The problem is that Microsoft included "Windows" in the name of the Windows RT tablet. They tried to associate a well-known brand with a device that is totally incompatible with that brand. It's like creating a "Macintosh RT" or "Playstation RT" tablet that won't run Macintosh or Playstation software. You are misleading your customers.
many predicted the Surface RT would be DOA - and they were right. of course MS will never disclose the actual sales numbers. so few in the fawning media are going to call the RT the outright huge flop that it is.
and rather than give up, MS will come out with a V.2 RT model later this year. it will fix whatever issues can be fixed. but it won't matter. too late. maybe it will be tightly integrated with the upcoming new XBox too - that would be its best chance. but that is still a niche market.
the world just doesn't need a third media tablet platform, especially a second "walled" one like Apple's. the OEM's like Samsung and the web companies like Amazon don't want MS to control their tablets' OS. instead they want to do that themsevles. so more and more they skin or even fork Android with their own proprietary setups.
so MS may keep pusing out these ARM tablets for a few more years to try to hold some niche position in the media tablet game. but it really has no where to go. you could call it an MS "hobby." but it's just the Zune story all over again.
2) it is the ONLY way to do SERIOUS and PRODUCTIVE work ! (no, don't look any longer at the ad, at this stage of reasoning)
3) Microsoft is INVINCIBLE ! (have you ever heard about a Corporate guy fired because he bought Microsoft stuff ? (just like IBM in the good old days, where the mouse was considered as a toy not suitable for professionals)
4) Ballmer is COOL, and a VISIONARY and CHARISMATIC Leader !
5) because, in its well known wisdom, Stock Exchange will ALWAYS forgive any temporary minor mistakes or failures Microsoft may encounter
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the stock will enter a death spiral in 2013, with cash flows from Office being the floor for the company's value.
Just goes to show that anyone can get press - no matter how little they really know.
Buzz Marketing Group has under 10 employees and under a million dollars in revenue from all sources. Furthermore, they have no record of success - although they did go on record as pushing Twitter - some time after Twitter started to decline.
I'm not sure why anyone would take them very seriously.
So essentially what Samsung is saying is that its not profitable to make an RT tablet at this time, but when some other company show everyone how to make an RT tablet with a decent profit and create consumer demand, then we'll just copy their product and enter into the market. All this seems vaguely familiar...
I think one day technology will catch up and we'll see fuller desktop experiences on light weight tablets like the iPad.
The Surface Pro with Windows 8 is going to weigh more than some laptops and be pretty thick and chunky.
That's why we don't yet see a desktop class OS on a lightweight tablet because currently it just isn't feasible.
The problem isn't processor power - all modern tablets have way more power than desktop PCs from 10 years ago. They could word process, run photoshop, edit movies etc no problem. There are plenty of Apps out there already that prove this.
Yes full windows tablets will be thicker, but this is only because Windows apps have come to expect to have more power than is really necessary.
The real problem is the UI. Touch screens are convenient and intuitive to use, but they're inherently clumsy. It's *hard* to do real work with one. Not to mention the screen size issue...
Until someone figures out a new way of interacting with computing devices, we're going to be left with the laptop/tablet split (and the Frankenstein convertibles that companies won't stop trying to push...)
The only hope this tablet had to succeed is if it could run in dual boot mode to allow a real Windows experience and not a crippled one.
That would have made the machine even less useful than it is now. Windows on tablets just sucks.
That might at least offer some benefit to former netbook customers looking for the portability of a tablet but also needing to use it just like a laptop as well. The 2.0 version will probably address this shortcoming and could fill a niche.
I've pretty much have found that when you need a laptop you really need a laptop. There it is the keyboard that defines the need for a laptop and the underlying access to the OS.
As for version two, I don't think it has a chance in hell. It would take MS more than two years to correctmostof its tablet flaws. By that time Apple will be on generation 8 or so and Android will have gained the benefit of advanced SoC that Apple currently enjoys.
The iPad is a far superior option on many levels and so are pretty much all the android tablets as well. This device will fly first class on a one way trip to the island of misfit toys.
The RT is certainly a colossal failure on MS part. Wat is worst for MS is that the OS and UI are so hosed it will take them years to build something sensible.
Even if it was the regular Windows 8 OS but on ARM it would still be worse than Windows 8 OS on an Atom-based system, which pretty much defines the CPU used in the netbook category. The reason the iPad feels so fast is because they got rid of all the crap that would make it impossible to run Mac OS X on ARM.
This may confuse some because underneath the UI there is the core of OS/X. They certainly peeled away much cruft and unneeded baggage but much of the underlying OS is the same as or very similar to OS/X. This is a very positive thing for software developers, especially if you have your code decoupled from the User Interface. Developers can at times write identical code (or copy and past) for each platform to access core features.
Now obviously some things have changed significantly, the process scheduler for one. The UI is obviously different but the API is not unfamiliar to Apple developers.
Looking at the base install sizes of WinRT compared to iOS for iPad and the fact that the classic UI is still there MS wasn't willing to build it from the ground up.
Apple didn't build iOS from the ground up either. They however made far more wise decisions about what was needed to get the first products out the door. It has very much been a two way street at Apple, the original iOS borrowed heavily from Mac OS and then later Mac OS was pruned to remove cruft and incorporate ideas and code from iOS. As hardware has become more capable Apple has built back into iOS more and more capability again at times borrowing from Mac OS/X.
The most interesting thing here is that iOS has evolved very rapidly as hardware capabilities have increased. Reading the developer release notes for each version of iOS is at times very interesting, it seems like every release comes with more stuff ported from Mac OS/X. IOS has become far more capable while leaving the UI virtually the same.
Microsoft just doesn't understand human beings. Its success comes from selling to organizations.
This is most certainly true to an extent. MS does have some very smart people working there but the lack a management structure that has a visionary driving development of things like RT. Combine that with a lack of marketing skills and you end up with stuff nobody wants.
No one calls iOS a crippled Mac experience because Apple didn't create any expectations by calling the iPad a Mac or say it runs OS X. That's what ms has done by insisting that we have software called Windows everywhere.
This I agree with 100%. Microsoft has doomed RT by ill informed marketing decisions. Frankly the whole marketing staff ought to be fired but that is another discussion. On the flip side Steve was absolutely fantastic at marketing, even when he had crap to market (G5).
As a side note this is why I believe that if Apple where to introduce ARM based laptops or other computers they would have to market them as separate devices from the Mac line up. Even if the OS was more open like Mac OS/X, the need would be there to eliminate consumer confusion.
If they would have called Xbox a windows box, would it have been an (eventual) success? They got their sacred brand synergy from the X, but I've never met anyone that even gets or cares that the X is from ActiveX, directX, etc.
Frankly X means nothing with respect to MS huge customer base in business.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Connell
...but there's no denying that when real work needs to be done, there's no replacement for full desktop applications.
...apart from running them remotely on a server.
What this comment shows is how it is to be locked into a Windows-centric world, refusing to acknowledge the possibilities.
Hence the complete underestimation of how successful the iPad was going to be, at it's inception.
Samsung means there is NO DEMAND for Windows RT tablets. It doesn't want to lose face by selling none and going to all the trouble to market them.
That is the best way I've seen that written.
I don't think that was their goal. I think Ballmer misled himself and company by living in denial.
many predicted the Surface RT would be DOA - and they were right. of course MS will never disclose the actual sales numbers. so few in the fawning media are going to call the RT the outright huge flop that it is.
and rather than give up, MS will come out with a V.2 RT model later this year. it will fix whatever issues can be fixed. but it won't matter. too late. maybe it will be tightly integrated with the upcoming new XBox too - that would be its best chance. but that is still a niche market.
the world just doesn't need a third media tablet platform, especially a second "walled" one like Apple's. the OEM's like Samsung and the web companies like Amazon don't want MS to control their tablets' OS. instead they want to do that themsevles. so more and more they skin or even fork Android with their own proprietary setups.
so MS may keep pusing out these ARM tablets for a few more years to try to hold some niche position in the media tablet game. but it really has no where to go. you could call it an MS "hobby." but it's just the Zune story all over again.
Windows RT Tablets will SUCCEED, because :
1) it is so cool ! (just look at the ad)
2) it is the ONLY way to do SERIOUS and PRODUCTIVE work ! (no, don't look any longer at the ad, at this stage of reasoning)
3) Microsoft is INVINCIBLE ! (have you ever heard about a Corporate guy fired because he bought Microsoft stuff ? (just like IBM in the good old days, where the mouse was considered as a toy not suitable for professionals)
4) Ballmer is COOL, and a VISIONARY and CHARISMATIC Leader !
5) because, in its well known wisdom, Stock Exchange will ALWAYS forgive any temporary minor mistakes or failures Microsoft may encounter
It is like Dell warned Microsoft. The name confuses people. Is it Windows or not?
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the stock will enter a death spiral in 2013, with cash flows from Office being the floor for the company's value.
It was already doomed the day the demo'd it.
Because MS is run by a CLOWN, and the board doesn't care.
Just goes to show that anyone can get press - no matter how little they really know.
Buzz Marketing Group has under 10 employees and under a million dollars in revenue from all sources. Furthermore, they have no record of success - although they did go on record as pushing Twitter - some time after Twitter started to decline.
I'm not sure why anyone would take them very seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
‘APPLE IS DONE’ AND SURFACE TABLET IS COOL, ACCORDING TO TEENS
An article bought and paid for by Steve Ballmer. Even the following commenter don't buy it.
So the RT tablet is headed the same way as the Zune? Who would have thought it possible?
So essentially what Samsung is saying is that its not profitable to make an RT tablet at this time, but when some other company show everyone how to make an RT tablet with a decent profit and create consumer demand, then we'll just copy their product and enter into the market. All this seems vaguely familiar...
The problem isn't processor power - all modern tablets have way more power than desktop PCs from 10 years ago. They could word process, run photoshop, edit movies etc no problem. There are plenty of Apps out there already that prove this.
Yes full windows tablets will be thicker, but this is only because Windows apps have come to expect to have more power than is really necessary.
The real problem is the UI. Touch screens are convenient and intuitive to use, but they're inherently clumsy. It's *hard* to do real work with one. Not to mention the screen size issue...
Until someone figures out a new way of interacting with computing devices, we're going to be left with the laptop/tablet split (and the Frankenstein convertibles that companies won't stop trying to push...)
As for version two, I don't think it has a chance in hell. It would take MS more than two years to correctmostof its tablet flaws. By that time Apple will be on generation 8 or so and Android will have gained the benefit of advanced SoC that Apple currently enjoys.
The RT is certainly a colossal failure on MS part. Wat is worst for MS is that the OS and UI are so hosed it will take them years to build something sensible.
Now obviously some things have changed significantly, the process scheduler for one. The UI is obviously different but the API is not unfamiliar to Apple developers.
Apple didn't build iOS from the ground up either. They however made far more wise decisions about what was needed to get the first products out the door. It has very much been a two way street at Apple, the original iOS borrowed heavily from Mac OS and then later Mac OS was pruned to remove cruft and incorporate ideas and code from iOS. As hardware has become more capable Apple has built back into iOS more and more capability again at times borrowing from Mac OS/X.
The most interesting thing here is that iOS has evolved very rapidly as hardware capabilities have increased. Reading the developer release notes for each version of iOS is at times very interesting, it seems like every release comes with more stuff ported from Mac OS/X. IOS has become far more capable while leaving the UI virtually the same.
As a side note this is why I believe that if Apple where to introduce ARM based laptops or other computers they would have to market them as separate devices from the Mac line up. Even if the OS was more open like Mac OS/X, the need would be there to eliminate consumer confusion.
Frankly X means nothing with respect to MS huge customer base in business.