1.5M tablets isn't much but it is $1B revenue for MS where before it was zero. And while I think Win8 is stupid I have to admit that MS didn't come up just with another iOS copy!
<...> Of course, I've been saying this all along, but Microsoft still suffers from the delusion that people love them and their products and has no concept of how the world really works.
When a company captures for many years more than 90% of a market, the management tends to think it is invincible, and this is the beginning of the end. There are many examples ...
The illusion of invincibility also extends to some outside observers ....
I learned Basic and Machine languages on the Apple IIc. I have nothing but respect for Apple. BUT, this article is a little misleading. ELO and Planar first developed their touch screen technologies for POS equipment in the early 1990s. The programs that interfaced the technology was programmed to work with Windows 95, and later. Apple was not the first operating system to use touch screen technology, though they were the first to utilize it for consumer use. It wasn't Microsoft that missed the mark on this, it was Planar and ELO.
Though Apple helped pioneer the consumer computer industry, they never really boomed until the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley came out, and showed what kind of person Bill Gates really was. If Bill Gates wasn't such a ......., Apple may not have never boomed. So, you can thank Bill Gates for making Apple into what it is today. Tablets were attempted in the past, but the consumers rejected them.
The biggest reason that the Surface tablet will never compete with the Ipad is due to bad business practice by Microsoft. They will not offer Windows 7 on the Surface tablet, pretty much trying to force a new operating system down consumers throats. Not only would you have to learn a new product, but a new operating system at the same time. This is too much change for some people and Microsoft has drastically narrowed their target audience by not offering Windows 7 on the Surface, or at least a dual boot system where people can learn the new OS at their own pace.
It took a while for Linux to catch on, also. Most people that learned Linux operating systems were utilizing another OS at the same time. Microsoft should have learned from this model also.
The best thing about OS X is that the changes that are made, as it progresses, are subtle. Apple isn't so arrogant to just totally make a new GUI and force it down throats.
Though Apple helped pioneer the consumer computer industry, they never really boomed until the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley came out, and showed what kind of person Bill Gates really was. If Bill Gates wasn't such a ......., Apple may not have never boomed. So, you can thank Bill Gates for making Apple into what it is today.
I'd say the movie didn't have any sort of effect there.
Not only would you have to learn a new product, but a new operating system at the same time. This is too much change for some people…
The best thing about OS X is that the changes that are made, as it progresses, are subtle. Apple isn't so arrogant to just totally make a new GUI and force it down throats.
Indeed! Exactly. And the difference between them is more fundamental than that. Where Windows has always been about forcing THEIR way on the user, Apple builds their products with physical reference in mind.
That's why I'm not at all against skeuomorphism and quite against those that say there should be NO skeuomorphism. Where Microsoft can (try to) change Windows' UI and UX UTTERLY, forcing the user to completely relearn THEIR way, Apple builds their computer hardware as simply and unobtrusively as possible, removing it from the experience. Their software, then, mirrors physical equivalents of the purpose of the application. Notes looks like a legal pad. Reminders looks like a black book. Calendar looks like a desk calendar. This is stuff with which people are familiar, not single-colored squares. Not single-color backgrounds.
Though Apple helped pioneer the consumer computer industry, they never really boomed until the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley came out, and showed what kind of person Bill Gates really was. If Bill Gates wasn't such a ......., Apple may not have never boomed. So, you can thank Bill Gates for making Apple into what it is today. Tablets were attempted in the past, but the consumers rejected them.
That's a baseless conclusion. How many people saw the movie? I didn't. That movie came out in 1999. Apple started to prosper with the iPod and continued to do so when it was made available for Windows users. The perception of Gates had little to no effect on Apple's success.
1.5M tablets isn't much but it is $1B revenue for MS where before it was zero.
And while I think Win8 is stupid I have to admit that MS didn't come up just with another iOS copy!
Revenues don't do you any good - if you're losing money on each sale. See the analysis above.
More importantly, there's the issue of opportunity cost. For example, Microsoft developed Windows 8 to run on tablets (both RT and Pro). This came to fruition just as many users were starting to get frustrated with Android - particularly the fragmentation, but also license issues, etc.
What if Microsoft had stuck with their traditional plan and licensed Windows 8 to OEMs? It would have done the following:
1. The product would be more widely distributed. People could buy the product at Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
2. There would be a variety of products available, increasing consumer acceptance.
3. The OEMs would already have extensive PC manufacturing experience which might lead to a lower price point.
4. The OEMs would probably have been eager to have the product. Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc don't really have anything to compete with tablets - and this would have given them something.
Before labeling the $1 B in revenue a success, you need to ask:
1. Did it add any profits?
2. Did it add long term value beyond the profits (if any) generated?
3. Would the alternative have been even more successful and/or had lower risk.
My own assessment is that the answers are:
1. No
2. Probably - if it helps with selling Windows 8 desktops
3. Absolutely yes.
so reportedly MS sold 1.2 million Zunes in its first 8 months on the market @ 150K per month. whereas the RT has shipped (but sales?) a reported 1.1 million in only 5 months @ 220K per month. why, that's 50% better than Zune!
Before the killer response to the iPhone and iPad, 1.5 million units would not have been considered to be bad performance. But Apple has changed the entire definition of what it means to launch new successful products. Unfortunately for everyone (including Apple) that has changed expectations to absurd heights.
I've posted this several times before, but these are the amount of times that new technologies took to achieve just 1 million units:
Months
iPad (4/2010)
28 days
DVD
21
XM Satellite
23
CD Players
28
MP3 Players
28
Radio
39
TV
40
DVR
53
VCR
58
Online Subscr. Services
114
Cable TV
144
Satellite TV
144
All numbers except for the iPad are from Greystone Communications, Yankee Group. I find the TV number suspect because TV actually launched in July of 1941 and TV did not achieve 1 million units by 1945. I suspect they mean the relaunch of TV after WWII.
TV in 1941! Wow. The BBC launched the world's first regular television service from Alexandra Palace on 2nd November 1936
But I definitely would like to buy a Tesla rather than a GM. And probably may when the Model X comes out. And I think so would any other sentient male who could afford one. There is no driving reason to buy a Surface anything, at least at those prices when I can get the real deal from Apple for similar price point or an Android much much cheaper.
There are no Android PCs. Actually, Windows 8 is quite nice, but you can get a real convertible notebook (e.g. Asus Taichi) which is just better than the surface in every way. A macbook air is at a similar price point, and a better machine IF you use OS X.
Revenues don't do you any good - if you're losing money on each sale. See the analysis above.
More importantly, there's the issue of opportunity cost. For example, Microsoft developed Windows 8 to run on tablets (both RT and Pro). This came to fruition just as many users were starting to get frustrated with Android - particularly the fragmentation, but also license issues, etc.
What if Microsoft had stuck with their traditional plan and licensed Windows 8 to OEMs? It would have done the following:
1. The product would be more widely distributed. People could buy the product at Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
2. There would be a variety of products available, increasing consumer acceptance.
3. The OEMs would already have extensive PC manufacturing experience which might lead to a lower price point.
4. The OEMs would probably have been eager to have the product. Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc don't really have anything to compete with tablets - and this would have given them something.
Before labeling the $1 B in revenue a success, you need to ask:
1. Did it add any profits?
2. Did it add long term value beyond the profits (if any) generated?
3. Would the alternative have been even more successful and/or had lower risk.
My own assessment is that the answers are:
1. No
2. Probably - if it helps with selling Windows 8 desktops
3. Absolutely yes.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The biggest competition to the surface comes from Win 8 ultrabooks (many of them convertible), so your points 1-4, while correct, are vacuous, in that this is already happening.
Only way Micro stupid will be relevant is to keep Ballmer then do everything the opposite of what he says. How does someone so obviously dumb get in charge?
Ballmer is very far from dumb, and the company he runs still makes money hand over fist. They are, however, the victims of their own success -- they have to keep the huge existing user base happy, while trying to progress -- not so easy.
Anybody who couldn't see from a mile away that this ridiculous Surface thingy was going to flop is incapable of objective and rational thought. It's the same story over and over again. Some new device gets announced, will this finally be the iPad killer? The media hypes it, various clueless people fawn over it and compare it to the iPad, while certain rational people on this forum declares it to be DOA. And how does the story end each and every time?
The same people who fell for this Surface tablet and the people who hyped it up will be the same people who will be hyping the next "iPad Killer" when that comes along. And just like now, they'll be just as wrong and just as clueless next time also. A half tablet, that is worse than a tablet and a half laptop that is worse than a laptop is a good idea? And it comes with a kickstand and runs Windows? Are you kidding me? GTFOH.
You might be shocked to learn that the rest of the world is not so Apple-centric. the surface (the pro, anyhow) is not very much like an iPad, and in some way it is quite superior (it is an actual computer, for one; the touch screen is vastly superior, since it is pressure-sensitive), and in others it is seriously inferior (Windows 8 is not a tablet OS). So, it is different, and addresses a different market, which, apparently, is smaller than the iPad market.
Comments
And while I think Win8 is stupid I have to admit that MS didn't come up just with another iOS copy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
<...> Of course, I've been saying this all along, but Microsoft still suffers from the delusion that people love them and their products and has no concept of how the world really works.
When a company captures for many years more than 90% of a market, the management tends to think it is invincible, and this is the beginning of the end. There are many examples ...
The illusion of invincibility also extends to some outside observers ....
I learned Basic and Machine languages on the Apple IIc. I have nothing but respect for Apple. BUT, this article is a little misleading. ELO and Planar first developed their touch screen technologies for POS equipment in the early 1990s. The programs that interfaced the technology was programmed to work with Windows 95, and later. Apple was not the first operating system to use touch screen technology, though they were the first to utilize it for consumer use. It wasn't Microsoft that missed the mark on this, it was Planar and ELO.
Though Apple helped pioneer the consumer computer industry, they never really boomed until the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley came out, and showed what kind of person Bill Gates really was. If Bill Gates wasn't such a ......., Apple may not have never boomed. So, you can thank Bill Gates for making Apple into what it is today. Tablets were attempted in the past, but the consumers rejected them.
The biggest reason that the Surface tablet will never compete with the Ipad is due to bad business practice by Microsoft. They will not offer Windows 7 on the Surface tablet, pretty much trying to force a new operating system down consumers throats. Not only would you have to learn a new product, but a new operating system at the same time. This is too much change for some people and Microsoft has drastically narrowed their target audience by not offering Windows 7 on the Surface, or at least a dual boot system where people can learn the new OS at their own pace.
It took a while for Linux to catch on, also. Most people that learned Linux operating systems were utilizing another OS at the same time. Microsoft should have learned from this model also.
The best thing about OS X is that the changes that are made, as it progresses, are subtle. Apple isn't so arrogant to just totally make a new GUI and force it down throats.
Originally Posted by bigness1970
Though Apple helped pioneer the consumer computer industry, they never really boomed until the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley came out, and showed what kind of person Bill Gates really was. If Bill Gates wasn't such a ......., Apple may not have never boomed. So, you can thank Bill Gates for making Apple into what it is today.
I'd say the movie didn't have any sort of effect there.
Not only would you have to learn a new product, but a new operating system at the same time. This is too much change for some people…
The best thing about OS X is that the changes that are made, as it progresses, are subtle. Apple isn't so arrogant to just totally make a new GUI and force it down throats.
Indeed! Exactly. And the difference between them is more fundamental than that. Where Windows has always been about forcing THEIR way on the user, Apple builds their products with physical reference in mind.
That's why I'm not at all against skeuomorphism and quite against those that say there should be NO skeuomorphism. Where Microsoft can (try to) change Windows' UI and UX UTTERLY, forcing the user to completely relearn THEIR way, Apple builds their computer hardware as simply and unobtrusively as possible, removing it from the experience. Their software, then, mirrors physical equivalents of the purpose of the application. Notes looks like a legal pad. Reminders looks like a black book. Calendar looks like a desk calendar. This is stuff with which people are familiar, not single-colored squares. Not single-color backgrounds.
That's a baseless conclusion. How many people saw the movie? I didn't. That movie came out in 1999. Apple started to prosper with the iPod and continued to do so when it was made available for Windows users. The perception of Gates had little to no effect on Apple's success.
Guess the number of people that needed to do 'real' computing was overly exaggerated.
Revenues don't do you any good - if you're losing money on each sale. See the analysis above.
More importantly, there's the issue of opportunity cost. For example, Microsoft developed Windows 8 to run on tablets (both RT and Pro). This came to fruition just as many users were starting to get frustrated with Android - particularly the fragmentation, but also license issues, etc.
What if Microsoft had stuck with their traditional plan and licensed Windows 8 to OEMs? It would have done the following:
1. The product would be more widely distributed. People could buy the product at Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
2. There would be a variety of products available, increasing consumer acceptance.
3. The OEMs would already have extensive PC manufacturing experience which might lead to a lower price point.
4. The OEMs would probably have been eager to have the product. Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc don't really have anything to compete with tablets - and this would have given them something.
Before labeling the $1 B in revenue a success, you need to ask:
1. Did it add any profits?
2. Did it add long term value beyond the profits (if any) generated?
3. Would the alternative have been even more successful and/or had lower risk.
My own assessment is that the answers are:
1. No
2. Probably - if it helps with selling Windows 8 desktops
3. Absolutely yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbtinc
Another "Zune" - adios amigo ...
ah yes, deja vu all over again! for fun, take a look at this 2007 article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKNQROlvcaOM
see, just re-boot the marketing!
so reportedly MS sold 1.2 million Zunes in its first 8 months on the market @ 150K per month. whereas the RT has shipped (but sales?) a reported 1.1 million in only 5 months @ 220K per month. why, that's 50% better than Zune!
i like their strategy, i like it a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Before the killer response to the iPhone and iPad, 1.5 million units would not have been considered to be bad performance. But Apple has changed the entire definition of what it means to launch new successful products. Unfortunately for everyone (including Apple) that has changed expectations to absurd heights.
I've posted this several times before, but these are the amount of times that new technologies took to achieve just 1 million units:
Months
iPad (4/2010)
28 days
DVD
21
XM Satellite
23
CD Players
28
MP3 Players
28
Radio
39
TV
40
DVR
53
VCR
58
Online Subscr. Services
114
Cable TV
144
Satellite TV
144
All numbers except for the iPad are from Greystone Communications, Yankee Group. I find the TV number suspect because TV actually launched in July of 1941 and TV did not achieve 1 million units by 1945. I suspect they mean the relaunch of TV after WWII.
TV in 1941! Wow. The BBC launched the world's first regular television service from Alexandra Palace on 2nd November 1936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel
But I definitely would like to buy a Tesla rather than a GM. And probably may when the Model X comes out. And I think so would any other sentient male who could afford one. There is no driving reason to buy a Surface anything, at least at those prices when I can get the real deal from Apple for similar price point or an Android much much cheaper.
There are no Android PCs. Actually, Windows 8 is quite nice, but you can get a real convertible notebook (e.g. Asus Taichi) which is just better than the surface in every way. A macbook air is at a similar price point, and a better machine IF you use OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Revenues don't do you any good - if you're losing money on each sale. See the analysis above.
More importantly, there's the issue of opportunity cost. For example, Microsoft developed Windows 8 to run on tablets (both RT and Pro). This came to fruition just as many users were starting to get frustrated with Android - particularly the fragmentation, but also license issues, etc.
What if Microsoft had stuck with their traditional plan and licensed Windows 8 to OEMs? It would have done the following:
1. The product would be more widely distributed. People could buy the product at Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
2. There would be a variety of products available, increasing consumer acceptance.
3. The OEMs would already have extensive PC manufacturing experience which might lead to a lower price point.
4. The OEMs would probably have been eager to have the product. Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc don't really have anything to compete with tablets - and this would have given them something.
Before labeling the $1 B in revenue a success, you need to ask:
1. Did it add any profits?
2. Did it add long term value beyond the profits (if any) generated?
3. Would the alternative have been even more successful and/or had lower risk.
My own assessment is that the answers are:
1. No
2. Probably - if it helps with selling Windows 8 desktops
3. Absolutely yes.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The biggest competition to the surface comes from Win 8 ultrabooks (many of them convertible), so your points 1-4, while correct, are vacuous, in that this is already happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dookie Howsre
Only way Micro stupid will be relevant is to keep Ballmer then do everything the opposite of what he says. How does someone so obviously dumb get in charge?
Ballmer is very far from dumb, and the company he runs still makes money hand over fist. They are, however, the victims of their own success -- they have to keep the huge existing user base happy, while trying to progress -- not so easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Anybody who couldn't see from a mile away that this ridiculous Surface thingy was going to flop is incapable of objective and rational thought. It's the same story over and over again. Some new device gets announced, will this finally be the iPad killer? The media hypes it, various clueless people fawn over it and compare it to the iPad, while certain rational people on this forum declares it to be DOA. And how does the story end each and every time?
The same people who fell for this Surface tablet and the people who hyped it up will be the same people who will be hyping the next "iPad Killer" when that comes along. And just like now, they'll be just as wrong and just as clueless next time also. A half tablet, that is worse than a tablet and a half laptop that is worse than a laptop is a good idea? And it comes with a kickstand and runs Windows? Are you kidding me?
You might be shocked to learn that the rest of the world is not so Apple-centric. the surface (the pro, anyhow) is not very much like an iPad, and in some way it is quite superior (it is an actual computer, for one; the touch screen is vastly superior, since it is pressure-sensitive), and in others it is seriously inferior (Windows 8 is not a tablet OS). So, it is different, and addresses a different market, which, apparently, is smaller than the iPad market.