Slashdot Mirror
To Ballmer, Grabbing iPad's Market Is 'Job One Urgency'
Barence writes "Microsoft's Steve Ballmer has vented his frustration at the success of the iPad and said developing a Windows alternative is 'job one urgency.' 'Apple has done an interesting job of putting together a synthesis and putting a product out, and in which they've... they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell, let me just be clear about that,' Ballmer told analysts. The Microsoft boss said the company plans to deliver a range of tablet formats in the next year, some based on Intel's next-gen Oak Trail processor. 'It is job one urgency around here. Nobody is sleeping at the switch. And so we are working with those partners, not just to deliver something, but to deliver products that people really want to go buy.'" In Microsoft's vision, slates will run a derivative of Windows 7.
Shocking news. Microsoft exec upset by the success of a member of the competition.
This is not the penguin you're looking for.
Once again, Microsoft is late to the party and Ballmer's pissed. Hey, Steve, your company has never been a trendsetter! Deal with it.
I'm no Apple fan, but a company that can create markets out of thin air for products everyone else assumed would fail has to be doing something right.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
The iPad is old news. Wired reported on the existence of the iPad way back in 1999. Why wasn't Microsoft working on their iPad-competior way back then? More importantly, why are they trying to play catch up now? Should they not be working on the next big thing?
I don't want a "range", developed with "partners". MS has repeated that mistake so often now, expecting different results every time. isn't there a witty saying that defines insanity this way?
Fleur de Sel
They killed the genuinely interesting-looking Courier before it ever got anywhere near production.
Can't think why the vultures are circling over Ballmer, can you?
This seems to be another "Johny come lately" attempt by Microsoft to catch up to Apple and Google. "Innovation" may be a big catchword these days by the large companies, but by making a competing project "job one urgency", it just underscore the fact that Microsoft is just trying to play a me-too game.
I don't mind if Microsoft does well or not, but why do they actively choose not to actually innovate? Do they not understand that the success of search engines, phones, tablets, and everything else that they've been late to the market on is because...well, because they're late to the market.
I simply don't understand why Microsoft doesn't get it. Innovating requires *new* ideas. Otherwise, they might as well be another Chinese second rate copy.
I own an iPad. It's nice for what it is, a media consumption device.
What amazes me though is the time it's taking for viable alternatives. It wasn't in any way a surprise that Apple launched this. It wasn't a surprise that this would be a new market segment - netbooks had already shown demand for lower cost highly portable computing devices.
I purchased the iPad for a specific function and it does its job well. However, I can see plenty of areas it could be improved. We're still waiting on multi-tasking. It has no camera a gaping hole in what would otherwise be a great device for grandparents to use for web/email and skype). No flash does limit some sites, and Safari is just okay, certainly not a great browser - you have to pay to get a browser that supports tabs!
The email client seems cumbersome, and from a business user perspective, Microsoft could really make a killing from a similar form factor but with outlook. Outlook is, after all, still king in the corporate world.
The competition needs to get in gear before the iPad becomes as entrenched as the iPod.
>they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell
Not "we'd like to sell more", not "we'd like to supply their software and participate in their success like we did with AppleSoft Basic and Mac Office".
This is competitiveness in its pathological form, where the point isn't to win but instead to make sure others lose.
'Because that's going to make far less money in the long run.'
Is it? Microsoft has already basically conceded that Apple has won this round. As Apple very well knows from the early desktop days, once a competitor has a solid lead in the market share it is very, very difficult to get the market back. It seems like whatever Microsoft's offering for this market is, it's probably never going to be as popular as the iPad.
Software is supposed to be Microsoft's main business, not hardware. Producing quality apps for the iPad as well as for various other portable devices that hopefully *other* people make, but which run Windows, would be their best bet, money wise. I haven't been able to see why, for some time now, Microsoft won't just focus on producing good products in one area (software) rather than producing shitty products in lots of areas.
Microsoft, why don't you just write some QUALITY software for the iPad instead of trying to go head on in competition? That way, the more iPads Apple sells, the more software you sell. It's win-win.
But we, the consumers would lose. Without a healthy competition, there is no pressure to lower prices. And, there is no pressure to innovate on the existing iPad for Apple. So, yes, I would love to see many tablets - some with an Apple OS, some with Windows, and some with Android. What could be better than having the choice?
Microsoft, why don't you just write some QUALITY software
Because that goes against everything they stand for.
That way, the more iPads Apple sells, the more software you sell. It's win-win.
NO! There is no win-win: the other guy has to lose! They MUST lose! You're not a winner unless someone else is hurting.
You can't take the sky from me...
To be honest, they're better off buying HTC, or releasing their own version of an Android tablet. They're far less likely to fuck it up if they do that,
I disagree - in my opinion, they'd "Buy HTC" - move all the hardware to Windows mobile, and HTC will just be a memory.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
MS has not recently issued an new product. It's always me too.
Replace "recently" with "ever" and your sentence is fixed.
You can't take the sky from me...
As Apple very well knows from the early desktop days, once a competitor has a solid lead in the market share it is very, very difficult to get the market back.
Really? Ask Wordstar, Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, dBaseIII, Netscape, and countless other companies what fat lot of good the early lead did for them?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Excellent list. I'd offer one even more profound example. Apple. The Apple II (combined with VisiCalc) redefined the personal computer from hobbyist novelty to must-have business tool. If anyone has had a front-row seat to how the industry works, it's Apple.
Urgency is not going to produce a quality product. According to Jobs the iPad was in development before the iPhone, they have been waiting for technology to catch up the the design. They have spent serious time and money on both hardware and software design.
You don't turn around and make a high quality product in 6 months, sure you might already have the core of the OS ready to go, but to develop the UI and the applications and come up with a consistent user experience takes time and effort, lots of it. If MS rushes to release a tablet in 6 months it will not be good. It will not likely even be good enough. Sure the people who want to be different might buy it, much like they bought the zune, but making a quality, easy to use product does not happen overnight.
My professional career has been spent creating high end, end user software with a specialization in user interface design and development. Most developers consider this to be something that gets tacked on at the end but it is not and the iPad (and any competitor to the iPad) is more about the UI than anything else and trust me, the UI matters more to most users than just about anything else.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Microsoft will be successful with it just like they were successful with netbooks. They came into the game late with an inferior product, but used their position to push the hardware manufacturers and retailers to sell XP netbooks instead of Linux netbooks.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
"In Microsoft's vision, slates will run a derivative of Windows 7."
and therein lies the problem.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Even Gates wasn't fully on top of things BUT he was at least in the same ballpark.
Note that MS under Gates' watch had successful (and ruthless) business practices to make sure that MS made heaping tons of money, even without being a major market innovator. It was often easier to let others innovate, then use a combination of financial might, second-mover advantage, and sometimes a bit 'o market leverage to move in and take over.
I'm frankly a bit shocked at how much this news item echoes Ballmer's earlier pathetic whinging about iPod and then iPhone. It's unacceptable that a major corporate CEO should sound like such a broken record when the message being repeated is "failure!"
Without a healthy competition, there is no pressure to lower prices.
Healthy competition? What healthy competition? It certainly won't be in the form of Micro-Soft's rush-job tablets.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
The problem is that a netbook interface is pretty much identical to a normal PCs interface, so Windows works "good enough" and is more familiar to most users. The traditional Windows paradigm does NOT work well in a touch-only, tablet interface. If they insist on using it, they will fail. It doesn't matter how much money they throw at it... look at the Zune.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.