Falling Windows RT Tablet Prices Signify Slow Adoption

angry tapir writes "Prices of Windows RT devices have started falling, signaling an attempt by PC makers to quickly clear out stock after poor adoption of tablets and convertibles with the operating system. Microsoft released Windows RT for ARM-based devices and Windows 8 for Intel-based devices in October last year. The price drop is an acknowledgment that Windows RT has failed, analysts claim. Though Microsoft has not publicly acknowledged the failure of Windows RT, there is already growing concern about the fate of the OS. IDC earlier this month said that Windows RT tablet shipments have been poor, and that consumers have not bought into 'Windows RT's value proposition.' PC and chip makers have acknowledged poor adoption of the operating system. Nvidia's CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang, last month said he was disappointed with the poor response to Windows RT, and Acer executives have said that Microsoft needs to improve the usability of RT."

Comments

What did they think was going to happen?

[DigitAl56K]

Even forgoing "backwards compatibility" with x86 apps, maybe, maybe if you could actually compile desktop applications for it it would be a slightly more attractive platform, but being stuck with nothing but Office and what's available in Metro? It just isn't going to live up to many buyers desires or expectations.

Re:What did they think was going to happen?

[Bert64]

Which is the whole reason it failed...
By marketing it as "windows", buyers expected some level of compatibility. The compatibility isn't there, which left buyers feeling misled.

And being able to compile desktop apps wouldn't be much use, 99% of windows desktop apps don't come with source code so most of the apps you could recompile for it would be cross platform open source apps. And if you want to compile cross platform open source apps for ARM you have been able to do that in Linux for many years already.

Re:What did they think was going to happen?

[purpledinoz]

It's also a marketing problem. What the hell is the difference between Windows RT, Windows RT Pro, Windows 8, Windows 7? Wait, there's no Windows RT Pro, but there's a Surface RT and Surface Pro, right? What's the difference again? One is thicker than the other, and the cheaper one runs ARM. I would do more research, but I just don't care enough. I'm sure I'm not the only one. People just want shit that works, they don't care if runs on ARM or x86.

Re:What did they think was going to happen?

[Hal_Porter]

The whole thing is insane really. At the start MS had 90% of the desktop market. Windows Mobile had about 10-20% of the mobile market. Most importantly they had a load of ISVs producing software, the old stuff run on Win32 and the new stuff on .Net.

MS introduce the Kin and Zune. These were spectacular failures - based on .Net and C#

Then MS decide to replace Windows Mobile with Windows Phone 7. It is based on C#/.Net and is locked to prevent Win32 code. It share a lot with Kin and Zune. It is a failure. They replace it with WP8. WP8 is locked to prevent Win32 code except for Microsoft's code - IE and Office are still Win32. Everyone else is supposed to use the WinRT API in C++. Then they move the WP8 API to Windows 8 and release an ARM version which is locked to prevent Win32 code. Windows Phone is now down to a few percent market share. Most of the ISVs defected to Android and iOS and show no sign of coming back.

So you've got a UI which they used on their phone project which is not selling on their desktop OS which is. At that point it seems like people stopped buying machines with Windows 8 - if you look at what happened Windows 7 is still outselling it.

Now if you look at Vista it sold poorly and they rushed out Windows 7. So you'd expect them to rush out a Windows 9 which had the start menu restored. But if you look at Windows Blue the biggest change is apparently "an improved charms menu".

Re: hi

[Anonymous Coward]

What - to buy a Windows RT tablet? ;)

Let me guess...

[elashish14]

Redmond is gonna blame OEMs for this one too eh?

(Reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/24/windows_8_blame_game/)

Who is the core audience for Windows?

[TheGeneration]

I just don't understand who the core audience for windows is any more. Who are they trying to sell to?

Office workers? Great, Windows is a pretty good system for that usage since office workers have admins that can unf*ck their system when they pick up a virus off browser exploits.

What about the 90% of home users who aren't computer professionals? Are they better off with a Windows operating system that comes preloaded with so much bloatware it can make in Intel i7 chip work hard just to boot? What about when good old Mom or Dad accidentally downloads that trojan horse "anti-virus" that takes over her system to the point where it is unusable? Is Windows still a good value for them then? Wouldn't they have been better off buying a mac with it's easier to use interface, bloatware free on day 1, and far fewer viruses circulating?

Gamers of course are stuck with windows since so many games use Direct X instead of OpenGL.

What about programmers? Windows is SH!T for programming (unless of course you are developing windows applications.) Mac OSX and Linux are both far superior for programming. (OSX after all is a posix compliant Unix Operating System under the hood.) Considering how limited DOS was (and, apparently no longer even present in the current windows) programming from the command line in a Unix/Linux machine is a far far superior option.

So if you're an office drone, or a gamer you're really the only two people who still have a reason to have Windows.

Re:Who is the core audience for Windows?

[DigitAl56K]

Nevermind who Windows is "good for", let's look at what Windows has going for it:

1 - A ton of users familiar with its desktop UI
2 - The mother-load of desktop software
3 - A ton of games compiled for native x86/x64
4 - Office

With Windows RT Microsoft basically said "Screw #1. Screw #2. Screw #3." That leaves a tablet for .. people who want to use Office on.. a tablet? Oh and they also added Metro. Except that the market for portable devices is already full of app platforms that are far more established.

Why would you buy a Windows RT tablet? Beats me. Clearly someone thought they could toss their core value propositions but win in the app space because... because something?

Re:Who is the core audience for Windows?

[smash]

There's a lot of broken shit in Windows 8 and i'm not just talking about the start menu - that's actually the least of the problems (even if it is a step backwards). Try to actually install/configure a printer, customize the non-luser wifi settings, etc. You're constantly switching between Metro and classic, as teh settings aren't even all reachable from within a single UI.

It's a clusterfuck.

I just checked Amazon -

[pecosdave]

I wouldn't say these things are priced into the dangerously low zone. They're still more expensive than the equivalent Android tablets and right around iProduct pricing. Even if I could put Android on one there wouldn't be a reason to buy one for that reason, a native Android tablet would still be the better dollar based choice.

Re:Would I buy one?

[cheater512]

They are ok for what exactly? You can't do too much with them.

Kinda expensive for a portable web browser.

windows RT experience

[chentiangemalc]

so I've been using Surface RT 64 GB as my primary device now for several weeks. The good * working with office documents clearly superior than existing tablets * jail break to run .NET (non-WPF) and re-compiled native apps to ARM is great. I have SharpDevelop, full C# IDE on tablet and it works great. * remote desktop capabilities works great * can achieve 80wpm+ on the "touch" cover The bad: * The Windows Store Apps/Games suck big time * Windows Store Apps Quality * Windows Store Apps Launch Speed * No official SDK to compile desktop apps to ARM * jailbreak required to run 3rd party desktop apps * Mail app search is totally non functional for me (but works on my Windows 8 x64 dev) * Not sure if Touch Cover will be durable * Screen too reflective * Auto brightness is either lacking totally or works poorly * can't dual boot an alternate OS (yet) * gcc not ported yet to target Windows RT (ARM) desktop apps * WinDbg for ARM not publicly available * citrix Client is TERRIBLE (worse than iPad/Android versions) HTML5 client is slightly better. I find overall I'm happy with it,use it to remotely access full Virtual Desktop with external monitor and keyboard/mouse, and then take it away to cafes &c or crammed public transport for document reviews/editing/creation. In my opinion main thing MS needs to do: unlock desktop apps (at least as system setting) and rapidly get QUALITY in Windows Store, and ensure apps like MAIL search works flawlessly and launch time is super quick. I think the product has potential but if the app quality issue is no rectified fast doubt it can survive.

Re:windows RT experience

[93 Escort Wagon]

When you mentioned "the bad", you forgot to include the apparent inability to format Slashdot posts.

Re:Branding Branding Branding

[Bert64]

The worst problem is that the brand name *implies* a familiar interface and existing software, leaving users extremely disappointed and frustrated when they find those two factors lacking.

MS seems to have an obsession with putting the windows brand everywhere, they are seemingly too arrogant to realise that their brand is viewed extremely negatively by many and only tolerated because in its core markets users are stuck with it or even completely unaware that alternatives exist.

They are like the east german trabant, a car almost universally derided and yet people still queue up to get one because nothing better is available to them.

In the phone and tablet markets, users are not locked in to windows, non windows systems are well known and widely available.

Re:Would I buy one?

[cbhacking]

Your $300 netbook uses solid-state storage, has a Wacom digitizer, weighs 2lbs (under one kilo), has 4GB of RAM and runs a 64-bit OS to be able to use it all, sports a quad-core CPU (not "four hardware threads" dual-core-with-hyperthreading, but actual quad-core i5), has USB3, supports hardware virtualization, supports full-disk encryption using a TPM, has a multi-touch screen, and a 1920x1080 ("1080p" in merketing-speak) resolution, Gorilla Glass, and is durable enough it can be dropped from shoulder hight onto cement with no appreciable damage?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Windows advantages

[Enderandrew]

In the enterprise market, iPads and iPhones are everywhere. The reason Microsoft could in theory have won back that enterprise market was providing a device that:

1. Could join a domain and be managed by Microsoft tools
2. Run existing Windows legacy apps

So Microsoft provided

1. An OS/tablet that can't join a domain to be managed by Microsoft tools
2. Can't run Windows legacy apps

So is arguably worse than existing Android/iOS tablets on price and hardware. The software provides less value. And the OS eats up all your storage space.

Honestly, I can't see anyone making an argument for buying a Windows RT tablet.

I'm sure this won't matter to the haters

[Barlo_Mung_42]

but my surface RT is the best travel computer I've ever owned. When I'm on the road I don't need to compile apps or do heavy lifting. I need to check email, use word / excel and browse the web. So why is it better than any regular tablet? It's as light as a tablet when I want tablet mode but has support for a real mouse / keyboard when I don't.

Re:hi

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well they didn't really drop that much, but what little they did is easily explainable: Inexpensive but good tablets hit the market hard and fast around that time. Namely, the Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7. Naturally the competition needed to do just that - compete.

Re:Would I buy one?

[smash]

Microsoft killed RT in an epic case of one hand not talking to the other, and corporate greed (to force people to go for Pro - which also falls through the cracks as a device without a real market - it's too big and heavy - essentially its a laptop with a shitty keyboard that you can't use without a desk). Enable RT to be domain joined/managed, give it a half decent screen and you'd see corporate sales pick up.

As it is, they disabled all that and gave it a shitty screen compared to the iPad - so no consumer in their right mind will want it. Corporates won't want it either as it is not managable via active directory.

So.... it managed to hit that segment of the market that doesn't exist. Way to go Microsoft!

Re:Would I buy one?

[Joce640k]

i love it how the 'geeks' belittle the windows 64 gb tablet's space, while all I've heard is rave reviews about google's 32 gb laptop.

You won't be so happy when you find out how much space is left over after you install the OS.