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.

Comments

I don't get it.

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:I don't get it.

[alexborges]

Brother, I must say that yes, you dont get it at all.

IT competition is all about control and platform. Microsoft is worried of anything that gets enough market to constitute a viable investment for development firms because if those firms make more money of the ipad/iphone then investing in microsoft develpment platform is less atractive and, given enough time, can even kill or seriously hinder the windows platform income which is way, way, way, way much more than anybody is ever going to get out of any ipad/iphone app.

And thats because, really, nobody can claim any kind of "moral" authority in that world (we foss guys are somehow different): if you ever make an app that makes that kind of money you can bet your ass Apple will kill it by copying it, extending it and including it in their base app set for the ipad.

It has been this way since there has been any kind of competition in personal computing.

Re:I don't get it.

[rev_sanchez]

In theory a Microsoft tablet could run most windows apps but in practice most of those don't work well on a tablet as every one of their previous tablet projects have shown so a tablet running strait Windows 7 is a bad idea. Maybe their Windows 7 Mobile will work better but what apps are they going to have for it? As for their other effort to build something that works well for a mobile platform, does anyone want a Zune app? You can pick from 24 and several of those are ad supported games no one cares about.

It's really something to see how times have changed. 10 years ago the Mac user's lament was that the software options for their computers were too limited and now Microsoft is trying to launch hardware or OSs for new hardware into markets where Apple and Google have the mindshare nearly cornered between iTunes and the Android Marketplace.

This is why Microsoft is becoming the stuff you use at work and Apple is slowly becoming the stuff you use everywhere else.

Asleep at the Switch

[Mr. Flibble]

Microsoft has been asleep at the switch for a long long time.

They chase every new product Apple comes out with, instead of actually innovating and putting a product out there that customers want. Sure, they do quite well in the operating system and Microsoft Office world, but outside that they do very little of any worth. The Xbox is only now profitable, and will probably never recoup the original costs.

Ballmer wants to chase the sexy gadgets that Apple is putting out, but Microsoft's operating system is not sexy.

Granted, there is a serious threat here, Microsoft has almost completely missed he mobile market both with phones and tablets. The irony being that Microsoft has already come out with a tablet operating system that has barely seen adoption, and the mobile OS market will only continue to grow.

So, will Microsoft come out with a tablet that "people will really want to go and buy"? Maybe - if they licence the iPad 2.0

Microsoft has become too bulky for meaningful development. Infighting between departments is crippling the ability for Microsoft to actually innovate. They will be relevant in the OS and Office Space for some time to come, but so far, Ballmer has not carved out that "third" tier of highly profitable business that he promised he would when he took the position.

Steve Ballmer - Life and Death

[Kagato]

This is pretty much it for Steve Ballmer. They are playing a catch-up game with Apple (and others). They have had so many things just fizzle while he's been at the helm. Vista, Zune, Mobile, "Slates". It's obvious he's a business guy and not the forward thinking visionary the company needs. There's been a lot of Wallstreet chatter that Steve Ballmer's time to turn things around is very short.

Innovation

[whisper_jeff]

I know it's become a cliche joke over the years but I find it amusing when a company will casually and regularly throw around the term "innovation" when they rarely are anything approaching innovative. Microsoft has become the poster-child of this movement. When was the last time that Microsoft lead the way into a new market segment? When was the last time that Microsoft truly innovated rather than following someone else's lead? I realize they've watched Apple leap into the tablet market with huge success only to recognize "I want me some of that!" but, seriously, could they have not done it themselves, years ago? They have the money to invest in R they have the brainpower to put together good stuff. But, their corporate culture (which has been discussed, ad naseum, here) absolutely stifles innovation. They have become a corporation that follows rather than leads. They have two markets (desktop OS and office suite software) where they established a lead and are going to be very slow to relinquish their leadership position but, in virtually every other market, they seem intent on watching what others do and follow the successful ones, after the fact.

It really is a shame because I'm sure, if their braintrust was let loose to create without the petty corporate politics getting in the way, they could probably make some really cool shit but, until their corporate culture is slaughtered and replaced with a new one (in other words, Ballmer is replaced...), they seem intent on remaining a me-too company.

Re:Innovation

[Scrameustache]

seriously, could they have not done it themselves, years ago?

Seriously: No. Microsoft can't make something like an iPad because it goes against their way of life. They are trying to make products that will deliver what their corporate allies want, not what consumers want, and that's why they can make a Zune to squirt things at you but they can't make an iPhone.

Apple fights its corporate partners to give its users the DRM-less files they want, Mircrosoft fights its users to give its corporate partners the "this file will autodestruct" DRM they want. It's an antithetic mindset.

Re:And yet

[AltairDusk]

I wonder if killing Courier will go down in history as one of Microsoft's huge mistakes... I certainly wasn't happy to hear it was cancelled.

MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating

[Artifice_Eternity]

Ballmer seems incapable of directing his company to do anything innovative. It's like he only sees a product category as valid when it's already been defined by someone else.

Apple defined a new category of tablet device with the iPad. Now Ballmer has MS chasing after it madly. But meanwhile, he's killed innovative new products like Courier. Apparently what he wants is to create something that's essentially a clone of whatever Apple's come up with, rather than a genuinely new kind of product.

This has been the Microsoft curse for decades, going back to the creation of Windows as a Macintosh knockoff. Yes, I know Apple didn't invent the GUI concepts used in Macintosh -- but they were the first to successfully make them into a commercial product. And MS wasn't interested until they saw that Apple was doing it.

Re:MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating

[MikeV]

While sad, it's been a smart business tactic for Microsoft. Let someone else take the risk first and do the legwork, then if it works out, bomb the market with a copy - albeit usually inferior, but often much cheaper. Nearly, if not actually, everything Microsoft has comes to being that way. Sometimes it bombs, most times it succeeds with Microsoft laughing all the way to the bank, even tho their consumers end up often wishing they spent a little extra and bought Apple. Apple is about creating neat and new stuffs. Microsoft is about copying and leeching off anything that appears to be making money in the market. All IMHO, of course.

Re:Anger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine what it must be like to glance upon a small child delighted with a shiny bauble or piece of candy; and then feel the insane urge to take it? To revel in the misery left in the wake of your theft; jealousy and elation forming an overwhelming melange as you escape the scene?

This is what it feels like to be Steve Ballmer. And it has been a long, long time since he was last able to take a piece of candy from a child.

Re:Anger.

[Eponymous Coward]

You're complaining that the iPad/iPhone isn't your computer. Well no shit. If that's what you want, then the iPad isn't for you.

If, on the other hand, you want a web tablet with insane battery life that you can watch movies on, listen to music, read ebooks, or browse (part of) the web, an i device might be worth it for you.

World of Warcraft isn't there, but Plants vs Zombies is a pretty nifty experience on the iPad. If 90% of everything is crap, that still leaves thousands of non-crap applications that these things can run.

Basically, I would say it comes down to the form factor and the applications. Either one could be the killer feature that makes the device worth the money. If it didn't require a computer to set it up, it's the device I would be telling my parents to get when they call me and say they want a computer.

Plus, it's only $500 or so. It's a pretty nice piece of technology for that much money. Lots of programmers (including me) love programming and this is a very interesting platform.

Re:Anger.

[HermMunster]

Pen Computing's offerings were a threat to Microsoft's core cash cow. Microsoft's philosophy back then was to kill anything that threatened the OS. Microsoft finagled their way into Pen's offices under the guise that they wanted to praise Pen if what they were creating was worthy. Pen, being flattered, allowed them to see the product. A few months later Microsoft announced Pen Windows. Everyone that was adopting Windows (the industry was headed that way en masse) directed their attention to Pen Windows. This told them that they shouldn't want to consider any alternatives when the pen concepts were being added to Windows itself. That began the downfall of Pen. It is the only reason Microsoft entered that market.