Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Sell Its Own Windows RT Tablet
Glasswire writes "ComputerWorld reports that Microsoft will announce a Microsoft-branded tablet on Monday running the Win RT (ARM-based) subset version of Win 8. MSFT choose not to offer a x86 Win 8 version, which could have given them a performance advantage over ARM-based Apple iPads. A PCMag opinion piece titled 'A Microsoft Tablet Would Be Dumb' says, 'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.' No reaction yet from Microsoft's system OEM customers that it will now be competing with."
"MSFT choose"? Seriously?
Looks like knee-jerk anti-Microsoftism to me. Nobody has said the same thing about Google branded tablets, despite the reports Google intends to release one in the next month or two. Moreover, several PC makers, noteably Asus, have already announced Windows RT tablets.
Microsoft have engaged in some sordid business practices, and prior to Windows 7 their desktop operating systems were terrible. But just making up any old crap about them makes you look stupid, not Microsoft.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Because now Microsoft CAN lock the device down since it will be their own product.
This tablet is now more like iPad and general Apple hardware+software combinations that people always say is "unfair" when it is their own product.
If they just made a generic OS for any hardware maker to buy, then they would be open to attacks if they tried to lock out competing OSes from it.
That helps clear up the mystery of why MSFT raised the price of RT for OEMs.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
A windows tablet that can't run windows applications.
Yep that'll go very well with your standard windows customer.
How's that different from Google, who supports the Nexus smartphone series to provide a reference for other companies?
You have to make up your mind. Either MS could not find anybody to make an RT tablet, or they will have competitors in the RT tab;let market. It cannot be both.
I am no fan of Microsoft, but I tend to like them better when they are the underdog. It seems it brings the better out of them.
As a network administrator/system operator/analyst/jack of all, I want an x86 tablet please. Why? Because I need a windows tablet in the enterprise that I can manage like a computer.
RT is nice...for the consumer space...I guess. But I really want a windows tablet for the enterprise space please.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'll be queuing outside the store at midnight with all the other Microsoft fans. This is going to be incredible folks. The hype surrounding this tablet could even surpass that of the Zune!
I mean seriously, wasn't Windows 8 having all this newfangled interface specifically for tablets?
It's a cage match were the left hand competes with the right hand to see who's going to dominate. :)
This is ./ , what doe you expect from us you...you...Anonymouse Coward!
If previous reports of >$80 for OEM WinRT are correct, only Microsoft can reasonably afford to build low end Windows RT tablets, as the $80 becomes prohibitive software cost for low end tablets (where WinRT will compete). For Microsoft it is just inter-divisional funny money.
How do HW OEMs compete with a $200 Kindle Fire (or rumored Google Branded $200 tablet) when saddled with $80+ OS?
Why is it that Microsoft can't seem to do anything until some one else does it and it's usually Apple? Apple used a windows environment before Microsoft. Zune came after virtually everyone else had a music player so it never had much of a chance. Now they suddenly decide it's time to get into tablets? FYI there are other examples, just making a point. Just seems like a poor business model to wait until market saturation to launch a product. If Apple launches a TV can we expect a Microsoft TV a few years after? I didn't include things like a portable OS because they have tried that before but it didn't take off where as Android and iOS have done well. They just seem to wait until others take the risk then get their feet wet once the pool is full.
MS doesn't 'make' anything. The most notable 'microsoft' hardware platform without OEM branding is xbox 360, and that's made by Flextronics, Wistron, and Celestica.
In this case, I'd wager they have an ODM relationship in place with some southeast asia company. It's possible they'll design it and OEM it out, but I'd guess ODM instead.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This is the same trick they tried with the original Windows Mobile.
I tell you, I bought a phone with Windows Mobile 6 on it and swore forever that I'd never use another MS mobile product.
After my experience with Win 8 preview I am strongly considering buying a few spare Win 7 keys and clinging to this OS until Win 9.
Look, we can all see this will flop, but when it does, can this time the shareholders dump Ballmer?
He makes terrible choices, and that impacts their products. They have talent in Microsoft, they have money, they have a market to leverage, yet time and time again he fails to marshal them.
So at some point the shareholders have to say enough and dump him.
Oh and BTW, the Acer A700 tablet has sold out on pre-order. That's the *Android* Quad Core Tegra 3, with bigger than HD screen (1920x1200), so Windows RT will face incredibly tough competition out there.
If they are about to buy Nokia at a fire sale price.
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
Remember that MS is a huge company with many many mouths to feed. They need to sell them at a fairly large profit to feed the machine.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Doesn't Windows look Really Tired
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
perhaps selling them with just a version of "FreeDOS" pre-installed... oh wait, forgot about mandatory UEFISecureBoot with per-device unique keys/certificates.
They need to sell them at a fairly large profit to feed the machine.
Microsoft does pour money into markets for years at zero or negative profits in hopes of eventually winning. Just look at Bing.
They still have Desktop OS/Office monopoly machine printing money until something they pour money on catches fire.
This could be their way of seeding the WinRT market that doesn't really make sense for OEMs (anyone?).
Smart Glass. This is a bit different than a phone. Just like they make Keyboards, Mice and Joysticks. This is primarily for the smart glass living room marketplace, and they are going to explore ideas that are best for that space and application, as well as all the other cool stuff you can do with a tablet.
Remember that Google is a huge company with many many mouths to feed as well.
Yet, last time I checked, Android is available for free, and it's open sourced under the permissive Apache license to boot.
As Steve Ballmer has taught us, hardware will be free and only software will cost money.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The reason OS/2 failed was because OEMs didn't want to support a competitor.
With MS doing this and charging licensing fees it will only make companies like Asus prefer Andriod tablets instead. No one wants competitors and to invest a lot of money and therefore risk to help someone who is actively stealing customers out.
MS is turning into IBM of old in many ways. A former monopolist who lost its way after being cocky with new lower cost competitors while it focuses on bigger machines. The desktops and workstation are the mainframes of old in this parallel. We all remember what happened next and how IBM is not even in the PC market it created.
http://saveie6.com/
If previous reports of >$80 for OEM WinRT are correct, only Microsoft can reasonably afford to build low end Windows RT tablets, as the $80 becomes prohibitive software cost for low end tablets (where WinRT will compete). For Microsoft it is just inter-divisional funny money.
How do HW OEMs compete with a $200 Kindle Fire (or rumored Google Branded $200 tablet) when saddled with $80+ OS?
The answer is Android.
Keep it up Microsoft and you wont have any tablets left as the OEMs will just have laptops with Win RT on x86 and Android tablets.
http://saveie6.com/
Remember that Google is a huge company with many many mouths to feed as well.
Yet, last time I checked, Android is available for free, and it's open sourced under the permissive Apache license to boot.
That's because Android isn't a product Google is selling. You are the product.
Android is just one more gateway for selling you to their real customers.
AXLE GREASE, Down Under, Tuesday (NTN) — Desperate to stay competitive against iPhone and Android mobile devices, Microsoft has released a two-pound lump of actual cow faeces that they claim constitutes a phone.
Windows RT, in development for several years, strips the mobile device down to its fundamental essence: futility, annoyance, malfunction, inconvenience and a socially unacceptable odour. Confounding analyst expectations, the turd is in fact shined.
US mobile carriers hailed the turd as the perfect physical complement to their world-famous customer service. “This powerful product will promote our growth!” said John Harrobin of Verizon Wireless. “We’re marketing them as edible.”
“We think we can really work the brand equity,” said Steve Ballmer, modelling the optional shoulder-length rubber gloves. “Everyone works with our stuff all day every day. They know who Microsoft is and what we do.”
“How about making our customers actually swallow our bullshit physically?” said John Harrobin. “Windows Mobile 7 was my idea.”
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Search
Adwords
Adsense
Gmail
Youtube
Google Docs
Maps
Android
Chrome
Google Earth
Analytics
Blogger
Anyone who can beat Microsoft comprehensively at browsers, phone OSs, and search shouldn't be dismissed.
The reason OS/2 failed was because OEMs didn't want to support a competitor.
It is interesting to see history explained by someone who obviously was not there, Would you like to see some MicroSoft branded OS/2 boxes? Maybe learn what really happened?
So let's see it's not Windows and so it does not run the millions of Windows software packages. And it's not Windows Phone either so it does not run those apps either, It only runs Metro UI apps compiled especially for Win RT (ARM) which is is let's see hmm... Nothing! It's a whole new platform in a space that MS has zero market share. Google making a tablet makes some sense they already have an Android market full of apps and people that would buy a sweet Android tablet and they already sell the Nexus line directly as a sort of reference platform.
Microsoft making a tablet really looks like they have no idea what they are doing and are just trying to do exactly everything Apple does and hope that will result in lightening striking twice.
Worse than that is that there are already Android tablets that cost less than $80. Sure they may all suck today, but time marches forward and they will continue to get better. Those sucky tablets would already be good for non-general purpose use. Things like a web based control panel for home automation. Look at the Raspberry Pi. $25-$35. A device like that will never run an $80 OS.
Some people have been claiming for years that Apple needed to go back to the clone days and allow other OEMs to sell Mac OS X on their PCs too.
Now that it appears Microsoft will be getting directly into the Windows-on-hardware business I suppose we'll find out if that above demand makes business sense.
(Yes these are tablets but I believe the tablets are tomorrow's PCs)
Cmmon folks, its just speculation by different sites. Why argue on something that has no basis? If Microsoft thinks it will help their business they will otherwise not, chill out
The rumor comes from a "an individual with knowledge of the company." Uh huh.
I don't think MS will be announcing a tablet a la the iPad on monday. Windows 8 wont be released for months and announcing a tablet so soon would be a stupid marketing move. They chose LA for the location, and I bet they'll announce some kind of deal with entertainment companies. It will be a streaming content service via the Xbox or a device similar to the kindle fire.
Android isn't free. The OS is open source, so you can use that for free, but if you want the trademarked Android name and proprietary Google apps, you have to pay. Google is very secretive about how much they charge, though.
Can't we all just stop bickering, and agree that "WinRT" is a HORRIBLE name?
Especially for a CONSUMER product?
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Apparently you were unaware that Microsoft was practically a division of IBM at the time.
But hey, an IBM executive once admitted they were going to use OS/2 to force the clone companies to license PS/2 Microchannel, but you can believe whatever you want to.
if I'm a tablet manufacturer, do I really want to compete head on with the company that makes the OS? How am I suppose to compete against someone that has instant access to the dev team and pays no license fee?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Profit is not necessarily the best way to gauge the financial health of a company. If it's in Microsoft's interests to move money around to reduce their tax bill, you would expect them to do it.
The other issue is the "console lifespan". Consoles often start off by selling at a significant loss to build up a substantial user-base. So for the first 2-3 years they can expect to make a loss. Production costs go down, and the growing user base generates large profits from games licensing and peripheral hardware sales.
Microsoft will be pouring $x billion into R&D for the 720 right now, which would explain the sudden switch from record profit to loss.
Their venture has broken Sony's grip on the console market, which I never thought they would manage. Microsoft already succeeded in getting "a computer on every desktop". They are moving closer to having a computer in every living room, too. A Microsoft console and TV set-top box could be enormously successful in 2 generations time.
I would be very interested in a 14" to 15" tablet running a full-fledged OS. It really would be the ideal size. I do not need a complex phone with multimedia, nor a ultra-portable media-tablet. I want a touchscreen PC!
Projects like the Courier were killed because the MS Office and Windows divisions felt threatened. Microsoft is afraid of having products that do not somehow directly tie into the Windows and Office culture and because of that, they will not have a successful product beyond the XBox and their Windows PCs and servers.
Microsoft needs to dump Ballmer and reorganize into several organizational units like Sony so that they can have products that do not necessarily interoperate and sometimes even fight each other in the market.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Probably some happy dances going on at Google.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Microsoft To Sell Its Own Windows RT Tablet"
Well it's not like they're going to sell someone else's tablet now are they.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
> RT has a full copy of Office
There is no guarantee that 'Office RT' is a 'full copy'. It is based on Office but may miss many features that you may want. It may be as 'Starter' is to 'Ultimate'.
MSFT at best makes a mediocre hardware product indistinguishable from 25 other also ran products in any given category. The one's that don't cost much, like mice and keyboards are around forever but no one can explain why or how since they're always nearly the most expensive models in a cheap hardware niche. But fair enough. For their other products like Zune and phones and now apparently tablets they'll make also-also-rans and a few people buy them until MS kills off the whole line. The only reason MS would have any reason to continue e.g. Xbox, which looses billions of dollars a year, is to keep their footprint in a market segment they think is important. This is the main reason, by the way, why MS tolerates horrendous engineering and manufacturing problems with Xbox that result in astonishing field failure rates - because they don't care and they don't worry. They're not trying to make money anyway.
So for tablets the question you need to ask is not how does this help MS but instead who else does this hurt. Which other companies could stand to lose money by people following MS down their rat hole? MS is always willing to pay to destroy part of any market because they have the money to do it. It's cheaper to do that than it is to develop viable alternatives.
That helps clear up the mystery of why MSFT raised the price of RT for OEMs.
Win RT includes full versions of Word, Excel, Power Point and One Note. The same MS Office bundle that tops the bestseller lists in retail software sales for the OSX and Windows platforms.
The reason OS/2 failed was because OEMs didn't want to support a competitor.
With MS doing this and charging licensing fees it will only make companies like Asus prefer Andriod tablets instead. No one wants competitors and to invest a lot of money and therefore risk to help someone who is actively stealing customers out.
I don't want to come across all shilly, but- Google are sort of in that boat too, after buying Motorola M. Android's main developer is now also one of Android's main device manufacturers.
The whole thing is slightly mitigated buy the fact that Google don't own Android (the Open Handset Alliance do, which all the main manufacturers belong to). But not very. Android is and always will be Google's baby.
Am I the only one relishing the thought of buying one of these ultra-cheap subsidised Microsoft tablets, reformatting it, and loading it up with Android/Tizen/whatever?
I would take some degree of joy at seeing the splash logo of my favourite distro's logo right there next to the moulded plastic Windows logo on the case. And extra joy if the devices were heavily subsidised at the thought that Microsoft were paying for me to use a competitor's OS.
I wouldn't even care if the set-up wasn't very good!
The first reaction of the article and many commentators here seems to be that the main target is the consumer market, where the tablet would compete with Android and iOS devices.
But remember that a significant part of Microsoft's revenue is from the vertical market, where there's a lot of need for a tablet that could connect to an Microsoft-oriented enterprise backend. This tablet could then be customized by Microsoft and other contractors for very specific enterprise needs. Other vendors will be releasing Win RT tablets, but it's important for Microsoft that they 1) have one reference platform device, and 2) that they can create a complete solution for clients that involves both the backend and the tablets.
The article totally misses this point.
Besides... one of Apple's greatest strengths regarding the iPad is that they release one per year at most. They make each one solid as hell and Nokia has already proven they can't do a damn thing right... they keep trying to either make it about Windows or about Nokia. When it comes to tablets, it's about the overall platform... frankly, Microsoft has a strong offering. Having used Windows 8 on a Samsung Series 7 Slate for about 7 months now, I find this interesting.
.NET based only which means you have to compile on x86 and remote debug.
Here are the problems though.
- Limited utility. It's just another iPad competitor with Windows RT. Other than Office, it doesn't provide anything really amazing that Apple doesn't.
- No development tools. Microsoft almost certainly won't be porting Visual Studio to the Windows RT platform but instead will choose to make it
- Limited chances of it being polished at release. Let's face it... if Microsoft doesn't get this right on the first try, the media will tear them limb from limb and it'll fail before it even makes it to the shops.
- Legacy support. By choosing ARM as their platform, they have effectively said they don't want legacy on it.
- Microsoft store. If the Microsoft store for Windows is as bad as the Microsoft store for Windows Phone, it's already failed. The #1 reason I still haven't published several apps I have waiting to release for Windows Phone is that I refuse for my software to be stuck between two programs which advertise "20 high quality latex pics for $0.99"... same reason I don't do Android. I want a more serious store front where the company running the store is more serious about it. Microsoft really screwed up the Windows Phone platform because of that.
- Facebook integration... really... this is REALLY bad on Windows platforms. I use FaceBook, but I don't want it taking over my system. I have a really beautiful LG Windows Phone which I don't use since I can't use the damn phone book. I don't want my friends list in my contacts list. If you must do this, make it a totally separate page. I don't want to mix friends with business. Yes, I know this is Windows Phone not Windows 8.... well... still no contacts app for Windows 8, I'm expecting the boil over here. What Microsoft does right one platform, they do right on most... same goes for what they do wrong.
- WAYYYY TOOO EARLY!!!! I have been hoping for years for Microsoft to do this. I always liked Microsoft hardware (even sorta liked my Zune) but if they announce it now and release it with Windows 8 in August-October to the general public... it's just too damn soon. I would hesitate to buy one since it would feel like Microsoft didn't take it seriously enough to start with and said "Let's make a tablet too and see if it floats... we can always fall back on partners if it doesn't!" where I prefer the Apple approach of "We're betting A LOT on this! We promise to support this 100% for the next two years at least and this is THE platform". The way it seems.. it's just another hacked together device. No I haven't seen it, but they haven't bothered announcing it before now... it feels like after a week of every company on the planet bragging about their Windows 8 tablets... this is just and afterthought.
I can go on for a while... but as I said... I've been hoping they'll do this for years... too bad they'll probably screw it up to avoid hurting the feelings of their hardware partners like HP, ASUS, Dell etc...
Is there a tablet for hobbyist developers? In the sense that one can install a compiler (e.g. GCC) and experiment with own applications? I have found stuff like this but it seems like a major hassle to get things running. Is there any hope to begin with, that the big players will relax their policies enough so that such things can be easier? I would expect a Win7 tablet to be able to do the things I want, but another post above mentions the problem with the battery life. I do not own a tablet or a smartphone, so I don't really know how things stand beyond the app-store-land, but it seems that even Python in Android is not working as one would expect. So, any suggestions?
Windows RT comes with a copy of Office 2010 bundled in. That's the reason for the $88 price tag.
Am I the only one relishing the thought of buying one of these ultra-cheap subsidised Microsoft tablets, reformatting it, and loading it up with Android/Tizen/whatever?
Likely only the software will be subsidized, just so these can compete with Android tablets. So there will be no great savings.
For the same reason Google builds a phone, they want to put something on the market of very good quality. Third parties are free to build something better, but there is a standard in the market.
The "selling you" but is not completely true. It is very simple, google is split into two parts, one with us as the consumers and the other with the advertizers as the clients. Google provides us with storage, email, search etc. and it provides the advertizers with ad space on their products (and our eyeballs), ad space on other websites, and details on who sees what ads. The advertizers pay enough money to google to make insignificant any cash they can "reasonably" expect from us (this bit varies upon whose reasoning you depend on).
The overlap is that we are consumers in one sense, and a part of the product in the other. This means we can be screwed both ways, but we are also protected both ways - as consumers we can expect some legal coverage if google cheats us, and as a product we can be protected from exploitation with the help of privacy laws. Google can make tons of cash risk-free, and does so, if they do this properly and transparently. If they commit some impropriety, as they do from time to time, they are given a sharp rap and they fall back in line, and take a huge hit in terms of trust. The risk they take by selling us out is huge, so the reward that can tempt them must be humongous. Google is a pretty rich company which can buy out most of the companies which advertize. Which company has enough cash to turn google? Microsoft? Or maybe Apple? They want to kill google! Group of companies in the same space? They are too busy infighting, and there is the risk of collusion. Ad companies? Google owns doubleclick. Governments? They can, and do, twist laws to fulfill their needs.
Or are you just going to claim that you're not wrong because you could be right with some different numbers?