Microsoft May Finally Put Windows RT Out To Pasture

onyxruby writes "Microsoft may finally be ready to put Windows RT out to pasture. After ignoring pundits, the public, and a staggering $900 writedown, the subsequent lack of sales for the second edition of the RT have finally gotten the message through. Speaking at a UBS seminar, Microsoft VP Julie Larson-Green said, 'It just didn't do everything that you expected Windows to do. So there's been a lot of talk about it should have been a rebranding. We should not have called it Windows (.DOCX). How should we have made it more differentiated? I think over time you'll see us continue to differentiate it more. We have the Windows Phone OS. We have Windows RT and we have full Windows. We're not going to have three.'"

Comments

900 bucks

[rubycodez]

wow, only $900 to write that stuff off? I would have cut them a check years ago to enable that

Re:900 bucks

[blue trane]

What are you talking about? It still says "$900 writedown".

Re:900 bucks

[rubycodez]

tech.slashdot.org still has the $900, hardware.slashdot.org story has the $900M

Re:900 bucks

[Tablizer]

wow, only $900 to write that stuff off?

The $900 was computed in Excel RT, so it must be correct.

Re:900 bucks

[spruce]

Well that explains some of the weirdness with Slashdot. Not only do they customize posts for each subdomain, they actually tailor each post for each user. Also they're ph balanced for Windows, but strong enough for Linux!

Re:900 bucks

[rubycodez]

Iranians aren't arabs. Do any Iranians other than Sunni Jundullah members even do suicide attacks?

$900 Writedown

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much what happened to every consumer that bought a Windows RT device.

Re:$900 Writedown

[Anonymous Coward]

All 3 of them?

Shooting Itself in the Foot

[Stormy Dragon]

Microsoft has developed a habit of killing every new product the second it runs into a little difficulty, and now wonders why consumers don't want to risk their money on new Microsoft products that will probably be dead in a year.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[snookerdoodle]

I don't think this has anything to do with consumers risking money on new products. This is a case of Really Bad Branding. Many consumers are not even aware that their new Windows tablet won't run Windows applications (if it's Windows RT). Not only so, but deciphering whether a tablet had "Real" Windows or Windows RT isn't always clear when looking at products even if you do know the difference.

I also don't think there's room for a "me too" tablet OS that has nothing compelling over iOS or Android.

OTOH, I really think Microsoft should be tooting their horns a little louder about tablets running real Windows 8.1 that can run any Windows application.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[Algae_94]

OTOH, I really think Microsoft should be tooting their horns a little louder about tablets running real Windows 8.1 that can run any Windows application.

I agree with you. Microsoft probably shouldn't have set their new OS up to be primarily about the metro interface. It's clear that they want to replace as many Windows applications as they can with modern UI applications. Any use case that isn't 100% modern, or 100% desktop has a bad interface for people to switch between.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[0123456]

And Metro sucks on anything other than a phone.

As far as I can see, the whole push for Metro was to try to convince people to develop apps for Windows phones, becuase there was no point in developing for a tiny market like that. Now, they've screwed their desktop users to try to get into the tablet and phone market, and they're dumping tablets.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[symbolset]

You may find this related article amusing. Also, the relevant part of the YouTube video: http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows/23205/tech-guy-explains-windows-tablets

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[mrchaotica]

the whole push for Metro was to try to convince people to develop apps for...

...the Microsoft store, so that Microsoft could get the same kind of 30% cut that Apple and Google get.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[lgw]

And Metro sucks on anything other than a phone.

It's fine with any touch interface, not just a phone. I hear it works well with the Xbone gesture interface too. I hope so, as Julie Larson-Green used to be in charge of Windows (I blame her for the horror of Metro on a real PC), but seems to be over X-Box after the re-org. Maybe her ideas will make some sense on a console - at least she'll be better that the previous guy, Mr "you'll eat your DRM, and you'll like it!"

I'm hopeful once more for Windows 9 - seems like odd numbered Windows, like even-numbered Star Treks, are the way to go.

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[lgw]

Well, if you want a tablet for just web browsing, kindle, audible, and Netflix, and lots of people do, those WinRT tablets were fine. But the price was insane for that. The product had a market, but never at that price. Really, what were they thinking?

Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot

[Algae_94]

Most people never bothered to customize their Start Menu by moving shortcuts or arranging them in custom folders. They just got used to the poorly designed mess created by each program making it's own folder filled with mostly unnecessary shortcuts for things they didn't need (uninstall shortcuts, readme files, url links). The Start Screen is more like a phone in that each program is given just 1 icon in most cases. It's easy to arrange and becomes faster to use. Idiots, assholes, morons, and troll like you will cry about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an improvement in the long run.

What has changed that will make people bother to customize their start screen now? For many users it'll quickly degrade into the same mess that their start menus were. If they exclusively install windows store apps, they'll have 1 icon for 1 program. If they install many desktop applications, they'll have icons flooding their start screen soon enough.

What microsoft SHOULD have done...

[jonwil]

What microsoft SHOULD have done is what Google and Apple did and basically made "Windows Tablet" based on the Windows Phone OS. So they would have had x86 machines running Windows 8 with a normal desktop OS (possibly with a few enhancements to make it run better on x86 tablets) then ARM devices (phone and tablet) running the Windows Phone codebase and supporting the Windows Phone interface and apps.

Re:What microsoft SHOULD have done...

[GigaplexNZ]

An x86 mobile phone already is a thing.

Re:What microsoft SHOULD have done...

[OhPlz]

The whole "tablet" thing is confusing. I have a Fujitsu tablet that runs Windows 7, has a keyboard but also operates as a slate with a stylus and active digitizer. Tablets used to be laptops with an active or passive digitizer and possibly a keyboard, then the iPad came along and now tablets are two different things, with a variety of operating systems and capabilities. It's one thing for techies to sort through it, but quite another for the average consumer.

So you have a device that's not a phone, and not a laptop. Some customers are going to want it to function more like the laptop, with a full operating system and similar capabilities. Others may want it to work more like a phone, with a mobile, small-device oriented, simplified operating system. Who is to say which is best, or that either is best? Isn't that the failure of RT? It's neither, but tries to offer a middle-ground?

Re:What microsoft SHOULD have done...

[squiggleslash]

No they shouldn't. That would have meant there was a third me-too tablet OS, one with no advantages over Android or iOS.

What Microsoft did was right in principle. What they got wrong (and, to be honest, this bit is hard) was putting together APIs that would make it easier for desktop users and "tablet" users to work in the most optimal way for their interaction system. So instead Windows 8 is, to an end user, two operating systems sharing little but a file system, with entirely different applications working in entirely different worlds.

Would it have been possible for them to make something, instead, that presented tablet user interfaces when a computer was used as a tablet, and desktop user interfaces when used with a keyboard and mouse, while running the same applications? Well, probably. In theory this is the thing MVC is supposed to solve (and virtually never gets used for!) Offer developers a modern MVC API where they're encouraged to create two "Vs".

But that's not where Microsoft went, and I think they'll suffer for the next few point revisions until they can work out how to merge the two "worlds" on a standard Windows 8 system a little better.

Re:What microsoft SHOULD have done...

[MachineShedFred]

In addition, the customers that all tablet vendors really would like to sell to, is enterprise.

Enterprise isn't buying the current tablets because the management offerings totally suck. Microsoft could have done themselves a huge favor if they would have just made RT talk to their own management platform (Active Directory) but they didn't.

So, you have people buying iPad / Android tablets, and then attempting to manage them through the same MDM service they use with smartphones, and it doesn't work very well. Microsoft could have used their entrenched enterprise experience where everyone already has their management system installed for dealing with laptops and desktops to blow out all the other tablet devices in business, but they actively chose not to do that.

Try not to fuck up the product in the first place!

[Lisias]

Windows RT was a failure because no geek (the ones that would be the early adopters that, then, would pull another users to the platform) would spend money on something that doesn't allow dual boot!

Common, by the price you could get a ARM Notebook totally (and relentlessly) locked down to Windows RT, you could get instead a x86 netbook where you can install, also, Linux and its plethora of applications - that aren't the best thing in the World sometimes, but are far better than the Windows RT alternatives (not a surprise, as very few Microsoft developers manage to build *real* multiplatform applications! - remember the time when a Microsoft "multiplatform application" was a program that used to run on Windows 95, 98 ME and NT?)

The tablet niche was already taken, and the x86 niche wasn't threatened by a (yet more locked down) RT system whose only selling point was being capable to stay lit for more time without having anything to run.

Re:Try not to fuck up the product in the first pla

[bloodhawk]

BS, dual boot is a minor feature that very few would use and would be a blip on the radar as far as sales go. The killer was the lack of apps, the locked down nature of the installed OS combined with general confusion.

Branding matters, both for consumers and for

[aussersterne]

project management.

The product is called "Windows." Windows are static things. They are embedded into walls. They provide an unmoving portal into another space.

A monitor on your desktop behaves like a window in some sense. It is always in the same place. You sit and you look at it.

Windows Phone and Windows RT just don't make sense for mobile devices, and provide a kind of complacency to project vision and the wrong idea (unpalatable) to consumers looking for mobile devices.

MS should call the mobile product something mobile:

MS Pathways
MS Journeys
MS Passages
MS Ways
MS Compass
MS Latitude

Then they should focus relentlessly on small-screen/long-battery/mobile UX for the mobile system; design toward the lightweight, mobile ethos of the new name, and market it relentlessly not as "the same as windows" but in fact as exactly different from it.

MS Windows in your office
MS Compass for going places
"Because you're not always sitting still.
"Busy people do more than sit by Windows."

I'm not saying that the marketing is the product; we all know that's ridiculous and leads exactly to a product fail (mismatched expectations vs. reality). I'm saying that if MS was as marketing-led as they ought to have been, they'd do the field research to know what mobile users need (field research they clearly haven't done well) and target the product to those needs, as well as the marketing campaign.

Who needs Windows in their pocket on the street? Nobody. Windows belong inside walls.

Same thing goes for the hardware product. "Surface?" Sounds static and architectural. The opposite of mobility. You can see that they themselves imagined the product this way based on what was shipped out the door. Come up with something lightweight and mobile.

The Microsoft Dispatch.
The Microsoft Portfolio.
The Microsoft Movement (tablet) and Microsoft Velocity (phone).

These are not great ideas yet, but they're light years ahead of "Windows" and "Surface" for a mobile device that ends up acting just like a "Window" or a "Surface."

Re:Branding matters, both for consumers and for

[SB9876]

Congrats, I think you've come up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has in the last 5 years.

Re:Branding matters, both for consumers and for

[gbrandt]

Microsoft Movement...for when you want the same shit you had last year.

Re:Branding matters, both for consumers and for

[93 Escort Wagon]

Given how poorly sales of RT have gone, I think a better name would be Windows The Road Less Travelled.

Re:Branding matters, both for consumers and for

[ganjadude]

ok ill bite, what did they do 6 years ago that was solid? ;)

Re:Surface 2?

[Citizen of Earth]

I'm sure they'll call the next model the Surface One to avoid any confusion.

Re:Try not to fuck up the product in the first pla

[ganjadude]

Pretty much this. I am still telling my friends when they ask about tablets if they want something that can run full apps like they are used to, get the surface pro if money is no object but OTOH for the budget minded im referring them to mainly the nexus line of tablets for trivial use (entertainment)

I love the surface pro system, my buddy picked one of the first ones up from a 3rd party its got an I5 in it and it was awesome, he can even play full framerate games on his going and he has a dual boot with a full out linix distro (he changes it every other week it seems) but if the cost were a little bit lower on the surface pro lines, even the 3rd party ones from the likes of dell and others they would have a killer tablet i mean just the spec sheet should be selling a shit ton of them

can run pretty much any windows app ever made in the past 20 years, light weight good bat life and yes, expansion via SD cards and USB. Me? Im still using a kindle fire running cyanogenmod but im going to upgrade in the next month or 2 (i really want a 10 inch tablet)

Re:Try not to fuck up the product in the first pla

[msobkow]

Nonsense.

The problem was simple and obvious. It was called "Windows", but when Joe Schmoe tried to install a windows application on it, it wouldn't run.

The "geek" market isn't even a statistical blip on the radar of market share nowadays.

General confusion is #1.

[aussersterne]

What is a surface?
Is it a tablet?
A laptop?
Is it highly mobile (well sort of, but not like iPad)
Really lightweight and fast (well sort of, but not like iPad)
Powerful for stationary work (well sort of, but not like a laptop)
Easy to carry (well sort of, but not like an iPad)
Heavy, substantial, and durable (well sort of, but not like a laptop)

People do two things:

(1) Use technology for work or play at their desk
(2) Use technology for work or play not at their desk

Two basic use cases. Just two, at the very bottom of things. In case (1) you go all-out on hardware and power; don't make them sit longer than they have to, let them get their work DONE! (Power, power, power, some ease of use, no compromises.) (2) you go all-out on not making them feel like they need to return to their desk; give them what they need to do what they need to do without feeling tethered (Mobility, mobility, mobility, touch-friendliness, battery, no compromises).

Two basic use cases and Microsoft managed to not hit either one of them well.

Re:General confusion is #1.

[weilawei]

This is the problem with "one size fits all". It winds up not fitting anyone well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The real reason for RT?

[Bugler412]

I think the real reason for RT was to spur Intel to get better power consumption on their chipsets for the real version of Windows, seems to have met that goal if you view it that way

Interesting

[Horshu]

This is the first site I've come across that has interprested Larson-Green's presentation to indicate MS is ditching RT. Every other one has assumed that they're just going to merge the WinPhone shell into RT and make Modern UI more scaleable across screen sizes.

Re:Interesting

[ConceptJunkie]

Good point. Doubling down on a bad decision is a Microsoft trademark.

Re:Surface 2?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm sure they'll call the next model the Surface One to avoid any confusion.

My sources within Microsoft tell me the higher-ups have finally learned their lesson regarding making it hard for consumers to differentiate between their products.

According to them, the third iteration of the tablet will be called Playstation 5.

No big news here

[Algae_94]

This isn't shocking. They had branding problems by calling it Windows. It's near impossible to explain the difference to a non-technical user. The end result is that Microsoft will no longer have any ARM tablets. This will mean, for a little while at least, their tablet hardware will be more expensive and drain batteries faster. Not exactly traits that will have them dominate the tablet market. They might be able to get users that want or need to run Windows applications on a tablet, but that's not a large percentage of the tablet market.

$billion brand embarrassment an expensive method

[raymorris]

blowing a billion dollars making your brand look like shit is an expensive way to motivate in Intel. And rumors would have done that.

Re:No business continuity with Microsoft

[Algae_94]

Newsflash, there isnt a tablet market, it is an iPad market. And then there is a market of subpar, less than 100 euros tablets for iPads wannabes.

Get out of here with this nonsense. Maybe once upon a time this was true, but there are tons of tablets out there that are selling quite well.

Problem is more fundamental to RT

[Junta]

RT couldn't find a value proposition that created a market just like windows phone is struggling. Windows without legacy compatibility is just not attractive (live by the sword, die by the sword: windows on x86 has gobs of compatible software, windows on arm has next to nothing compared to google and apple devices).

The initial hard *need* for RT would be that Intel couldn't/wouldn't release an architecture that would even get in the same ballpark as ARM manufacturers in terms of cost and power. Now that need is greatly reduced with Intel's Bay Trail platform. Windows 8 x86 tablets are in the same ballpark as the Nexus 7. There are certainly cheaper android devices more and more, but Intel and MS could elect to participate at those price points if they want to at this point and still turn a profit.

Re: Problem is more fundamental to RT

[Vanderhoth]

Except they won't and you only get one chance to make a first impression. They had their chance and screwed it up, on just about every conceivable level. They can't compete with Apple for the high end / status symbol market or with Androids for the techy geek / cheap tablet market and windows 8 is a joke MS sold their primary market out for to try and get into the "me too" market.

Re:Problem is more fundamental to RT

[berashith]

I think they did it on purpose. Coke released a clear product, not to compete with a successful pepsi clear product, but to dilute the market, then fail, and cause the playing field to go back to the original status quo. Microsoft is highly interested in all consumers staying in the x86 market. When ARM started looking interesting to normal people, MS had to do something to protect its turf. Competing fairly would be hard and expensive, and kill off the current cash cows. Burying the new trend by placing a bad taste in the mouth of people who dont know which part of a technology stack to blame can get years of bad publicity for the up and comers.

Re:Problem is more fundamental to RT

[occasional_dabbler]

Windows Phone is not really struggling anymore. It has a small market share but it seems to be growing very quickly and is already around 10% in Europe. With the purchase of the Nokia division they will most likely merge Phone and RT and let the ex-Nokia people make a range of devices at all screen sizes sharing a single OS with appropriate features enabled depending on the device. Much like iOS on iPhone and iPad.

Re: Problem is more fundamental to RT

[DocHoncho]

Actually if you've been paying attention Microsoft have been making Windows Phones (Or at least a portable OS for phones) for over 10 years it's apple that jumped on the me too bandwagon.

Yeah, and they were some of the most difficult to use with a patently terrible interface. My girlfriend had a phone with winPhone 6.1, and I cringed every time she whipped out the stylus to click on whatever teeny tiny button. Even my old iphone 3gs was better than that, and it was a piece of crap too.

Re: Problem is more fundamental to RT

[MachineShedFred]

It's not "me too" if you come into a market space with a product that is so disruptive that everyone forgets about the decade of shitty products that came before it.

Apple showed Microsoft how to make a tablet that people actually want to buy and use. It's pretty clear that Microsoft still hasn't learned how to do that 10+ years on.

Re:What am I supposed to do now?

[GigaplexNZ]

Ask customers of the Zune, music covered by PlaysForSure, the Kin and various other products that I'm sure Microsoft thoroughly supported after abandoning them.

MS was screwed either way...

[Radical Moderate]

because Microsoft isn't much of a brand. Everyone knows Windows, but I'll bet half the people who use it couldn't tell you what Microsoft is, and half of those couldn't name anything else MS makes, besides Office. So the only thing MS had to leverage was Windows, which created a crapload of confusion.

That said, I do agree with you, because MS needs to create a new brand, and they have the resources to play the long game. But they chickened out, and that didn't work out so well for them.

Thinking about it.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

The HP WebOS tablet lasted longer then the Surface 2.

Re:What am I supposed to do now?

[symbolset]

You think you're screwed? Think of the retailers who stocked up on Surface RT for the Christmas rush.

Microsoft? ASK SLASHDOT!

[erroneus]

Seriously. If you want to get any kind of traction in a new market, ASK SLASHDOT. I'm not kidding at all. Sure there will be trolls and there will be some really stupid ideas. But if any group of people out there will be able to predict the success of a product offering and be able to voice the opinions of the market, it's this group right here.

We all knew Windows RT wasn't going to make it. But then again, we knew it based on Windows 8. You still haven't listened to you customers and support people (AKA Slashdot) in any of this.

And this is something you simply haven't tried yet. You keep doing the same crap, living on your bloated Win16, Win32, Win64 model which is now a security nightmare and what's it gotten you? Negative public opinion for one. Public doubt for another. If the public says anything it's that Windows isn't wanted when "something other than Windows" is available. You never should have made a Tablet version of Windows. It should have been a tablet version of anything else! And frankly, since Android is making more money for you than many other things, it seems to me you should just embrace it and run! But why not? Oh, because you don't control it... forgot about that little obsession. Well, you're controlling the market less than you did before anyway and it's just going to get worse. Embrace the change or be left behind.

And ASK people who know!

Re:Microsoft? ASK SLASHDOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot also knew the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all going to be flops. I don't trust any tech predictions that originate from here.

Re:If they hadn't locked it down...

[dakohli]

It seems as well that Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment to prevent Windows RT from having viruses,

I don't think so.

Microsoft, ultimately wanted to duplicate Apple's App Store Environment. They were hoping the lower price point would bring in the users, which would spur development of the Applications for it, which would of course induce more to join the ecosystem. Once Microsoft realized the value of the entire system, they were willing to try and duplicate it.

Of course, the hardware was there, but the Apps and the OS itself fell short, and they were not able to complete the task at hand. In order for them to have a chance at success here, they need more time. Time that just may not be available.

Re:If they hadn't locked it down...

[mrchaotica]

It seems as well that Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment to prevent Windows RT from having viruses

Absolute BS. Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment in order to force users to their app store, so that they'd get a 30% cut like Apple and Google do.

Re:Microsoft? ASK SLASHDOT!

[xlsior]

But if any group of people out there will be able to predict the success of a product offering and be able to voice the opinions of the market, it's this group right here.

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

"Not Even" Office, huh? ;-)

[danaris]

Not even Microsoft themselves managed to port Office, their most important asset, to Metro, yet.

To be fair (which isn't something I often am to Microsoft), Office has got to be one of the most godawful pieces of spaghetti-code nightmare that anyone has ever tried to port to anything.

I don't think the phrasing should be "not even" Office has been ported.

Dan Aris

Re:"Not Even" Office, huh? ;-)

[peppepz]

True, but as complex as it can be, Office has always been a showcase for Microsoft's new technologies, that's why I said "not even".
Windows 3.1? You'd see its full potential with Office - truetype, common dialogs and all.
COM/ActiveX? Office became entirely based on it.
Windows NT's Unicode support? Office shipped with fonts covering the whole of it.
The innovative UI elements of Windows '95 (and long file names)? Office '95 shows how to take advantage of them.
The (in)famous banner? Office got it before MS Paint.
Perhaps it's with .NET that Microsoft began not eating their own dog food anymore, as they bolted it on Office, instead of rewriting Office in .NET.

But now with Metro, Microsoft are telling their whole community of developers that they need to make the biggest change in the history of Windows, to completely drop their proven, decades-old development tools and habits, and embrace a radically new programming paradigm and distribution channel. This requires large investments, and investments require trust, which tends to be lost when even the leader doesn't show the way.

Re:"Not Even" Office, huh? ;-)

[danaris]

Most of the things you mention are Office incorporating a new technology into it, not being entirely rewritten to be based on the new technology. It's way, way easier (IMNSHO) to bolt something like the ribbon onto Office than it is to port Office to a completely different UI paradigm.

All that said, you're totally right about the rest: Microsoft should have ported Office to Metro, however much effort it took to do so. It's not, after all, as though they don't have resources to throw at such a project.

Dan Aris

Re:Windows RT is actually pretty useful.

[WaffleMonster]

Seriously, what the hell more do you want from a tablet?
Shit, at some point why the hell aren't you using a desktop or laptop?

This is something I will never understand. All of these devices are computers. Even the smallest of form factors today have multi-core CPUs, multiple gigabytes of RAM and 1080 displays. Why should software availability differ based on the form of the device? If it is capable of executing software why artificially prevent it? What is the difference between a laptop and a tablet? Availability of a keyboard? What if you get a bluetooth keyboard for your tablet..what is it then? None of this shit makes any sense from the users perspective. It only works from the vendors side who collects a cut of all software sales and curates all execution. It is impossible to justify.

I'm not sure what people mean when they whine about no apps,

Wah I can't run any of my software on this this computer...wah I'm whining because none of my shit won't run and the computer is therefore useless to me.

except that I must assume they are gamers. I have Netflix and Hulu installed. It has Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint and OneNote. Its base apps allow you to browse the web, read the news, check the weather, play local videos, etc.

Zombie consumers have it made. Everyone else not so much.