Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Others Mean Stiff Competition For Apple iPad Pro
MojoKid writes: When Microsoft first announced the Surface Pro back in 2012, many Apple fans snickered. Here was Microsoft, releasing a somewhat thick and heavy tablet that not only had a kickstand, but also an odd cover that doubled as a keyboard. And to top things off, the device made use of a stylus. Steve Jobs famously said in 2010, "If you see a stylus, they blew it." But Microsoft forged ahead with the Surface Pro 2, and later with the Surface Pro 3. Not only were customers becoming more aware of the Surface but competitors were also taking note. We've seen Lenovo introduce the ideapad MIIX 700, which incorporates its own kickstand and an Intel Skylake-based Core m7 processor. And most recently, we've seen Apple pull a literal 180 on this design and platform approach, announcing the iPad Pro — a device that features a fabric keyboard cover similar in concept to the Surface Pro and a stylus. Dell and ASUS have also brought compelling offerings to the table as well. However, the big head-to-head competition will no doubt be between the Surface Pro 4, which is set to be unveiled early next month and Apple's iPad Pro when it finally goes on sale.
In 2007, Jobs made the comment "If you see a stylus, they blew it", in regards to using a stylus on a phone. Back then (for those of us old enough to remember) phones like the Palm Treo had tiny touch targets and resistive screens that pretty much demanded the use of a stylus. Apple was the first manufacturer to ship a capacitive touchscreen with a large, touch-optimized UI that did not require a stylus for day to day use.
*THAT* is what Jobs was referring to back then. If you're going to toss around the man's quotes, at least get the context right.
That is odd, because the opposite dynamic is at work:
PCs are far, far more capable than what came before (pens, paper, filing cabinets, typewriters, dictation machines, etc.). It's completely mind-boggling how much more capability PCs have than older methods of information manipulation, storage, and retrieval when you think about it.
Tablets, on the other hand, are less capable than PCs. They can do many of the same things, but more poorly because their input interfaces are much more limited. Their only advantages over PCs are mobility and size/weight. Otherwise, they're just less-capable replacements for laptops and desktops: smaller screens, no keyboards (or really crappy ones), no mice, less CPU power and memory and storage, no wired networking, etc. There's literally nothing you can do on a tablet that you can't do on a PC, usually better (unless it involves walking around while you do it). Tablets have obvious utility in things such walking around a warehouse and doing inventory or whatever, or being used for a customer-facing order-placing system (as many Panera Bread locations have done; instead of placing your order with a person, you go use a tablet that's bolted to a table and punch it in yourself; it's great because you'll find out about all kinds of selections (esp. order modifications) that there simply isn't any time for some cashier to read off to you). But it's really just convenience; these things could be done with PCs as well, tablets just have a more convenient form factor for it.
Fair call on much of this, but citing the Pontiac Aztek as "incompetent" would be inaccurate; it was a niche product that had an insanely high customer satisfaction rate among those that bought it. ("The Aztek had among the highest CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) scores in its class" and JD Power 2001 cites: "The Aztek scores highest or second highest in every APEAL component measure except exterior styling)."
Most people didn't like it, but the mark of incompetence would have been producing the Aztek as the main-line product. (Oh wait, they did: the Buick Rendezvous; just as ugly but without balls.) Producing weird shit that the corners of the market eat up -- Pontiak's Aztek, Nokia N900, Apple Newton, Saturn EV1, the first decades of online "remote" shopping and of television, and other things we love(d) to hate but keep talking about or ended up using -- they generally fall in two categories: they move the entire market/industry forward significantly despite losses, or their makers lanugh all the way to the bank. (Cadillac's styling for their entire current lineup owes more to the Aztek than any other ancestor. It just took GM a while to figure out who wanted Klingon cars.)
To the point: It may take a decade for a ballsy move like the Aztek to translate into a shitpile of cash, but it's better than standing still. Microsoft's failing is that they keep making a large number of unremarkable things, while competitors like Apple and Google make fewer things that are much more memorable, much better milestones. Do you remember what search was like before Google Search? Tablets before the iPad? Can you recall many jumps forward in Windows, Office, or Azure that feel the same? Google ships Chromebooks to schools and makes "lost homework" and quaint archaic idea, and Microsoft shuffles buttons in the ribbon, has us scrolling sideways in Metro, and ships a tablet with a flaccid keyboard. Utterly forgettable if not a step backwards. Repackaged Windows that brings back Win7 UI features? A kickstand idea they got from Archos? Active tiles from IOS? Win10 and Surface: New, yes; revolutionary or memorable beyond the next product announcement, no.
I think not...(*poof*)