesting how extreme Apple supporters quickly jump into denial/damage control mode, isn't it?
It really has nothing to do with Apple. I am long time Windows user (Since Win 3.1) and I have never owned an Apple product in my life, but I am thinking about an iPad Mini, but it isn't really a Surface competitor in any way. I think Win8/Metro/RT is one huge mess.
Quote:
5000 - 7000 apps on launch is likely the best any tablet had so far. True, iPad could run iPhone apps, but that was plain ugly, horrible experience. MS Office. For number of people I know that alone will be worth the price.
When the iPad launched it had Zero competitors. Which is massive difference than the situation today. So you can't look on the starting points as equivalent. Office is a draw for some. But how many really want to run office on a netbook screen? Using a CPU that slower than a Netbooks?
Quote:
Don't like cover and kickstand? No problem. There will be more RT tablets around, enough for everyone to satisfy form factor desires.
Well this story is specific to Microsofts Surface RT, so complaints about the Rube Goldbergian keyboard setup are completely reasonably to make here. I am shocked that no review has had the balls to point out the absurdity of MS selling the equivalent of a Timex Sinclair Membrane keyboard for $100. You could buy a Timex Sinclair computer for $100 in 1982, and yet that keyboard was widely ridiculed.
Wow, that really reads like a Microsoft Press release, 8 or 9 paragraphs lauding Microsoft before we get to any actual content. Barely mentions typing on the membrane keyboard. But what is really missing is it sounds like there is no real interaction with the ecosystem at all. The conclusion seems like completely uncritical puff piece with no mention at all of the cons, and failing to consider that there are better options like a real laptop running full windows, or even a convertible laptop running real windows.
Now compare with Josh's Verge review. This isn't a cherry pick. I find Josh does the most comprehensive tech reviews.
Which one sounds like the reviewer actually spent a lot of time using the device and the ecosystem. Which conclusion actually mentions both the positives and negatives and which sounds like PR.
Prototypes of the iPad that came out during the Apple/Samsung trial showed a model with a kickstand. Never say 'never' when it comes to Apple. One day video sucks on the small screen iPods and the next, it's a great feature.
The Safeway I shop at has free Wifi, and YES, FaceTime works on it.
No fair. I swear to science, that was my first thought when being introduced to FaceTime: "No more GUESSING which one she wants me to get, she can look for herself!" I wish like crazy MY Safeway had WiFi. You're lucky.
What exactly would anyone need 175k applications for. How much of a usable software do you have installed? 20?
I think that's like asking if a music download/streaming site really needs to offer 10 million songs on offer vs. 1 million. The long tail is going to have things you want that you'd miss with a smaller selection, even if it seems insurmountable. You just don't know from which section your favorite apps come.
Not from Apple, anyway. Notice in the MS announcement PR and the ads, they didn't show the keyboard up close in use. They did show the click gimmick every instance they could.
Apple doesn't have a keyboard cover, but you can get better keyboards than sponge keys from third parties.
Are you… trying to claim that Microsoft is BETTER because they have LESS software?
Only if Microsoft weeded out the lame ones more aggressively than Apple. I doubt they would do that.
Some parts of the app economy do annoy me though. I hate it when web sites try to pester me to use their app with a pop-up, but the app is really a cut-down or refactored version of their web site. And I chose the web site version for various reasons, often for a single feature they left out of the app.
Prototypes of the iPad that came out during the Apple/Samsung trial showed a model with a kickstand. Never say 'never' when it comes to Apple.
Notice that it was a rejected concept. The brainstorming process involves working on a lot of ideas then refining down, so for every idea, ten to a hundred related ones are discarded.
One day video sucks on the small screen iPods and the next, it's a great feature.
There is some truth to that, but you are remembering a soundbite of a larger statement. If you go back to the keynote on the iPod Photo introduction, Jobs explained that they (Apple) are not ready for it, and hinted that they need to put together a video store infrastructure, and they're working on it. So they started with photos because most people own their own photos.
Every review I have seen is pretty impressed on hardware side, but conclusion here is "disappointing in every aspect". Sad.
The other reviews said the software was sad. Heck, that's what the headline here says, "Hardware shines, but software is a letdown". The person that you replied to said the same thing! In other words, you're lying.
I find it amusing that MS is differentiating themselves using ideas they didn't know that Apple had considered but ultimately rejected.
Notice that it was a rejected concept. The brainstorming process involves working on a lot of ideas then refining down, so for every idea, ten to a hundred related ones are discarded.
There is some truth to that, but you are remembering a soundbite of a larger statement. If you go back to the keynote on the iPod Photo introduction, Jobs explained that they (Apple) are not ready for it, and hinted that they need to put together a video store infrastructure, and they're working on it. So they started with photos because most people own their own photos.
The other reviews said the software was sad. Heck, that's what the headline here says, "Hardware shines, but software is a letdown". The person that you replied to said the same thing! In other words, you're lying.
I find it amusing that MS is differentiating themselves using ideas they didn't know that Apple had considered but ultimately rejected.
Yes, I realize it was rejected. But it wouldn't surprise me to see something materialize if it's innovative and enhances the product's beauty and functionality.
On the video on small screens, Steve Jobs was quite clear about his thoughts on viewing video on small screens (and generally, adding 'needless' features to the iPods):
Windows RT doesn't fit into the enterprise any better. In fact, it will be worse since there are already systems in place at most corporations to handle iPads. Many companies have already developed their own custom apps for iPads. In this case, the hurdle will be to support the Surface.
That may or may not be the case. My point was more about the BYOD debate currently raging in those companies that are wedded to the Microsoft world. I see the Surface as a way of those companies being able to give - or allow users to have - a tablet device while retaining the 'purity' of the nothing-but-Microsoft mantra.
Impact: Microsoft will sell more Surfaces than they would if end users were left to make their own choices based on relative merit.
Comments
The "5000 app" critique is probably short hand for "we didnt' really have time to review it, but it fell short, and it was easier to bring out this poor comparison than to say that the native apps were unfinished, poor performing, and shoddy."
MS has botched a lot of interface ideas; "Metro, the Ribbon, to name two biggies."
I like the keyboard/case and the periphereals, but I have a blue tooth keyboard that wraps around my iPad and I never use it. The screen keyboard is "good enough" for whenever I do use it. That's because the touch interface is just really good and you don't use these like NetBooks. Has Microsoft learned that, and do they have touch VERSIONS of their office apps or are we going to see their menu-laden monstrosities torment users where one finger covers 4 icons? Can anyone even get that little triangle that exposes the "advanced settings" that you and I use 90% of the time?
The add-ons are nice and all -- but people don't like to lug everything around. The iPad give a user a lot of freedom, and when I'm not using a laptop, I really don't want to recreate it on a utility device.
>> I'll stand by my prediction; in a year, it will be on Craigslist for $99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
It's actually free rein. But it's a common error.
Yes, it's about Santa letting the Reindeer guide the slay, not conduct a battle!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
Anandtech actually gave it a very strong review, and I have to say, of all the review sites out there, I value their (and Arstechnica) reviews the most. They're certainly not biased and aren't just chasing clicks (like Gizmodo ot The Verge).
They also have some decent background on what MS intends Surface to be, which is interesting. Basically, it is not intended to be an iPad competitor in the way you might imagine, but really an extension of the PC.
I wouldn't want one, and think MS is trying to do too many things with one device, but I think the Anandtech review is worth reading.
I completely disagree about the neutrality of the two other sites you mentioned. They might be regarded as "neutral" from a brand-allegience point of view, but that doesn't mean they are without bias. Since they cater to tech enthusiast readership, they are going to share a particular viewpoint. Tech enthusiasts value specs and benchmarks of components over everything else: especially over touchy-feely "liberal arts" aspects such as design ("it's just rounded rectangles"), or quality ("Apple over charges despite having the highest customer satisfaction ratings") or ease-of-use ("who needs that scrolling rubber band effect").
This is a reductive approach that makes sense in the PC world where all Windows boxes are more or less slapped together from the same parts, and they all run the same OS (Windows or Linux) so it was natural to evaluate the whole PC by evaluating its components (CPU, GPU, etc). In addition, tech enthusiasts also tend to care more about stuff like "choice" and "open source licensing" than the general public. For them, the very idea of a walled garden is worse than plethora of choices that's actually available in the garden. That is the bias of the tech enthusiast. You're not going to recognize this bias unless you are an outsider.
Apple has always tried to do the opposite of what tech enthusiasts do: view the product as more than the sum of its parts. Accordingly, Apple focuses on capabilities that ordinary (non-tech) users can relate to: FaceTime, iCloud, PhotoStream, AirPlay, Siri, etc. Tech enthusiasts are quick to dismiss this as marketing. They'd rather know that some 120mm fan can move 85 cubic feet of air per minute and reduce the temperature of a PC by 10 degrees C, so they can overclock their GeForce and run Crysis at 103 fps. No, tech sites are not "neutral" with regards to Apple by a long shot.
Thanks, I did look it up and I was mistaken. Apologies to Rabbit_Coach.
Lol Pogue and Mossberg will get plenty of clicks for merely picking their noses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
[...] Apple focuses on capabilities that ordinary (non-tech) users can relate to: FaceTime, iCloud, PhotoStream, AirPlay, Siri, etc.
Yeah! Facetime! Now I can show my wife the shelf at Safeway and she can tell me which item to buy. Oh wait, no WiFi at Safeway. Oh well.
iCloud! No more worrying about storage space for those documents! Hmmm, it's taking a while for that 2GB project to open... Might be a great idea for some people but probably not for those who use their Mac for content creation. Edit sessions run double-digit GB.
And without a hint of sarcasm I declare my LOVE for AirPlay. I just wish I could try it. Unfortunately my Mac is more than two years old.
I was also enamoured of the idea of iMessage. My family is crazy for text messaging and I hate typing on an iPhone so I was looking forward to using the Mac for messaging instead. Unfortunately it just doesn't work worth a damn. What they've PROMISED is exactly what I want, but it doesn't keep sync between the Mac and the phone and it constantly drops messages.
I'm honestly not trying to slam Apple here. What I *am* trying to say is that what is promised exceeds the actual utility of these value-added benefits in real life. I appreciate them, but no longer accept them as justification for substantially higher prices and margins than other suppliers.
I like your optimism. To transfer tablet market share numbers right to the work environment desktop market share. So you're after those winblows 90%.
Lol. Good luck.
The problem with all these toys IMO is that facebook&twitter&co. "business" chat all day long won't be enough to survive in so called western civilization. When these toys someday transform into usable toys, then I'm afraid winblows is here again with those 90%. Right now I can't even create and design a simple fcuking invoice with these toys.
What exactly would anyone need 175k applications for. How much of a usable software do you have installed? 20?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
It is mildly interesting how extreme Apple supporters quickly jump into denial/damage control mode, isn't it?
It really has nothing to do with Apple. I am long time Windows user (Since Win 3.1) and I have never owned an Apple product in my life, but I am thinking about an iPad Mini, but it isn't really a Surface competitor in any way. I think Win8/Metro/RT is one huge mess.
Quote:
5000 - 7000 apps on launch is likely the best any tablet had so far. True, iPad could run iPhone apps, but that was plain ugly, horrible experience. MS Office. For number of people I know that alone will be worth the price.
When the iPad launched it had Zero competitors. Which is massive difference than the situation today. So you can't look on the starting points as equivalent. Office is a draw for some. But how many really want to run office on a netbook screen? Using a CPU that slower than a Netbooks?
Quote:
Don't like cover and kickstand? No problem. There will be more RT tablets around, enough for everyone to satisfy form factor desires.
Well this story is specific to Microsofts Surface RT, so complaints about the Rube Goldbergian keyboard setup are completely reasonably to make here. I am shocked that no review has had the balls to point out the absurdity of MS selling the equivalent of a Timex Sinclair Membrane keyboard for $100. You could buy a Timex Sinclair computer for $100 in 1982, and yet that keyboard was widely ridiculed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000
Quote:
It is also worth reading complete Anandtech review of Surface RT, rather than digging for single sentences, often out of content: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6385/microsoft-surface-review
Wow, that really reads like a Microsoft Press release, 8 or 9 paragraphs lauding Microsoft before we get to any actual content. Barely mentions typing on the membrane keyboard. But what is really missing is it sounds like there is no real interaction with the ecosystem at all. The conclusion seems like completely uncritical puff piece with no mention at all of the cons, and failing to consider that there are better options like a real laptop running full windows, or even a convertible laptop running real windows.
Now compare with Josh's Verge review. This isn't a cherry pick. I find Josh does the most comprehensive tech reviews.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface-review
Which one sounds like the reviewer actually spent a lot of time using the device and the ecosystem. Which conclusion actually mentions both the positives and negatives and which sounds like PR.
Originally Posted by mocseg
What exactly would anyone need 175k applications for. How much of a usable software do you have installed? 20?
Are you… trying to claim that Microsoft is BETTER because they have LESS software?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Talk about damning Microsoft with faint praise...
Trust me, you will never see the iProp™.
Prototypes of the iPad that came out during the Apple/Samsung trial showed a model with a kickstand. Never say 'never' when it comes to Apple. One day video sucks on the small screen iPods and the next, it's a great feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Yeah! Facetime! Now I can show my wife the shelf at Safeway and she can tell me which item to buy. Oh wait, no WiFi at Safeway. Oh well.
The Safeway I shop at has free Wifi, and YES, FaceTime works on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
The Safeway I shop at has free Wifi, and YES, FaceTime works on it.
No fair. I swear to science, that was my first thought when being introduced to FaceTime: "No more GUESSING which one she wants me to get, she can look for herself!" I wish like crazy MY Safeway had WiFi. You're lucky.
I'd even like Microsoft if they didn't release any software!
I think that's like asking if a music download/streaming site really needs to offer 10 million songs on offer vs. 1 million. The long tail is going to have things you want that you'd miss with a smaller selection, even if it seems insurmountable. You just don't know from which section your favorite apps come.
Not from Apple, anyway. Notice in the MS announcement PR and the ads, they didn't show the keyboard up close in use. They did show the click gimmick every instance they could.
Apple doesn't have a keyboard cover, but you can get better keyboards than sponge keys from third parties.
Only if Microsoft weeded out the lame ones more aggressively than Apple. I doubt they would do that.
Some parts of the app economy do annoy me though. I hate it when web sites try to pester me to use their app with a pop-up, but the app is really a cut-down or refactored version of their web site. And I chose the web site version for various reasons, often for a single feature they left out of the app.
Notice that it was a rejected concept. The brainstorming process involves working on a lot of ideas then refining down, so for every idea, ten to a hundred related ones are discarded.
There is some truth to that, but you are remembering a soundbite of a larger statement. If you go back to the keynote on the iPod Photo introduction, Jobs explained that they (Apple) are not ready for it, and hinted that they need to put together a video store infrastructure, and they're working on it. So they started with photos because most people own their own photos.
The other reviews said the software was sad. Heck, that's what the headline here says, "Hardware shines, but software is a letdown". The person that you replied to said the same thing! In other words, you're lying.
I find it amusing that MS is differentiating themselves using ideas they didn't know that Apple had considered but ultimately rejected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Notice that it was a rejected concept. The brainstorming process involves working on a lot of ideas then refining down, so for every idea, ten to a hundred related ones are discarded.
There is some truth to that, but you are remembering a soundbite of a larger statement. If you go back to the keynote on the iPod Photo introduction, Jobs explained that they (Apple) are not ready for it, and hinted that they need to put together a video store infrastructure, and they're working on it. So they started with photos because most people own their own photos.
The other reviews said the software was sad. Heck, that's what the headline here says, "Hardware shines, but software is a letdown". The person that you replied to said the same thing! In other words, you're lying.
I find it amusing that MS is differentiating themselves using ideas they didn't know that Apple had considered but ultimately rejected.
Yes, I realize it was rejected. But it wouldn't surprise me to see something materialize if it's innovative and enhances the product's beauty and functionality.
On the video on small screens, Steve Jobs was quite clear about his thoughts on viewing video on small screens (and generally, adding 'needless' features to the iPods):
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/steve-jobs/
Check out his thoughts on book readers......ouch
That may or may not be the case. My point was more about the BYOD debate currently raging in those companies that are wedded to the Microsoft world. I see the Surface as a way of those companies being able to give - or allow users to have - a tablet device while retaining the 'purity' of the nothing-but-Microsoft mantra.
Impact: Microsoft will sell more Surfaces than they would if end users were left to make their own choices based on relative merit.