Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft To Sell Its Own Windows RT Tablet

Posted by timothy on from the end-to-end-integration dept.

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."

16 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.'

    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.
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      to be fair, Micro$oft have had some pretty shitty hardware ventures over the years.

    2. Re:Huh? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hear they make a pretty good games console too.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Huh? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Micro$oft?" Really? C'mon this is 2012. Enough with the tired cliches already.

      (Sigh. Let the "troll" modding begin.)

    4. Re:Huh? by equex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that a person who did something wrong has his record tainted for the rest of his life, but somehow a corporation should be scott-free after it pays its fines?

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    5. Re:Huh? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False premise. People who do something wrong are generally forgiven after they've "paid their debt to society". There are some people who choose never to forgive anyone for anything, but those people are sanctimonious assholes who want the world to think that they're perfect little saints.

      If you had, say, stolen a car, gone to jail, and done your time, do you really think it would be fair for others to treat you as a social pariah and refer to you as a car thief in every conversation even twenty years later?

    6. Re:Huh? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seemed to just list everything but search. Many of them have failed, but the items that didn't fail are on that list as well. "Voice Search" a failure? I use it every day. It is wildly successful.

    7. Re:Huh? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hardware licensing to OEMs only benefits MS. OEMs have to differentiate themselves somehow or they are just another Win RT tablet maker. They can on price or features in normal Windows. MS is putting in strict requirements for hardware as it is, a reference model is even more restrictive. For Win RT users it's a more uniform experience. For OEMs, there is less choice in what can do.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Huh? by Pi+Is+A+Rational · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole aspect of M$, Krapple, MAFIAA, etc. just makes you look childish. To me, it proves that you are unable to draw a point without using tired, old cliches. Yes, these corporations have all done awful things, it's no longer a secret. But, using the silly nicknames in what is supposed to be a serious discussion really drags it down.

  2. The light dawns by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That helps clear up the mystery of why MSFT raised the price of RT for OEMs.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  3. At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to... by guidryp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. This isn't a troll just an observation by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This isn't a troll just an observation by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have the feeling that the tablet market is exactly saturated. Sure there are many players, but it's a fast growing market, and there is definitely place for more players.

      Whether MS has what it takes to compete in that market, that's a totally different matter.

      And by the way, Apple launched their first-ever mobile phone offering in a mature, and far more saturated market than the tablet market is now. I can't say they didn't do well. So launching a new product in a saturated market is not a recipe for failure - you just have to offer something good that can compete with the rest.

      That the Zune was a flop was not because the digital music player market was saturated, it was more because it was a lesser offering than the iPod.

  5. Re:This summary is terrible by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The stock symbol usage seems to come from those who have started thinking the worth of a company whose product you use is not the product but the value of the company. Personally, I think a company that makes obscene boatloads of money is charging too much.

  6. Er ..... a little bit selective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:This summary is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I think a company that makes obscene boatloads of money is charging too much.

    No. Any company making boatloads of money is charging exactly the right amount.

    Too little and you go broke. Too much and nobody is buying, and you go broke.