Why Is Microsoft Setting More Money On Fire With Surface 2?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Never mind that sales of the original Surface totaled a pitiful $853 million in its first few months of release, or that the tablet failed to make Microsoft an up-and-coming player (or any kind of player, really) in the mobile-device wars: Microsoft's now rolling out Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2, which feature upgraded specs and accessories but no radical adjustments to the first generation. Why would Microsoft pour good money after bad? The answer could be outgoing Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who late last year released a memo suggesting that Microsoft was evolving into a 'devices and services' company. 'There will be times when we build specific devices for specific purposes, as we have chosen to do with Xbox and the recently announced Microsoft Surface,' he wrote. 'In all our work with partners and on our own devices, we will focus relentlessly on delivering delightful, seamless experiences across hardware, software and services.' That meant Surface (then on the cusp of release) was clearly a harbinger of the company's future direction — and canceling the project after the first generation would have been a stinging refutation of Ballmer's strategy. By spending the money and resources on a second device generation, Microsoft manages to save a little bit of face, albeit at considerable cost. But imagine the hilarity that'll ensue if this second generation goes down in a huge ball of flames like the first."

Comments

XBOX?

[a_nonamiss]

The XBOX 1 lost 4 billion dollars. It's now a solid market that Microsoft dominates. Why would they not use that same strategy here?

Re:XBOX?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is they took a market that was solidly held by a few companies and squoozled their way into it by throwing vast amounts of money and a few really successful games.

Sony did this back in the 90s and may have been the template for Microsoft's success.

The trouble is the mobile devices market isn't the same as the console market where you make a machine and let it ride for 5 to 10 years on software, this is a very fickle and expensive market to play in where if you aren't lumping features in every year you get considered dusty. If you lump the wrong features in you seem uncool.

Microsoft can't treat the trendy throwaway electronics game the same brute force way, unless they want to bankrupt themselves...?

Re:XBOX?

[Sarten-X]

whenever they're pressured to explain the success of the Wii.

Nintendo's success is easily explained. The Wii simply isn't a video game console, so it never had to compete against the "real" consoles. Sure, it has gaming hardware like a console, and it connects to a TV like a console, and it uses controllers like a console, and it plays games like a console...

...But it's different. The whole system is designed to appeal not so much to "gamers", but more to grandparents. It is a console for the masses, to entertain everybody to some degree. It's not the system you turn to for the latest pixel-pushing eye candy. It's what you use to see a silly cartoon character run amok in a fantasy world.

To the kids of the 80s, this is a betrayal. Nintendo was there from the beginning, and now it's abandoned its loyal fan base. To Nintendo, this is what it has always done best, drawing on the heritage of the NES, Game Boy, and DS lines. It makes "entertainment systems", good for quick entertainment that doesn't require much thought. Whenever it's tried to push the limits of technology (N64 and Virtual Boy come to mind), they rush the technology without considering the humans using it. The Wii is very human-centric, from its very name to the first commercials ("Wii would like to play"), so it appeals to a large market that only slightly overlaps with the True Gamers.

That's why the gaming industry often seems to have trouble understanding the Wii. It's outside of their normal world, and perhaps rightly so.

Re:XBOX?

[technomom]

This is Microsoft's huge problem. It's like the have complete idiots in their marketing department.

"I know, let's call the THIRD generation of our XBox product, the ONE!"

"Let's brand two completely different platforms (three actually) under the Surface name!"

"Let's have Programs and Apps kinda be the same, but different."

So much facepalm lately for MS.

Re:XBOX?

[Defenestrar]

I don't think MS is treating this as the trendy electronics game. I think they're trying to build an enterprise case for changing the whole computer interface model. A quality tablet should be able to replace every laptop within a company (and once people get used to it) be a far more natural tool (the laptop's design constraints decided its form factor). With the ability to run native Windows programs, you also don't have to worry about multiple styles of program licensing (i.e. corporate iPads, etc...), can use enterprise ready solutions, and not worry about separate policies or what happens inside of the firewall (other than the regular nightmares).

Ah slashdot bias..

[bravecanadian]

I agree about the ARM version. And I know how great it is to bash Microsoft in absolutely every thread their name appears..

However, the Surface Pro 2 looks very attractive. I am buying one.

Re:I seriously like my Surface Pro tyvm

[geek]

Though I'm used to the default MS bashing here -- I have to wonder have many people have actually USED a Surface (esp the Pro) for more than 5 min in a MS store or at a friend's house?

I have two sitting here in front of me. I had to build the win8 image to push out via SCCM for our enterprise. The Surface pro is fucking terrible. What's the point of it when you spend 99% of your time on the windows desktop instead of Metro?

The entire device lacks focus. It doesn't solve a particular problem (although the multiuser aspect is nice on our domain).

If the Surface disappeared today no one would care. I was actually hopeful as I'd like to see some competition in the market. The Surface however isn't it.