"Struggling product"
Who wrote this? Surface products are selling like hotcakes. Your example of how Surface failed was Surface RT. Yes, RT was an objective failure, however the x86 implementations of Surface have been resounding commercial successes. The fact that you use this as an example shows that you are either hideously biased, or don't know what you're writing about. Plus you're going to quote NFL players and coaches on technology issues? What do they know? If it's a network or server issue the same thing would happen with any device. If you're not going to be objective or knowledgeable, don't be a journalist.
It is struggling! You have a product by the company with 90% of the computer market by OS with Windows on it selling a computer that has that OS and is spending nearly a billion dollars a year to promote it. It is positioning it against two Apple products categories which tend to total about 10 billion combined per quarter, but Q3 while being up 44% it only made them 700 million in revenue. Factor in the fact that their sales are at the expense of their Windows partners and the failure becomes more evident. There is a reason they don't report sales numbers in it.
Mmmm yes, it's failing so badly that Apple decided that it needed to make a "Pro" version of the iPad to "compete" with it. I will not argue the sales or revenue numbers. I admit that Apple is the unopposed king as far as raw revenue and margin go. However, the Surface line has done a lot to reinvigorate the Windows OEM landscape. Overall build quality has drastically increased in the high end windows space over the last few years in response to MS actually investing time and effort into showing what an innovative and premium Windows experience can be. My college campus is filled with 2 in 1 touchscreen Windows laptops and tablets. Surface may not move the same numbers as MacBook and iPad, but you're forgetting that there is an entire Windows ecosystem out there to choose from, you aren't limited to the five or 6 offerings that Apple has to offer. MS and Apple have strikingly different business models and to judge the success of any given product line by using the same criteria as the other is absolute lunacy.
Apple reports every single quarter iPad units sold
So there are two devices left from you post, Macbook and Surface Pro. Any details on those two?
Apple doesn't break down the products from I can find (and it's not in the investor earning reports that I get). However, here is what I can say from the investor reports:
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
The 6 surface owners clearly showed up on this site to come to their defense. Selling like hotcakes?!
Yes. They had ~4 billion dollars in revenue last year from the Surface line. I admit that those aren't "Apple-like" revenues, but they are impressive nonetheless.
Well, I don't know anything about what software was being used on the surface, nor anything about the servers, nor who is responsible for running the software, the servers, or the networks. And I don't know what components of this system failed.
But it doesn't seem anyone on this thread knows either because everyone was taking in general terms not specific, and there seems to have been a lot of assumptions made about the sources of the failure.
But anyway you cut it, it's a black eye for the Surface and Microsoft and a dumb move on their part regardless. For example, it would be highly unlikely Rogers would throw a computer he found valuable to the ground in disgust. Even though it was disgust in himself and the Surface had nothing to do with it, it showed how little the Surface meant to him. He didn't care. He and the team and the league forced him to use it when it may, and it likely was not the choice of sideline computer he or his team would have made. My guess is the team would be using iPads (why else would MS have to pay the league to force them to use the Surface in the first place). My guess also is Rogers would have not pitched an iPad which he and the team had chosen to use -- they would take ownership of that device and treat it with some respect.
The image of an MVP throwing your product to the ground like common trash is an awful image.
So there are two devices left from you post, Macbook and Surface Pro. Any details on those two?
Apple doesn't break down the products from I can find (and it's not in the investor earning reports that I get). However, here is what I can say from the investor reports:
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
I just asked for links, since @sog35 post mentioned specific sales numbers that I haven't seen. Does Apple sell more devices and iPads than MS? That's an easy yes. Does the Macbook sells more than Surface Pros? Maybe the links he post will clarify that (unless there are no links with details. We'll see).
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently.
To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.
Have you seen ANY of the Surface NFL ads? I don't recall EVER seeing any mention of servers or backend systems. The Surface tablet is front & centre in all of them. Nobody cares about where the problem is - they only remember seeing those tablets in the bright blue cases.
ON another note.....
Looks like two POS loser trolls ALREADY signed up with new accounts. Any predictions how many more will show up shilling for MS?
Why in the world would they advertise the backend? Literally no one would do that. The NFL uses Rackspace as their backend so the backend is probably Linux anyways. Don't call me a POS loser troll. I have the utmost respect for Apple. They are a titan in the tech industry and are the most valuable company in the world. I love the fact that OSX is Unix based and posix-compliant, it really is an impressive operating system. The thing I take issue with is the fact that this article is chalked full of misguided oversimplifications. I have no problem with people who love apple products, I admit they have a certain sex appeal that you just don't get from other devices, I just don't like when sites that are devoted to technology really just overlook the technical aspect and go straight to mud slinging. But go ahead and throw more vitriol my way if you feel you must, I will not resort to name calling and religious-like zealousy about silicon and glass.
Well, I don't know anything about what software was being used on the surface, nor anything about the servers, nor who is responsible for running the software, the servers, or the networks. And I don't know what components of this system failed.
But it doesn't seem anyone on this thread knows either because everyone was taking in general terms not specific, and there seems to have been a lot of assumptions made about the sources of the failure.
But anyway you cut it, it's a black eye for the Surface and Microsoft and a dumb move on their part regardless. For example, it would be highly unlikely Rogers would throw a computer he found valuable to the ground in disgust. Even though it was disgust in himself and the Surface had nothing to do with it, it showed how little the Surface meant to him. He didn't care. He and the team and the league forced him to use it when it may, and it likely was not the choice of sideline computer he or his team would have made. My guess is the team would be using iPads (why else would MS have to pay the league to force them to use the Surface in the first place). My guess also is Rogers would have not pitched an iPad which he and the team had chosen to use -- they would take ownership of that device and treat it with some respect.
The image of an MVP throwing your product to the ground like common trash is an awful image.
Players express frustration throwing and hitting things. It happens frequently with Gatorade coolers being kick and Riddell helmets being throw in the ground. IMO that doesn't means they hate those brands.
Apple doesn't break down the products from I can find (and it's not in the investor earning reports that I get). However, here is what I can say from the investor reports:
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
I just asked for links, since @sog35 post mentioned specific sales numbers that I haven't seen. Does Apple sell more devices and iPads than MS? That's an easy yes. Does the Macbook sells more than Surface Pros? Maybe the links he post will clarify that (unless there are no links with details. We'll see).
Ah, I gotcha. I'm not sure if Apple publishes those numbers but it would be good to see. I'm particularly interested in Macbook sales myself. I'm sure that Apple will likely fix my gripe with the laptop (single USB-C port) on the next go round, but from an investors POV, kind of curious as to how that guy is doing as a whole. The problem with the Mac numbers that the reports put out is that the $24 billion is across all Mac devices (Mac Pro, Macbook, Macbook Pro, Macbook Air, iMac).
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently.
To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.
This article clearly states that the problem only affected one of the teams so that makes it unlikely that this particular issue was a backend issue - and if it was a network issue, I would also think that it would affect both teams - unless they used different wifi access points. But it doesn't matter - even if it was a back-end problem - that doesn't excuse Microsoft at all! If they are going to take credit for the entire system during all of those weeks that it works, and intentionally mislead people into thinking that the Surface is what makes all of the functionality possible - then they've also got to take the blame when the backend breaks down - unless their position all along has been - "hey! All the cool functionality is running on backend servers and we're just one of many screens that can be used to look at it!!!". LOL! I say it serves them right for trying to imply the Surface added significant value on the sidelines by taking credit for the work of a backend system.
Have you seen ANY of the Surface NFL ads? I don't recall EVER seeing any mention of servers or backend systems. The Surface tablet is front & centre in all of them. Nobody cares about where the problem is - they only remember seeing those tablets in the bright blue cases.
ON another note.....
Looks like two POS loser trolls ALREADY signed up with new accounts. Any predictions how many more will show up shilling for MS?
Why in the world would they advertise the backend? Literally no one would do that. The NFL uses Rackspace as their backend so the backend is probably Linux anyways. Don't call me a POS loser troll. I have the utmost respect for Apple. They are a titan in the tech industry and are the most valuable company in the world. I love the fact that OSX is Unix based and posix-compliant, it really is an impressive operating system. The thing I take issue with is the fact that this article is chalked full of misguided oversimplifications. I have no problem with people who love apple products, I admit they have a certain sex appeal that you just don't get from other devices, I just don't like when sites that are devoted to technology really just overlook the technical aspect and go straight to mud slinging. But go ahead and throw more vitriol my way if you feel you must, I will not resort to name calling and religious-like zealousy about silicon and glass.
You must think we're all stupid here. Do you have any idea how many new troll accounts we see at AI? And the patterns they take with posting? Starts with an initial critical remark filled with a half-truth, then a couple genetic posts along with the obligatory "I like Apple products....but" comment as if saying something nice about Apple legitimizes your comments.
Seen it all a thousand times before and haven't had to apologize to anyone yet who stuck around to become part of the community. If it quacks like a duck...
The WiFi on my iPad fails about once a week or so and needs to be restarted. Which means rebooting the iPad. Toggling WiFi in settings does not work. Everything else I own on the WiFi network chugs right along.
Shit happens.
Try upgrading the firmware on your router. It's possible the iPhone is using a protocol your other devices don't use and your router firmware doesn't respond properly after x number of packets have flowed through or after one of the buffers fills x number of times or after some sort of malformed packet is received (or some other handshake error) - and however the router reacts to that condition could be sending a weird response that makes the networking on your device go wonky.
What you describe is not a known issue with the iPad. Most of us that own iPads do not experience the issue you describe - even after remaining connected for months at a time. My money is on an environmental conflict in your network setup - and if I were you, I'd start by looking at the router and flashing it (if possible). Good luck!
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently.
To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.
This article clearly states that the problem only affected one of the teams so that makes it unlikely that this particular issue was a backend issue - and if it was a network issue, I would also think that it would affect both teams - unless they used different wifi access points. But it doesn't matter - even if it was a back-end problem - that doesn't excuse Microsoft at all! If they are going to take credit for the entire system during all of those weeks that it works, and intentionally mislead people into thinking that the Surface is what makes all of the functionality possible - then they've also got to take the blame when the backend breaks down - unless their position all along has been - "hey! All the cool functionality is running on backend servers and we're just one of many screens that can be used to look at it!!!". LOL! I say it serves them right for trying to imply the Surface added significant value on the sidelines by taking credit for the work of a backend system.
+1. The NFL, as I mentioned above as the official report came in a bit later, did confirm it to be a network issue with the Patriots. Also, yes, the teams do use completely separate networks (both voice and data) so as to prevent sabotage and cheating.
But, as to what you are saying, I can actually agree with you there. Microsoft can be blamed here because, as you pointed out and stated, Microsoft is providing the process and is supposed to be ensuring that it works correctly (even though Microsoft is just one of many people involved with the solution). But, that isn't what is being stated in the article. The article is blaming the Surface, not Microsoft. What actually failed was the Patriots network. From what I have read, that network is the responsibility of Microsoft (but they don't actually manage it) so I'm for blaming MS for the failure. But the Surface had nothing to do with it. It was just another screen on the field that couldn't access what it was supposed to.
Have you seen ANY of the Surface NFL ads? I don't recall EVER seeing any mention of servers or backend systems. The Surface tablet is front & centre in all of them. Nobody cares about where the problem is - they only remember seeing those tablets in the bright blue cases.
ON another note.....
Looks like two POS loser trolls ALREADY signed up with new accounts. Any predictions how many more will show up shilling for MS?
Why in the world would they advertise the backend? Literally no one would do that. Don't call me a POS loser troll. I have the utmost respect for Apple. They are a titan in the tech industry and are the most valuable company in the world. I love the fact that OSX is Unix based and posix-compliant, it really is an impressive operating system. The thing I take issue with is the fact that this article is chalked full of misguided oversimplifications. I have no problem with people who love apple products, I admit they have a certain sex appeal that you just don't get from other devices, I just don't like when sites that are devoted to technology really just overlook the technical aspect and go straight to mud slinging. But go ahead and throw more vitriol my way if you feel you must, I will not resort to name calling and religious-like zealousy about silicon and glass.
Well, someone failed, and since its MS who would get the black eye whoever is responsible (because well, 99% of people won't care to do a followup if indeed MS is not responsible, which is not even proven in this case), maybe getting involved in all that wasn't such a f*cking good idea...
If you're whole business depends on good PR, better make damn sure such a thing doesn't occur EVER.
Why not just setup redundant WIFIs with redundant backends with failover... (or even 3 redundant networks, costs aren't that high!) How the hell hard can that be? Seriously? It's not like they don't have the money? I got $3-4000 of network equipment in my own home; bet I've got better reliability than their setup (I've also a lot of Unix servers, workstations and fiber coming in).
With the kind of money they got and for that game, they could hire guys with a directional WIFI antennas pointed at everyone with a tablet giving each of them a private network with a very strong signal with each back-end plugged straight into a first class switch connected right into the god damn Internet backbone.
BTW, I've got 30 years experience in building resilient systems and if that's the best and org like the NFL and MS can do, well they, and everyone involved (including MS) suck ass (yes, suck ass is a tech term.. ;-).
Just another DED article. I laugh regularly at the Suface placement within the NFL, it's disgusting. But the clips he linked in the article are due to the players frustrations with themselves, not the tablet. Stop the slant articles and get a real job DED, it's getting sad. I'm betting this will be deleted by "corrections" (DED), comments that make him sad tend to disappear quickly...
Go away and troll somewhere else. You've been here less than 4 months and posted 8 messages. Many of us enjoy DED's articles because they refute rhe FUD that is posted daily about Apple, with evidence, facts and citations. If you don't like his articles, don't read them. If he makes a claim that is incorrect - by all means call him on it. But don't act like you're better than him and attack him in the comments or demand that he change *his* writing style because you don't like the facts that he's chosen to share.
Keep up the good work Daniel. The vast majority of us are silent fans of your work. Trolls like this definitely do not speak for us.
So there are two devices left from you post, Macbook and Surface Pro. Any details on those two?
Apple doesn't break down the products from I can find (and it's not in the investor earning reports that I get). However, here is what I can say from the investor reports:
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
The Ipad Pro, if we take estimates from those that look at those things, likely made 2B in the 2.5 months since it launched. The pricing is similar to the surface. If it did that all year, it would easily beat by a lot the Surface Sales. That alone should be considered a black eye on Microsoft.
BTW, I've got 30 years experience in building resilient systems and if that's the best and org like the NFL and MS can do, well they, and everyone involved (including MS) suck ass (yes, suck ass is a tech term.. ;-).
Some one finally said it. I can't begin to tell you how many times I sit there and watch a game in which a million dollar robotic camera falls or the stadium looses power (Met Life, I'm pointing at you) or, even better, how in the hell does a halftime show by Beyonce break the power grid during the superbowl?!? How does Jerry World ($3 billion dollar AT&T Stadium) not pass fire inspection... nor can you get a reliable, I don't know, AT&T signal in the place?!? I have come to the conclusion that that many of those people involved (not all) are your suck ass term. No doubt about it.
Aww gee golly gosh! I wonder what operating system is running those backend servers?
Unix and Linux, actually. The NFL uses Rackspace for much of their infrastructure. And, further, the NFL just reported that the issue was actually caused by the Patriot's network going down.
Well, the total idiots who configured this thing should all be sacked; if they're involved with MS, they should be banned from further employment in this field since this likely cost at least billion in sales over the next 1-2 years. This is like the anti-PR.
9 out of 10 sheep wont ACCEPT that it was a network issue. God forbid you go a day without needing validation about your Apple purchase.
I love Apple. Why? Because they figured out the world is full of idiots and are cashing in on it. Look at IOS. If IOS doesnt insult your intelligence, you too might be an idiot. Look at the iPad Pro. If you buy that, you are an idiot who has no idea what productivity means.
There is not even a chance you've actually touched/used any Apple products ever; so basically talking through your rump.
Even if it's a f*cking net issue, it's still MS's responsibility buddy; because, if it fails, they look like POS; and they did.
So, go back to use your product which MS has now made sure it is perceived by all as being 100% turd; be proud of it (sic) it truly represents you.
Apple doesn't break down the products from I can find (and it's not in the investor earning reports that I get). However, here is what I can say from the investor reports:
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
The Ipad Pro, if we take estimates from those that look at those things, likely made 2B in the 2.5 months since it launched. The pricing is similar to the surface. If it did that all year, it would easily beat by a lot the Surface Sales. That alone should be considered a black eye on Microsoft.
I wasn't aware that it was selling that well up to this point. Everything that I have seen so far has suggested that the numbers, while high grant it, are rather low in comparison to typical iPad sales by Apple. I know that several reports have shown China's numbers to be around 150,000 total sold since launch and that was the biggest market push for Apple with the tablet this time around (comparatively, the Mini sold over half a million in the first month in China alone). My best guestimate would show that maybe 500,000 units for the quarter (we really won't know until Q1 2016 reports) which would put revenues in the $500 million range for the quarter ($2 billion annually if numbers were to remain steady), unless you can point me to better info. I would say, though, that since Apple's profit margin is much higher than MS, if the numbers did stay steady (or if the numbers are wrong since we don't know them yet), it would still likely mean more profit for Apple.
Look at the iPad Pro. If you buy that, you are an idiot who has no idea what productivity means.
I guess I can’t comment, because mine was a gift, so the work I do with it I guess doesn’t count as being productive.
Or maybe you’re just a lunatic troll, like any of the thousands we’ve seen before, whose physical and digital genitals are psychologically bolstered in size by pretending to tear down people who are infinitely better than you simply because you couldn’t afford what they have.
Comments
Mmmm yes, it's failing so badly that Apple decided that it needed to make a "Pro" version of the iPad to "compete" with it. I will not argue the sales or revenue numbers. I admit that Apple is the unopposed king as far as raw revenue and margin go. However, the Surface line has done a lot to reinvigorate the Windows OEM landscape. Overall build quality has drastically increased in the high end windows space over the last few years in response to MS actually investing time and effort into showing what an innovative and premium Windows experience can be. My college campus is filled with 2 in 1 touchscreen Windows laptops and tablets. Surface may not move the same numbers as MacBook and iPad, but you're forgetting that there is an entire Windows ecosystem out there to choose from, you aren't limited to the five or 6 offerings that Apple has to offer. MS and Apple have strikingly different business models and to judge the success of any given product line by using the same criteria as the other is absolute lunacy.
Apple did about $24 Billion in Mac sales (revenue) for 2015 (Apple breaks down their charts into iPad, iPhone, Mac, Services, and Other Products). Now, this next number isn't 100% accurate because the next investor report for MS isn't due until January 28th, but based on the current numbers thus far, Surface looks to be about $4 Billion in sales (revenue). Note that revenue doesn't equate to profit. Now, I know that these numbers aren't actual units sold, but the if you compare the dollar amounts, one can easily see that Apple products are in fact outselling the Surface line. Now, over generalizing here, if one considers that the iPad is approximately half the cost of a surface (on average, in general) it would probably be safe to say that a good 6 or 7 to 1 Apple is fair.
You must think we're all stupid here. Do you have any idea how many new troll accounts we see at AI? And the patterns they take with posting? Starts with an initial critical remark filled with a half-truth, then a couple genetic posts along with the obligatory "I like Apple products....but" comment as if saying something nice about Apple legitimizes your comments.
Seen it all a thousand times before and haven't had to apologize to anyone yet who stuck around to become part of the community. If it quacks like a duck...
What you describe is not a known issue with the iPad. Most of us that own iPads do not experience the issue you describe - even after remaining connected for months at a time. My money is on an environmental conflict in your network setup - and if I were you, I'd start by looking at the router and flashing it (if possible). Good luck!
But, as to what you are saying, I can actually agree with you there. Microsoft can be blamed here because, as you pointed out and stated, Microsoft is providing the process and is supposed to be ensuring that it works correctly (even though Microsoft is just one of many people involved with the solution). But, that isn't what is being stated in the article. The article is blaming the Surface, not Microsoft. What actually failed was the Patriots network. From what I have read, that network is the responsibility of Microsoft (but they don't actually manage it) so I'm for blaming MS for the failure. But the Surface had nothing to do with it. It was just another screen on the field that couldn't access what it was supposed to.
If you're whole business depends on good PR, better make damn sure such a thing doesn't occur EVER.
Why not just setup redundant WIFIs with redundant backends with failover... (or even 3 redundant networks, costs aren't that high!)
How the hell hard can that be? Seriously? It's not like they don't have the money?
I got $3-4000 of network equipment in my own home; bet I've got better reliability than their setup (I've also a lot of Unix servers, workstations and fiber coming in).
With the kind of money they got and for that game, they could hire guys with a directional WIFI antennas pointed at everyone with a tablet giving each of them a private network with a very strong signal with each back-end plugged straight into a first class switch connected right into the god damn Internet backbone.
BTW, I've got 30 years experience in building resilient systems and if that's the best and org like the NFL and MS can do, well they, and everyone involved (including MS) suck ass (yes, suck ass is a tech term.. ;-).
means call him on it. But don't act like you're better than him and attack him in the comments or demand that he change *his* writing style because you don't like the facts that he's chosen to share.
Keep up the good work Daniel. The vast majority of us are silent fans of your work. Trolls like this definitely do not speak for us.
If it did that all year, it would easily beat by a lot the Surface Sales. That alone should be considered a black eye on Microsoft.
Even if it's a f*cking net issue, it's still MS's responsibility buddy; because, if it fails, they look like POS; and they did.
So, go back to use your product which MS has now made sure it is perceived by all as being 100% turd; be proud of it (sic) it truly represents you.
Or maybe you’re just a lunatic troll, like any of the thousands we’ve seen before, whose physical and digital genitals are psychologically bolstered in size by pretending to tear down people who are infinitely better than you simply because you couldn’t afford what they have.