Slashdot Mirror
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."
..it failed. The last thing we need right now is more Windows.
At least that's they way it looks on the surface.
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.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"..'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...
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).
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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.)
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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.
It's not that people hate Microsoft. It's that Microsoft acts as if it hates it's customers.
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.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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.
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.
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.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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...
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.
Proverbs 21:19
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.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
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?!??"
Waiting for an amusing sig.
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.