Microsoft's Surface RT Was Doomed From Day One

Nerval's Lobster writes "Last fall, Microsoft launched its Surface RT tablet with high hopes. The sleek touch-screen ran Windows RT, a version of Windows 8 designed for hardware powered by the ARM architecture, which dominates the mobile-device market; it also included a flexible keyboard that doubled as a screen cover. Microsoft executives told any journalist who would listen that Surface RT would position their company as a major player in the tablet arena, ready to battle toe-to-toe with Apple and various Android device manufacturers. Fast-forward to this week, and Microsoft announcing its financial results for the quarter ended June 30. Amidst metrics such as operating income and diluted earnings per share, one number stood out: a $900 million charge (the equivalent of $0.07 per share) related to what Microsoft called 'Surface RT inventory adjustments.' Microsoft had already slashed Surface RT prices by $150, so that nearly-billion-dollar charge wasn't a total surprise — but it did underscore that Surface RT is a bomb. From the outset, Surface RT had an issue with the potential to mightily trip up Microsoft: While Windows RT looks exactly like Windows 8, it can't run legacy Windows programs built for x86 processors, limiting users to what they can download from the built-in Windows Store app hub. While the Windows Store launched with 10,000 apps, that seemed paltry in comparison to the well-developed Android and iOS ecosystems. There's likely nothing that Microsoft could have done about this—every platform has to start somewhere, after all—but the relative lack of apps put Surface RT between the proverbial rock and the hard place: it couldn't rely on Windows' extensive legacy, and it didn't have enough content to make it a true contender from the outset against the iPad and Android tablets. Then there was the matter of price. Microsoft could have taken the Amazon route and sold Surface RT at a relative pittance in order to drive adoption—something that made the Kindle Fire a sizable hit. However, that sort of pricing scheme isn't in Microsoft's corporate DNA: it only cut Surface RT's price several months after release, as a defensive maneuver, when it's likely to do much less good."

Comments

But... but

[Anon, Not Coward D]

windows 8/RT is so consumer centric! These guys dont know anything abput tech things

Re:But... but

[narcc]

Locking "Metro" apps to their store was their biggest mistake. You'd think that after Ballmer's "Developers, developers, developers" chant, that they would have known that ahead of time! Imposing artificial barriers like this would have killed them in the early 90's.

Apple gets away with calling that sort of nonsense "good for consumers", sure, but they're a special case.

Re:But... but

[h4rr4r]

That was a big part of it. Not letting RT join domains killed the enterprise sales. For the price of RT pro that can do that you could just get an ipad.

Re:But... but

[aztracker1]

Honestly, I don't think either of those issues had an impact on sales... The RT tablets should have been priced somewhere between the iPad, and Android tablets... if they were around $250-300 they would have sold fine (relatively speaking). As it is, they were priced against more capable, and powerful, low end laptops. They were dramatically more expensive than most competing tablets. They were doomed from the start on pricing alone.

Re:But... but

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple gets away with calling that sort of nonsense "good for consumers", sure, but they're a special case.

Of the basket variety...

Re:But... but

[interval1066]

They were dramatically more expensive than most competing tablets.

Nah, if I recall, they were on par with iPads. I think the lack of apps really did them in here, plus the price. If you had $500 burning a hole in your pocket and you were itching to try a tablet last year would you dip your toe in the water by buying an already established platform with tons of apps, acceptence, and user experience, or a brand new one with not so much of that, for about the same price? Microsoft should have been selling those things for a song from the get-go. Surface is a good interface but not so scary great that its going to whisk those tablets out the door.

Re:But... but

[Rockoon]

..and apple doesnt do it on OS/X while Microsoft was trying it on all Windows 8's of any flavor....

It truly does boggle the mind what Microsoft was thinking, and this is coming from someone that doesnt hate Microsoft.

Its not the Metro Interface that is the problem. Its the restrictions associated with it. They took the strongest quality of their ecosystem and buried it out back.

Windows users dont even want a fucking integrated app store, let alone be forced to use the damn thing.

Re:But... but

[jalopezp]

Yeah, but maybe they couldn't make back their costs pricing them at $300. They were not going for $700 or whatever because MS wanted them to be perceived as high-end, but because they were expensive machines to produce.

Re:But... but

[Mike Frett]

So what's left for Microsoft?. The RT was their feet in the ARM water, but they barely got wet. So all they have left is the Desktop market that keeps declining. Future wise, their core business model has bombed, leaving Microsoft in a river with no paddle. I guess stockholders can relax, seeing that nobody is betting on Microsoft's future; judging from their stock. If they were betting on Microsoft's future, their stock would be pretty grim by now.

Take a step back for a moment, when in the last several years has there been any good news about Microsoft?. Exactly, so what is holding their stock value up?. The news gets worse everyday, to the point where there is a big restructuring going on and everything from Microsoft is going Subscription based. The general idea here is a Company wouldn't do this unless they see a future in which they're strapped for cash. Subscription models lock customers in and keep the money flowing.

I'm willing to bet very soon we will see a version of Windows running on the cloud. You'll have the hardware, but the software is on Azure; and you will pay for it. Over and over again. If the recent outings about MS/NSA aren't enough to make people switch, the Windows Azure won't be either. It's hard to beat an addiction, especially when it's forced upon people whom are unaware of real options or how to use those alternative options. A sad state of affairs really.

Re:But... but

[Thud457]

You can't break into the market against the market maker when your (perceived) price to benefit is higher. You either need to be cheaper or better or have better marketing. Preferably all of those.
That's the same thing that killed other also (never) rans, like the HP Touchpad.

Re:But... but

[plover]

The cost doesn't matter because they were trying to enter a new but very established market. Anyone with a spare $700 already has an iPad.

The only logical way to enter the market would be to buy their way in: giving away the hardware and hoping to make it up on MS App Store sales. They could have given RTs to schools full of children, sold them in phone kiosks at the mall for $50, stuffed them free in cereal boxes. Giving away a billion dollars worth of hardware is the only approach that would have made an impact.

The real crime against Microsoft's shareholders is there was already sufficient evidence that there was no room in the market for a fourth player. Look at the Nook: it's pretty much the same as a Kindle Fire HD, and it's even priced competitively. It's priced well below the iPad mini. Yet Barney Snowball is completely tanking as a result of its failure. Who at Microsoft could have believed that adding "me three" to B&N's "me too" was ever going to work?

If Microsoft wants to be a leader again, they've got to get in front of a trend, not follow it for four years then release a clone. They also have to stop swallowing their own bullshit and stop believing "ours will have the coolest software." Even if they did have the coolest software, it doesn't matter. Nobody with a wallet gives a damn. Consumers have proven they want "new", not "better".

Re:But... but

[plover]

Microsoft's last big consumer-facing moneymaker is Office. But Office n is suffering from a huge competitor, and that is Office n-1. Nobody who owns Office 2010 would spend extra to get Office 2014, because there isn't a single feature they need to make it better than it is. They truly have released a very good product. And now they can't sell upgraded versions anymore, because they've run out of improvements that could possibly make a difference.

Except one. Computer management. Consumers are truly tired of the hassles of backing up disks, losing files, can't share because I left it at home, viruses, or buying a new computer because the old one's full. In the minds of homeowners and small business owners, computers suck.

Microsoft's answer is they've gone all-in on Office365. Office365 lets you rent the software and storage in the cloud, and get at it everywhere. The hassles of actually owning the software are theoretically gone.

And Microsoft? They are now the proud owners of a giant, giant cloud, and all the business they hope it will bring. And this is about the smartest bet they could make, because they really are out of options. Not only does this give them a continual stream of money, but if they lose the desktop to Apple and tablets, they can still be everyone's Office provider, even if they're on an iPad or Android phone.

Re:But... but

[UnknowingFool]

I think the tablets themselves were the same price; however, MS was pushing consumers to buy the keyboards as well which made them more expensive. Even it were the same price as iPad/Android with the accessories, Surface RT didn't have any real advantage. Sure the UI was different but I can't name one feature that would make a consumer choose it over existing tablets. This was the same issue as Zune and apparently MS didn't learn the lesson back then.

Re:But... but

[0123456]

And Microsoft? They are now the proud owners of a giant, giant cloud, and all the business they hope it will bring. And this is about the smartest bet they could make, because they really are out of options.

That would have been true if we hadn't discovered that 'The Cloud' has an open back door for the NSA.

Re:But... but

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing MS could have done is work out with all the important developers such that their apps were available for the surface on day 1. It was amusing for us iPad/Android tablet users when a co-worker of ours came in all smiles a few months after purchasing his Surface. When asked why he was so happy, the response was, "They just released Pandora for Surface."

There are a ton of apps, but MS has the resources to have lined them up ahead of the launch.

Or, possibly, add a compatibility layer (ala Wine) that would allow Android apps to install on a Surface.

Re:But... but

[plover]

That would have been true if we hadn't discovered that 'The Cloud' has an open back door for the NSA.

I was just watching my FutureVision screen, and saw the world busily yawning at last week's news about the NSA, and wishing Congressman Mr. Paranoid Nutjob would shut up about it already. Oh, look, the Royal Baby and Jennifer Aniston are on America's Dancing with the Next Talented Idol!

The average consumer simply won't care if the NSA is reading their kid's Word documents for school, just as long as they don't have to back up their damn computer anymore.

Re:But... but

[Anonymous Coward]

The pricing was just reduced. According to your theory sales should increase enormously.

Re:But... but

[cbhacking]

It's funny how many people, even here and now, still conveniently forget what iPads cost when bashing competing products. Your statement "They were dramatically more expensive than most competing tablets" is a bald-faced lie. Surface RT has always been competitive with iPads and usually a bit cheaper than the newest model.

Re:But... but

[aztracker1]

You can't be priced as high as a "high end market leader" unless you are better... Like MS Windows maintains dominance by "all the applications" that run on it... RT doesn't have that advantage. Beyond that, most windows apps run like crap in a tablet form... the number of apps for windows tablets is dwarfed by iOS and Android at this point... they needed to be at a price point below Android tablets with similar hardware to enter that market. At the reduced price point, the Surface RT is *now* matched up against the Nexus 10. That doesn't even account for the number of 7" tablets around the $200 price point that seem to be the biggest sellers for the past year.

Re:But... but

[aztracker1]

The new pricing puts them level with some 10" Android tablets... for roughly equivalent hardware would you choose Android, which already has *** apps, or a windows OS with only a handful of apps you might want to use? The issue is, they need to be priced below Android devices with similar hardware, or really improve marketing... As it stands, it's similar hardware that after price cuts is *now* at similar pricing, and still at a software disadvantage.

Re:But... but

[PRMan]

What they should have done is license Mono and change the default display DLLs to make existing .NET apps more tablet-friendly and able to run on ARM devices. Making yet another brand-new library that they can quickly ignore (CE, Win Phone 7, Silverlight, Zune) was a really dumb move.

Re:But... but

[Anne Thwacks]

Maybe the words "Microsoft" and Windows" killed them. People accept Windows on ther computers, cos they get no choice. Some people have actual experience of WinCE, etc, and it takes a long while to get rid of the nasty taste.

Given a choice, ios or Android are far better. Probably hard boiled pig shit would be better than another dose of WinCE5.

WinRT should never have been born.

Re:But... but

[jafac]

What is holding Microsoft's stock up?

I am assuming: NSA subcontracting.

Re:But... but

[DuckDodgers]

I would also note that the Surface had a 1366x768 display and the iPad that came out six months earlier was 2048x1536. You don't have to be a hardware enthusiast to notice a difference between them.

Re:But... but

[DuckDodgers]

At the time the Surface went on sale, remember:

1. The nifty keyboards cost $100 or $150 extra, putting it on par with the iPad 3.
2. The iPad 3 had 2048x1536 display resolution, the Surface had 1366x768. You can easily see the difference, you don't have to be an Apple fan.

3. The iPad 2 was still on sale, at a significant discount, so it undercut the Surface on price but had a huge application market.

4. The Windows App Store for Surface had nothing compelling.

Re:But... but

[DuckDodgers]

An integrated app store makes a lot of sense - as long as it's well done and optional.

I have Windows 8 on my home PC. I wanted to set up two accounts, one for my kids which included a few Windows 8 games from the App store, and one for me to get things done. I couldn't figure out how to buy games for my account and give them access on their account. I could do that in the Windows 8 Consumer Preview, but not the actual release version. So I had to create a new email account, associate a credit card with that account, give that email account a login on my Windows 8 machine, buy the applications, and then remove the credit card (so my youngest could not accidentally buy anything else).

Naturally I am not recommending Windows 8 to other parents for its ease-of-use. I am still astonished my use-case was not covered by the software. Or if it was covered, it wasn't in any of the documentation I could find.

I'll admit, I haven't ever been a Microsoft fanboy. But I respected their attempt to re-invent themselves with Windows 8. I really did. But it came out half-baked.

Re:But... but

[Tough Love]

Microsoft's last big consumer-facing moneymaker is Office.

Almost correct. Microsoft also makes major money with "Server and Tools", primarily by employing nominally illegal means of technological tying.

Re:But... but

[luther349]

true but the big expensive ipads where started to get dominated by the cheaper android tablets. hence the ipad mini at around the same price point as a decent android tablet.

Re:But... but

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also note that the Surface had a 1366x768 display and the iPad that came out six months earlier was 2048x1536. You don't have to be a hardware enthusiast to notice a difference between them.

That is very disingenuous of you. How about comparing to the iPad Mini (released the same week) and that has the same form factor?
Here you go: 7.9-inch (200.66 mm) diagonal LED-backlit Multi-Touch display with IPS technology 1024 x 768 px at 163 PPI 4:3 aspect ratio

<sarcasm>The iPad is crap hardware because my 26" LG has better resolution.</sarcasm>.

Re:But... but

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. If people actually wanted "new" instead of "better" like you claim, they'd be flocking to Windows 8.

Re:But... but

[DuckDodgers]

The iPad Mini was cheaper than the Surface and has a smaller physical screen. The full size iPad 3 and Microsoft Surface are both about 10 inch screens, and the iPad 3 has nearly twice the pixel density. There is a visible difference.

Re:But... but

[plover]

No, Windows 8 is not new. It's a touch oriented GUI on top of a boring old OS. It's not even better than the OS it is intended to replace.

New would be something completely different, like an implant or holographic projector, or a redefining of the cell phone, like cigar-sized device that uncurls into a full screen phone, and unscrolls even further into a mini iPad sized device.

Re:But... but

[plover]

Thus the qualification with the words "consumer-facing".

Re:But... but

[bingoUV]

3D TVs must have done great when they were new.

Re:But... but

[dbIII]

It appears that they think their name counts but do not understand that it is worthless in markets that they are not already known in. For example, who would buy Microsoft beer? It's a name everyone knows but people just say "don't they make software?".

Re:But... but

[dbIII]

like cigar-sized device that uncurls into a full screen phone

Flexible e-ink is getting us partway there, not quote rollup yet.
http://wexler-global.com/products/79/347

Re:But... but

[symbolset]

The Surface RT is identical hardware to the Asus Transformer Prime. It's speculated that WinRT was developed on the Prime. When Surface RT released the Transformer Infinity was already out six months and had a 1920 x 1200 display. Not quite the iPad level, but you also don't need to be a hardware enthusiast to notice that difference either.

Re:But... but

[symbolset]

their stock would be pretty grim by now.

Off 12% today, the biggest hit since the government announce the antitrust suit. People are starting to realize that Microsoft has lost control of the platform in the transition to mobile. Their products can be locked out. From there the conclusion is obvious.

Re:But... but

[Alioth]

The average consumer won't -- but businesses, where Office makes its money will. Already our management here have decreed we will NOT be using any third party cloud ever for daily office work.

Re:But... but

[DuckDodgers]

Right. My wife has an Asus Transformer Prime and I have a Barnes & Noble Nook HD Plus. Both have 10 inch screens, hers has 1280x800 pixels, mine has 1920x1080. The difference is pretty easy to notice, especially when you have a website that doesn't use oversize fonts.

Re:But... but

[MobileGuy1]

Huh? "If Microsoft wants to be a leader again"? The one thing Mr Softee has never done is lead. Sorry... err... the two things Mr. Softee has never done are lead and innovate. Rather... sorry again... the three things Mr. Softee has never done are lead, innovate, and care about customers. Ummm... well... the four things Mr Softee never will do are lead, innovate, care about customers, and have a real vision of what they are trying to accomplish that is viable and valuable. Simply said - Microsoft, under Gates, was superb at linking one crummy (but dominant) OS to everything in the world, and watching their so-called partners to find big markets where they could embrace, extend, and extinguish. Microsoft under Ballmer? Still can't create a product people like, can't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, and is just as obnoxious about trying to control the markets through secondary means (proxy orgs complaining about competition (esp,. Google), manipulating "standards", generally being a bad player). I've lived in the Seattle area (hell, even Redmond) for the better part of 30 years, and one of the proudest things I've done is to NEVER work for this crap company.

Re:But... but

[Tough Love]

Right, good point. But Interesting to note that Microsoft isn't just failing in its consumer facing efforts.

I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

..it failed. The last thing we need right now is more Windows.

Re:I'm glad

[MightyMartian]

It failed because Redmond was four years too late, and Android and iOS are so dominant at all price points that there is simply no room for a third competitor. Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

In other words, Microsoft has been out-Microsofted.

Re:I'm glad

[jellomizer]

Yes we want to stick in a world of Apple and Google to be controlling everything. Having more competition is a bad thing... Right?

Most of this anti-Window nonsense, is decades old.

Re:I'm glad

[evilRhino]

This is an unfair statement. Microsoft has plenty of missteps/failures in the mobile/tablet market preceding Windows 8.

Re:I'm glad

[Linux User 95]

What is this story even talking about? Surface RT was a massive success from the very beginning. I see people carrying Surface RT's daily and online comments have been very great. The only thing Microsoft failed with was that they manufactured just a tad too many of them. But overally Surface RT has been a great product and users are very happy with it. That's what ultimately counts.

Re:I'm glad

[NewWorldDan]

Completely disagree. A competitive marketplace is almost always a very good thing. Android has become the new destination for malware. I've been saying from the beginning that if Microsoft wants to play in the tablet/mobile market, they're going to have to effectively give the OS away. Some people might pay a bit more for the Apple experience. Microsoft doesn't have that sort of appeal. For everyone else, they've come to expect cheap hardware. Google and Amazon are making money from tying their tablets to other revenue generators - search, shopping, app stores. Microsoft has become so spoiled with the fat margins they get on Windows and Office, they don't know how to work a market where they don't have a monopoly.

Re:I'm glad

[jedidiah]

> Most of this anti-Window nonsense, is decades old.

Microsoft is still up to the same kind of dirt tricks that earned them that kind of hatred in the first place.

It's just that now people are beginning to see that they have alternatives.

Re:I'm glad

[MightyMartian]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! They're going to end up dumping them on schools or burying them in the desert.

Re:I'm glad

[rwise2112]

It failed because Redmond was four years too late, and Android and iOS are so dominant at all price points that there is simply no room for a third competitor. Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

So true. To make any impact they have to offer a device that is much better (which I don't even think is possible considering the current state of iOS and Android), or much cheaper (and it's really hard/impossible to beat the low end android tablets).

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesnt care about making insanely great products, and in the end, all they care about is the bottom line. Their products are not intuitive, they dont listen to what a consumer wants, their stuff is made for geeks by geeks at best.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. Don't worry about competition right now, because Apple and Google hardly control everything. Microsoft still has most control. Microsoft needs to be knocked down a few more notches, as they still have a monopoly in desktop market. Once they get below to 35% desktop marketshare then we can start worry about competition. Right now, Microsoft needs to loose a lot more marketshare before there's real competition.

Re:I'm glad

[Somebody Is Using My]

Microsoft is still up to the same kind of dirt tricks that earned them that kind of hatred in the first place.
It's just that now people are beginning to see that they have alternatives.

Right! It used to be we were stuck with Microsoft and its anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior.

But nowadays we can get the same sort of behavior from Google, Facebook, or Apple!

No longer does Microsoft have a monopoly on screwing over its customers! Its facing some real competition these days by other companies who can match - and even beat - Microsoft with their own anti-competitive behavior!

And I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords!

Re:I'm glad

[bryan1945]

Wow, you 'turfed so hard I have rug burn!

Re:I'm glad

[MrDoh!]

Yup, they'll be donated to schools that don't want them, the tax benefit will be great for MS, and they can then sell the schools exchange servers to support them at a decent profit.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's definitely a place in the market for a MSFT tablet device. Seamless integration with Exchange, Office, Sharepoint, Skype, etc? These devices would be showing up in meeting rooms everywhere. But rather than building on MSFT's powerful pre-existing infrastructure they are just another "me too" platform.

Re:I'm glad

[pr0fessor]

I've not even seen any Surface RT {seen windows 8 though} and everyone I know business associate, friend, or family own Galaxy Tabs or Ipads. Not that I wouldn't want to get my hands on a Surface RT to play with and see what it's like but for the price I'm not buying one, I'll purchase an android first.

Re:I'm glad

[Peristaltic]

Microsoft is still up to the same kind of dirt tricks that earned them that kind of hatred in the first place.

Doesn't MS scam an Android patent tax from most vendors? The last of that kind of thing I remember hearing about was that MS was going after Barnes and Noble's Nook, B&N decided to take them on, MS wouldn't tell them exactly what infringed and it looked good for B&N. Suddenly, MS made a "strategic investment" in B&N and I never heard another word about the litigation.

They seem to prefer milking cash from consumers and other companies than consistently making good stuff. They have their moments now and then, but the moments are getting fewer and farther between. Must be easier to scam.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Most confusing attempt at trolling ever, Linux User 95.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

The astroturf is strong with this one!

Re: I'm glad

[AvitarX]

Explain to me the tax benefit vs not making them?

Corporations don't really get tax benefits from donations like people do. Well they do, but they get that the same one spending selfishly too.

Re:I'm glad

[LordThyGod]

It failed because Redmond was four years too late, and Android and iOS are so dominant at all price points that there is simply no room for a third competitor. Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

So true. To make any impact they have to offer a device that is much better (which I don't even think is possible considering the current state of iOS and Android), or much cheaper (and it's really hard/impossible to beat the low end android tablets).

Yea, and to do that they'd have to actually understand technology and the marketplace. That powers that be there just don't get some really important stuff. The thing is severely overpriced, has no compelling features and lacks applications. Of course no one wants the damn thing. Why would they?

Re: I'm glad

[Gilmoure]

Exactly! No one was supposed to buy iPads because they were just toy consumption devices and you can't do real work on them. Now, a real computing device comes along and no one wants it. It's almost like the consumers are ignoring slashdot wisdom or something. Weird!

Re: I'm glad

[Gilmoure]

Yeah, but they're just doing what apple does. Everyone knows apple doesn't create or innovate anything; they just copy real American computer makers like HP and Samsung and then mark up prices as they wrap a pretty box around things that doesn't even have enough specs, suggested use or product tie ins covering up all that stupid white space.

Re:I'm glad

[doomsayerxero]

You are being ridiculous...cause you forgot Amazon.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Android has become the new destination for malware. I've been saying from the beginning that if Microsoft wants to play in the tablet/mobile market, they're going to have to effectively give the OS away.

I thought you were going to say they needed to court makers of malware, since malware usually indicates the most popular platform.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

From an investment standpoint, that seems to be exactly what happened. If they had less inventory their numbers would look solid. Techies want to see home runs by these vendors but the market yields no home runs these days. Just nabbing a few percent market share in such a market can be very lucrative if you are making money on the units.

Re:I'm glad

[technomom]

Yes we want to stick in a world of Apple and Google to be controlling everything. Having more competition is a bad thing... Right?

Most of this anti-Window nonsense, is decades old.

I don't think anyone wants that, but it's hard to root for a company that repeatedly stabs itself in the eye as many time as Microsoft does. While I'm at it, you can throw Blackberry into that pile as well.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this story even talking about? Surface RT was a massive success from the very beginning. I see people carrying Surface RT's daily and online comments have been very great. The only thing Microsoft failed with was that they manufactured just a tad too many of them. But overally Surface RT has been a great product and users are very happy with it. That's what ultimately counts.

Yeah! I mean, our company instituted weekly snap-and-twirl dance sessions as an employee workout program! I don't know what's wrong with everyone else, but the Surface RT is a great exercise device! You've seen the ads, right? Man, I can't wait to see what happens when these same geniuses release a tablet!

Re:I'm glad

[im_thatoneguy]

Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

Except for out-of-the-box integration with Remote Workplace is your office has Windows server. That was one of the big ones for me. I could just remote desktop in while on the road from my tablet instead of having to use a laptop.

It also supports multi-tasking which isn't a gimmick. Keeping skype open for chatting while browsing the web is way better than flipping back and forth. A few Samsung phones have that now which is a good step. It really really really is needed in android. I don't expect apple to ever add it just like two button mice. :P

Also the windows environment is super awkward with touch but it's way better than the alternative of not being able to use a real file browser. I was at a conference and was able to download a PDF, make a couple changes in word and copy it to a USB stick to be taken to a fedex shop for printing. I bought a USB adapter for my Galaxy Tab which was my previous tablet and I always forgot the adapter at home and even when I had it... apps didn't really support it very well and just moving files to it was a PITA.

But by and far the best feature of WindowsRT that no iDevice or Android tablet offers is an honest to god desktop browser. There are still tons of sites which just don't quite work with touch or touch centric browsers. Menus that you have to hover over. Websites whose forms don't work. That's true of MetroIE as well but you can always load up windows and real IE. That has saved my ass numerous times on airport check-ins etc which just never quite worked on my Galaxy Tab.

I expected to not like my SurfaceRT but I had just accidentally run my Galaxy Tab through the washing machine (It was in my bedding) so I needed something for long haul transpacific flights and I figured I would just buy one and ebay it when the Surface Pro came out. I actually ended up keeping it because I do really like. It's way more useful than you would expect. Microsoft just didn't actually sell it as a product with features, they tried to market it as a fashion/style statement--which isn't a bad idea but you also need to demonstrate as you mention what it offers over the competition. The real killer was that there were absolutely 0 apps at launch.

Microsoft needs Metro Apps though. If they don't offer desireable metro apps people won't migrate to the metro UI. The SurfaceRT was a calculated move to force its users to only use Metro. If they had sold 6 million like they apparently hoped then Metro apps would have taken off a lot faster. I know I kickstarted VLC for metro. There certainly is more demand for metro than had surface not shipped or shipped with an Atom (an atom would have been better for its customers). But I don't think they hit critical mass to force developers to pay attention to it like MS hoped.

I don't think it made sense to push ARM so early. They should have gone Atom, same battery life and performance and full backwards compatibility. Still done the grunt work on ARM so that they could integrate Windows 9/ Windows Phone 9 into one OS and then just persuade devs to release ARM ports of metro apps--which would have been far more trivial than convincing them to write apps at all.

Re: I'm glad

[tedleaf]

er,what, i work on a site in the uk with 2000 techy folk who are well paid and have spare cash to spend, would you like to guess how many surface devices i have spotted, 9,and folk say there are not many more inside offices, 9 out of 2000 folk, loads of ipads, loads of andi tablets and lots of mid-range laptops. not much penetration is it? the public reaction and reviewers comments before release should have warned ms, but as per usual, ms thought they knew better.

Re:I'm glad

[aristotle-dude]

I think there's definitely a place in the market for a MSFT tablet device. Seamless integration with Exchange, Office, Sharepoint, Skype, etc? These devices would be showing up in meeting rooms everywhere. But rather than building on MSFT's powerful pre-existing infrastructure they are just another "me too" platform.

Right because, iPads don't integrate with Exchange, have apps that read/write office documents, have Skype, offer remoting apps like Joinme, Citrix Webex, Citrix receiver or that online desktop streaming app?

Re:I'm glad

[Somebody Is Using My]

I LOL.

I accept the correction. We must not forget how Amazon graced us all with their prudent patent on one-click purchasing, lest this vital technology fall into the hands of the unwashed masses. I for one am grateful that they have screwed over the internet community in this way. Aren't we all glad that the invisible hand of Adam Smith has created such a competitive market for corporations to piss all over their customers? I myself can hardly decide which company I want to get reamed by next!!!

Re:I'm glad

[PRMan]

Or make them run .NET apps natively on ARM tablets. THAT would have been a killer feature that Android and Apple couldn't have duplicated.

Re:I'm glad

[PRMan]

Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

Except for out-of-the-box integration with Remote Workplace is your office has Windows server. That was one of the big ones for me. I could just remote desktop in while on the road from my tablet instead of having to use a laptop.

Android and Apple have Remote Desktop clients.

It also supports multi-tasking which isn't a gimmick. Keeping skype open for chatting while browsing the web is way better than flipping back and forth. A few Samsung phones have that now which is a good step. It really really really is needed in android. I don't expect apple to ever add it just like two button mice. :P

I agree, but I think Google will get there soon.

Also the windows environment is super awkward with touch but it's way better than the alternative of not being able to use a real file browser. I was at a conference and was able to download a PDF, make a couple changes in word and copy it to a USB stick to be taken to a fedex shop for printing. I bought a USB adapter for my Galaxy Tab which was my previous tablet and I always forgot the adapter at home and even when I had it... apps didn't really support it very well and just moving files to it was a PITA.

I have done this easily on my Asus Transformer to a Micro SD card. Not sure why a USB stick is required.

But by and far the best feature of WindowsRT that no iDevice or Android tablet offers is an honest to god desktop browser. There are still tons of sites which just don't quite work with touch or touch centric browsers. Menus that you have to hover over. Websites whose forms don't work. That's true of MetroIE as well but you can always load up windows and real IE. That has saved my ass numerous times on airport check-ins etc which just never quite worked on my Galaxy Tab.

I have never experienced this problem using Dolphin set to Desktop Browser mode. Every site I have tried works just fine and one 1 site could even detect I am mobile in that configuration.

If you want to talk about something Android and Apple need, it's better printing support. Linux has drivers for virtually every printer under the sun. Google just needs to make it a first class part of the OS and they will catch up to Windows 3.1.

Re:I'm glad

[4pins]

Except for out-of-the-box integration with Remote Workplace

Alright, Microsoft Remote Web Workplace provides a convenient web interface (through a proprietary IE plug-in) to connect to RDP through a proxy. As long as IT supports Android and iOS, they will provide a way to RDP using one of the available third party clients. So how is this the must have, separating SurfaceRT from the established players?

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

5,000x this!! absolutely true!

the competition we have today is good, but also quite stifling: the big players no longer compete at the individual silo level, there are cities of silos that are all locked into a gated community, 'The Platform'. Apple really hammered that home.

The MS antitrust suit birthed the age of the platform wars. Businesses learned how to be anti-competitive while still allowing competition; grow breadth of you offerings, limit 3rd party integration in the name of first-gen progress (you can't be expected to allow just anyone to come in and replace all the hard work you spent all that capital on, right?), and in doing all this, price out competition with the barrier to entry of spinning up all these silos from the ground up in order to compete.

Want to use another app store on your smartphone? Sure, you can do that, but you have to give up everything first and make the switch. It's the most prevalent reason for why Surface RT flopped so hard, and the same extent why Blackberry and Windows Phone have a long road to climb. Think about how long it took Apple to gain any sort of traction with their iPhone .. why? NO APPS, NO peripheral usability. Google fought this problem by allowing their app store to be more open. You could say MS should have done this, and that might be right, but at the same time it could have been a very big mistake to let the floodgates open. If you let people install Android or whatever else on their devices, the platform doesn't grow. Now on the other hand, I think it would be a VERY smart move to allow the Play store and build in support for Android apps somehow. You would no longer have to concede the app parity issue.

But ultimately, there needs to be a solid cross-platform solution. The problem is it will be difficult to do this without pissing off existing software authors: see the RT Runtime itself for examples of this: It's .NET + WPF + Silverlight - a little of all 3. Apps you wrote for all of those are mostly compatible, but not really 100%. It's a shame that Apple succeeded in killing off Flash and got the market behind them under the ruse of 'battery hog' .. It's software & hardware evolution, people. Battery capacity is a fickle temporary issue. Inefficient code is a relatively simple thing to improve, and it could have been done. The REAL reason for the 'death' of flash is Apple needed to lock consumers in, and that's exactly what's happened for the most part.

But HTML is cross-platform, you say. Browser-based apps are great, and mostly cross-platform, and don't require special plugins, sure. But to a varying degree, the browser is now the plugin. And those apps will never be as good as native apps. And let's be honest here, the development experience is seriously subpar to any mature development platform (though maybe not Objective-C). It's simply more ubiquitous.

Re:I'm glad

[Anne Thwacks]

Microsoft doesnt care about making insanely great products,

Microsoft only cares about making insane products,

FTFY

Re:I'm glad

[MightyMartian]

I have an RDP client on my Nexus 7 that works just fine. I have no idea why someone would claim that there is a limitation.

I also have a pretty damned good file browser for my Nexus 7 that allows me to connect to my work SMB shares, Google Drive, Dropbox and the Android filesystem and copy files between them with ease.

Re:I'm glad

[MightyMartian]

I should also add that, at work, we use OpenVPN, and there are clients for iOS and newer versions of Android that work without rooting and allow encrypted access to internal resources like RDP, internal websites and file shares. Just yesterday I rebooted a server with an encrypted file store on it and was able to issue the decryption passphrase from my Nexus 7 about 90 miles away from where the server was located.

This is Microsoft's problem. Whatever problems it thinks Surface RT is supposed to solve, most of them have already been solved.

Re:I'm glad

[JohnFen]

I see people carrying Surface RT's daily

I have never seen anyone carrying a surface RT. Not one. I do see plenty of iPads and Android tablets, though.

Re:I'm glad

[DuckDodgers]

Google for all of its evil, and there's enough of it, has done plenty for open source and their consumer products usually (always?) run an open source operating system with proprietary add-ons. That's less evil than Microsoft.

Facebook and Apple are in the same boat as Microsoft.

But I think the real difference is that a lot of us geeks are still bitter at Microsoft for years of headaches. Windows Update broke. This update needs a reboot. This program is hung and I have to open a damn command line and remember the command flags for taskkill to shut it down. This file transfer crashed explorer.exe. That laptop needs to be activated again. This Terminal Server is out of TSCAL licenses. Mom is confused by the latest pop-up masquerading as an anti-virus update. This batch of software updates for Windows 95 just wiped out my boss's computer, and he's screaming at me about it. Netscape was crushed by Microsoft.

Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft might all four be taking us by the hand and leading us straight to hell, but of the four only Microsoft has been methodically torturing IT workers for 20 years or longer. So many of us are most angry at them.

Re:I'm glad

[DuckDodgers]

There is tremendous work going into improving HTML5 features and developer experience - Typescript, Coffeescript, Dart, Clojurescript, and even changes to Ecmascript itself are making Javascript better for large projects. The situation will improve - we may be ten years from it being as good as building native apps, but we are heading in that direction.

Re:I'm glad

[Patch86]

I've seen exactly one, exactly once, and it was in the hands of a Microsoft consultant that we've got working with us at the moment. That is to say, he brought it to work with him exactly one time, out of the 60 or 70 days I've seen him now. He has 3 colleagues on site, who have never had one with them.

They all are using Windows 8 (obviously); they're just limiting themselves to real laptops on which it is possible to do actual things and whatnot.

Re:I'm glad

[Tough Love]

Most confusing attempt at trolling ever, Linux User 95.

Brilliant I say. You need to recognize a brilliant troll when you see it, a perfect one doesn't even look like a troll.

Re: I'm glad

[luther349]

the rt was no better then the ipad with less apps. the surface pro is a real computing device but to dammed expensive compared to a net-book or even a mid range laptop..hell maybe even a hi end laptop. if im gonna spend 899 on new hardware im sure going to walk out with gaming series laptop not a underpowerd tablet.

Re:I'm glad

[pr0fessor]

I wouldn't expect to do a bunch of work on a tablet to begin with. It would be more like streaming audio/video, email around the house on the weekend watching netflix or hulu on the patio while BBQing.

Re: I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

When did the surface become a real computing device? Every commercial screams to me that it's just a toy to dance around with. /I may have missed the joke.

Re: I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Micros Soft. They make serious business not toy hardware just used for games. And that's why the macs will never win because they aren't real gaming machines.

Re:I'm glad

[lord_mike]

That would have been a great idea, but Microsoft decided to move away from .net at the same time they rolled out these tablets.

Re:I'm glad

[Myria]

It failed because Redmond was four years too late, and Android and iOS are so dominant at all price points that there is simply no room for a third competitor. Surface RT offers nothing that mid and upper end iDevices and Androids do not.

In other words, Microsoft has been out-Microsofted.

The advantage that Windows on a tablet has over iOS and Android tablets is that it runs Windows applications. They're tablets that act like tablets, but also work as laptops when you want one. iOS and Android are crap for productivity applications.

This is the flaw with Windows RT: Windows with only Metro offers nothing over iOS and Android. The fact that you can leave Metro is what Windows does better than the competition, but instead Microsoft decided that the desktop was something to eliminate. Surface RT and Windows 8 in general failed as a result.

I feel like Microsoft was almost there with Windows 8, but their colossal hubris ruined it.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Android does not have malware issues, contrary to what antivirus software makers would like you to believe. Basically all documented cases are from people who deliberately turned the OS's protection off and then downloaded pirated software from shady Chinese websites.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

And the very last thing we need is more Windows that isn't even Windows....

Re: I'm glad

[nbritton]

Yeah, the last thing we want is the NSA peering through these windows too.

Re:I'm glad

[symbolset]

I think I'm OK without Microsoft's version of competition in the marketplace.

Re:I'm glad

[Bert64]

The worst problem is the branding...
iOS is branded distinctly from OSX, so that users won't mistake the two and try to run applications for one on the other. Windows RT creates a false impression of compatibility which ultimately disappoints users. The dirt cheap Windows CE laptops had the same issue.

Re:I'm glad

[vilanye]

It was the same thing as Zune. It was released, semi-competitive with the original iPod, but that was about 3 years old when the Zune flopped onto the market.

Re:I'm glad

[MECC]

Ironic really. At it's inception, microsoft got in on the paradigm transition from mainframe to desktop computing, albeit not through any real innovation or offering of value. IBM and mainframes are still around and arguably profitable, but not relevant in terms of what drives current trends of innovation - at that point new and interesting directions started coming from the desktop computing world. Think of every thing you do on a desktop computer now, and it's likely something that didn't arise from the IBM/Mainframe computing world. Now things like google glass, new distribution models like hadoop, hyperscale computing, and "cloud" computing (yes I held my nose when typing the "C" word) are arising in a sense from the budding influence of the mobile computing world.

So now the paradigm is shifting to mobile, and MS has missed the boat in almost every definable way. But like IBM, they'll stay around and still be profitable, but they just won't be relevant in terms of new directions in the information landscape. The apple didn't fall far from the tree, no pun intended.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the way M$ works. They don't create new ideas. They let other people develop the idea and the market for it, then create a half assed simily of the product, bundle it, destroy their competition, then drop it.!

Re:I'm glad

[Ol Olsoc]

But I think the real difference is that a lot of us geeks are still bitter at Microsoft for years of headaches. Windows Update broke. This update needs a reboot. This program is hung and I have to open a damn command line and remember the command flags for taskkill to shut it down. This file transfer crashed explorer.exe. That laptop needs to be activated again. This Terminal Server is out of TSCAL licenses. Mom is confused by the latest pop-up masquerading as an anti-virus update. This batch of software updates for Windows 95 just wiped out my boss's computer, and he's screaming at me about it. Netscape was crushed by Microsoft.

Good Gawd - I could have written this! I spent years trying to keep the directorate division computers at my company working - most of the computer support people were afraid to support in this area, due to a combination of fear of the suits, and what updates did to the computers used for presentations. Day after Patch Tuesday was nightmare Wednesday, when half of the stuff on the conference computers was broken. When you live in the world of Office Word and Excel, Microsoft is just about acceptable. When they remove popular codecs from WMP, and don't tell you until the visiting CEO's presentation doesn't work - it's not so awesome. When they make a system more "secure" by turining off needed permissions during an update, a room full of 6 and seven figure people has a pretty high burn rate just sitting around. Nothing like trouble shooting under those situations - though fortunately they sympathized with me - mostly. Then when some folks force Vista on me, and then I have to tell them their peripherals all have to be replaced for lack of drivers - well that's not a good way to be popular and win friends.

And then, when Windows consumer 8 preview needs run in a virtual machine because in Vista, you can't uninstall it because it renames your program file folder, and breaks everything, leading to having to reinstall the whole system? Yeah, perhaps they shouldn't have called it "consumer preview, and then I wouldn't have had to undo the damage on regular consumer's computers.

Angry isn't the half of it. I'll crack open a bottle of Champagne and celebrate if and when they go out of business. In the meantime, their troubles and stupid decisions will suffice. They've caused me a lot of headaches.

Re: I'm glad

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, but they're just doing what apple does. Everyone knows apple doesn't create or innovate anything; they just copy real American computer makers like HP and Samsung and then mark up prices as they wrap a pretty box around things that doesn't even have enough specs, suggested use or product tie ins covering up all that stupid white space.

So what? I'm not looking for incredible innovation all the time. I'm looking for a system that just fucking works. Apple integrates and smooths applications, allowing me to spend less time futzing. Futzing is only fun for geeks who are just happy if they can get the program to print landscape.. Only in a Microsoft fanboi universe is that a bad thing.

If I want innovation, I'll provide it.

Re:I'm glad

[DuckDodgers]

Exactly. Now I realize that Microsoft needs to support millions of combinations of hardware components, peripherals, and software programs. That's an incredibly difficult task. However, they have literally billions upon billions of dollars to invest in solving the problem. More thorough testing could have been done. Better documentation could have been done. Etc... etc... Windows 7 was their best offering yet, but it still has plenty of rough edges.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is an alternative term for anti-competitive. More Microsoft = less competition. I do not see Google or Apple lobbying against open source or sabotaging web standards.

Dupe - Six Million Unsold Tablets

[xmas2003]

Related/recent /. article

Re:Dupe - Six Million Unsold Tablets

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Slashdot is sponsored by Samsung this week.

Re:Dupe - Six Million Unsold Tablets

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt Samsung or Apple have any fear from MS. Perhaps it is one of MS's "partners" making the public aware so they can make a case against them screwing up and taking them down too. :D

Yea, I'm not sure how that goes, but Samsung and Apple are *not* behind it.

Doomed From Day One?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least that's they way it looks on the surface.

Re:Doomed From Day One?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played, sir. Golf claps to you.

Can we install Android?

[RevWaldo]

Assuming the price for the hardware continues to dive...

.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "secure boot" prevents this while not actually improving security.

Re:Can we install Android?

[danbob999]

The surface doesn't have particularly interesting hardware. 1.3 GHz Tegra 3 CPU with relatively low res display. It should have been $350 from the start.

Re:Can we install Android?

[amiga3D]

This! I'd love one of these with Android on it.

Re:Can we install Android?

[amiga3D]

Secure boot does exactly what it is supposed to do. It gives the manufacturer control over what you do with the device. Anyone that thought it was to benefit the customer lacks any insight into current corporate culture.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Zalbik]

Posting to undo moderation.....Sorry...hit "Redundant", meant to hit "Insightful".

Someone mod up please! at $350, I very well may have bought a Surface when it was released.

But now it's a considerably older processor, still has few apps, and the "ooh, new shiny" factor has worn off, so it's unlikely to have a huge following.

Re:Can we install Android?

[scottbomb]

I think this is what MS should have done in the first place. Make the damned thing capable of running Android applications. How hard can that be?

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

$350, it should have been $149. Its was possible to buy a netbook for $200 why not an arm based tablet?

Instead of paying a bunch of developers a pittance to write apps, they should have just subsidized the first 20 million units, its not like they weren't going to make a bunch of it back selling software/books/movies. Then the developers would have magically appeared.

Of course the idea that they are the underdog and need to buy market share never dawns on big tech companies until they are well and dead. Its just they are greedy and they see apple making a killing.

Re:Can we install Android?

[MrDoh!]

Aye, it's the sort of thing if they do a firesale on it, everyone will only get it to try and install Android on! At 99bucks, maybe 150 in a firesale, I'd pick 1 or 2 up for bathroom browsing.

Re:Can we install Android?

[gl4ss]

I think this is what MS should have done in the first place. Make the damned thing capable of running Android applications. How hard can that be?

that would cannibalize the surface pro sales.

you see, surface pro, by not being limited by the assery that is windows rt "security decisions"(aka we want all your money decision) can run android apps.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Lithdren]

So only professionals would want to run Android apps on a tablet? Good to know, thanks Microsoft!

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pick 1 or 2 up for bathroom browsing.

"I can totally see myself with this in the bathroom!"

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand. The price of the OS was also factored in as 150$ ;)
Also this device was supposed to be a gateway to the beloved iGrated store model.
Glad that the Start button will come back.

Re:Can we install Android?

[cbhacking]

Why, what an insightful comment! You know, aside from the fact that 95%+ of consumer machines which support Secure Boot also support (per mandate from Microsoft) that you be able to turn it off. Windows RT and Windows Phone 8 are the only systems I know of where the user is not allowed to disable Secure Boot, and neither OS line is selling very well. On every Win8 device, it is *mandatory* that the user be allowed to disable it. Clearly, this is all about giving the manufacturer more control!

Re:Can we install Android?

[whoever57]

You know, aside from the fact that 95%+ of consumer machines which support Secure Boot also support (per mandate from Microsoft) that you be able to turn it off

You know, aside from the fact that some manufacturers have made it very difficult to turn off secure boot.

Re:Can we install Android?

[0123456]

Yeah, because it's not like Microsoft will require Secure Boot with Windows 9 or anything. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, and all.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems to be the biggest issue Microsoft had... price point compared to inventory. None of the current big tablet players tried to flood the market like Microsoft just did. It was a management snafu more than a product one. They swung big and missed bad where a base hit could have been something to build on.

Re:Can we install Android?

[roc97007]

> Aye, it's the sort of thing if they do a firesale on it, everyone will only get it to try and install Android on!

I would.

> At 99bucks, maybe 150 in a firesale, I'd pick 1 or 2 up for bathroom browsing.

Bathroom brows.... No, I don't wanna know...

At 99 bucks each I could hang several up to act as dynamic picture frames.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anne Thwacks]

Make the damned thing capable of running Cyanogenmod. How hard can that be?

FTFY

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody poops.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Myria]

No, "secure boot" prevents this while not actually improving security.

Yep - especially since we're already hot on the tail of jailbreaking Windows RT 8.1.

Re:Can we install Android?

[luther349]

yep and most of that hardware is low cost. its a sub 250$ market tablet priced like a large ipad.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone install a half assed os with built-in Google spyware instead of a proper linux distribution?
Slashdot is like on mushrooms nowdays. Looks like nobody really wanted open source but wanted to be a whore of a company that claims to be OS but fails to be such.

Re:Can we install Android?

[Darinbob]

Not sure. I don't use tablets. But if I did there is some stuff in Surface that could be nice. Quick keyboard access for example (maybe others do this, I don't pay attention since all tablets seem like toys to me). For the non-RT Surface there's the benefit that it's a real PC capable of running Windows and Linux if you want (maybe even XP). Most tablets I've seen just seem to be large format smart phones without the phone.

Re:Can we install Android?

[bingoUV]

Read the fucking title.

This is Surface RT, the dumb one. This is NOT a real PC capable of running Windows and .....

Re:Can we install Android?

[bingoUV]

What a fucking idiotic comment. This is RT we are talking about, not the x86 version. It is MANDATORY to NOT allow the user to disable secure boot. I know it is confusing but at least shills should inform themselves .

Steve Sinofsky

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Ballmer will be out by the end of Q1 next year and Sinofsky will be on the short list of replacements. Bill Gates doesn't want to be CEO of Microsoft again, and he's old and out of touch anyway.

Microsoft should NOT be a devices and services company, it should be a consumer-facing OS and services company. Apple and Samsung are much better at consumer devices than MS will ever be.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[JDG1980]

I'd prefer Raymond Chen as CEO, but I realize that's probably not a realistic option. What Microsoft needs to maintain its position is an obsession with backwards compatibility and not breaking anyone's workflow, and an understanding that they will never be hip or cool. They need to transition from a growth company to a dividend-oriented company.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[jellomizer]

Although the quality of Microsoft Products have risen after gates left. When Gates left XP was just released and getting hammered by security issues. Compared to say Windows 7 and even Windows 8 which runs very stable and is a lot more secure than ever.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[MightyMartian]

I think you've nailed it on the head. But there are deep systemic issues here. The failure of Surface RT (and, I would imagine, ultimately Surface as well, along with the deep unpopularity of Windows 8) is that Microsoft is a company who has seen its consumer market shrink catastrophically. In part I think it is just bad luck. For whatever reason Apple had Steve Job's Reality Distortion Field that made iDevices sexy must-haves that could be sold at a premium simply because there was an "i" at the beginning of the device name. Whether it was Zune, smartphones or tablets, Microsoft just couldn't pierce that field.

At the same time, Google did its best over the same timespan to get Android put on everything from throw away cell phones to high end tablets, and has absolutely astonishing market penetration.

Between Apple and Google, iOS and Android have become ubiquitous on smart devices, and everyone else is a very distant third. Blackberry can't get back in and Microsoft can't get any footing.

Sure, Microsoft could, and probably will end up selling them far below cost or just giving them away. Maybe that will trigger something, but at this point I doubt it. No one wants Surface RT, and I don't think it has a damned thing to do with quality of product.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[west]

I doubt there's enough money on the planet to persuade Raymond Chen to become CEO.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[binarylarry]

Can you imagine the media frenzy of Bill Gates returning to helm Microsoft?

If it happens, I hope the theme is the imperial march.

That said, it'd probably do wonders for Microsoft. Bill Gates is kind of a bastard but he gets shit done

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[EvanED]

Although the quality of Microsoft Products have risen after gates left. When Gates left XP was just released and getting hammered by security issues. Compared to say Windows 7 and even Windows 8 which runs very stable and is a lot more secure than ever.
A big part of that was the "trustworthy computing" initiative that Gates started though. Actually even Vista was very close to being released (Nov 8, 2006) when Gates announced he was reducing his day-to-day role at MS (June 15, 2006).

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Anonymous Coward]

pssst.....its the operating system.. stupid..

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[aztracker1]

I think it comes down to pricing alone... the RT tablets were quite a bit more expensive than most Android tablets, and didn't have near the appeal of the iPad... so pricing it at, or more, than an iPad was a stupid move if you're trying to penetrate the established tablet market. MS assumed they could get in like they did with XBox (a loss leader for years, and a much better development environment), vs the RT which was a marginally better environment, but priced themselves out. I think pricing alone was MS's single biggest mistake.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[MrDoh!]

Very much so. The stock in that first day alone would go crazy up, Gates could pump and dump himself to get even crazier richer for his other projects.
I get a feeling it just needs Gates (or someone with his power) to sit in meetings and yell out 'THAT'S STUPID' when people do demos, something that I feel hasn't happened for the last 10ish years.

"You want to dump backwards compatibility? Windows? Our core product we sell everything else on top of? THAT HAS TO BE THE WORST IDEA EVER"
"We've spent 20 years nearly getting people used to the Start Button, hired the Stones to sing 'start me up', tied everything to that in training/promotional material, and now you want to get rid of it? HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO BREATH WITHOUT CONCENTRATING"
"Our user studies for 30 years show to never use colour to denote function, too many people are colour blind/colours mean different things in different cultures (you remember we sell outside the US, right?). And now you show me something that looks like a kid who ate a pack of crayons has thrown up on the screen, and expect me to congratulate you? WHY ARE YOU EVEN IN THIS BUILDING?? WHO LET YOU IN?!??"

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[gl4ss]

Sinofsky? why the fuck? you do realize that windows 8 is something he oversaw to be made.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[grasshoppa]

Apple's glamor was down to the packaging. Think about it: Prior to the ipod, most digital music players were so clunky and painful to use, it just wasn't worth bothering with them. At best, they offered a marginally better user experience than portable CD players.

Then came the ipod, with it's slick user experience. Even with itunes, it was still a hundred times better than any product on the market ( which should say something ). They did the same thing with the iphone, then tablet.

There's really no mystery here. Apple doesn't innovate as much as repackages. And good on them for doing it, because while I don't like their gear, I do appreciate the spur to get real UIs out there.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[flappinbooger]

I'd prefer Raymond Chen as CEO, but I realize that's probably not a realistic option. What Microsoft needs to maintain its position is an obsession with backwards compatibility and not breaking anyone's workflow, and an understanding that they will never be hip or cool. They need to transition from a growth company to a dividend-oriented company.

So, IBM?

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[phantomfive]

They've already transitioned into a dividend company, when shareholders got upset (back around 2003, 2004).

Now they are a company just trying to stop losses.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple can block MS, why can't it block Google?

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[flappinbooger]

Microsoft is just pissed that people don't need a computer any more for JUST internet or JUST email or JUST youtube and so on. The smart phone and the tablet have cut deeply into the fluff computer market. Microsoft is undoubtedly spazzing that they might slip back into the day where their only customer is the workstation consumer.

They also could have easily waited 2 years for windows 8 but they gambled because they HAD to try to get some of the mobile market back - or at least be present.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[JDG1980]

So, IBM?

Pretty much. They need to focus on their core demographics – mostly business users, but also to a lesser extent power-users and gamers. Forget about portable, forget about Metro, and instead work on keeping businesses on Windows. Cultivate a professional attitude, not the kind of Apple-wanna-be hipster nonsense we've seen from them recently. Make it clear that "Microsoft will be here for you, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now." Make good, solid incremental changes without breaking stuff. Maybe even consider a new version of VB that is backward-compatible with VB6 (or open-sourcing that ancient compiler) as a sign of good faith. Consider offering extended support for XP to large companies by subscription only – this could potentially be a nice revenue stream with little effort needed.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Slime-dogg]

XP was only hammered because the didn't believe that they could walk away from Win9x, which they managed to do by Vista.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[thetoadwarrior]

Bill Gates is still the chairman. You act like he has nothing to do with it. Maybe they're his stupid ideas and Balmer just eats them up because Gate's is the nerd and Balmer is the brodude.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[PRMan]

Right so they half-assed RT instead of going with the tried-and-true .Net Framework (which would have involved the humble pie of using Mono on ARM).

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[PRMan]

Very much so. The stock in that first day alone would go crazy up, Gates could pump and dump himself to get even crazier richer for his other projects. I get a feeling it just needs Gates (or someone with his power) to sit in meetings and yell out 'THAT'S STUPID' when people do demos, something that I feel hasn't happened for the last 10ish years. "You want to dump backwards compatibility? Windows? Our core product we sell everything else on top of? THAT HAS TO BE THE WORST IDEA EVER" "We've spent 20 years nearly getting people used to the Start Button, hired the Stones to sing 'start me up', tied everything to that in training/promotional material, and now you want to get rid of it? HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO BREATH WITHOUT CONCENTRATING" "Our user studies for 30 years show to never use colour to denote function, too many people are colour blind/colours mean different things in different cultures (you remember we sell outside the US, right?). And now you show me something that looks like a kid who ate a pack of crayons has thrown up on the screen, and expect me to congratulate you? WHY ARE YOU EVEN IN THIS BUILDING?? WHO LET YOU IN?!??"

Seriously... How come when I have mod points, all the articles suck. Then, when there are good articles, I don't have any?

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Bryan Ischo]

I disagree. I don't think Bill Gates could change a thing about Microsoft's downward spiral.

I've been around long enough to see the arc of MS's success since Windows 95 (wasn't paying close attention before that).

I never saw a company that could really create products that consumers demanded on their own merits.

What I saw instead was a company that got itself into a critical, un-dislodgeable, dare I say it - monopolistic - position in the PC market and milked that for all that it was worth.

Now, finally, after 20 years, the market is moving to a place where there is less dependence on the Windows operating system; alternative platforms are finally big enough to start makign Windows irrelevant.

Microsoft will never be able to produce the next greatest product because they never created a next greatest product. They just rode their lynchpin position in the PC stack to undeserved fortune. And without the DNA to actually innovate, they have absolutely no hope of making inroads into markets that they didn't luck into back in 1982.

Good riddance, Microsoft. Never has so much money been pumped into such an undeserving company.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[DCFusor]

I DO have mod points today, but all the good posts are already at +5, or nearly.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Tough Love]

I think Ballmer will be out by the end of Q1 next year...

That is the same as hoping that Bill Gates will suddenly start giving a shit about Microsoft shareholders, currently just another class of Microsoft victim.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a job for Donald Trump. Hm, maybe that's the solution for how Ballmer has killed off all his potential replacements in-house... get on it, Directors

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Tough Love]

Billg won't do it because he knows in his heart that Microsoft will just keep on tanking, then the history books will have no choice but to turn to the Bill Gates page, erase "boy genius", and write in: "bog standard lucky one hit wonder asshole who was standing at the right place at the right time".

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Darinbob]

I am wondering why Ballmer wasn't throwing lots of chairs around. If anything deserved chair throwing it was Windows 8 Metro.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[sydneyfong]

"You want to dump backwards compatibility? Windows? Our core product we sell everything else on top of? THAT HAS TO BE THE WORST IDEA EVER"

They might get away with hiring Linus Torvalds for this actually. (eg. http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136157944603147&w=2 )

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I love metro. I loved on the zuneHD and don't mind it in windows 8. That said, Zune metro was a better one. Someone had to just say "no" at some point in the win8 dev cycle. I love the start screen. The rest of metro v2.0 is not great. Too bad, we need a shake up but not all evolution survives.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[symbolset]

If you'll remember, Microsoft surprised their partners with this thing at the 11th hour. OEMs were already having kittens that the thing was released at all, after Microsoft sat in their most secret design discussions for 18 months "helping them make their own WinRT tablets" and failed to mention it. Putting the price too low as well and there would have been instant rebellion rather than simmering resentment.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[symbolset]

He wants it to tank. That is the point. If he lets it persist, the evil beast that he created that blocks all progress trumps all his good deeds and we will never forgive him for it. He would be forever known as the man who unleashed this horror on the world and gave away all his wealth trying to atone for that sin. If he kills it he is the boy hero who put the world through some temporary forgotten inconvenience to amass the greatest haul for charity in all of human history - the Alpha Giver.

Re:Steve Sinofsky

[vilanye]

It is absolutely amazing that they went after the wrong markets. Google and Apple have not and never will be competitors to MS.

MS needs to stick to supporting businesses and all that entails. Including a software package that that replicates much of their cloud service. An all in one setup where the business retains control of the hardware, software and data, so many businesses would jump on that. Why they haven't done this is surprising as it is right in their wheelhouse(business oriented 'me-too' product) and could actually right the ship.

Something like this. Why doesn't MS have anything like it?

Instead we get crappy tablets and whatever surface pro is supposed to be, Zune, multiple search failures, Windows Phones, home server(WTF MS), which all points to Microsoft not even understanding their place in the world.

Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone knew that, except Microsoft.

Linux on ARM

[simonbp]

I've been running a few proper Linux distributions on the ARM Chromebook for about half a year now, and I though I would have this problem. But, thanks to Open Source, pretty much everything in the Ubuntu and Arch Linux repositories is now complied for ARM v7, so it's really not an issue.

On the other hand, the stock ARM Chromebook is popular (best selling laptop under $300) simply because you can't install legacy apps on ChromeOS anyway (without going into dev mode).

Re:Linux on ARM

[somersault]

Methinks the real issue would be having to deal with the Windows 8 interface. On my Androids I hardly use any obscure apps. The only ones I download are Kindle and Spotify. But you'd have to pay me quite a lot every month to have me use Windows 8's godawful mish-mash of Metro/desktop, no matter what apps it had.

Re:Linux on ARM

[Tarlus]

This is actually a very interesting observation. When it comes to having software made available for multiple architectures, the open source community is way ahead of everybody else.

Even if the author of an open x86 application is lazy/busy/indifferent about releasing for other architectures, somebody else may already have taken the liberty. And if not, you can crank out a binary yourself.

I was interested in replacing a personal x86 Debian server with something lower-power but was avoiding ARM for the longest time because I was afraid I would lose a lot of the software I use regularly. I didn't figure ARM was good for anything more than smartphones and game consoles. Then I took a look at Debian's ARM repository and found that every single Linux program I needed was already there. So, $35 and a few apt-get's later, and I had a Raspberry Pi running all of my same applications on a completely different architecture.

The point of all this? It was no hassle for me to switch to ARM while sticking with the same OS and applications.

Re:Linux on ARM

[Tough Love]

When it comes to having software made available for multiple architectures, the open source community is way ahead of everybody else.

Because we aren't trying to pull shit against the interest of the users. We are the users.

Microsoft cross platform problem.

[jellomizer]

Microsoft who initially got its foot in the door because it's OS can run across multiple manufactures and not just one. Now is having huge problems in writing cross platform OS's.

They made .NET to compete with Java. However why doesn't .NET programs work for arm and Intel like java does, or even for 32bit and 64bit systems. Microsoft just hasn't kept up with cross system compatibility.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Tridus]

There isn't a technical reason why they couldn't have made .net applications work on arm, or Surface RT. In fact, you can build Metro applications with .net and they'll run on the RT just fine.

The problem is that they only want Metro stuff on there (except for Office).

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[intermodal]

The fundamental problem with that statement is that Microsoft got their foot in the door by making an OS that could run across multiple manufacturers who were building to a common standard. There have been compatibilitiy problems irking consumers ever since Vista x86_64 hit the market. Now throwing ARM into the mix alongside x86 and x86_64, where you don't even have that convenient x86 compatibility? Not a good encore.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[0123456]

There isn't a technical reason why they couldn't have made .net applications work on arm, or Surface RT.

Except they'll fail horribly if they call native code that isn't part of the OS. If you need .zip compression, for example, you're probably calling zlib.dll, which isn't part of the OS and won't run on ARM unless you specifically install the ARM version.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Guspaz]

Unless you're dealing with legacy 16-bit apps, the 32-bit to 64-bit transition on Windows has been largely transparent and painless to users... Can you name some compatibility problems that a typical user (emphasis on typical) might face?

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[jedidiah]

Even in the best case, people have to be willing to recompile their apps.

Windows is just not a historically multi-architecture platform like Unix is.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[EvanED]

There have been compatibilitiy problems irking consumers ever since Vista x86_64 hit the market.

What? I never ran Vista x64, but I did run Windows 7 and do run Windows 8 in 64-bit. The only compatibility problems I've ever seen are with 16-bit programs which I cannot run any more. XP 64 had more problems, but I've even had success with that. (Then again, I didn't have to set that one up.)

I don't doubt that there were occasional problems, but there would also have been occasional problems with just Vista, regardless of bitwidth. Almost everyone who's talked about 64-bit Windows says that the issues were basically ironed out in Vista and 7.

So what compatibility problems do you refer to?

And because people on /. seem to "forget" their history, ARM isn't even close to the first non-x86 architecture that Windows has been available for; it's previously supported Alpha (NT 3.1-4.0), MIPS (NT 3.1-4.0), Power (3.51-4.0), and Itanium (XP, Server 2003, and Server 2008).

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[intermodal]

I can think of countless proprietary solutions that were highly problematic for XP/2K users with the Vista/7 transition, including multiple vendors who hated Vista and refused to support it.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[0123456]

Can you name some compatibility problems that a typical user (emphasis on typical) might face?

Lots of old games are 16-bit apps or have 16-bit installers. Lots of old hardware doesn't have 64-bit drivers.

The funny part is that I have a 64-bit OS on my Windows gaming PC, but I only have about half a dozen actual 64-bit apps because most developers stick to 32-bit unless they really need more than 2GB of RAM. Almost all the apps on my 64-bit Linux machines are actually 64-bit, even if they're just the equivalent of Notepad.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[binarylarry]

Zip functionality is in the core System namespace with .NET.

Most apps don't require special native functionality.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a technical reason.. and that is because of win32 and all its legacy. Microsoft is being burned by decades old architecture that everything continues to be built on top of.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[0123456]

And because people on /. seem to "forget" their history, ARM isn't even close to the first non-x86 architecture that Windows has been available for; it's previously supported Alpha (NT 3.1-4.0), MIPS (NT 3.1-4.0), Power (3.51-4.0), and Itanium (XP, Server 2003, and Server 2008).

And they all flopped and were discontinued. Largely because of lack of compatibility with x86 Windows; you could run some x86 programs (slowly) on the non-x86 builds, but then why not just buy an x86 machine in the first place?

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS-Windows was supposted to be a big thing on DEC Alpha. But Microsoft gave up early in the process.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[gl4ss]

anyways, you CAN make legacy api programs for windows rt.. they run just fine, there's plenty of apps available. you just need a jailbreak to be able to run them.. it is possible to make them, they are useful.

but they wanted people to use the appstore. because they get cash from that. fuck practicality WE WANT MONEY!!!!!!! that pretty much is the long term plan with it. to create a separate ecosystem, so that because it's separate people don't question why 30% of their autodesk purchase goes to MS as tax..

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[robthebloke]

Most apps don't require special native functionality.

No, but writing an app in C++ once, and recompiling for the main smartphone platforms (with thin hardware abstractions where needed), is a lot easier than porting an objective C app to C#. They might not 'need' native support, but right now it's a little bit easier in practice than the managed alternatives.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[gl4ss]

There is a technical reason.. and that is because of win32 and all its legacy. Microsoft is being burned by decades old architecture that everything continues to be built on top of.

that's not a technical reason. that's a political reason...

it's really funny though because microsoft doesn't get burnt because of it - it thrives because of it, and now they're trying to go into app obsolescence in 1.5 years mode. that's just bull and people wont go for it on "serious business".

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Guspaz]

That sounds more like a bunch of niche cases. Your average Joe consumer isn't going to care as much about that particular problem set.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Guspaz]

16-bit apps tend to have other compatibility issues than just the death of Win16, though, and were better served via virtualization or emulation even before the 64-bit transition. I don't think it's reasonable to expect software designed for a software environment from over 20 years ago to work perfectly fine in a very different software environment today. It makes more sense to provide those applications or games with an appropriate software environment running on the same hardware.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[cbhacking]

Actually, .NET applications *do* work on Windows RT... so long as you remove the prohibition on third-party desktop programs. Once you've done that, most .NET apps (minus a few old ones that were written for legacy versions of .NET that aren't supported on RT) will run fine un-modified.

You have correctly identified the problem, though.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[cbhacking]

Worth noting here that on 64-bit Windows, Notepad.exe is a 64-bit program. Third-party devs may still use 32-bit everywhere, but nearly all MS software and certainly all parts of Windows itself are natively 64-bit.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[cbhacking]

Or you could use .NET versions of those libraries (which often do exist) in which case you're fine once again. Also, as you implied but didn't quite state, .NET apps can P/Invoke native code regardless of architecture, so (for example) you can invoke native system libraries just fine.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

More like DEC/Compaq gave up because nobody was buying it. No point in making an OS when the hardware has been discontinued.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[intermodal]

They do when their first friend who touches the OS bitches about how horrible it was, and how it doesn't work right. That's when they refuse to make the switch themselves.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[PRMan]

Because they would have had to eat some humble pie and use Mono. But it works just fine.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[WuphonsReach]

And they all flopped and were discontinued. Largely because of lack of compatibility with x86 Windows; you could run some x86 programs (slowly) on the non-x86 builds, but then why not just buy an x86 machine in the first place?

Which was the absolute genius of the early AMD Opteron and AMD64 processors. You could get great performance for your 32bit x86 applications, while running on a CPU that was capable of 64bit.

And they ate Intel's lunch for a while in the server-side where companies wanted to start moving towards 64bit capable hardware and off of 32bit. If you were buying server hardware c2006, your choice was a 32bit Intel CPU or a 64bit AMD CPU. Intel wanted you to use Itanium for your 64bit stuff, companies said "screw that" and installed Opteron 64bit CPUs instead.

As a result, as we moved from 32 bit XP to 64bit Win7, we didn't have to swap out the hardware. For machines built in 2006-2008 time-frame. We just put in a bit more RAM and a SSD drive and they're good to go for a few more years.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy2]

Although zip compression which was included recently in .net, SUCK. Don't take my word, ask the creator of gzip/zlib (he's working for nasa). http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11435200/why-does-my-c-sharp-gzip-produce-a-larger-file-than-fiddler-or-php/11435898#11435898 Most people use dotnetzip (ionic) instead, and rightly so.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[4pins]

There have been compatibilitiy problems irking consumers ever since Vista x86_64 hit the market.

What? I never ran Vista x64, but I did run Windows 7 and do run Windows 8 in 64-bit. The only compatibility problems I've ever seen are with 16-bit programs...

The early 64bit days on windows where rough. Why? Programs that thought they knew where their 32bit dependencies would always be. Microsoft recompiled Windows (with some real effort) for 64bit meaning things like the Windows directory went from being 32bit to 64bit. 32bit versions supplied for backwards compatibility were provided under a new parallel structure (with different names) known as WoW64 (Windows on Windows). If you built your software with the proper: relative paths, environment variable, and registry references things just worked. If you had hard-coded paths or chose the wrong references, your software broke.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[aristotle-dude]

Zip functionality is in the core System namespace with .NET.

Most apps don't require special native functionality.

Unless if things have changed, that is actually gzip, not Zip functionality.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in the best case, people have to be willing to recompile their apps.

Windows is just not a historically multi-architecture platform like Unix is.

Bullshit. Have you ever heard of the Hardware Abstraction Layer in Windows?

Actually Windows NT4 was released on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, and x86. So were products like SQL Server and Exchange.
MS just dropped support for all non-x86 architectures in 1999 because adoption was ridiculously low.(although originally they were going to release windows 2000 for alpha as well but dropped it late in the game)

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your point? This still doesn't make ARM the first non Intel-arch Windows ran on. MS pushed Intel alrite-okay, now they do not do that and Intel also tries to jump on that Android train. That is a good thing, right?

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

No completely true. Ilamium was an architecture by Intel requested by HP and that is why they've borrowed some ideas from DEC/Alpha. Intel didn't want to make a CPU which could run 64-bit code AND still have support for 32-bit because they've tried with Pentium Pro (the core idea was the same shit at that time) and they've failed miserably. AMD also claimed 64-bit was unnecessary and that was true because the only thing that shined on x86-64 was memory consumption. Performance boost and other stuff really came way later. x86-64 was pure marketing thing.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[Darinbob]

The ultimate goal of Windows 8 metro and the Surface/Surface RT is that Microsoft wants a big chunk of the apps market. You know the miniature hastily built things masquerading as actual applications, most of which are just thin wrappers around a web site. They saw Apple making money here and they decided they needed some of that cash. The thinking stopped at that point, they didn't do further research to see what sorts of things were making the most money, what features were most in demand, what would happen to their bread-and-butter backwards compatibility, or even figure out if customers were even happy with Apple's locked down gulag of an app store. They also see Google raking in the big bucks by grabbing lots of data, and they want a piece of that pie too.

So the whole design if everything revolves around Microsoft making their own walled garden and data collection center. Everything in Windows 8 favors the store. They've taken the ideas from Apple and Google and run with it, being even more restrictive in the process.

Re:Microsoft cross platform problem.

[bingoUV]

A typical user has at least one atypical use case.

Meh.

[PPH]

Call me when they drop to $99.

Re:Meh.

[CastrTroy]

I think the Surface RT would have done a lot better if the price would have been the same price as a Nexus 7, or at least kept it at $300 or under, and included the touch cover. Without the touch cover, it's basically like any other tablet, and they were asking $500 for it. You can get them a little cheaper now, but by time you buy the touch cover, which was the only original thing about the Surface, you are spending almost as much as you would have for an iPad, and more than Nexus 10.

Re:Meh.

[Gunnut1124]

I bought one at TechEd 2013 for exactly that amount. It's barely worth it. I still use my phone for most 'tablet-y' browsing at home. If the RT could run Android, it might be better but the Metro/Modern interface just plain sucks.

Re:Meh.

[PPH]

I'm thinking more along the lines of an inventory clearance ala HP tablets.

Re:Meh.

[roc97007]

Call me when they drop to $99.

*And* run a different OS.

good!

[Thud457]

Those stupid ads with college students dressed up like what art school students think office workers dress like and ecstatically breakdancing around on tables to the clacky sound of attaching a bluetooth keyboard to a tablet just creeped me the fuck out. WTF MS, why don't you just put BillG & Seinfeld in your fail-mercials like you did back in the day? Or just give me the money if you're just going to flush it down the toilet.

Re:good!

[DogDude]

It sounds like you watch waaay too many commercials. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those stupid ads with college students dressed up like what art school students think office workers dress like and ecstatically breakdancing around on tables to the clacky sound of attaching a bluetooth keyboard to a tablet just creeped me the fuck out. WTF MS, why don't you just put BillG & Seinfeld in your fail-mercials like you did back in the day? Or just give me the money if you're just going to flush it down the toilet.

That's the Surface Pro ad the regular Surface ad is even more painful to watch.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hulu was forcing you to watch those every time you start a new video, and every 10 minutes.

Re:good!

[Waffle Iron]

I hadn't seen that ad, either.

I just checked in on YouTube, and it looks like the OP's assessment is 100% correct.

Cringe worthy.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that narrowly beat out a commercial that consisted of Ballmer jerking off in front of a camera with employees throwing money at his naked body.

Re: good!

[Gilmoure]

*golf clap*

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, you're too cool for TV.

I hardly ever watch broadcast television or cable and I still saw those commercials a few times. They stuck them in front of youtube clips and internet streaming shows and maybe even in front of movies in theaters (I don't remember). They actually did affect my desire to buy the product, but unfortunately for them they made it even lower than it started out.

Re:good!

[bmk67]

C'mon, dude, I just ate.

Re:good!

[Tough Love]

Whoa! I'm not sure I should thank you guys for that. So eye gougeout bad I had to play it twice.

Re:good!

[Godwin O'Hitler]

If I'd seen those ads first I wouldn't have bothered reading all the comments.
It's now glaringly obvious why they had to make so many of the damn things.

But wait Windows RT is OK for a tablet

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed when I bought my windows tablet I did choose a Windows 8 tablet (not trusting Windows RT). But after one year of everyday use, I have found that Windows RT would have been ok. I never installed ay desktop app

Could be worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have released the PlayBook.

Re:Could be worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a playbook, bought when it was so heavily discounted it was irresistible, and it's the best tablet I've used. And the RT makes playbook look like a huge success

Re:Could be worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own an RT, but it looks a hell of a lot more useful than my PlayBook ever was.

XBOX

[DarthVain]

"..'that sort of pricing scheme isn't in Microsoft's corporate DNA..."

Er. No. MS sold both the original XBOX and the XBOX360 at a loss to drive adoption, the exact opposite of what the author is saying MS will not do...

Re:XBOX

[amiga3D]

But they more than made up that loss on games sales. Consoles are traditionally sold at a loss.

Re:XBOX

[xeio87]

Microsoft ran the original Xbox division at a loss for the entire life of the console. They really did spend a lot of money building momentum for the 360 where they finally started to turn a profit.

Re:XBOX

[93 Escort Wagon]

Er. No. MS sold both the original XBOX and the XBOX360 at a loss to drive adoption, the exact opposite of what the author is saying MS will not do...

Whether they sold the XBoxes at a loss or not with respect to the cost of manufacture, they didn't set their price anywhere near the point where it could undercut the competition (or even match it, if you compare its cost to what you got, hardware wise, for the price of a PS3). And, really, that's what matters - how is it priced versus what's already out there?

With Surface RT, Microsoft deliberately chose a premium price. The base tablet sold for exactly the same price as an iPad; but then the good keyboard cover added another $100+ - and we've all seen the commercials, you apparently need that cover! So you pay $600+ for a non-"Retina" screen and not much more available memory than a $499 iPad - which was already entrenched and pretty much owned the market. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Re:XBOX

[Anonymous Coward]

From an investor's standpoint, their XBOX division is one of their weakest. (Believe it or not) It only recently started posting a profit and that isn't much in the greater Microsoft portfolio. A lot of investors want that division out of the Microsoft fold. (I think that would be a mistake, but I'm just passing on what the bean counters see)
Smaller & growing is much better than big and breaking even.

Re:XBOX

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to say they couldn't make up that loss taking part of revenues from the Windows App Store? Exact same concept as the game console, and helps drive RT adoption. They should have taken a page out of the xbox revenue model.

Re:XBOX

[Anonymous Coward]

This has not traditionally been the case. It may be the case today, but it certainly wasn't before.

Re:XBOX

[WuphonsReach]

But they more than made up that loss on games sales. Consoles are traditionally sold at a loss.

And they were trying to get 30% of the take from Windows RT application sales. So they should have done it the same as the XBox rollout. Sell the hardware at a loss and build enough of a market so that developers are willing to participate int he Windows RT application store.

Re:XBOX

[Darinbob]

Yup. XBox was firmly intended as a wedge to get them into the gaming market. They saw a pile of money and decided they wanted some of it. Windows 8 and RT are the same thing, they saw a pile of cash and started drooling. But they didn't create the same wedge by making the tablets cheap and competitive.

awesome

[hypergreatthing]

I can't wait for microsoft to pull a HP Touchpad firesale.
Surface RT Tablets running android would be sweet.

Re:awesome

[amiga3D]

Two words. Secure Boot. That is I think, the entire purpose of secure boot.

Re:awesome

[Gunnut1124]

Good motivation for a jailbreak, ehe?

Re:awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they open up the secure boot, they are selling 6 million very expensive paperweights. Maybe they will find a buyer willing to recycle the lithium batteries?

Re:awesome

[cbhacking]

Why the fuck would Microsoft care? You already bought the hardware that they made, whose price includes the software that they made. It's a silly restriction.

Note: on over 95% of Secure Boot consumer devices sold, it is mandatory (by Microsoft's own requirement) that the user be able to disable Secure Boot. The Surface Pro, for example, is perfectly capable of running Linux (natively, as well as in a VM), including Android (though the driver support in the Android-for-x86 builds that I've seen is lacking). Only on Windows RT and Windows Phone did they require that it *not* be disabled. I'm really not clear as to why they did that.

Oh, and it's already been bypassed on a different Windows RT device.

Re:awesome

[phantomfive]

Secure boot is mainly targeted against piracy, that's where Microsoft loses the most money.

Re:awesome

[amiga3D]

Microsoft considers Android piracy.

Re:awesome

[amiga3D]

I agree it's a silly restriction and Microsoft shouldn't really care. Unfortunately reality isn't always what we'd like it to be.

Re:awesome

[Myria]

Two words. Secure Boot. That is I think, the entire purpose of secure boot.

Secure Boot on Windows RT can already be worked around, albeit not yet perfectly.

Re:awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you?
Legally it isn't, but that is true for a lot of RIAA shit, which I'm sure you don't like. Google made use of a lot of free libraries and did contribute back but no one really needed that input because it was Android-related only, they use FOSS as their marketing drive but they don't contribute. That is piracy.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a dup. The first was a blurb from IT Times, this one appears to be a slashdot origininal, judging from the link.

As to MS haters: How can you tell if someone hates Microsoft? Ask them if they've ever used MS software. If they say yes, they hate MS.

No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

is it any wonder?

[Anonymous Coward]

No mention of the issue that they unveiled a mobiel device in 2012 with no GPS capability, that was big for the tablet uesed as navigational aid market. I took one look at the rt saw it had no built in geolocation capabilities and walked away

Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[hsmith]

They are caught in the mix of trying to be several things. Their bread and butter is enterprise and desktop. Why are they pushing into hardware? They really don't have the expertise to get into it - and with the Surface mess, it really shows. They need to pick their path and shed the silly ideas. Want to be a software company? Be the best you can. Don't half ass hardware - where you will get schooled by older venders.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[0123456]

To be fair, Microsoft mice have always been pretty good.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[jbolden]

They have picked their path, ubiquitous computing. Microsoft on many of their products failed for year after year after year before they were successful. Word was way behind WordPerfect. Excel was in 3rd behind Lotus 1-2-3 and Quattro Pro. Windows was a dumb windowing system and everyone knew the future for desktops was OS/2. Etc...

They keep showing and they keep plugging away. They are pushing into hardware to push their OEMs to get on board "you do it, or we will" is the message and it had some impact.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[gewalker]

Don't own a windows tablet, but the hardlware looks ok to me. The real problems are price, few apps, lmited memory and the confusion with regular windows as well as being uncool (MS is not nearly as cool as Apple or Google). The limited memory is not even a hardware problem, it is the decision to waste most of of by the installed O/S. The keyboard is sweet, the camera is solid. AFAIC, The weakest hardware aspects are being a bit light on battery life and the being a bit heavy / thick for a tablet.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[0123456]

It would probably be a pretty good tablet if it wasn't running Window.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[MightyMartian]

They're going into hardware because it's pretty clear no profitable company wants to make RT devices, so if they don't directly involve themselves in putting devices on the market it won't be there at all.

The larger reason is they fear (not without justification) that the consumer market has shifted away from PCs completely, and is now firmly in the hands of smartphones, tablets and other smart devices. While Microsoft's fortunes don't rise or fall with the consumer market, the fact is that it would take a big enough swipe out of revenues to cause them concern. Worse, once the consumer market gets comfortable with non-PC computing devices running non-Microsoft operating systems, there will be creep into the enterprise market (much as Microsoft made its fortunes by creep from the enterprise market into the consumer market), and that could have serious ramifications in the medium and long term.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[RenderSeven]

"Pretty good?" Their mice are *awesome*. The Arc Touch Mouse is one of the coolest PC gadgets Ive ever bought. Whoever runs that division should be replacing Balmer. Instead in the last reorg Balmer is replacing them with Windows OS Architecture VP Julie Larson-Green (and the phone VP is now running Windows Engineering). So the biggest failures are taking over groups that havent failed quite so bad; Windows 8 VP takes over XBOX and hardware, Phone VP takes over Windows OS. No wonder Forbes named Ballmer the worst CEO in America.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to work hard to fuck up a mouse.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[PRMan]

Mod this up.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[Tough Love]

"you do it, or we will" is the message and it had some impact

That was when Microsoft actually mattered. Now Google matters instead.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[PsyMan]

Get the Mouse division to take charge of the Micky mouse division and you might just rise from this seasons ashes and have a fighting chance with Windows 8.2+ (2.0)

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[roc97007]

It would probably be a pretty good tablet if it wasn't running Window.

I see what you did there.

Re:Microsoft doesn't know what it wants to be

[knorthern knight]

> They're going into hardware because it's pretty clear no profitable
> company wants to make RT devices, so if they don't directly involve
> themselves in putting devices on the market it won't be there at all.

And in the process, they found out why nobody wanted to do the hardware... profit margins are non-existant. It's bad enough on Android tablets, with a free OS. But on an a Win 8/8RT tablet you also get to pay the Microsoft tax for Windows 8. Thanks to Google's "free as in beer OS", it's not possible to compete in the low-end tablet market when you have to pay MS a licence fee on each machine.

> The larger reason is they fear (not without justification) that the consumer
> market has shifted away from PCs completely, and is now firmly in the
> hands of smartphones, tablets and other smart devices. While Microsoft's
> fortunes don't rise or fall with the consumer market, the fact is that it
> would take a big enough swipe out of revenues to cause them concern.

This is equivalant to PC's taking over from mainframes. You don't need a Cray to do a spreadsheet or a Powerpoint presentation. Similarly, many kids realized that they don't need a full-fledged desktop/gaming-rig to post updates on Facebook. Besides, a tablet/smartphone is a lot easier to lug around and snap photos with than a laptop with a webcam. It can be done... but why would you even bother?

> Worse, once the consumer market gets comfortable with non-PC
> computing devices running non-Microsoft operating systems, there will
> be creep into the enterprise market (much as Microsoft made its fortunes
> by creep from the enterprise market into the consumer market),
> and that could have serious ramifications in the medium and long term.

Here's where I disagree. Those are 2 totally separate markets. You cannot do serious programming/spreadsheet/report-writing/database/etc work on a tablet. There are niches, like dedicated touch-operated POS systems for minimum-wage burger-flippers selling you a a burger+fries. But serious work requires a serious machine. There are times when "convergence" is downright stupid. E.g. if Microsoft made cars...
* and they saw that bicycles were taking market share away from cars
* so they replaced car steering wheels with handlebars
* and car brake pedals with hand-operated bicycle-type brakes

That's basically what they've done here... grafting a touch interface onto a traditional desktop OS, ***AND RAMMING IT DOWN DESKTOP USERS' THROATS***. If they had brought out MS-TAB-OS for tablets, and left the desktop alone, at least they wouldn't be destroying their business desktop market.

Goodbye Micro$haft

[calarndt]

Good deal!... Took them 20yrs to get to the top of the pile and it'll take them 20 or more to drop off the radar, but they'll be gone for sure...

Re:Goodbye Micro$haft

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got a little drool there. Have a kleenex.

Re:Goodbye Micro$haft

[amiga3D]

They're like Herpes. They'll never really go away.

Re:Goodbye Micro$haft

[calarndt]

That's too funny!!!

Repeat Performance

[Sponge Bath]

I remember developing on a PowerPC 601 box for Windows NT. Then... nothing. Abandoned. Wasted effort.

Re:Repeat Performance

[0123456]

To be fair, Metro apps will run on desktop Window 8 as well as ARM tablets.

It's just no-one wants to run Metro apps on a 24" desktop monitor.

Re:Repeat Performance

[jellomizer]

It is called Hedging your bets.

Microsoft and Intel got lucky back in the Mid 80's-Late 00's. IBM gave Microsoft a too sweat of a deal, so they were able to make 100% IBM Compatible clones which was good for Intel. This flooded the market with cheaper PC's. Hurting/killing off the likes of Apple, Amiga, Commodore, TI... Then they created a near software monopoly.

However the Web began to change things around. Many of the stuff that we use to do with Installed Software has been moved to the Web. Which can run on different hardware and OSs and browsers. Microsoft did a good job of slowing this down with forcing IE compatibility but due to a bunch of wide exploits and security issues, it allowed FireFox to get into the market again causing more Cross Platform Web development like it was attended to be. So more and more stuff we use to put on our PC got put on the web, and this stuff worked on different systems. This allowed Apple to get a foot hold again in the Mac Market, because they can show they do the same stuff you can do on your PC without the hassles combined with the popularity of the iPod it created more Mac sales and people got use to using Safari (Web Kit Based Browser). Which they used in the iPhone. This has allowed the consumer the freedom to choose what platform they want, without a massive drawbacks of installing all new software. So then Android came to the market, (revamped from its initial project goals) to compete on this market. So Microsoft is facing an issue of having competition and the fact they can't claim they have more software is putting them at a disadvantage. As there is too many bad feelings from when they were a monopoly.

Now Microsoft was lucky it took that long to happen. However we all knew something disruptive could happen, at the time the PowerPC was promising architecture, which could have disrupted the Intel control. So by having a PowerPC NT port, would have been a wise hedge into the future. It didn't pan out, but it could have if things went right, then you would be happy you did.
 

Re:Repeat Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember developing on a PowerPC 601 box for Windows NT. Then... nothing. Abandoned. Wasted effort.

I used to work at Microsoft and NT4 as well as other products (at least Exchange, and SQL Server if I remember correctly) were actually available on PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha and x86. The thing is, there was little adoption outside of x86.

During the NT5 development cycle they focused on x86 and Alpha, dropping MIPS and PowerPC. Sometime in 1999 they dropped Alpha. There might have been one public beta of Windows 2000 released that still ran on Alpha but the final product was x86 only. SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000 also shipped for x86 only..

Marketing fail.

[Picass0]

I've said before the Surface marketing was one of the nails in the coffin. The TV ads mostly featured hipster dambasses dancing and hiphoping while spinning the Surface tablet. Very little if any product knowledge is communicated.

MS has to tell people WHY they should choose their option over iPad and dozens of Androids, Kindles, and Nooks. There are tablet for all price points. Some offer decent performance and graphics. Others are affordable. Surface is.... from Microsoft. I guess that's all you need to know.

Then there's the Metro GUI fiasco. MS basically appologizes for Metro on Windows 8 and offers a Metro-less option on the new betas. What does that tell a potential tablet buyer?

I think this thing will be discontinued within a year. If I were a Surface owner I'd be hoping for an Android or Linux port right about now. Can you root a Surface??? I guess I'm lucky I don't need to worry about that one.

Re:Marketing fail.

[v1]

I've said before the Surface marketing was one of the nails in the coffin. The TV ads mostly featured hipster dambasses dancing and hiphoping while spinning the Surface tablet. Very little if any product knowledge is communicated.

I find it ironic that Apple gets accused of having the biggest fanboy/cult following, and yet always advertises people using, enjoying, and having fun with their products, and then MS gets billed as the "serious" technology company whilst showing hipsters flashing, dancing, waving, and hugging their products, instead of using and enjoying them.

I don't understand how these two companies maintain such opposite images from each other.

Apple is turning into the serious, functional tech, while microsoft is turning into the useless status symbol tech. Or at least that's what their publicity is pushing.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you could just push a button and make a pie chart with three slices. Who wouldn't want that.

Re:Marketing fail.

[njnnja]

They are each trying to shore up their known weaknesses. My dad might see people walking around with iDevices, and say to himself, "Hmm, these seem to be everywhere, but what do you actually do with one?" Apple commercials tell him. Trying to highlight how cool they are in commercials would only be counterproductive.

Similarly, when average people think of Microsoft, they think about sitting at their desk 8 hours a day in front of a computer doing mind-numbing work.So their commercials try to get people to associate Microsoft with fun (not unlike the quintessential beer commercial showing a bunch of happy young people at the beach or at a party to get you to associate good times with Budweiser). Telling people that computers can do lots of stuff doesn't help to change people's minds about Microsoft as a leisure company.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because Ballmer foolishly believes the Microsoft brandname still has pull with consumers. Meanwhile, their marketing agency knows the truth and realizes nobody cares about MS consumer products except accountants and middle aged C# developers, so they have to invent phony hipster customers to appeal to the boss.

It's hilarious because they've sunk a jillion dollars in to the XBox brand, and still can't convince that demographic to buy their other consumer gadgets.

Re:Marketing fail.

[MachineShedFred]

The difference is that the only ads that Apple runs that simply showed people dancing around, were ads for a music player with the iconic white earbuds and music playing in the background. Everyone already knew what an iPod was by the time this campaign hit TV and print advertising, and everyone could mentally draw the connection between the earbuds and the product without one single word having to say it. That's brilliant advertising.

When it came to iPhone and iPad, their ads showed very little except the device, and what it could do, and how easily it did it. And, more importantly, showed how different the experience was from the shitbox computer that the target audience bought from Best Buy a few years back that everyone in the family universally hates. Also brilliant (and effective) advertising.

Microsoft showed a bunch of assholes dancing around clicking magnets together. It didn't tell you anything about what the product was, what it could do, and why you needed one. Then, they followed it up by showing the word "Surface" and the Microsoft logo - as if anyone would actually say "Oh, it's Microsoft, so it must be a good quality, feature filled, easy to use, and stable product that I need to know more about!"

Microsoft doesn't know what their own brand represents, and this ad campaign illustrates that. Microsoft is not "hip" or "cool." Microsoft absolutely does not "rock." Even with the Xbox brand, Microsoft is only tolerated because the only other player worth mentioning is Sony, who is just as bad if not worse. People get excited about Microsoft the same way that people get excited about their vacuum cleaners - it's a product that serves a purpose, and is mildly annoying when it doesn't work right, which is often. It hasn't been 1995 for a long time.

If they want to right this ship, they need to embrace who they really are - the engine of business. They are the new IBM that they mocked and ridiculed in the 90s. They need to stop fucking around with trying to make consumer electronics where they have little experience, and instead extend their successes to the new platforms that people are using. Get Office onto iOS and Android. Go whole hog on integrating iOS and Android MDM into Active Directory and cut that new market for management tools off at it's ass. Get a true Exchange client onto iOS and Android, and stop relying on a generic ActiveSync API that is poorly implemented on all sides of the equation.

These are core competencies that Microsoft could do properly, but refuses to because of "Not Made Here" syndrome. And it has to stop if they want to live.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] while microsoft is turning into the useless status symbol tech

With Surface RT they're 50% of the way there!

Re:Marketing fail.

[gl4ss]

that's actually because advertising folk have no imagination, even if they're paid for having it.

that's why the advertising is the opposite land.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is thinking different. Microsoft is just different.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is just now catching up to apples 10 year old ipod commercials.
They desperately want to be the cool and hip brand name.
Or maybe they really think that is how people see microsoft.
Who knows.

Re:Marketing fail.

[roc97007]

> I've said before the Surface marketing was one of the nails in the coffin. The TV ads mostly featured hipster dambasses dancing and hiphoping while spinning the Surface tablet. Very little if any product knowledge is communicated.

I'm convinced that they made this (risky) decision because they knew damn good 'n' well that product knowledge would not have sold the product.

Re:Marketing fail.

[Chrontius]

I've been using a Mac for serious productivity and Windows almost exclusively for video games for over five years now. Little things - better drag-n-drop functionality in "open file" dialogs is a banal but important example - make the same task significantly faster on the mac, once your workflow includes more than one application. Even when it doesn't, stuff like "space bar to preview any media/document" and better file-manager keyboard shortcuts generally make everything just a tiny bit easier all the time.

Sure, there's things I miss about windows - ctrl-X to cut files, as well as text - it isn't really logical when you sit down and think about it, but it's useful. Not as useful as the rest of Finder, however. I miss DirectX, or I wouldn't have to maintain a Windows system for games. Windows and Linux may have better OpenGL performance (until Mavericks comes out and something-like-doubles GL performance and reimplements most of DirectX's killer hardware abstraction features)

I can count on Macs having a good keyboard, a great trackpad, and some of the most incredibly useful freeware on the market. What more do I need in a "serious business" computer? What's that? Battery life? Ooohyeah.

What's the reason to buy one?

[Tridus]

Microsoft has never made a case for why people would want to buy a Surface RT. What does it have going for it that makes it stand out against the competition? Lets take a look:

iPad - The brand name that made tablets mainstream, and that's a big help when selling a product. Also works well and has a ton of apps.

Android (Fire, Samsung, Nexus, etc) - The most popular ones seem to all have price going for them: they're the best game in town if you want a $250 or less tablet. Lots of people fit into that category. Has lots of apps.

Surface Pro - It runs x86 Windows apps. The market that really wants that in a tablet is niche, but still.

Surface RT - Not cheap, not blowing anybody away in hardware specs, not boasting any interesting unique apps. Aside from really wanting a Metro tablet, what's the point? (And no, the average joe doesn't really want a Metro or Windows tablet.)

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[jbolden]

Wacom digitizer and OneNote. I own the Surface Pro but that was one of the reasons I got it.

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. And if they put whiteboading and pen support into Lync RT it would make a killer collaborative whiteboard.

The dearth of apps is definitely a problem, but honestly my experience with scrolling through the app stores on Surface, Android and iOS is that the vast, vast majority of them seem to be useless unitasking alpha-quality "fart apps"*. I have a total of four apps on my phone, and maybe use another four of the apps that came with it.

* by degree of usefulness

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Attila Dimedici]

Wacom digitizer and OneNote. I own the Surface Pro but that was one of the reasons I got it.

You said that you got the Surface Pro, this article is about the Surface RT. Which raises the question, does the Wacom digitizer work on the Surface RT? I tried to find the information, but was unable to locate it in a cursory search.

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[jbolden]

Wow I hadn't bother to check. Your instincts were right it doesn't have that. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6695/microsoft-surface-pro-review/4

OK so scratch that reason to buy the RT.

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

The wacom digitizer? Who the fuck cares about that?

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why the Surface RT was doomed. Anyone sane that had to get a Surface for whatever reason would get the Pro version. The Pro version can actually work with most of Microsoft's own stuff.

The Surface RT is just a bastard child that nobody wants.

Why didn't Microsoft realize it while millions of others did at the very beginning? Maybe Microsoft nowadays has too many bosses that don't want to hear unpleasant truths. The employees with a clue will just collect their salaries and stop telling the bosses what they don't want to hear.

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought an RT tablet to surf the Web because it was cheaper than an iPad and malware is reduced by everything being forced through Microsoft's app store.

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom did last night!

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a tablet with a wacom digitizer, you want a galaxy note. Samsung licensed wacoms tech for the various flavours of note.

I have a note 2. Its pretty good, though what I really want is a Psion Series 5 with all the goodness inside this note 2. a decent sized battery, a solar panel on the back and wireless charging. The Psion's keyboard was amazing, add tgat to a modern screen and I would be in pda heaven

Re:What's the reason to buy one?

[dublin]

I bought a Surface RT when they first came out, and kept it for the maximum two weeks before almost reluctantly, returning it to the local Microsoft Store. The following is an unbiased an account as I can provide - I really have no dog in this fight, and to be honest, I'm pretty thoroughly disgusted with the current state of the art in tablets, phones, and computers, anyway. We're no where near where we should be in the second decade of the 21st century...

The Surface RT is maddening: On one hand, it is definitely the best and smoothest responding tablet that's not built by Apple, and it has a pretty darn decent set of MS productivity apps (and yes, these matter - A LOT).

On the other hand, in one of the most bone-headed design moves ever, MS decided that since Apple gets away with only supporting AirPrint printers, they could get by with only supporting a set of very new and mostly expensive new printers in RT. This was the final straw that made me return my RT - I have a very nice, expensive, but older color laser printer - I shouldn't have to buy a new printer to use with a damn tablet! MS could have bitten the bullet and twisted printer vendors' arms to rebuild all WHQL printer drivers for RT. Instead, they decided it was OK to make everyone buy a new printer. There is NO WAY TO ADD printer drivers to RT, so this couldn't even be fixed! I wonder how many enterprise/corporate sales that cost them...

Surface needs some of the fixes that Win8 needs in general (remove the seams between Metro and desktop - it's really two OSes sewed together as a hideous monster, now), but Win8 clearly works best on a tablet, and I actually liked 8 on the RT. (Enough that I upgraded my laptop, where Win8 was such a disaster that I got a refund and reinstalled Win7, a 2-day investment to fall back!)

Here's a formula for Surface Success, to whom it may concern at Microsoft (I'm open to a new job, if you want someone to make this happen...):

1) Do a Haswell Surface Pro, so the battery life doesn't suck. Make it the same size and weight as the existing Surface RT (No excuses, do it, dammit! (NEDID)). Keep the digitizer pen - it's a killer feature and differentiator that your competitors don't have. (But make sure it looks like a Cintiq to Windows apps!) Seriously consider adding a 15-16" version with the same retina-scale pixel density. There is a screaming need for a big-screen tablet, especially if it could run all regular Win apps. Include Office to square the feature set with the RT (NEDID). Price should be far more aggressive, and this is doable, although margins will be thinner at first. Remember you're fighting for mind and market share here - and more importantly the continued relevance of Windows itself - if you fail here, you're done in a few years, anyway...

2) New Surface RT hardware as thin and light as the iPad you'll be facing in another couple of months. Consider going to a "squarer" (less mail-slot-like) screen aspect ratio, so it can be held and used as a reader in one hand - this doesn't work today. (Applies to Pro, too). Use a modern cutting edge multicore ARM chip to get current again. Ditch the current display and use the one from the current Surface Pro - 1366x768 is laughable in today's market, and not nearly enough vertical pixels to really be usable with the office suite, which is your greatest differentiator. Make it work with *all* WHQL-certified printer drivers, unless the mfr. is just dead. Make sharing and syncing *anything* with another Win8 machine trivial and near magic. (Big bonus points for near-seamless integration with iOS and Android devices, too.). Up the local storage, SkyDrive doesn't cut it.

3) Include the touch cover, for crying out loud. A $30 upgrade option to swap for the keycaps version is OK. Who wants any Surface without one of these?

4) Make the magnetic charging connector work as well as the one for the key cover. Don't know why this was screwed up in the first place, but it's distressingly possible to hear the pow

Re:Slashdot...

[amiga3D]

It's not that people hate Microsoft. It's that Microsoft acts as if it hates it's customers.

Revelation of weakness

[intermodal]

There's a certain weakness this exposes in Microsoft's products: the fact that people stay with them because they have legacy programs they can't let go of. Microsoft products don't sell themselves. The programs people want to run on them do.

Re:Revelation of weakness

[Anonymous Coward]

MS doesn't have customers as much as they have hostages..... the hostages are waking up though. Windows 8 helped. If I have to learn an entire new GUI why not try something else?

Re:Revelation of weakness

[Anonymous Coward]

The conjested, potholed-filled road you need to drive to work on every day.

Re:Revelation of weakness

[PRMan]

Exactly. Which is why a rushed RT was suicide compared to sticking with .NET and making their whole back catalog work on cheap ARM tablets.

Fix binary compatibility already

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard to write low level emulation for this is it? Come on!

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[0123456]

It's not that hard to write low level emulation for this is it? Come on!

Running programs designed for a 3GHz quad-core x86 on a 1.3GHz ARM? That'll work.

Yes, I'm sure it can be done, but probably not in a form most people would want to use. If your program is idle 99% of the time and spends most of the other 1% inside the OS it's probably OK, but anything at all CPU-intensive (e.g. software video players) is probably toast.

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[jedidiah]

Except most apps these days don't need a 3GHz quad core. That's why the PC market is in the crapper. Most people are hard pressed to overwhelm a 5 year old trailing edge PC. The bloat of a new OS like Win8 is far more likely to cause problem than the apps.

The real problem is that ARM doesn't stack up to x86 even on a 1:1 basis in terms of clock speed. An Atom is going to smack around an ARM when it comes time to do actual computation.

It's like emulating current desktop app on a PC from the 90s.

It would probably work just as well as the early java version of Corel Office from back in the 90s.

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[alen]

it still leaves you with less RAM on tablets which is the real limitation of the apps now

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[cbhacking]

Surface RT has 2GB of RAM. Any app that would run in x86 emulation won't have a clue what to do with that much RAM.

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[Darinbob]

PC applications usually don't need that power. They need it mostly because there's so much bloat now. Processors ten times more powerful than what we used to have, and yet the applications still feel sluggish. Most people just want to email, browse the web, write some docs, churn some numbers, crop some photos, etc. You can do that on a 1.3Ghz ARM easily.

Re:Fix binary compatibility already

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard to write low level emulation for this is it? Come on!

Running programs designed for a 3GHz quad-core x86 on a 1.3GHz ARM? That'll work.

Yes, I'm sure it can be done, but probably not in a form most people would want to use. If your program is idle 99% of the time and spends most of the other 1% inside the OS it's probably OK, but anything at all CPU-intensive (e.g. software video players) is probably toast.

1. Very little software is designed for a '3ghz quad-core'. Go monitor individual usage on your applications, they're mostly tied to one or two cores, and are barely touching them.

2. The Surface wouldn't need a cpu heavy software video player, it has a tegra with hardware decoding.

keeping the link juice to /.

[SmartAboutThings]

I love it how you guys linkback to your own articles when there have been so many similar submissions, and even more interesting that just disappeared

Re:Slashdot...

[ShopMgr]

No, I hate microsoft! Gates and company bullied and lied and pushed people out of business for their own self-interest. Now he wants to give away the billions he stole to charity. How about giving it back to the people you forced out of business! Modern day Robber Barons with no morals! So, yes we do hate Gates and his legacy! Hopefully, this is just another nail in their coffin! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) Robber barons is a derogatory term applied to wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen. By the late 1800s, the term was typically applied to businessmen who used what were considered to be exploitative practices to amass their wealth. These practices included exerting control over national resources, accruing high levels of government influence, paying extremely low wages, squashing competition by acquiring competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices, and schemes to sell stock at inflated prices to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors. The term combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy (a baron is an illegitimate role in a republic).[1]

not software but service company...

[unique_parrot]

...very funny ballmer !!! must have been hard pressure to announce that right AFTER companies in EU have been warned not to save any data into the cloud.

What doomed Surface RT?

[randomErr]

I'n my opinion it was these things in this order:

1. Locked down OS. Windows is fairly open. RT was a locked down mess. If you wanted Android then make Android. Not Windows Locked-out edition with all the stuff we liked from past Windows blocked.
2. The Windows 8 look. Again if you would have called it Window Mobile edition people would have been more willing to try it as a, well mobile platform. But instead you made a carbon copy of the Windows 8 interface that everyone hates and marketed it as such.
3. Requirements/Price - Because of the hardware requirements and the 'Microsoft Tax' it pushed the price of these devices into the iPad with produced a...
4. Lack of good software - Its new, you practically had to buy a new version Visual Studio to build for it and you had to go through a certification nightmare to get your app on the store. BTW: Where the heck is a good version of Office or the game I can play on other tablets? Why is the #1-5 most downloaded app a replace for the Start Button.

ARM architecture needs a slim, functional Windows. This wasn't it.

Locked to their Apps store

[substance2003]

While there is no end to the problems that could list this product fail. One of the key parts I feel is killing Windows RT is the fact that you must use their Apps store to get new software unlike x86 version of Windows where you can go get it from any website.While it could be argued that it helps avoid viruses and security issues for the users and give a better experience using the device it was most likely their need to control the apps and be more like Apple to get more revenue.

If the system was open with tools to program and add software, that might have made it easier for people to port software over that was open sourced.
I don't know what is available in the Windows store for RT devices since I do not own a Windows 8/RT computer but I doubt they have Blender 3D or The Gimp or Libre Office available for Surface RT and I doubt people would be willing to pay a fee (I'm assuming there is a cost to get you're app in the Windows Store) to port it over free.
Had it been easier to port software over like it currently is for Windows using x86 processors, that would have made the tablet a lot more attractive.

Kind of reminds me of something in the past

[Ensign_Expendable]

"From the outset, Surface RT had an issue with the potential to mightily trip up Microsoft: While Windows RT looks exactly like Windows 8, it can't run legacy Windows programs built for x86 processors, limiting users to what they can download from the built-in Windows Store app hub." I'm thinking of the PC, Jr.

The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Guspaz]

The Surface RT hardware is pretty nice. I'm an iPad user, but playing around with the Surface RT in a Microsoft store impressed me. The kickstand is neat, and the keyboard covers work really well (especially the one with actual travel). The problem was software.

People point out Metro as an issue, but that's not quite it; Metro is a travesty on the desktop (or laptop), true, but on a mobile touch platform it's very appropriate. The problem was lack of familiarity, lack of compatibility, and lack of marketing.

For the first issue, what I mean to say is that Surface RT has a full desktop interface, but restricts it severely. Metro is much better suited to a tablet, but people are used to the desktop interface, and Surface RT can still make a decent laptop (plug a mouse in and use the keyboard cover). Had the desktop been unrestricted on RT (no side-loading restrictions, same as regular Windows), then people could have transitioned more gradually, at their own pace, or even stuck to the desktop entirely if they wanted. This would have let people use the RT as a tablet when they wanted to, or as a laptop when they wanted to.

For the second issue, lack of compatibility, there is basically none. This ties in a bit to the third point, but the thing looks identical to normal Win8, so people expect it to run the same stuff. It doesn't. As has been pointed out, the architectural differences would not have prevented .NET apps from running at full speed on the RT (Microsoft just doesn't support it), and emulation of x86 code would have worked well for many apps, since any call to an OS function via Win32 would have resulted in native code execution anyhow. Depending on the application, that means that large parts of an x86 application would be running natively anyhow.

The third issue is lack of marketing. Microsoft did a terrible job educating people about what RT is (and how it differs from regular Windows), or why they would want it instead of an ultrabook or chromebook or other tablet. Users who did buy the RT were likely confused about why it wouldn't run their programs.

I think that a combination of an unrestricted desktop, compatibility with existing apps (via a native .NET environment and emulation), and better marketing could have made the Surface RT a success. Not necessarily a market leader, but at least it would have sold enough units to be considered successful. I know that I was personally tempted to get one to replace both my tablet and laptop until I realized how all the stuff that interested me would be disabled...

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words...Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[cbhacking]

To be fair, there's a "jailbreak" that enables all of that. .NET apps do run, unmodified and un-recompiled. Open source Win32 apps are being / have been ported. There are a few specifically-for-RT native apps as well, including an x86 dynamic recompilation layer that allows running (some) x86 apps directly.

This is all the work of a few volunteer devs on the XDA Developers forum, working for free on their own time. These efforts were made without MS support, just by public documentation and reverse engineering. Nonetheless, it makes the tablets (all RT devices) much, much more valuable to the (many) people who aren't willing to stick to "Modern" apps. MS could have done far, far better themselves in terms of a slick experience (starting with making the "jailbreak" be an option somewhere, instead of an Admin [which users have by default] to kernel [which is supposed to be inviolable] exploit that is scripted to run at bootup).

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[LoRdTAW]

For the second issue, lack of compatibility, there is basically none. This ties in a bit to the third point, but the thing looks identical to normal Win8, so people expect it to run the same stuff. It doesn't. As has been pointed out, the architectural differences would not have prevented .NET apps from running at full speed on the RT (Microsoft just doesn't support it), and emulation of x86 code would have worked well for many apps, since any call to an OS function via Win32 would have resulted in native code execution anyhow. Depending on the application, that means that large parts of an x86 application would be running natively anyhow.

The idea behind Windows 8 and RT was to provide a common API and UI for tablets. Windows 8 is pretty much windows 7.1 with the Metro UI tacked on. Windows RT is the metro only version which eschews legacy application support by eliminating the desktop libraries and runtimes.

That is not what the problem is/was. Classic win32 apps, desktop .net apps and Metro apps have completely different libraries. And to make things worse, applications written in .net for desktop use (windows forms) are not able to be simply recompiled for metro/RT. You have to make significant changes to your code and redo the UI. In order to make existing .net winforms code compile for an RT/ARM system they would need to port all of the win32 libraries, the entire .net stack as well as the windows UI itself. At that point you might as well run windows 8 on x86. Another problem is what about 3rd party COM and .net libraries which are called by classic applications which were compiled for 32/64 bit x86? That is too difficult to implement. They might be able to make an Arm version of windows 8 that could run x86 applications on top of an emulator but that is a very niche market and expensive to develop.

However, on Windows 8 you can call classic .net API's and legacy win32 libraries but you break compatibility with the Windows RT.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Guspaz]

Windows RT ships with a full Windows desktop and includes all the normal built-in desktop apps and utilities, as well as a desktop version of Microsoft Office, so there can't be that many libraries missing, if any. And unless they made some radical change, all that stuff is using Win32 on RT.

Its not that the API/libraries/runtimes isn't there, it's that they don't let you run unsigned code.

Basically, I'm suggesting that your entire post is wrong, disproved by Windows RT itself.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[LoRdTAW]

I am wrong. Please disregard, I haven't paid attention to Win 8/RT in quite a while.

I thought I read that non Metro apps were completely unsupported and would not run and classic win32 API's. Looks like I misunderstood and there is support but only for their office applications until they port them to Metro as a transitional phase.

What they mean by "desktop apps are not properly optimized" is the fact that RT is for tablets and is a poor interface for using desktop apps used with a mouse and keyboard. Then add to the fact that there would be mass confusion about what libraries and apps are compatible with RT/ARM and which aren't. Still though, it would have been cool to be able to port desktop applications strait to RT.

My guess is MS will eventually remove win32, winforms and the desktop from RT once office is ported to Metro. If they ever make it that far. And not having Metro office apps at launch makes you wonder if they were/are even willing to risk spending money or resources on the port.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Guspaz]

The thing is that the SurfaceRT would typically HAVE a mouse and keyboard; both the keyboard covers include a trackpad, and if that's not enough, you can connect an actual mouse and keyboard via the full-sized USB port. This would seem to make the RT a great option for people who want a tablet, but turn it into a laptop on occasion (the Surface Pro is way too heavy for tablet use).

Another user in another reply pointed out that RT can be jailbroken to remove the restriction on running unsigned apps, and that the community has basically done a lot of what I talked about. They've got .NET going, they've ported opensource Win32 apps (where they can be recompiled), they've even got a userland x86 emulator going. If only Microsoft had done this officially, it would be a heck of a lot more polished.

Well, maybe when the RT gets to liquidation-level pricing, I'll grab one and try it out :)

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Alioth]

Win32 apps would need at least a recompile. WinRT is not binary compatible with Windows 8 for native code.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[schnibitz]

I'd say this is a reasonable comment. I am actually reading this on a surface RT. Regarding marketing, I'd say MS missed the boat. They tried to make it look hip, but instead looked a little "me too-ish". One particularly good selling point is that my settings, features and apps now follow my login everywhere if I'd like that? What about the fact that there's almost zero malware for the RT platform? What about how much better security is handled for metro apps? And yes price killed it too. All said and done, I paid over $700 for mine with a keyboard touch cover. That really is a lot of dough. Also, with Surface Pro, it has a built-in digitizer. Why don't they tout how useful that would be for artists? Adobe stuff is available to that platform, and the resolution is great. All that said though, I don't actually regret the decision. The platform continues to improve. I love being able to read my kindle books, and take notes on Onenote. /. MS hate is almost obligatory. It cracks me up because people think they're being witty when in reality it's actually easier to intuit negativity than to do the hard work of building something yourself. Your comments are pretty fair and well stated though.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[schnibitz]

I'd say this is a reasonable comment. I am actually reading this on a surface RT. Regarding marketing, I'd say MS missed the boat. They tried to make it look hip, but instead looked a little "me too-ish". One particularly good selling point is that my settings, features and apps now follow my login everywhere if I'd like it that way. What about the fact that there's almost zero malware for the RT platform? What about how much better security is handled for metro apps?
And yes price killed it too. All said and done, I paid over $700 for mine with a keyboard touch cover. That really is a lot of dough.

Also, with Surface Pro, it has a built-in digitizer. Why don't they tout how useful that would be for artists? Adobe stuff is available to that platform, and the resolution is great.

All that said though, I don't actually regret the decision. The platform continues to improve and I love being able to read my kindle books, and take notes on Onenote. Its probably the most well built device I've ever owned, and that's saying a lot since I also have an Apple MBP. /. MS hate is almost obligatory. It cracks me up because people think they're being witty when in reality it's actually easier to intuit negativity than to do the hard work of building something yourself. Your comments are pretty fair and well stated though.

Re:The hardware wasn't the problem.

[Guspaz]

WinRT and Win32 are different APIs, and all indications are that Windows RT supports Win32. Emulation of application code, while calling into native Win32 code, could work. And does work, since there are community projects doing just that. It's what Apple did with Rosetta, and before that with their 68k emulator.

Microsoft cannot compete

[ArcadeMan]

All this shows is that Microsoft cannot compete in the marketplace without a previous monopoly in place.

Re:Microsoft cannot compete

[cbhacking]

Xbox, for all that it took a ton of money to get it where it is, is now competing pretty well (we'll see how the next generation goes...).
Azure seems to be doing fine even if it's small potatoes next to AWS.
Same for SQL Server, a bit better than Azure even.
Windows Server (unlike Client) is nowhere near a monopoly in its market, but is also doing well.
In the pre-iPhone days, Windows Mobile was one of the more popular smartphone platforms without ever being nearly a monopoly.

MS, Pull the "HP Touchpad! Strategy !!

[martiniturbide]

...HP Touchpad was a disaster at the end.

But there was a moment when they slashed the price to $99 (16GB model) when the tablet got complete sold out and it became for a moment the best selling tablet after the ipad. The best selling tablet in quantity, not in profit.

I think that If HP would took that moment to create a successor for the WebOS tablet it will possible turned the history we know up-side down. But HP preferred to discontinued WebOS.

But Maybe Microsoft can do the same strategy, slash the prices of the "Surface RT" but do not discontinue it, release Win 8.1 for RT like it is on the plan and possible get more acceptance on the tablet market. .... I don't know, it may work.. Do you remember that with the xbox 1 MS used to loose money at first?

MyopicSoft

[wcrowe]

Microsoft could change their name to "MyopicSoft" and it would fit better. They sincerely believe that they are a popular company and that people cannot wait to get their hands on Microsoft products. Too many yes men. Too many marketing people drawing the wrong conclusions from their numbers. So they produced a high-priced product that was, frankly, pretty bland. And they tried to market this bland product as the greatest tablet ever, to a yawning generation that knows when they're being lied to. What a waste of time and energy.

Re:Slashdot...

[grub]

Don't tell me... you were one of the original developers of QDOS?

Other reasons

[Voyager529]

1. No Instagram client. True, this means nothing to the Slashdot crowd, but even a 41 megapixel camera is worthless if you can't share them. I don't think that this alone would cause WinRT/WP8 to remain on the shelf, but if $499 tablet X has instagram, $499 tablet Y has instagram, and $499 Surface doesn't have instagram, it's going to help narrow down the purchasing decisions pretty quick to anyone who uses the service regularly.

2. Too many migrations at once. Amongst the things that helped jump-start the iPhone back in 2007 was the fact that it integrated nicely with the iTunes library that people already had. Android integrated nicely with the gmail and picasa accounts people already had, and Google went to great lengths to simplify extending those services. Microsoft had hackneyed support for gmail (outlook.com is natively required), no official dropbox support (skydrive is natively supported), no support for iTunes (Xbox Music is natively supported), no drag-and-drop file system support; there's a fancy desktop client for it..but it doesn't work under Windows RT. Going the Microsoft route requires LOTS of changes for many people.

3. The devices that require less migration of stuff frequently cost the same or less.

4. Friends and family had iPads or Android tablets already. Easy ways to learn about new apps and figure out how to do some things are explained socially. If you're getting a WinRT device, you're standing alone. At some level, tablets are fashion accessories for many. This doesn't work when you're the only one with a tablet branded with a name reminiscent of your ridiculously locked down work PC or your slow, spyware infested home PC.

5. Little incentive for devs to help change any of this.

End users buy products not strategies

[Bozovision]

It's a mistake to think that the RT was the real product.

Reasons to have the RT:
1. As a reminder to Intel that MS controls the ecosystem
2. To remind hardware manufacturers who is boss.
3. As a way to blunt the rise of tablets from Apple and Android by introducing confusion.
4. As a potential future growth path - an option.

Reasons not to have RT:
1. Anything that takes sales away from Windows on PCs is bad. That's where the money is.
2. Anything that drives down the cost of hardware is bad; when the Window tax is a large percentage of the cost of a machine, it looks like Windows is too expensive. The strategic reasons would have been related to a focus on users.

None of these point mention the end-users, and they don't buy stategies. A viable tablet from MS would have been better than Apple's, with as much software, cheaper without looking cheap, faster, with better battery life.

Re:End users buy products not strategies

[MachineShedFred]

The problem with the way things worked out:

Reasons to have the RT:
1. As a reminder to Intel that MS controls the ecosystem

Clearly, they don't, because this product proved to be a turd nobody wants; whereas the one Surface product that people might actually pay attention to has an Intel CPU at it's heart.

2. To remind hardware manufacturers who is boss.

See: #1. To remind someone who's boss, you have to actually succeed. Asus, Lenovo, and friends are laughing their ass off right now.

3. As a way to blunt the rise of tablets from Apple and Android by introducing confusion.

Yeah, how'd that work out? iPad sales continue to rise, Android tablets are starting to sell in decent quantity, and exactly nobody is confused about what a Windows 8 tablet is and if they want one or not.

4. As a potential future growth path - an option.

I'll buy this one. If by some miracle what Microsoft wanted came to pass - this thing selling faster than crack vials on a Baltimore street corner - then Microsoft would have opened up another revenue stream from their app store. However, something else happened, and now they are writing off $1B on their 10-Q paperwork for the SEC.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

ShopMgr is correct. Gates bullied everybody from IBM down, including pretty much all ISVs developing on DOS and Windows, and all the PC OEMs. The only one he couldn't bully was Intel, and they had a MS-like reputation on that front anyway.

If you were walking down a street with him and found $10 on the sidewalk, Gates is the kind of person who would say, "Let me track down the rightful owner of this" and then pocket the money.

Not a Bad Device

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at an educational technology conference and Microsoft was giving away Surface RT tablets with keyboard covers. I heard but could not confirm that they gave away 10,000 (there were 13,000 partcipants at the conference). Anyway, I ended up getting one and so far I am pleased with it. I really like that it comes with basic versions of Word, Excel & Powerpoint as well as microSD card or USB ports. The kickstand and keyboard cover are great and do not add a lot of bulk. I have an iPad, a Lenovo Android tablet and a Motion Windows 7 tablet and I honestly like the Surface best. I am not devoted to any particular brand or operating system. I choose the device that best meets my needs.

Total bollucks

[Anonymous Coward]

iPad uses an os that can not run any of the applications of a mac yet the iPad has been a succes since day one.

Re:Total bollucks

[0123456]

iPad uses an os that can not run any of the applications of a mac yet the iPad has been a succes since day one.

Most people don't have thousands of dollars worth of crusty old Mac software that they expect to run on an iPad.

Re:Slashdot...

[interval1066]

Interesting how that same tactic worked for Jobs but makes Gates seem like a bull in a china shop.

embrace

[dmbasso]

There's likely nothing that Microsoft could have done about this—every platform has to start somewhere

What about interoperability? MS bet it had a chance to create its own walled garden from scratch, but had it tried to apply the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy (like providing an Android runtime or whatever) the outcome probably wouldn't be such an utter failure (although I guess it would fail nevertheless).

The Real Reason

[rssrss]

Steve Ballmer is not a good business man.

Re:The Real Reason

[kirkb]

you don't even need the word 'business' there

should had side loading / desktop ui open for apps

[Joe_Dragon]

should had side loading / desktop ui open for apps.

The desktop ui is there for office and you jailbreak it you can run apps on the desktop if they are ARM apps.

MS needed not try the app store lock in idea.

Lame support too

[Anonymous Coward]

My Surface RT wouldn't boot past the "Surface" screen. But MS wouldn't fix it because the corner was scuffed. If this was an ipad, Apple would have insta-replaced the device.

Atrocious customer service is another nail in the coffin.

Have to be that guy

[SuperKendall]

to the clacky sound of attaching a bluetooth keyboard to a tablet

*Begin Comic Book Guy Voice*

Technically, the Surface keyboards use connectors that attach when you click and not bluetooth at all, which is why they made clicking such a big deal in the ads.

*End Comic Book Guy Voice*

Re:Have to be that guy

[cbhacking]

A relevant point here: the cover doesn't have any batteries. On the other hand, you can't use it as a keyboard unless it's connected to the tablet.

Did Microsoft really have high hopes?

[roc97007]

Or did they for marketing reasons need to have anything that played in that space, even if it was ultimately a failure?

The alternate is that they honestly thought that they could come out with a mostly incompatible product with an anemic ecosystem and it would just... somehow take off. Because they're microsoft, and hey, you don't get fired for buying microsoft. This works as a marketing sell but I can't believe that they actually bought that line of thinking.

cheap knock-off

[sjames]

The problem is that with RT, MS made a cheap knock-off of their own product. It looked a lot like the pro to the average consumer, but cost a little less and wouldn't actually do the things that the real surface would. But since MS doesn't know how to bargain price, it was an expensive cheap knock-off.

Consumers felt just like the excited kid on his birthday anticipating his Transformers action figures he just knows he's getting, only to unwrap the present and discover his parents were confused by the 'Transmogrifiers' action figures that say 6 exciting phrases in Chinenglish.

Re:Slashdot...

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because Slashdot is a bastion of Apple / Steve Jobs love, right?

There was only room for one

[istartedi]

The market only had room for one iPad-like device with App Store lock-in. In order to upset the Apple cart (heheh) you had to be fantastically superlative in some way. That didn't happen.

iPad has one of those

[SuperKendall]

Wacom digitizer and OneNote.

iOS has OneNote now also.

As for the digitizer - iOS doesn't have a Wacom pen but there are some pressure sensitive styluses now that a number of art programs support. Not as precise as the WaCom but close enough for a lot of people.

If only it had an unlocked bootloader...

[ron_ivi]

last thing we need right now is more Windows

If only it had an unlocked bootloader, I would have bought one to port Debian to it if no-one else had already.

what is it supposed to be

[milkmage]

have you ever seen one?

the screen is good, the build quality is good, performance is decent.
but add up all those parts, you end up with a device that's got a serious identity crisis.

We have a pro in the office. I can't figure out what it's trying to replace. it's not quite a tablet (it's .5 inches think and has a fan).. and it's not quite a laptop - the keyboard cover (while it's a decent keyboard) is not as good as a true laptop.

MS wanted it to do too many things.. it does none of them well. even at $150 off, they're still not selling.

Re:what is it supposed to be

[ljw1004]

I've been using Pro as my sole development machine for six weeks, with the TypeCover. (I'm a dev on the MS VisualStudio team)

It works GREAT!

I've abandoned for good my previous ThinkPad laptop. The new surface pro is easier to take around wherever I go to develop (home, office, cafe). The touch screen is making everything easier than a touchpad, even easier than the track pad on my wife's Macbook Pro. Worse than a mouse for some tasks, better for others.

Re:what is it supposed to be

[phantomfive]

Surface pro is good for artists. Here is an example of a review. It's like a Wacom tablet that you can look at while you draw.

Re:what is it supposed to be

[motokochan]

Wacom actually makes screens you can draw on, it's called the Cintiq. They are, however, quite a bit more expensive than the Surface Pro. Of course, the Surface Pro won't replace the larger model Cintiq devices.

The real problem is that the RT, which is the subject of the article, is a fancy tablet with a nice keyboard cover. There's no legacy application support, for obvious reasons to anyone reading Slashdot. There's no Wacom digitizer functionality. It does have Office, in the Desktop view. Microsoft failed on the RT by not having any obvious advantages over the major competitors in the space and by creating confusion between the RT, the Pro, and plain Windows 8. If a potential customer isn't sure which Windows tablet they need, they are just as likely to get an iPad or Android tablet because of the ecosystem those have.

Colons

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure this whole post was just a troll to get us riled up over severe colon abuse.

One major fail was the type covers

[caywen]

One major fail was selling the type covers separately for a hundred bucks. They showed the product everywhere *with* the cover, making people think it was all one product. To walk into Best Buy with a picture in your head about what you want to get, and then be told it's another $100 - that kills any forgiveness anyone might have over Surface RT's other issues.

And then they screwed themselves yet again. Announcing a $150 price cut should have also included the cover. Yet again, Microsoft keeps thinking those covers are oh so precious.

I actually think Surface RT is a decent product. I'd buy it *with* a cover for $300. No more. And so, no deal. From someone not fundamentally opposed to the product.

Re:Slashdot...

[interval1066]

Only when they pop up in their creepy little comments like lemmings; fast and furious.

Run 16-bit apps in emulation

[tepples]

Lots of old games are 16-bit apps

I liked Sonic the Hedgehog 2 too, and it was a 16-bit app. That's why when Sega rereleased the Sonic games for PC, Sega included an emulator to run them. Likewise with old DOS games on GOG: they include a DOSBox emulator.

Plagiarism

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment deleted by team MS/NSA

Karma coming back to bite you in the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I hated apple for the shit they pull with hardware lockin and walled gardens. I now hate Microsoft as they have taken to emulating apple.

List of unnacceptable behavior in tablet/phone form factors:

Locking down execution to appstore. Deny root if you want - people should have the right to run whatever software they feel like without asking permission. Stop being a bunch of greedy fucks.

Mandatory participation in skyhook like databases with no way to turn it off. Excuse me its my fucking hardware not yours go take a flying leap.. I refuse to participate in crowdsourced location spying.

Find my phone/tablet must not be mandatory if you've ever associated a MS account there is no way to revoke the "anti-theft" feature giving MS ability to ping your location or wipe your device. Basically anything managed thru a goddamn web site at Microsoft rather than on device needs to change. You can provide the feature to those who want to use it by prompting if they want the remote control/anti-theft feature when account is setup and just not allow them to change it later.

MS has an awesome environment I would be excited about their platform if they stopped acting like a bunch of greedy control freaks. MS's biggest problem in my view is not their technology it is their attitude.

ONLY 10,000 apps

[whistlingtony]

I get annoyed at this app store comparison crud. It ONLY has 10,000 apps...

• Lets see, I have:
• a couple of chat programs
• a couple of guitar tuning programs
• a couple of music reading tutors
• a few games
• a couple of reference books
• some plant ID apps
• a banking app
• a flashlight
• a couple of music players

And that's all I need. I think once you get past a certain number of apps, does it really matter any more?

Tony

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[elabs]

I totally agree. In fact having too many bad apps in the app store can really worsen the customer experience. You can't find the good apps because 99 out of 100 are somebody's high school project they never completed. I wish someone would make a third-party site that curated apps. I bet there would be less than 2000 or 3000 truly unique, high-quality apps out there.

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea who needs choice!

You really turned your faggotry up to 11.

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[Anonymous Coward]

The app race is over. I just got a new phone and only installed a couple of apps, the phone already comes with lots of apps. I gave up browsing for apps a long time ago, the Google app store hardly ever changes, it is poor at showing new things. Why would any store needs thousands of apps? Some phones can only install 50 or so before running out of storage.

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to point out that my name is Tony. Because you're too stupid to look in the username field to figure that out.

Tony

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[painandgreed]

I get annoyed at this app store comparison crud. It ONLY has 10,000 apps...

• Lets see, I have:

• *snip*

And that's all I need. I think once you get past a certain number of apps, does it really matter any more?

Certainly does, because I don't need much of any of what you need. I need different reference books than you do. I like different games. I have a different bank. I have completely different hobbies that require completely different apps. I need none of the music apps you speak of as I'm a photographer. I need model release apps. Vending apps. etc. Other people have still other hobbies, interests and needs. You list twenty some apps that you want that I have no need for. At that rate, there is only 500 sets of interests and I bet there are more than that in real life. Hell, I like to download apps on the cities I visit for maps and sightseeing info. There are probably more than a thousand of those needed to get people like me in the habit of looking for things like a guide to Leipzig, Germany and keep coming back. 10k apps really is a pitiful selection when trying to appeal to the entire population of the US, let alone the world.

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet one of Microsoft's arguments to pick Windows over Mac over the last 2 decades is that Windows platform has much more Applications available... funny how their fortunes have reversed and suddenly, if you have a few high quality applications that's enough.

Re:ONLY 10,000 apps

[Alioth]

What we really need to know is how many app categories have decent apps. For all we know, the 10,000 apps are 9980 flashlight apps and hardly anything anywhere else.

Where did Microsoft's first monopoly come from?

[tepples]

If Microsoft can't compete and build a monopoly without already having a monopoly, then how did Microsoft get its first monopoly? Perhaps the answer to that question might help fans of user freedom figure out how to build a product that effectively competes with the locked-down products that currently dominate some market sectors.

Re:Where did Microsoft's first monopoly come from?

[0123456]

If Microsoft can't compete and build a monopoly without already having a monopoly, then how did Microsoft get its first monopoly?

1. They got the original DOS contract for the IBM PC. Without that, they'd be a tiny company building BASIC interpreters.
2. For years, anyone could copy DOS or Windows, so there was no need to even think about buying a competing product.

Re:Where did Microsoft's first monopoly come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

2. For years, anyone could copy DOS or Windows, so there was no need to even think about buying a competing product.

For definitions of "could" that ignore legal issues. Copyright law existed waaaaaaaaay back in the ancient days, you know.

Costs too much

[Animats]

The problem is that it costs too much. If they got the price down below $100, like generic Android tablets, it would be a big hit. Vast numbers of low-end tablets are pouring out of China, and some of them aren't bad. ARM tablets just aren't that expensive to make.

Out with the walled garden

[alphabetsoup]

I am actually glad the Surface RT failed. I also wish the Windows Phone to fail, even though I own a Lumia and find it much better than similarly priced Android phones. I hate that I cannot write or run my own programs on a machine I own without paying MS 100 USD per year. That's beyond stupid.

MS has probably the best dev tools in the industry; they even give it away for free. But if you want to actually run the program you wrote using these tools, you have to pay. What's the logic in that ?!

I actually like the hardware, both RT and the Lumia. I just hate the walled garden crap. Let us write code for our own machines and you will definitely make a lot more sells.

Besides, anybody who is okay with a walled garden already owns an iPad.

Re:Out with the walled garden

[gl4ss]

the 100 bucks is a fee for sideloading.

they had a discount program for that too. though, if you know someone with a company, they give them for free too. or maybe if you lie that you have a company, I don't think they really check the records.

This actually surprised anyone other than Ballmer?

[rallytales]

All of the original poster's points were painfully visible long before Day One. Windows RT was conceived a Dodo, born a Dodo and will die a Dodo. An evolutionary mutation that never really stood a chance: over-priced, incompatible, lacking apps and burdened with a very awkward UX. Darwinism at work. Instead of wasting their efforts on a two platforms, Microsoft should have focused on their full-Windows tablets and the corporate space and trying to make the Windows 8 user interface more intuitive and usable.

Fire Sale 2.0

[ThatsNotPudding]

Hey Ballmer; knock it down to $89 and I'll buy a couple to go along with my TouchPads.

You can keep the chair, Monkey Boy.

Re:Slashdot...

[jjohn]

Technical point: Microsoft isn't run by Bill Gates anymore. This is Ballmer's fault.

Gatekeeper

[tepples]

and apple doesnt do it on OS/X

OS X has had a Mac App Store for a while, and 10.8 added Gatekeeper with a default configuration not to run anything that hasn't been digitally signed with a code signing certificate purchased from Apple's CA.

Re:Gatekeeper

[spire3661]

And Gatekeeper can be easily turned off. I ran it on for about 10 minutes after I installed Mountain Lion. Also, you NEVER see the Apple App store unless you invoke it purposefully..

Re:Gatekeeper

[aristotle-dude]

and apple doesnt do it on OS/X

OS X has had a Mac App Store for a while, and 10.8 added Gatekeeper with a default configuration not to run anything that hasn't been digitally signed with a code signing certificate purchased from Apple's CA.

Right but you can sign apps that are not published inside the Apple Mac App store. All it does it ensure that the app is from the author it claims to be. You can also run unsigned apps by navigating to the app on your harddisk and running it manually from there. It will then ask if you want to run it.

Re:Gatekeeper

[geekboybt]

...or install OS updates.

Re:Gatekeeper

[benmhall]

"Also, you NEVER see the Apple App store unless you invoke it purposefully.."

Well, except when you run updates. New Macs won't let you pull down updates for apps like iPhoto that ship with the hardware unless you sign in with your Apple ID. You pretty much can't avoid having an Apple ID these days while running current versions of MacOS. (Well, you can, but the constant update messages are pretty annoying.)

Gatekeeper and the App Store, coupled with dropping built-in support for X11 and Java were enough to send me packing. I can see the writing on the wall. I'm not saying that these changes were bad for customers or wrong for Apple, just that they aren't for me. Thankfully, Ubuntu has easily caught up to where I want it to be for daily desktop use, and other hardware vendors are keeping up with Apple's beautiful hardware designs.

Not all applications are CPU bound

[tepples]

It's like emulating current desktop app on a PC from the 90s.

This is true for applications that are CPU bound. But if it's network bound or user interaction bound, as is true of a lot of vertical market software, it'll run almost as fast in a JIT emulator as it does on an Atom. That would at least tide users over until the application can be recompiled for ARM, just as it did for Apple's transitions from 68K to PowerPC to x86. But no, Microsoft had to lock out the desktop APIs to keep even a recompile from working.

Xbox: Publishers, publishers, publishers

[tepples]

Imposing artificial barriers like this would have killed them in the early 90's.

But "publishers, publishers, publishers" worked for Microsoft throughout the 2000s with the original Xbox and Xbox 360. Microsoft lost some money on the first Xbox, but it managed to tie for second in both generations.

Re:Slashdot...

[war4peace]

No, I hate microsoft! Gates and company bullied and lied and pushed people out of business for their own self-interest.

I'm not saying you're wrong, not at all, but name a business who didn't do that, ever, when it could.
The reason is the same reason a dog licks its balls: because it can. Period.

Re:Slashdot...

[glassware]

The iPhone UI was beautiful, responsive, clear, consistent, and usable.

Metro is none of those things.

It has nothing to do with whether it was "Bill Gates" or "Steve Jobs"; one project was done well, and the other was done badly. Of course, when you think about it, Steve Jobs had a solid design sense and stuck to it. The Microsoft team (not sure exactly who) have absolutely no concept of what a user interface needs to accomplish, and no managers are willing to tell them that their UI designs suck.

"Legacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

"it can't run legacy Windows programs built for x86 processors" - Please stop using the term "legacy" in this context. Even the best and brightest, non-legacy, application developed now or in the future for Windows 7 wouldn't run on the Surface tablet, because of processor incompatibility. Microsoft want to make their shiny tablet look modern, and everything else obsolete, but you don't have to.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The saddest instance, for me, is what MS did to Be. Be had deals in place with Dell and other vendors to sell computers preconfigured with BeOS. At the time, BeOS was a far-superior OS to Windows. MS didn't like that and added a 100%-illegal exclusivity clause to their contract...either sell all Windows machines or sell no Windows machines. They eventually got a wrist-slap fine, but it came way too late for Be which ran out of money and was forced to sell.

For this alone, I will never buy, support or in any way further a Microsoft product.

Android

[JavaBear]

Drop some Android on it, and see if it'll fly then.

Not offering support for windows Apps was dumb

[Karmashock]

THAT was MS's killer app. Your old legacy windows programs on the tablet. Don't tell me they can't put a version of windows on an inexpensive tablet. Some linux gurus got windows XP to run on an android phone. With some optimization there is no reason windows 8 couldn't have run on that platform. Or baring that... scrap the arm processor entirely and try out one of the new ultra efficient x86 processors.

MS keeps failing to grasp this... their primary draw is STANDARDS. Why do we not switch to apple or linux? Because we're use to windows. Because we have a lot of programs that only really work on windows. Because we interact all the time with other people in the same situation and being different would either be inconvenient or expensive.

Think about it like this, at one time there was no standard for gasoline. They were all different octanes and frequently had different chemicals in them which were billed as "features" by their producers. Well... those "features" make engine performance unreliable. You'd fill up your gas tank one day and it would run fine. You'd fill up the next and you'd have no idea what would happen when you put your foot down.

Then Standard Oil came along and gobbled up all their rivals ruthlessly and replaced everything with STANDARD fuel blends. Consistency.

Engine designers built their engines around the assumption that consumers would pour one of the standard fuels into their cars... and nothing else.

It became easier to design the engines knowing that they didn't have to be that tolerant to weird fuel blends. And the consumer got the confidence that if they followed some pretty basic rules they'd get reliable service out of their engine.

This is largely the secret to Microsoft's success. Standards. A lot of it is chicken and egg stuff. You become big, you make the rules, everyone uses those rules. But even microsoft's rise to power was about standards. There was once many operating systems. Many many many operating systems. Practically every computer manufactuer was pitching their own operating system.

The rise of google OS and Mac OS and I OS and linux frankly speaks to Microsoft's stupidity.

Google offers a reliable super cheap very efficient OS. The licensing appears to be about zero.

Mac OS offers a very pretty but reliable experience. iOS is the same thing on the phone/tablet.

And linux is sort of whatever you want it to be... which is both fantastic and daunting to many.

MS needs to grasp what their place is in the software ecosystem and fill it before they're eaten alive by rivals or "time".

Wouldn't it have made sense...

[thorbsd]

Wouldn't it have made sense to just develop Windows RT as an internal product? In the event that x86 market is no longer profitable and ARM takes off, they've got something ready to go, and all the time be figuring a way to emulate existing x86 apps so people can continue to use everything they know transparently until people have had time to make a full (workforce/home) transition.

At the present time they can continue to market their "Surface PRO" as the x86 tablet with compatibility for everything, and you're never stuck with a $900 million dollar write off in unsold hardware that people don't want.

doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter at this point in time, the can simply adopt their x-box strategy and keep pounding the market.

Perhaps they'll buy successful iOS and droid software developers and migrate the apps while canceling the other platforms.

Re:Slashdot...

[atlasdropperofworlds]

iOS's UI and metro are two peas in the same pod. One uses icons, the other uses tiles. There's more power in the metro interface, but it's all tucked away and you need to be trained to find, but that's not an issue for some. On iOS, it's not there to find, but at least it makes for a very simple interface - More limited, but simpler, which for some is better. However, at least on non-iOS systems you can do obvious things like, plug it in to a computer and copy an mp3 to it just using OS tools. iOS requires iTunes for this most basic function. iTunes is a terrible piece of software, and the crap it drags on to your system with it and hijacks your media settings by default (bonjour service, quicktime, airplay service) makes it completely unacceptable as a medium just to copy your music to your device. The iTunes requirement make iOS less simple than Android or Win8.

Finally! It bites them in the ass! Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! It bites them in the ass! Good! It's about time! microsoft has made a point of being 'incompatible' with every other damn thing under the sun including all of their own products. mickeysoft fanbois will yelp --very quickly-- when something like libre office can't 100% perfectly load an ever changing file format from office. They *always* neglect to mention that no previous versions of office can load the files at all. Android is linux, and unlike microsoft's stuff, there is only one linux kernel, and its build once run anywhere barring specific hardware libraries (which are usually included with the hardware). There is only one linux kernel. It runs on Raspberry Pi's, Samsung Galaxy 4's, PC's, and all of the current top 10 supercomputers in the world. VLC runs on a linux pc. It also runs on android. Likewise most other apps. Every device microsoft ever made had its own incompatible operating system. They keep pretending they have a monopoly, and when the same-old same-old doesn't fly, it bites them in the ass. Too bad the bite was only $1 billion. $20 billion would have been better, $50 billion would be ideal.

Re:should had side loading / desktop ui open for a

[cbhacking]

To be fair, sideloading (for "Metro") is present and free, though it's a little better hidden than on Android. The earlier versions of that "Jailbreak" you refer to required it, in fact.

Powershell command: Show-WindowsDeveloperLicenseRegistration
(yes, it supports Tab-completion.)

Re:Slashdot...

[bitt3n]

If you were walking down a street with him and found $10 on the sidewalk, Gates is the kind of person who would say, "Let me track down the rightful owner of this" and then pocket the money.

well, assuming this happened in the US, and speaking statistically, he's most likely to be the rightful owner

I love my Surface RT but...

[elabs]

I have to agree that going up against the iPad Microsoft should have hit harder with a lower price. Surveys showed that the Surface was more popular with teenagers that the iPad. Yet it was priced way above what a teenager could buy (or what a parent would spend). It really should have been given an introductory price of $299 (or less) then, raised to $350 six months later. Had they done that I think things would have come out much differently.

I might buy one for cheap

[hduff]

That is, if it can run Linux or Android.

Re:I might buy one for cheap

[cpghost]

If it's made by Microsoft who helped NSA, I won't buy it EVEN if it ran Linux or Android. Don't know what's hiding in those chips.

Re:I might buy one for cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you using that doesn't hold any of that risk, at all?

Honest Question for all

[Nov8tr]

OK who is actually surprised the Surface is failing? Really.

Coomed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't know there was a version of Doom available for it.

Re:Slashdot...

[interval1066]

Is Metro a bad interface? I haven't used it but the idea seemed pretty ok to me. I dunno, just my impression.

Not a hardware problem though...

[Anonymous Coward]

it showed an almost pure Metro interface, it was showing off the real Windows 8 experience. What is wrong with that?
I played with one briefly and it was really smooth and usable. If they price them at $149 then they'll sell the lot.
Folks are too hung up on "it won't run my apps", well guess what? No one cares about desktop apps anymore.

Re:Slashdot...

[doggo]

"iTunes is a terrible piece of software, and the crap it drags on to your system with it and hijacks your media settings by default (bonjour service, quicktime, airplay service) makes it completely unacceptable..."

Because Microsoft products never do that.

Re:Slashdot...

[roc97007]

The iPhone UI was the top of the game at one time. It's kinda stale now.

Metro, on the other hand, was broken from day one.

Re:Slashdot...

[Tough Love]

Microsoft isn't run by Bill Gates anymore.

You don't know that.

Re:Slashdot...

[Tough Love]

After being mortally wounded by Microsoft, Be drove the last nail into their own coffin themselves: they failed to open source the code base, thus guaranteeing that whatever is/was good about it is now permanently relegated to some deep sedimentary layer of the internet instead of being vibrant and influential as some claim it should be.

Re:Slashdot...

[Tough Love]

Bill Gates is a particularly cynical recidivist scofflaw and Microsoft's DNA has that embedded in it.

Re:Slashdot...

[luther349]

there only good tablet is the pro line thats x86. but the pricing is still way to high.

They had the wrong approach

[Myria]

WinRT should never have been born.

What is nice about Windows RT compared to iOS and Android is that it is effectively a full Windows 8. You could leave the Metro world when you had a keyboard and mouse, and effectively start using a laptop.

A huge problem was that Microsoft locked down Surface RT's desktop mode such that only they could make desktop RT programs. You could get to the Windows desktop, but all you could do there is copy files and run Office. Had Microsoft allows making desktop RT apps, some commercial developers would have started porting their apps to RT. In most regards, porting to Windows RT desktop mode is just a recompile with a different CPU setting.

There is a jailbreak for Windows RT, and some open-source desktop applications have been ported to it. However, the fact that it's only unlockable with a jailbreak has meant that no commercial developers have ported their software to the RT desktop mode.

Rather than back down from their mistake, they're actually doubling down: Windows 8.1 not just fixes the jailbreak, but has a bunch of kernel architectural changes just to prevent the type of attack used to jailbreak RT 8.0. If you have a desktop machine running x86/x64 Windows 8.1 Preview, try attaching a debugger to lsass.exe. lsass.exe, csrss.exe, and smss.exe are now "Protected Processes" in 8.1. Protected Processes up until 8.1 have only been DRM-related processes, such as audiodg.exe. And yet, Microsoft went to the trouble to make those system processes Protected just because of the Windows RT jailbreak's existence.

Re:They had the wrong approach

[symbolset]

This sort of disinformation is a huge part of why it failed. People read this and think "gee, Myria sounds like a smart person. This RT thing is Windows so I'll buy it and put on my Quicken and pirated Photoshop." Then they get it home, find it will not run that, and return it promptly back - then warning off all their friends in person and online.

Nice work! Please do keep on doin' what you're doin'.

Re:Slashdot...

[Darinbob]

But look at history before the iPhone as well. All the bad things said about Microsoft can apply to Apple too. Apple was even more controlling since it controlled hardware and locked it down tight, and Microsoft only dreamed about being able to control the PC to that extent. But as an underdog Apple was given a lot more leeway. They even have fans who will explain to unbelievers that choice is bad.

It had a lot going for it though

[erroneus]

1. It's Microsoft and Windows. The reputation of both are quite strong.
2. It was late to the game which offers the advantage of being able to see what people like without all that needless research.
3. The price was right and it became "righter" as they lowered it to make it more attractive.
4. It could integrate seamlessly with everything people were already doing.

Full disclosure: I've never seen, let alone touched or used a Windows RT tablet. I didn't want to because of #1 and didn't believe Microsoft would avail itself of #2. The price is never right if you don't want it...at all. And since I don't like Microsoft all that much, integration with non-Microsoft things isn't all the likely to happen.

And the marketplace seems to agree with me on all points.

Microsoft? Are you reading this? Hope so. I used to be a huge fan. Windows 95 was awesome. Windows 98 was just improvements over 95 which was awesome too. But you lost me when you started playing some pretty heavy-handed games and made your OSes too heavy and started obsoleting perfectly good hardware. Then you got worse and worse. You kept taking from OSS and calling it "new." I remember when AD was being talked about. It's LDAP but it's not LDAP. Embrace and extent. Your crap with the web simply angered anyone who knew what you were doing while you [intentionally] fooled the majority into thinking that no one else could do it right. You took from the world and gave back nothing good at all. It took a really long time but business and consumers did eventually catch on with what you were doing. ("Why is my XP so damned slow?! All I did was re-install and run updates?")

And while the RT was a failure before the Snowden leaks, most of us knew you were giving it all up to governments around the world. Only the uninformed felt safe using your products. And now? Everyone knows. As alternatives present themselves, people are increasingly interested in them. People didn't want Linux, but they're REALLY interested in Android. This is proof positive that you COULD HAVE created a Linux based product of your own a very long time ago. Why didn't you? "Developers developers developers?" Really? How's that working out for you now? Kinda slowing down isn't it. If it doesn't work for or support iPad and/or Android, people are less interested.

Microsoft, your hubris has cost you the game. A company doesn't have to "age." But its leaders certainly do. Balmer, you should have retired on a high-note. I'm not sure you were ever young and inventive to begin with. You will die a slow and painful death, but it would seem the decreasing trust in you by consumers, business and government will speed up the process.

And seriously? (And this is directed at Google too) You have to "ask permission" to tell people the truth? Snowden will get the Nobel peace prize for his courage. The world will support you if you tell the truth about what you have been doing with government. Why are you afraid? If you and everyone else stand up, not only will we regain some respect, we might even start to love you again. Get your heads out of government asses.

Re:It had a lot going for it though

[dublin]

And while the RT was a failure before the Snowden leaks, most of us knew you were giving it all up to governments around the world. Only the uninformed felt safe using your products. And now? Everyone knows. As alternatives present themselves, people are increasingly interested in them. People didn't want Linux, but they're REALLY interested in Android.

Oh, come on, like Google is any more trustworthy? The Heil Hope cabal "owns" all the key IT companies, now. (Scott McNealy was right after all, when he said, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.")

This is proof positive that you COULD HAVE created a Linux based product of your own a very long time ago. Why didn't you?

Oooh! Magic Android-flavored Linux pixie dust! That fixes *everything*! Sorry to break it to you, but stirring Linux into the mix doesn't do that... (I like Linux for servers, but it's a disaster as a desktop user OS - Android is pointed to as a "success" of Linux, but Android is only successful because it *doesn't* look or act like Linux! (Well, that and the fact that it's really, really cheap. Wonder why? Couldn't be Google's ambitions, could it? Even so, the Android market is so balkanized that users of one Android device can't figure out how to use another...)

Don't give Microsoft PR too much credit

[robp]

My take was that they were trying to pull an Apple--they invited only a select few people to a splashy launch event in the hope they'd get some advance buzz, but then they forget that Apple product-launch events also generally include prices, ship dates, and the chance to do a hands-on inspection of the product. That did not go over well.

(FWIW, they didn't send me a review unit either, but I was hardly alone in being shut out. I wound up buying one at a Microsoft Store to write my review, then returning it two weeks later.)

Irony

[pbjones]

MS may make more money out of Office for iOS than it would on its tablets.

Ballmer is a Genius ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it folks, this is a genius strategic move from Ballmer. It's all about building up mind share in a sea of tablets. Write-offs are so meh.

Ballmer clearly said "Wait for Surface Pro" when asked about running x86 apps on the slate. And that was when Surface RT was just released and Pro was ways into the future. Sabotage your current product, so people start wondering if they should wait for the one coming in the future. I tell you, it's pure genius!

Windows CE all over again

[iamacat]

Microsoft needs to learn that they need to give people SOME reason to buy a particular product rather than another one from them or competition.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if your monitor was green or amber the last time you tried iTunes, but it does not hijack any media settings. It asks if you want to make it the default. And there are lots of people who put music on their iOS devices without iTunes. But do FUD on big mama.

Re: Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

V1 failure is standard Microsoft procedure, give it a few more rounds

Competition

[high_rolla]

I think this presents an exciting opportunity for MS.

What they need to do is create a competition where entrants have to propose the best idea for what could be done with all these unsold devices. The catch is thought that your idea must use all the devices.

That way they can get a lot of publicity and also get rid of all that stock in one go.

So ideas could be for instance:
- laying them all down in a big grid to make the worlds largest disco floor, then breaking the record for largest number of hipsters dancing on it in one go.
- Getting them all to run a SETI program
- Developing a plot for a movie that involves saving the world from an invading army of highly efficient worker class aliens by clicking the keyboard onto millions of Surfaces at exactly the same time.
- I'm sure you can come up with better ones...

Isn't 22 years long enough to sort things out?

[Shag]

Microsoft has offered pen/touch/tablet features in Windows since 1991, when Windows for Pen Computing 1.0 was released as an add-on to Win3.1x. Between WfPC, XP "Tablet PC Edition," and gradually including the features outright in the OS, it really seems like they've had "a few rounds" already.

Re:Slashdot...

[dbIII]

The controls are hidden, rendering it unusable without a manual, someone to tell you how to use it, a video of someone using it, or stumbling around in the dark until you find out which corner offscreen the stuff you are looking for is hidden behind. For bonus points that manual doesn't exist unless a third party has brought out an "idiots guide".
So "bad" does not convey forcefully enough what is wrong with it.
Apparently after you get used to it the total lack of visual cues doesn't matter but I haven't met anyone that has used Win8 enough to reach that point yet.

Re:Slashdot...

[dbIII]

Even earlier than that was the refusal to sell out to Apple when a deal was offered. In hindsight that was a huge mistake but maybe at the time Be thought they could get something on Dells. Having Macs come out with BeOS on them five or more years before we ended up with OSX may have revived Apple earlier than what ended up happening.

Get a grip

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Windows 8 and the interface. I like Windows RT and the interface. I don't find 10,000 apps limiting nor do I find the current 100,000+ apps limiting. It's good at what it does and it works quite well. It's really finding the right tool for the job. If you need something Windows does not provide, don't use it. For most people Windows 8 provides what they need. For most people, Windows RT does not. The OS holy war shit is so old and this article has the tone similar to what a mouthy 12 year old adds to a game of Call of Duty. This is fucking trolling at its finest and you Slashdot idiots fall for it time and time again. Get over yourselves.

Re: Slashdot...

[cmburns69]

Odd, that's exactly how I feel about MacOS. I accidentally hit the wrong f button and the screen zooms, or goes to an alternate desktop, or other such "useful" nonsense. It then takes me a while to figure out how to get back, and by then my train of thought is thoroughly derailed. I'm sticking with windows, thank you very much. I'm quite productive with it.

Talk about shitty advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

I though the "Surface" was that weird touch screen tabletop thing?

http://billpstudios.blogspot.co.nz/2007/05/desktop-to-tabletop-with-microsoft.html

It is!

How very stupid to use the same name for a completely different product.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmyes. because apple and google are perfect and would never do anything like that. What apple has been doing with patents is more evil and closes off more options to small competitors than anything Microsoft has done, and with google selling your personal data to all kinds business for their own devious needs, where am i meant to go? At least windows has all the games. I've got mint on here as well, but as far as the big boys goes there are no angles.

Re:Slashdot...

[Pseudonym]

Really? I worked out Metro in less than a minute by myself. And I thought it was typographically elegant, and a genuine improvement over the previous XBox interface.

Oh, you were referring to Windows 8? Never mind.

They missed the point of their own device!

[Chrontius]

If they throw in a keyboard cover at that price, I'll pick one up. Maybe. It's smaller than a Macbook Air and a third the price, and I guess I do occasionally need to type something on the go.

Re: Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushing the same button again must be hard. At least you can see the fucking button.

school pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we have been offered the RT's at a better pricing and most people replied and said 'do you know it doesn't do this?' etc. despite that two people have ordered one...to read pdf's! can't quite get my head around that as you can do that on a nexus 7 and save some cashola..

Re:Slashdot...

[dbIII]

All right then - "the interface formerly known as metro", but we're all calling it metro instead of squiggly symbol or whatever the new name is.

Re: Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf drives people to offer a totally unusable opinion about something they have never used? Dear generation - whatever the fuck you are called nowdays- please shut the fuck up, the self esteem bullshit you were fed expires after high school.

Yup, and we all said it on day one.

[WillyWanker]

Microsoft screwed the pooch on this and we all knew it from the day it was announced. They come to the tablet party with their own proprietary OS and app store 2 years AFTER the two dominant players in this arena have already obliterated all their competition. Strike 1.

And hey, let's call it Windows RT and make it look like it's running the PC version of Windows and is fully compatible so we can trick people into buying it and hope they're not so thoroughly disgusted by the ruse that they return it. Yeah, well that strategy surely had no flaws. Strike 2.

The third nail in the coffin: price. Let's charge a premium price for a deceptive device that has a fraction of the usability of competing tablets. Aaaand strike 3, you're OUT!

Honestly, a better way to go would have been to make these Android tablets with a Windows 8 launcher/shell. So you get the benefits of promoting your brand, the interface of your new PC OS, and some genuinely innovative hardware features, but without actually deceiving people and delivering an overpriced tablet that has no ecosystem to support it.

But since when in recent memory has Microsoft ever done the smart thing? They just keep proving over and over again in the last 5 years they are COMPLETELY CLUELESS. So none of this should come as a shock to anyone.

Re:Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, Jobs did the same things and the same damage that Gates did? What a strange universe you live in.

Re:Slashdot...

[vilanye]

Ballmer is Gates' fault

Re: Slashdot...

[interval1066]

Good grief; "seemed" is hardly an opinion. Back off, dolt.

A use for all of the 'cheap' Windows RT tablets

[Orion Blastar]

out there. Someone port Linux to it to replace the Windows RT OS with a Linux one designed for touch screens. Since it is ARM based I am sure Android can be ported to it as well. It is a much better solution that to just have Microsoft fill up a landfill with them because they won't sell.

Microsoft needs to Bing the Surface.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows RT is the new MSN. It arrived with fanfare then quickly fizzled. Some people will keep using it, but not enough. Fuck it. Bing keeps growing. Google may still dwarf it, but Bing is healthy. Microsoft shouldn't give up in the tablet market. However, if they're going to give up backwards compatibility, then why the hell are they keeping Windows? Dump Windows for tablets. Come up with something new.

I know, easier said than done, but Microsoft has done this before. They have entered a market where two large tech companies were considered dominant and Microsoft was seen has having no real chance.

Who here has an Xbox?

They should just give them to businesses

[amoreperfectvacuum]

Microsoft is in a position where it's core market is about to be superseded by mobile technology. They thought that they could do something like they did with Internet Explorer and just make their main competition part of the operating system, while making Windows 8 all touch, so that what you use in the office is what you use on the phone, and tablet. This approach has not worked for them so far to move into this already established market. People seem more willing to learn new interfaces than they were a few years ago, and the interfaces are just better and more intuitive and reliable, so the fear factor and desire to keep to the familiar is working against them rather than for them. They need to give these things away to businesses, with designed integration with business software and processes, so that the Surface can become the device that businesses just assume they need for mobile applications. Either that, or Microsoft will become a server operating system company.