Microsoft rehashes old arguments in latest anti-iPad Surface ad

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 129

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    You know I just went to the Apple online store and I only see the 30 pin camera adapter / SD card reader.


     


    They also sell a Lightning to USB Camera Adapter which perhaps will work with a memory stick.


     


    I wonder why there is no Lightning SD card reader.


     


    Not sure, good question.



    I have one and it has slots for all card sizes. Cost me like 10 USD.

  • Reply 42 of 129

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post



    This just keeps getting sadder and sadder


     


    Only in a pathetic sort of way. It's also funny as hell to see Uncle Fester grabbing for any small bit of illusion that he dreams up.

  • Reply 43 of 129
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Microsoft just don't get it, "it's not an iPad, I don't want it" over a hundred million people and growing.

    A hundred bucks will get you a keyboard and a Smart Cover for your iPad.
  • Reply 44 of 129
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I have one and it has slots for all card sizes. Cost me like 10 USD.

    I picked one up when I bought my iPad retina, my only issue is it won't recognise a 128GB card.

    Hopefully that will be addressed with iOS 7.
  • Reply 45 of 129
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    analogjack wrote: »
    Your nightclub bouncers piss off cricketers, and the cricketers piss on bouncers 

    ...and the English weather pisses off Australians.

    Enjoy your soggy ashes.
  • Reply 46 of 129
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    lakings33 wrote: »
    It's one thing to have iOS or Android on a tablet, but neither of them can compete with the X86 version of Windows 8.1.

    <span style="line-height:1.231;">Starting later this year and on into 2014, companies such as Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA are all starting to bring their flagship hardware to the mobile/tablet market.</span>


    If Apple want's to compete (and not just from a sales perspective), they'll need to bring OS X to tablet form.

    Is that you Ballmer? ROFL
  • Reply 47 of 129
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    bigbuff74 wrote: »
    Go away already Microsoft.????

    They pretty much have.
  • Reply 48 of 129
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    IT's got a KICKSTAND.

    Message to Microsoft. The GUI for Windows 8 and RT sucks. It's step backward. People don't like it. It's too stupid. Concede that it's a failure and take your loss and give up. Give them away to people in a third world county that Apple doesn't sell into and maybe they'll find a reason to use them other than a frisbee or doorjam.
  • Reply 49 of 129
    murmanmurman Posts: 159member


    Its not like the keyboard is free with every Surface is it? You have to pay extra for it, Microsoft makes it look as though it comes free with every Surface tablet.


     


    Why not extend the keyboard so its also a protective case? But then it'll will block the kick stand. If you cut a hole that big in the case, it can't hold on, if the case has a stand, it'll add extra thickness and block the vent (on the Pro version, which goes all around the tablet's side). Microsoft is trying too hard to sell this flawed design as perfection.

  • Reply 50 of 129
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member


    I've seen several comments online along the lines of "They should have waited for x86 and shipped full Windows on the surface." To me this line of reasoning completely misses the fact that if you're running desktop Windows, then the product is not a tablet. The Surface Pro is horrible. It's not a tablet, it's a very strange laptop. The mistake Microsoft made was tying RT to Windows. They should have called RT "Surface OS" and left the Start button alone in Windows. In creating the two-headed monster of Windows 8, they have completely messed up consumer's expectations. Who wants an "RT only" tablet? No one. Yet, an RT tablet is a pure, battery friendly, touch environment. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot tying their new OS to the boat anchor of Windows. And it's sinking fast.

  • Reply 51 of 129
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post


    The mistake Microsoft made was tying RT to Windows.



    The problem with that is, they would have to literally start from scratch with developers getting them to develop apps and they would be in the "Zune" boat with consumers who would be confused.  Like it or not, "Windows" has a lot of power banding wise and it's very hard to just start from scratch.  But MS has spent a lot of effort to create the idea of Windows Everywhere and the notion that you don't need to compromise.  I don't think they want to create that impression that Apple has the idea (which is the opposite of MS's) right.

  • Reply 52 of 129
    Deleted!
  • Reply 53 of 129
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,836member
    I don't understand Microsoft's thinking. If they convince the ignorati to buy this sh*t storm in sheet metal called Surface, do they really think that the user experience is so wonderful that those people will come back for more? Isn't more likely, given how thing flopped, that whoever fell for the ad will become walking word-of-mouth machines against Surface?
  • Reply 54 of 129
    rot'napple wrote: »
    Did the new TV commercial of Microsoft comparing iPad to Surface RT tout their price reduction, did the Siri-like voice say, "The iPad is a hot seller, I don't have to do that!"

    Well, it's not like the Surface RT has a built-in conversational AI service you can speak with.
  • Reply 55 of 129
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    lakings33 wrote: »
    Sorry for the confusion, I'm not talking about sales. I'm referencing their lack of ability to function as a complete operating system like Windows or OS X.

    Since when has Windows been vaporware?

    Silly kid, it's been proven that the vast majority don't want a desktop OS on a tablet.

    Apparently for forgot what you write:

    "Starting later this year and on into 2014, companies such as Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA are all starting to bring their flagship hardware to the mobile/tablet market."
  • Reply 56 of 129
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    The problem with that is, they would have to literally start from scratch with developers getting them to develop apps and they would be in the "Zune" boat with consumers who would be confused.  Like it or not, "Windows" has a lot of power banding wise and it's very hard to just start from scratch.  But MS has spent a lot of effort to create the idea of Windows Everywhere and the notion that you don't need to compromise.  I don't think they want to create that impression that Apple has the idea (which is the opposite of MS's) right.



     


    The problem is they didn't incentivize developers enough. They absolutely did need to get developers to develop new apps. There is no way around this. Windows apps are not touch based. They never have been and they never will be. You can't (comfortably) run desktop software on a tablet. It's just that simple. There is a reason why you can't run OS X apps on an iPad even though both iPads and Macs are based on Cocoa and OS X. Apple understands that the user interface aspect of interacting with software is critical, and that's why the iPhone and the iPad have been successful. Doing the opposite of a good idea just to be different isn't a winning strategy, but I agree there's definitely an element of that going on in Microsoft's behavior.


     


    Also, I would say that Microsoft has created maximal customer confusion with it's current strategy. It's not at all confusing to a consumer to say they need new software for their new tablet. No one was confused that they couldn't run Mac software on their iPad. But look at what Microsoft did: They named this new touch OS Windows RT. First of all, it doesn't use or have "Windows", so that's a bad name to begin with. Secondly "RT" stands for "Run Time" which is not a phrase that is compelling or understandable to most consumers. But then you also get "RT" inside of Windows 8. So Windows 8 is now "two operating systems in one." You even get two different versions of IE running on the same computer. Some system settings you make in "desktop land" some you make in "RT land." And this isn't confusing? I think naming the new touch OS "Surface OS", and simply saying you need new software would have been much much simpler and more understandable to consumers.

  • Reply 57 of 129
    lakings33 wrote: »
    It's one thing to have iOS or Android on a tablet, but neither of them can compete with the X86 version of Windows 8.1.

    If Apple want's to compete (and not just from a sales perspective), they'll need to bring OS X to tablet form.

    For nearly 20 years, full fledged x86 Windows has been offered on tablet hardware (Tablet PC, UMPC), and has failed to make a dent in the market. Along comes iPad in 2010. Pundits make fun of the name, call it a giant iPod touch, even Eric Schmidt told Steve Jobs he thought Apple was crazy to sell a tablet, precisely because tablets had done so poorly in the market. Well guess what...? Steve Jobs made all of them his bitches.

    What are Windows 8 "tablets" if nothing but Tablet PCs all over again? Ooh, now with Start Screen. You know what? They haven't even beaten Apple yet and you're seriously saying Apple has to follow the Tablet PC formula of shoveling a touch screen onto a Mac OS laptop to compete with Windows 8? VERY FUNNY! I think Apple knows how to compete by playing the game on its own terms, not Microsoft's.
  • Reply 58 of 129

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Silly kid, it's been proven that the vast majority don't want a desktop OS on a tablet.



    Apparently for forgot what you write:



    "Starting later this year and on into 2014, companies such as Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA are all starting to bring their flagship hardware to the mobile/tablet market."


     


    Do you have any proof to back up your claim?


     


    Do you know what vaporware means? By definition it does not apply here.

  • Reply 59 of 129
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    lakings33 wrote: »
    Do you have any proof to back up your claim?

    Do you know what vaporware means? By definition it does not apply here.

    Um. Tablets sold with windows in the last 13 years <<<<< iPads sold in the last qtr/half.

    Have any of these future products been released?
  • Reply 60 of 129
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LAKings33 View Post


    Do you have any proof to back up your claim?



     


    Oh, how about the Android/iPad sales figures versus the Surface Pro sales figures? That's pretty good proof.


     


    Here's the thing: If it's running desktop software, it is simply not a tablet. You need a keyboard and a mouse, or at least a stylus to use desktop software. This destroys the tablet experience. If you want to run desktop software, buy an ultra-book. If it's a tablet, it should be purely touch based. This is pretty obvious if you've spent any time with the Surface Pro after using Android or iOS tablets. The Surface Pro is not really a tablet at all.

Sign In or Register to comment.