I wonder if that set up would work better with a Unix based tablet instead of a Microsoft POS
I suspect no POS is going to work if the network it is using goes down. Of course we all know that had they been using iPads and the network went down, they wouldn't have had a problem.
Unless the network went down due to the POS on the end
I'm thinking that Apple waited until they had a processor developed that could give them the performance that they needed to created a larger "Pro" iPad, which had likely been on Apple's roadmap for the last 5 years.. But you should stick with your story.
Sadly, MS fucked up the Surface rollout so badly that they likely lost the mobile tablet market. But hey, look at our hybrids! Sure, we're cannibalizing laptops, but it's not like it's zero sum for us! We're making billions!
Check out the forums on windowscentral.com. Both Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book are mired with issues.
I suggest you go to Apple forums, and you'll see the long list of problems users have with Apple devices.
What the heck is 1010data? Sorry your source is laughable. Let Microsoft provide actual sales figures and then we can compare to iPad.
A company that Dun & Bradstreet saw fit to partner with.
" Dun & Bradstreet (DNB)
and 1010data today announced a strategic partnership that aims to
provide a solution to hedge funds and asset managers seeking insights
and analytics that go beyond traditional analysis of financial
statements and key financial ratios. Through the strategic partnership,
Dun & Bradstreet's content, including key business performance data,
will be made available through the 1010data platform, providing an
enhanced solution to customers."
Obviously they are highly disreputable. I believe their goal is to eventually work their way down to DEDs level.
Sorry I have no time for data like that, even if there are times its favorable to Apple. The only data that matters is what Apple and Microsoft provide. I have yet to see any financial data from Microsoft that suggests Surface is outselling iPad.
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.
Out of curiosity, if all you say is true about the NFL set up, and I don't doubt you, isn't Microsoft's advertising disingenuous then? They certainly make it seem the Microsoft Surface is the be all and end all of the process with no mention it is actually irrelevant since "the entire process is technically platform agnostic."
This is Microsoft spending $400M on branding. Watch any NFL pre-game show or the commentary booth during a PGA tournament. Nobody is actually using the Surface, it's just there as a prop. It's just there so Microsoft can have their logo plastered all over the field, player benches, studio etc. I'd be curious to know if this $80M paid to the NFL has actually translated into more sales. I'm skeptical.
A company that Dun & Bradstreet saw fit to partner with.
" Dun & Bradstreet (DNB)
and 1010data today announced a strategic partnership that aims to
provide a solution to hedge funds and asset managers seeking insights
and analytics that go beyond traditional analysis of financial
statements and key financial ratios. Through the strategic partnership,
Dun & Bradstreet's content, including key business performance data,
will be made available through the 1010data platform, providing an
enhanced solution to customers."
Obviously they are highly disreputable. I believe their goal is to eventually work their way down to DEDs level.
Sorry I have no time for data like that, even if there are times its favorable to Apple. The only data that matters is what Apple and Microsoft provide. I have yet to see any financial data from Microsoft that suggests Surface is outselling iPad.
i agree with you 100%, if ms was selling more surface than apple selling iPads it would be all over the tech blogojournalsim world. but it is not, only in the "we know everything" forum world
A company that Dun & Bradstreet saw fit to partner with.
" Dun & Bradstreet (DNB)
and 1010data today announced a strategic partnership that aims to
provide a solution to hedge funds and asset managers seeking insights
and analytics that go beyond traditional analysis of financial
statements and key financial ratios. Through the strategic partnership,
Dun & Bradstreet's content, including key business performance data,
will be made available through the 1010data platform, providing an
enhanced solution to customers."
Obviously they are highly disreputable. I believe their goal is to eventually work their way down to DEDs level.
Sorry I have no time for data like that, even if there are times its favorable to Apple. The only data that matters is what Apple and Microsoft provide. I have yet to see any financial data from Microsoft that suggests Surface is outselling iPad.
I'm one of the sceptics regarding this "Surface being a hit" product, it's the tech journalists who keep declaring it so without any credible proof whatsoever. I do have a question also about the revenue they're reporting, do we know if the figures they spout are sell-in or sell-through, in other words, what are they reporting in their financials and is there any relation to these figures and how many actual paid units are out in the wild?? Microsoft is notorious for reporting sell-in (to channel, retail and OEMs) numbers and implying they are sell-through (to end users) to boost the image of success of their products. Are they still doing this with Surface figures they announce?
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.
You really need to stop confusing the issue with facts. Some people don't like that.
I bet there was a "fan(s)" that had a WIFI jammer(s) close to the Patriots sideline! Looks like they were having issues if they strayed away from the base station even a few feet. Funny how Denver's continued to work perfectly!
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.
If it's only the servers that are down, then why are the screens completely black? Shouldn't they be showing a message that allows the average person to understand what's going on? Like "Couldn't connect to server" or "couldn't download video" instead of just going black? It's not surprising that people are getting confused about this when they aren't being told what's happening.
Kinda reminds me of the BSoD where you'd see the CPU register dump. Who thought that was a good idea? There's maybe a core group of a dozen people working on the Windows OS kernel at Microsoft who can do anything with that information. To the other 99.999% of the population, it's completely useless and confusing.
I really makes no difference, because it all fits within the general framework of Microsoft as the laughing-stock of the tech world. Why? Because mediocrity, corner-cutting, and pandering to shareholders is part of their corporate culture, whether it's Bill Gates at the helm, or Ballmer T. Clown, or Nadella. It makes no difference. Very little has changed in Redmond from the time Jobs returned to Apple to the present.
The moment Apple introduced the iPod and iMacs, MS was screwed in terms of mindshare and panache. From that point on, MS had their uninspiring, volume-driven enterprise business that is anything but a driver for innovation, and on the other end they had their Windows/Office cash cow that ended up consuming all the company's time and attention, at the cost of real, innovative excitement and innovation for the consumer. And what didn't fall under these two roofs was either vaporware, expensive big-ass tables and other devices that no one could really afford, immature preview technology that no one really cared about, or Xbox/gaming, which they also ended up half-assing.
The Surface Frankentablet, neither a decent PC nor a decent tablet (which very naturally = shitty interface), barely has any traction in the market and will simply end up like Windows Phone: a sad, twisted relationship with the market wherein Microsoft achieves most of their penetration via absurd incentives, essentially using the consumer as a paid product-placement vehicle with the expectation that a time will eventually come when they won't. But it never really comes, because their grand strategy simply reaffirms the shittiness of their product.
... Ok, it's a whining, I'll give you that. Truthfully, it's called wanting to see good, accurate articles, something that the entire industry has moved away from. Unfortunately, these days, it's more about sensational tag lines, click bait, and viewership more so than accuracy.
FAIR GAME here. Don't play dumb, you can bet your ass this wouldn't have happened on Apple's watch. And you can bet IF this had happened with Apple there would be more than one article about the situation. It would have created a media frenzy just like all the other articles that flat out lie about Apple. This would have been bendgate all over again.
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.
If it's only the servers that are down, then why are the screens completely black? Shouldn't they be showing a message that allows the average person to understand what's going on? Like "Couldn't connect to server" or "couldn't download video" instead of just going black? It's not surprising that people are getting confused about this when they aren't being told what's happening.
Kinda reminds me of the BSoD where you'd see the CPU register dump. Who thought that was a good idea? There's maybe a core group of a dozen people working on the Windows OS kernel at Microsoft who can do anything with that information. To the other 99.999% of the population, it's completely useless and confusing.
Bad programming most likely. From what I have seen, the surfaces are locked down to the NFL app that they run. The NFL gives the teams their units right before the start of the game and take them from them as soon as the game ends. All other functions (running other apps, browsing the internet, camera, etc.) are completely disabled. Each team has a separate, closed network and content is pushed from the NFL to the tablets in real time. As mentioned before, the whole thing is just marketing. The process, from a technical perspective, can be done with any device. Just as the NFL was able to simply switched from Motorola to Bose headsets (which, if you remember, caused a huge stink with players with Beats contracts and such) as their radio communications network is agnostic to the receiver, the same is true for the on field data that the surfaces receive. The NFL could easily change to something else.
"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.
That's total bullshit. It is a well known fact that the Surface market share is in the single digits after being on the market for a few years now. Period.
It is especially funny considering that Apple didn't pay LA Unified to use their product. Even If Surface wasn't the reason for the failure during the game, MS and the NFL were unprepared for a data link failure, and both should suffer the consequences, just as Apple has with major failures during past Keynotes. One would think that there would at least be a fallback plan to a local server as an equalizer for both teams, but that didn't happen evidently. Egg meet face.
I don't know if you were watching the game, but they say the went to "hardwire" to keep going, so they had a plan B that worked.
Since OS X is miles behind Windows, does that means that it's a failure?
From what I know, the Surface is a mobile device. I haven't seen MS denying that. The iPad has better characteristics for some things, but it fails in others where the Surface shines. The same can be said if we compare it to the Macbook.
OS X is one product competing in an entire industry. If you compare apple unit sales 1 to 1 against any single company, then you'll see that Apple is doing very well.
Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.
the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.
This is pretty funny, it shows the lack of technical understanding of the author. They maintain two separate encrypted wifi networks, one for each team, the Pat's network went down, they ended up hardwiring some of the Pat's tablets until they could get the wifi fixed. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bashing.
Bad programming most likely. From what I have seen, the surfaces are locked down to the NFL app that they run. The NFL gives the teams their units right before the start of the game and take them from them as soon as the game ends. All other functions (running other apps, browsing the internet, camera, etc.) are completely disabled. Each team has a separate, closed network and content is pushed from the NFL to the tablets in real time. As mentioned before, the whole thing is just marketing. The process, from a technical perspective, can be done with any device.
Yeah, I understand that in this day and age, any product which will be seen on a major television broadcast (or in a movie) is an opportunity for whoever owns the rights to that broadcast to get companies to bid for that placement. So Microsoft was the highest bidder in this case and received the placement. Nothing to do with quality or personal desire, just money.
That said, I'd think that the fact that Microsoft did pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for that placement would mean they would want to ensure that it shows well. Which means working closely with the other companies responsible for the software and backend servers to ensure everything goes smoothly. It's really Microsoft's attention to detail which I'm questioning (which is a recurring theme throughout their history).
THIS site is the leader of why the Apple brand and its customers have fallen into the awful label of butthurt smug ignorants.
I cant think of another site, even android dedicated sites, that go out of their way so much to bash obviously successful competition.
The butthurt is strong and obvious.
Surface is not a sucess you troll. When you have to pay a league tens of millions of dollars to use your product you are anything but a sucess.
If you cant handle the competition get the fuc out of the kitchen. IPad is out selling Surface 10 to 1. Macbook is out selling surface book 20 to 1. Apple is totally dominating the Surface. If you cant handle the facts they go back to your Bill Gates worshiping websites.
The Surface is a success, it is profitable, and has a fairly high reputation. The purpose of Surface has never been to outsell the MacBook, they don't need to do that, the point of the surface is to be the device standard for other manufactures to look towards when making their own device. The Surface is expensive compared to Dell or Lenovo devices, and MS doesn't want to take customers away from their partners. While MacBook may outsell Surface, OSX still doesn't outsell Windows. Just look at the Windows 10 stats, in just a few months, there were more Windows 10 machines than OSX machines of any version.
Check out the forums on windowscentral.com. Both Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book are mired with issues.
I suggest you go to Apple forums, and you'll see the long list of problems users have with Apple devices.
So far, the list of problems on the iPad are a trickle compared to the torrent of complaints concerning the surface line. Especially when you consider that the iPad has an install base of over 200 million units.
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)...
According to the article, the outage only affected the Patriots sideline while the Broncos were still using their Surfaces without issue. If true then you are going to have to modify your defense a little bit.
Comments
Kinda reminds me of the BSoD where you'd see the CPU register dump. Who thought that was a good idea? There's maybe a core group of a dozen people working on the Windows OS kernel at Microsoft who can do anything with that information. To the other 99.999% of the population, it's completely useless and confusing.
The moment Apple introduced the iPod and iMacs, MS was screwed in terms of mindshare and panache. From that point on, MS had their uninspiring, volume-driven enterprise business that is anything but a driver for innovation, and on the other end they had their Windows/Office cash cow that ended up consuming all the company's time and attention, at the cost of real, innovative excitement and innovation for the consumer. And what didn't fall under these two roofs was either vaporware, expensive big-ass tables and other devices that no one could really afford, immature preview technology that no one really cared about, or Xbox/gaming, which they also ended up half-assing.
The Surface Frankentablet, neither a decent PC nor a decent tablet (which very naturally = shitty interface), barely has any traction in the market and will simply end up like Windows Phone: a sad, twisted relationship with the market wherein Microsoft achieves most of their penetration via absurd incentives, essentially using the consumer as a paid product-placement vehicle with the expectation that a time will eventually come when they won't. But it never really comes, because their grand strategy simply reaffirms the shittiness of their product.
There's really nothing more to it.
Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.
the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.
That said, I'd think that the fact that Microsoft did pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for that placement would mean they would want to ensure that it shows well. Which means working closely with the other companies responsible for the software and backend servers to ensure everything goes smoothly. It's really Microsoft's attention to detail which I'm questioning (which is a recurring theme throughout their history).