"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 journalis.
The lies you tell. What do they know? As the customer they know the sh-t doesn't work and that's all they need to know. I take my car to the dealership because they know what to do when it doesn't run perfectly. I dont go to Midas. I take my watches to apple or Cartier not the guy in the mall. I dont care the who what when where it doesnt work, i want it fixed or i buy something else.
The post I answered mention "As for Surface and the iPad Pro, I'm all for letting the numbers describe the success of each. iPad sales for the previous quarter will be known Tuesday after the stock markets close.
So in his POV, numbers define success. I don't necessarily agree with that. If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead. And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone.
There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales. IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications. For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10. Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.
youre getting confused and trying to compare apples & oranges. you cannot refute an ipad-to-surface sales volume contest by saying "But Windows sells more than OS X!" that isnt the question. the question is which of these two specific manufacturer devices is selling better. not which desktop OS platform has more units. you also cant suggest that not wanting to compare oranges to this question means he's saying *no numbers anywhere* can be brought up. that hasnt been suggested.
stick to the topic -- sales between two specific devices, ipad vs surface.
No, I'm not confused. Second, I didn't refute that iPad sells more than Surface Pro. I know iPad sells more than Surface Pros. I just used his logic and apply it to other devices and applications. But since you want to make a direct comparison, then you cannot compare the Surface Pro to iPads, since the Surface Pro is far more capable than iPads and run desktop applications. That means that it more in the line of the Macbook, and for now we don't know how they compare in sales, since Apple, neither MS have released specific sales numbers.
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.
Yeah, everything works fine and "What a wonderful job those MS Surfaces are doing." Things turn to shit, "Oh, it's the network."
I was laughing so hard when this happened and wondered if DED would make an article. Was not disappointed.
Honestly they'd be better served with iPad Pros.
Since the problem was related to network, how the iPad Pro would have done better?
Because Apple is generally very picky about who they deal with (especially when it's related to marketing). And if they did choose to go for a high-profile placement like this, you can bet that they'd have senior networking people there to help plan and support the network operations (as well as software developers ensuring the app they're using is up-to-par). It doesn't mean that the same problems couldn't happen, but they'd be much less likely due to the attention-to-detail which Apple generally has. They typically don't do things halfway.
At the end of the day, they are jocks, highly paid jocks, but not renowned for their brain power, throwing something to the floor if it showed something they didnt like is about what I would expect. Overpaid, pampered glory hounds.....
And this is the exactly the attitude I find all of the Android tech-heads have when people don't use their convoluted technology: the whole world is a bunch of idiots. Everyone should spend all of their waking hours learning about technology or else they're idiots. They can't possibly fathom that there's a world of doctors, lawyers, teachers, athletes, actors, directors, musicians, and others who have spent their time learning and doing things very much unrelated to technology. And that these people simply want a computer to work with little effort so that they can get on with doing the things they like. But what they do is unimportant because understanding technology is the only thing that matters in life...
Apple Insider just lost a lot of credibility on my end. If they can't report accurately on something like this, why should I bother reading their stories about ANYTHING else?
This Mac, iOS, Android, Windows user says "adios, Apple Insider!"
2 posts in the history of your account - and one of them to say goodbye...
we'll miss the contribution you've made to the community.... /s
While I'm all for constructive criticism of a product, it would appear this has little to do with the surface itself and more to do with networking issues, which the article clearly states. If that really was the issue during the game, Microsoft has nothing to do with it, nor does the surface itself.
The network issues would either be due to the NFL's/Stadium's WiFi and/or the network drivers on the surface (of which Microsoft has nothing to do with at all, as drivers are written by the component manufacturer [Broadcom, Intel, Qualcomm, etc.])
All of the weeks that the system has worked, Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for the entire system. If they're going to mislead people into thinking that somebody else's program and technology (the backend system) is a value add provided by Microsoft - then they damn well be ready to take their lumps when that system has problems. Because Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for all the successes, they must also take the responsibility for the failure!
There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail. Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.
Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system. Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system. The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft. A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction. Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own??? Not me!
Sounds like they're too dependent on technology. What did they do before they had tablets?
They used big monitors to display motion video and laser printers to print still frames, stuffing the latter into laminated binders for carrying around like an iPad.
In other words, they were still too dependent on technology, it was just slower and less user friendly.
Since the problem was related to network, how the iPad Pro would have done better?
Because Apple is generally very picky about who they deal with (especially when it's related to marketing).
MS is very picky too, that's the reason the whole infrastructure was very reliable all year long. Too bad those 15-20 minutes were in the championship game.
And if they did choose to go for a high-profile placement like this, you can bet that they'd have senior networking people there to help plan and support the network operations (as well as software developers ensuring the app they're using is up-to-par).
Yes, they had support in the field. Here is part of the statement from MS,
"Our team on the field has confirmed the issue was not related to the tablets themselves but rather an issue with the network. We worked with our partners who manage the network to ensure the issue was resolved quickly."
IMO, that's a plan to support the network.
It doesn't mean that the same problems couldn't happen, but they'd be much less likely due to the attention-to-detail which Apple generally has. They typically don't do things halfway.
While I'm all for constructive criticism of a product, it would appear this has little to do with the surface itself and more to do with networking issues, which the article clearly states. If that really was the issue during the game, Microsoft has nothing to do with it, nor does the surface itself.
The network issues would either be due to the NFL's/Stadium's WiFi and/or the network drivers on the surface (of which Microsoft has nothing to do with at all, as drivers are written by the component manufacturer [Broadcom, Intel, Qualcomm, etc.])
All of the weeks that the system has worked, Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for the entire system. If they're going to mislead people into thinking that somebody else's program and technology (the backend system) is a value add provided by Microsoft - then they damn well be ready to take their lumps when that system has problems. Because Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for all the successes, they must also take the responsibility for the failure!
There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail. Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.
Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system. Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system. The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft. A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction. Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own??? Not me!
For some reason, you post mention redundant servers, when the problem was related to a network issue. If the system was running with iPads, they would have the same problem because (again) it was a network problem. Maybe it would be worst, since the Surface went hardwire, something you cannot do with iPads (at least from what I know).
BTW, MS had personnel in the field to give support, and the situation was fixed. That's part of a recovery plan, and looks like the downtime was minimum because of that. I think the issue would have taken longer to fix if the had no backup plan at all. IMO, they had been very successful all year long. Too bad your opinion is based in 15-20 minutes instead of how the system have work the whole season.
All of the weeks that the system has worked, Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for the entire system. If they're going to mislead people into thinking that somebody else's program and technology (the backend system) is a value add provided by Microsoft - then they damn well be ready to take their lumps when that system has problems. Because Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for all the successes, they must also take the responsibility for the failure!
There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail. Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.
Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system. Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system. The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft. A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction. Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own??? Not me!
For some reason, you post mention redundant servers, when the problem was related to a network issue. If the system was running with iPads, they would have the same problem because (again) it was a network problem. Maybe it would be worst, since the Surface went hardwire, something you cannot do with iPads (at least from what I know).
BTW, MS had personnel in the field to give support, and the situation was fixed. That's part of a recovery plan, and looks like the downtime was minimum because of that. I think the issue would have taken longer to fix if the had no backup plan at all. IMO, they had been very successful all year long. Too bad your opinion is based in 15-20 minutes instead of how the system have work the whole season.
I mentioned redundant systems which would include network and servers. It doesn't matter that this particular problem was network related - my comments stand that there should have been backup servers. They should not have had to fix the network - they should have had a hot standby network ready and waiting. The downtime could/should have been reduced to less than a minute as opposed to the 15 or 20 it took to switch to a hard-wired solution.
When evaluating a disaster recovery plan/process - it doesn't matter how well the system worked or for what length of time things ran without issue. Evaluating the response to a problem, the impact the problem creates and the length of the outage is what is important - and that is where Microsoft failed. Microsoft knew that the eyes of the world were on them and yet they chose not to implement a truly resilient system - so in my opinion, they deserve all of the negativity arising from the incident. Instead of trying to pass the buck and blame someone else for the problem, they should be apologizing for dropping the ball and for thinking that a 15-20 minute outage mid-game was acceptable.
Because Apple is generally very picky about who they deal with (especially when it's related to marketing).
MS is very picky too
Really? Because the advertising campaigns Microsoft has used over the years do not give me that impression at all. So I just assumed that the NFL deal was similar in nature.
Too bad those 15-20 minutes were in the championship game.
15-20 minutes of downtime is an eternity in such a situation. If there really was a redundancy plan in place (mirrored servers, parallel Wi-Fi networks), I'd expect a few minutes of downtime in the worst case scenario (the time it takes to detect the problem and move all of the devices onto the backup system).
So Apple "generally" don't do things halfway.
Obviously there are iCloud outages on occasion (though it's been much better lately), and the debacle over their partnership with Pearson for providing curriculum content on iPads in L.A. school districts is definitely a deal which I'm sure Apple regrets (didn't do their usual due diligence). But overall, from what I've seen and read, I get the sense that if Apple can't do something well (and/or can't find a business partner to work with which meets their standards), they won't do it all.
There you go. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/23/8484267/microsoft-earnings-report-q3-2015. They recorded 713M in revenue for the surface line in Q3 2015. Sure, they aren't "apple" revenue numbers, but no one has "apple" revenue numbers besides apple. The surface line might not sell as well as iPad, but it definitely isn't struggling. Quit flinging around insults, I find it very hard to take you seriously if you have to result to calling me a "shill" and "full of shit".
Revenue does not equal profit. You know that, right? Sales are up 44% over last year? Wow! That's not very impressive if they lose $5 per unit. And even if they break even or make 10% profit per unit. That's only about 70 million in profit. If the IPad Pro made 70 million in profit over a full year - do you think people would call it "a resounding success"? LOL!
In any case - I'm just making up numbers. I read the article you linked and I couldn't see any information that even suggested that the Surface is profitable. Revenue itself is not an indicator of success. Can you provide any evidence that MS is making a profit off of Surface sales?
I never said profit = revenue. You are not special because you know the difference between revenue and profit, almost everyone over the age of 12 knows that. I said they were selling well. I never said anything about profit. Plus your example isn't great. $70 million dollars in profit is nothing to shake a stick at.
Comments
I guess Ford and Budweiser are failures too?
"Yeah, I get it now."
we'll miss the contribution you've made to the community.... /s
Microsoft paid the NFL $400 million for this:
There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail. Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.
Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system. Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system. The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft. A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction. Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own??? Not me!
In other words, they were still too dependent on technology, it was just slower and less user friendly.
Yes, they had support in the field. Here is part of the statement from MS,
"Our team on the field has confirmed the issue was not related to the tablets themselves but rather an issue with the network. We worked with our partners who manage the network to ensure the issue was resolved quickly."
IMO, that's a plan to support the network.
So Apple "generally" don't do things halfway.
BTW, MS had personnel in the field to give support, and the situation was fixed. That's part of a recovery plan, and looks like the downtime was minimum because of that. I think the issue would have taken longer to fix if the had no backup plan at all. IMO, they had been very successful all year long. Too bad your opinion is based in 15-20 minutes instead of how the system have work the whole season.
When evaluating a disaster recovery plan/process - it doesn't matter how well the system worked or for what length of time things ran without issue. Evaluating the response to a problem, the impact the problem creates and the length of the outage is what is important - and that is where Microsoft failed. Microsoft knew that the eyes of the world were on them and yet they chose not to implement a truly resilient system - so in my opinion, they deserve all of the negativity arising from the incident. Instead of trying to pass the buck and blame someone else for the problem, they should be apologizing for dropping the ball and for thinking that a 15-20 minute outage mid-game was acceptable.
15-20 minutes of downtime is an eternity in such a situation. If there really was a redundancy plan in place (mirrored servers, parallel Wi-Fi networks), I'd expect a few minutes of downtime in the worst case scenario (the time it takes to detect the problem and move all of the devices onto the backup system).
Obviously there are iCloud outages on occasion (though it's been much better lately), and the debacle over their partnership with Pearson for providing curriculum content on iPads in L.A. school districts is definitely a deal which I'm sure Apple regrets (didn't do their usual due diligence). But overall, from what I've seen and read, I get the sense that if Apple can't do something well (and/or can't find a business partner to work with which meets their standards), they won't do it all.