Microsoft this week showed itself willing to do what was once unthinkable: design and sell its own computer hardware
What about the Zune, Kin and Xbox. Two of them might have been disasters, but clearly MS has a history of designing hardware.
They are giving too much choice (1). To me, the real issue is availability. They shouldn't have had the press conference until the device was available on the same day. They _always_ do this, and it rarely works out. They would have sold more devices in the first week, had it been available immediately, then they now will in a quarter.
The Zune, Kin an Xbox weren't devices sold in Microsofts primary market.
And you can see how they have done what they can in order to not screw over the hardware manufacturers, by promising to only sell the device through their retails stores.
..and now HP and Mark Hurds initial strategy with WebOS doesn't seem so stupid after all.
I agree (about too much choice). Opinions make great products (think Apple, python, 37 Signals), but Microsoft appears to be trying to hedge their bets in every regard. Unfortunately, that rarely (if ever) works out.
That said, if it can do what they claimed and the price isn't stupid, I'll have one (then replace my MacBook Air with a MBPro). I'm not holding my breath, though. I've lost all faith in "product announcements" that don't actually have the product.
MS has all of the engineering talent to make this happen. I'm far from convinced that they have the leadership talent to make Surface a true success[1].
1. In this case, true success means taking an appreciative percentage of the market and inspiring changes in competitors' products (meaning they are thought leaders). MS is so large in the enterprise space that they may be able to turn this into many sales, but that doesn't mean they will be the ones pulling us into the future.
People who actually owned one seemed to quite like the Zune. On the other hand if we're calling it a disaster based on amount of money made then the XBox project still has to prove itself on that score, it's not totally clear that they've made back their $10+ Billion investment yet (in part because of poor hardware QA)
These stories about the "post-PC future" always make me laugh, I still dont see people working on iPads in real offices where you do REAL work.
The future of computing is going to be fragmented. Not unified by a single tablet model.
Every time something new comes up we always get the same BS: "netbooks are going to replace computers". "iPhones are going to replace computers", "ipads are going to replace computers".
I agree with your idea that the future will be a fragmented one. And obviously there are still a lot of desktops and laptops at offices.
In my work for a digital agency we have a lot of projects going with tablets (well let's be honest it's all iPads) to work as replacement for laptops for certain processes and situations. There are so many real-life processes happening today where toting a laptop around is really not ideal and tablets have some awesome characteristics which make them a great second or third device for some job descriptions, but also a first device for others.
For pump installers for instance a laptop is a pain in the ass. They all have one, but they never bring it out of the car with them because it's heavy, has poor battery life and is really impractical when you're working in a dusty, dark environment. A tablet on the other hand serves them well. They can bring it with them. Hang it on a pipe somewhere and watch that installation video or look up that manual that they are needing. Battery life is so that they don't have to charge it all week. Everybody wins.
Don't mean to get carried away, but the world is really full of people doing "real work" where laptops and desktops are just not the best solution.
"I still dont see people working on iPads in real offices where you do REAL work."
I do see people working with iPads quite often. Some examples; building and plant surveyor specifying changes in our building; teaching inspectors making notes during a lesson observation; local middle managers pulling down reports from Intranet during meeting; managerial types on train every morning reading documents and annotating them on way into work.
I don't think these people only use iPads, but I do think they use their tablets as data gathering tools and annotation tools. I suspect desktops will morph into workstations with huge monitors and highish prices, and that laptops will become a high end option for those of us who prefer a keyboard/screen combo.
Some evidence for that could be the success of applications that make it easy to syncronise data.
Having a Windows tablet device might make things easier for people to move data along.
PS: Am I the only one worried by that strange pantographic construction that supports the tablet in 'laptop' mode?
"I still dont see people working on iPads in real offices where you do REAL work."
Agree. Apple software has very little Enterprise presence.
I see a few people bring iPads to meetings (they could be Androids, but I assume iPad). They quietly look at them once in awhile. Whatever it is they do with them has no effect on the rest of the meeting.
Contrast that with people bringing their laptops to meetings, connecting to the corporate network, and then editing the corporate collection of bits (databases and documents) live and collaboratively. That's done with Microsoft software.
Unless Apple or another player decides to go full Enterprise, that part of MS will be around for a long time, running on whatever supports that.
You are right. Also take a look at the development of tablets.
In the beginning they were small low-res tablets. But people wanted a bigger screen -> bigger tablets with high-res screens. But people hated to type on the screen -> keyboards added. But people hated to hold it all the time -> stands are added. And suddenly it is looking like a laptop.
I think there is a reason why Laptops and Desktops didn't change that much in all those years.
> Skepticism about these things doesn’t require knee-jerk Apple fandom. It simply requires an open set of eyeballs.
This is why I don't read Daring Fireball regularly. It's a blog solely focused on being skeptical about everything. The whole premise seems to be to find flaws in products/services and tell the world about them. I don't mind skepticism, but there's a difference between "it has these cool concepts, but it ain't perfect and probably will fail" and "it's going to fail because of A, B, C, D, … Z"
Gruber might be accurate, but in my daily reading I prefer people with a bit more positive thoughts.
I like Daring Fireball specifically it's opinionated.
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Gruber's (I never listened to his Talk Show, and removed him from my "daily" reading list because I consider what he did to 5by5 unethical, but I read him every few days because he's a fan of Kubrick, and finds great links). I just don't want to be represented with spec sheets and charts over and over and over again. Tech blogs and columns mostly repeat the same thing (what you almost always know), and when they tell you about their feelings, they're usually really narrow-minded and most of the time fail to understand their use cases (them being some sort of "journalist") differs dramatically with most people's ("iPad's gonna fail because it doesn't have hardware keyboards, which means I have to bring a keyboard with me when I'm going to conferences 6-7 times a month").
> So Microsoft faces a dilemma. Their business model of expensive software on cheap hardware is not sustainable. The future is nearly free software integrated into moderately priced hardware.
Apple, for all that's said about their software being excellent (and maybe it is) is a hardware maker. As such, they try to commoditize software: make complements to their own products as cheap as possible, so that the overall cost of buying Apple is as low as possible (while keeping their part of the profits as high as possible).
They have been immensely successful at this, obviously; but that doesn't mean "the future is nearly free software"! It means, Apple is trying to commoditize software and is doing a fantastic job at it. (Much better than what Sun tried to do for example).
But the answer to this, is that software makers should try to commoditize hardware. Of course, this is much harder, since the marginal price of a piece of hardware is non-zero. It may even be impossible, but that's still what Microsoft is trying to do -- it's not trying to jump into hardware making because "that's where profits are", it's trying to attack the hardware value proposition.
> the radical shift in Microsoft’s strategy is about the fight over the profits that remain after Apple’s
No, it really isn't. (Profits are the whole point, yes -- but the question is, what kind of profits are we talking about). Microsoft wants to bring the whole value of hardware down -- it doesn't want to take hardware profits for itself, it wants to make hardware profits disappear for everybody.
Consumers do not see profit, they see price tag. Hardware comes with a price tag, so the options are sell at cost or find a way to subside the hardware.
With Apple pushing for ever so cheap App Store software so much so it is willing to drastically cut its own premium software's price. The potential for a software subsided hardware business is diminishing fast. While Apple may forever lost the ability to sell hardware at 100% markup, Microsoft in the mean time is losing the ability to sell software for $100 and more . It is already reality in consumer space, and the price structure is collapsing too in the business world.
Microsoft has the money to give millions of Surfaces away for free, then what? It kills all its OEM in the process and can not make the money back on 30% software sales cut. And next year Apple brings out fucking iPad 4... Genius plan then?
It is important to remember that Apple hasn't succeeded in commoditizing end-user software all by themselves. It's ironic given the higher-level corporate competition, but their most powerful ally in that cause is Google (though Google is also actively trying to commoditize end-user hardware as well, which is part of where their conflict comes from).
He's right about that, though. The Windows RT Surface is rumored to cost at least $600, and that's with only a 1366x768 resolution display, and a Tegra 3 chip. A similar tablet with Android would go for $400 at most. By the time Surface gets released, they will cost $300, so half the price.
Plus, Windows RT/Metro has no ecosystem yet, whatsoever. Even if Android has only a few thousand or whatever tablet apps, it still has all the other 500,000 phone apps, and most of them should work on tablets.
Yes, it really looks like Microsoft wants to be Apple. Based on what Elop does in Nokia I believe that Microsoft wants to buy Nokia as well. There are lot of steps that makes Nokia unattractive company for other companies (e.g. "patent trolling" accuses from Google to Nokia), other steps (MeeGo and Meltemi termination, Symbian support moved to Accenture) that leaves Nokia only with WP and outdated feature phones (what makes Nokia unattractive target again unless you are Microsoft).
Other companies might consider buying Nokia only to prevent Microsoft doing that what would be quite fun to watch actually.
I'm not really sure what this post is trying to say. Is it trying to criticize Microsoft? It doesn't really feel like it. Is it just a "this is a very important time for MS" post?
I think that's obvious. It IS a very important time for MS and Windows 8 needs to do well. I think the post misses an important angle to Surface though: in large part it is meant to make OEMs step their game up. It shows what Microsoft envisions can be done with a good formfactor and Win8. OEMs need to step up to the plate and make similar hardware. Not necesarily identical but very much in the same spirit.
A well execution should dent iPad sales because on paper, Windows 8 with a good form factor destroys the iPad every time.
Side note: I thought the keynote was actually fine. I completely agree that something seemed rather off about Sinofsky. He did seem nervous and he usually delivers quite solid keynotes. It was strange. I think everyone else performed fine. I actually liked the way the keynote was set up. At first it's just a tablet which is cool in of itself. Then it has a kickstand. And then it has a keyboard. Surprise after surprise.
Re: "Design is about making decisions, and Microsoft could not decide. ARM or Intel? Who should be on stage? Soft or hard keys on the keyboard cover? They went with 'all of the above'."
Windows has always been about having a lot of options. I think it's wonderful that there will be both an ARM version and an x86 version.
There is an implicit assumption that OEM's are just lining up waiting for Microsoft to release an OS for them. But with Android being both free and successful, OEMs have little reason to risk building top of the line devices for Microsoft. I suspect very few people could name off any of the dozen Windows Phone's other than the Lumina.
As a regular Apple user (iphone/ipad/macbook air are my main tools), in my eyes Gruber is jumping the shark here. He comments on the structure of the event, his own feelings watching it. He comments on what information that has not yet been released. He clearly wants to move focus away from the hardware itself. Perhaps because it is just a little too awesome to come from MS?
It appears to be really good, but MS doesn't really have anything yet. You can't buy it, you can't pre-order and it appears that no journalist had any hands-on time with the keyboard. All we have are promises and anyone can do that.
Really there is very little worth mentioning beside the keyboard covers. And Microsoft does not allow anyone to touch the keyboard covers. Whose fault is that?
It is not record setting thin, or impossibly light, it has worse screen than the retina iPad, battery life is not mentioned at all, neither is th price,the look is quite minimalist and good, but not new or stunningly interesting ... pray tell, what's so awesome about the hardware? The glorious kickstand?
From what I've read on Daring Fireball, Gruber thinks highly of Metro's design and he seems to at least infer that the design is as good as iOS or even better.
I think they did rush the demo, but they needed to.
They'd revealed Windows 8 and had mixed reactions about teh touch interface, and both users and developers were skeptical about it. They needed to show off this hardware for everything to make sense. When I saw the presentation, I had this 'Ohhhhh....' moment where it all made sense - the interface, the hardware, their strategy.
They pushed this launch forward to show they actually had a plan.
I think Surface could be a pretty compelling product if all the stars align, but the fact that Microsoft wouldn't even let members of the press touch a working keyboard and the overall fragmented quality of the launch does not bode well.
It crashing during the presentation was a disaster and you could see it in the presenter's face. Man was that uncomfortable to watch. To me, it kind of summed the whole presentation; this is a hugely important moment for Microsoft, and they have a lot riding on the success of this tablet, yet they're rushing it to market. It's clearly not ready for primetime. It'll be interesting to see how the next few months play out.
I question the timing; it seemed rushed to get in front of Google I/O. The press had to stand behind a roped-off table of Surfaces to take photos. Clearly the hardware and software is not ready--nor does it have to be for an October-ish launch. But why did they have to demo it now when the press couldn't have their way with it?
"Surface is a bold move, and classic Microsoft. If the OEMs don’t like it — and they do not — what are they going to do? Turn to Linux (which no one wants) ... ?"
I want Linux over Mac OSX and Windows 7. Imagine how fast Linux would grow if they got the OEMs's support.
Maybe he meant "which no one [of the OEMs] wants"?
I would love to buy laptops et al. with good Linux support. In fact, I once bought a glorious Dell XPS M1330 ... with a horribly outdated Ubuntu install.
I clicked on this story expecting the usual blatantly biased and totally pointless drivel from this guy. I wasn't disappointed. He keeps raising the bar for embarrassing tech commentary and that's why I will keep reading him knowing full well I shouldn't waste my time on that kind of trolling.
Now I'm even wasting your time by commenting on it. Please vote me down to -10 or I'll have to fagellate myself for an entire week!
I'm not sure I follow Gruber's post here, which ironically points out how Microsoft's presentation this week for a tablet was incoherent and all over the map (kind of like this post.) I guess he's trying to assess Microsoft's position in the market by comparing their product announcement presentation skills to Apple's.
Really, when will the likes of Gruber learn that consumers will decide if they like those products, and they'll do so with their wallets. Surely he doesn't believe that Apple's success with i{whatever} is due to slick, coherent stories told onstage at some event they couldn't get into.
The truth is that the masses who buy these devices could care less about product announcements, Apple included. Apple customers will line up for the next item, no matter what it is. Microsoft customers -- well, not quite sure what floats their boat, but they'll do their thing.
These announcements are for lighting up the third-parties who like to consider themselves quasi-insiders. Like Gruber, for instance.
I thought Gruber's point was very clear: Consumer expectations have shifted such that companies which survive (read: profit) are those which make money from reasonably priced hardware while the software is sold at low, low prices. The phenomenal, decades-long profitability of Microsoft has been based on consumers behaving in an opposite way: paying bare-minimum prices for hardware but a premium for software.
The computer hardware industry is lined up to favor the hardware makers. They can also make the software (like Apple does with iOS) or they can acquire it at low cost (like Samsung using Android), but the profits come from hardware. The Surface, no matter how good it may or may not be since no can reasonably evaluate it yet, is a testament to Microsoft recognizing this shift.
Really, the details of the market shift are irrelevant. The point is that the market is moving away from what has made Microsoft profitable, and the company has publicly (if in some ways indirectly) shown it understands this. The Surface (and Windows 8), despite how important it may be to the future of Microsoft, is most notable for the change it represents Microsoft making in its approach to profitability.
Microsoft needs to explain WHY the Surface should exist. It's not immediately obvious to the market why yet another tablet with a different os should exist. Microsoft failed to answer that (and their so-so presentation skills only hurt their efforts).
The big thing here is developer mind-share. Microsoft is trying to leverage their large pc software library, but that seems like a mistake here. Tablet users want touch specific apps. A large library of nearly unusable programs isn't a winning move. They need to get developers engaged with the platform and give them a reason to support a third OS.
It's a chicken/egg problem. They need to convince both consumers as well as developers WHY they should care. That's a tough sell, made all the more difficult by poor presentation skills and no good answer for the question. If Microsoft wants to disrupt the tablet market (and they'll have to if they want to gain any significant market share), they have to do better than just living off their name. They need a game changer and I'm just not seeing it (and that might just come down to their poor ability to communicate).
Did you even read past the first two paragraphs?! He ranted a bit about the presentation, but his take from this "mess" (as he called it) was completely different than yours...
I disagree. If you can't tell a coherent story to people who are actively trying to fill in the gaps mentally, how will you tell it to the average Joe?
The disconnects imply that MS doesn't understand how to communicate with the non-technical, "buy stuff because it feels right" crowd. Instead, they try to market to everyone, and when you try to market to everyone, you succeed in marketing to nobody.
Isn't there a contradiction between Apple taking all the profits in PCs and Microsoft's taking of 78 dollars from every PC sold (and maybe half that for every mac with office)? I think he's been confused by the Apple world's tendency to compare Apple to hardware manufacturers and conveniently forget to include Microsoft and Google's profits in their pretty charts.
Also odd to see him still claiming that no-one but Apple could have made Samsung's A4 chip.
"Microsoft this week showed itself willing to do what was once unthinkable: design and sell its own PC hardware. ... But make no mistake: for better or for worse, Surface marks a watershed moment in PC industry history."
That remains to be seen, and depends on Microsoft being willing and able to stick with the Surface. They could easily screw this up, like the Kin, or lose interest and energy like the Zune.
Are people really using their tablets much? Sure, Apple/Jobs made us want one, but I am still looking for a killer app. My Android tablet mostly gets used for Skype, which is great, but hardly worth the price.
[+] [-] latch|13 years ago|reply
They are giving too much choice (1). To me, the real issue is availability. They shouldn't have had the press conference until the device was available on the same day. They _always_ do this, and it rarely works out. They would have sold more devices in the first week, had it been available immediately, then they now will in a quarter.
(1) http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...
[+] [-] gnaffle|13 years ago|reply
And you can see how they have done what they can in order to not screw over the hardware manufacturers, by promising to only sell the device through their retails stores.
..and now HP and Mark Hurds initial strategy with WebOS doesn't seem so stupid after all.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
That said, if it can do what they claimed and the price isn't stupid, I'll have one (then replace my MacBook Air with a MBPro). I'm not holding my breath, though. I've lost all faith in "product announcements" that don't actually have the product.
MS has all of the engineering talent to make this happen. I'm far from convinced that they have the leadership talent to make Surface a true success[1].
1. In this case, true success means taking an appreciative percentage of the market and inspiring changes in competitors' products (meaning they are thought leaders). MS is so large in the enterprise space that they may be able to turn this into many sales, but that doesn't mean they will be the ones pulling us into the future.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antidoh|13 years ago|reply
They abandoned two of those.
[+] [-] ekianjo|13 years ago|reply
The future of computing is going to be fragmented. Not unified by a single tablet model.
Every time something new comes up we always get the same BS: "netbooks are going to replace computers". "iPhones are going to replace computers", "ipads are going to replace computers".
Give me a break.
[+] [-] nielsandersen|13 years ago|reply
In my work for a digital agency we have a lot of projects going with tablets (well let's be honest it's all iPads) to work as replacement for laptops for certain processes and situations. There are so many real-life processes happening today where toting a laptop around is really not ideal and tablets have some awesome characteristics which make them a great second or third device for some job descriptions, but also a first device for others.
For pump installers for instance a laptop is a pain in the ass. They all have one, but they never bring it out of the car with them because it's heavy, has poor battery life and is really impractical when you're working in a dusty, dark environment. A tablet on the other hand serves them well. They can bring it with them. Hang it on a pipe somewhere and watch that installation video or look up that manual that they are needing. Battery life is so that they don't have to charge it all week. Everybody wins.
Don't mean to get carried away, but the world is really full of people doing "real work" where laptops and desktops are just not the best solution.
[+] [-] keithpeter|13 years ago|reply
I do see people working with iPads quite often. Some examples; building and plant surveyor specifying changes in our building; teaching inspectors making notes during a lesson observation; local middle managers pulling down reports from Intranet during meeting; managerial types on train every morning reading documents and annotating them on way into work.
I don't think these people only use iPads, but I do think they use their tablets as data gathering tools and annotation tools. I suspect desktops will morph into workstations with huge monitors and highish prices, and that laptops will become a high end option for those of us who prefer a keyboard/screen combo.
Some evidence for that could be the success of applications that make it easy to syncronise data.
Having a Windows tablet device might make things easier for people to move data along.
PS: Am I the only one worried by that strange pantographic construction that supports the tablet in 'laptop' mode?
[+] [-] antidoh|13 years ago|reply
Agree. Apple software has very little Enterprise presence.
I see a few people bring iPads to meetings (they could be Androids, but I assume iPad). They quietly look at them once in awhile. Whatever it is they do with them has no effect on the rest of the meeting.
Contrast that with people bringing their laptops to meetings, connecting to the corporate network, and then editing the corporate collection of bits (databases and documents) live and collaboratively. That's done with Microsoft software.
Unless Apple or another player decides to go full Enterprise, that part of MS will be around for a long time, running on whatever supports that.
[+] [-] tintin|13 years ago|reply
In the beginning they were small low-res tablets. But people wanted a bigger screen -> bigger tablets with high-res screens. But people hated to type on the screen -> keyboards added. But people hated to hold it all the time -> stands are added. And suddenly it is looking like a laptop.
I think there is a reason why Laptops and Desktops didn't change that much in all those years.
[+] [-] judofyr|13 years ago|reply
This is why I don't read Daring Fireball regularly. It's a blog solely focused on being skeptical about everything. The whole premise seems to be to find flaws in products/services and tell the world about them. I don't mind skepticism, but there's a difference between "it has these cool concepts, but it ain't perfect and probably will fail" and "it's going to fail because of A, B, C, D, … Z"
Gruber might be accurate, but in my daily reading I prefer people with a bit more positive thoughts.
[+] [-] pooriaazimi|13 years ago|reply
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Gruber's (I never listened to his Talk Show, and removed him from my "daily" reading list because I consider what he did to 5by5 unethical, but I read him every few days because he's a fan of Kubrick, and finds great links). I just don't want to be represented with spec sheets and charts over and over and over again. Tech blogs and columns mostly repeat the same thing (what you almost always know), and when they tell you about their feelings, they're usually really narrow-minded and most of the time fail to understand their use cases (them being some sort of "journalist") differs dramatically with most people's ("iPad's gonna fail because it doesn't have hardware keyboards, which means I have to bring a keyboard with me when I'm going to conferences 6-7 times a month").
[+] [-] lostlogin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|13 years ago|reply
Apple, for all that's said about their software being excellent (and maybe it is) is a hardware maker. As such, they try to commoditize software: make complements to their own products as cheap as possible, so that the overall cost of buying Apple is as low as possible (while keeping their part of the profits as high as possible).
They have been immensely successful at this, obviously; but that doesn't mean "the future is nearly free software"! It means, Apple is trying to commoditize software and is doing a fantastic job at it. (Much better than what Sun tried to do for example).
But the answer to this, is that software makers should try to commoditize hardware. Of course, this is much harder, since the marginal price of a piece of hardware is non-zero. It may even be impossible, but that's still what Microsoft is trying to do -- it's not trying to jump into hardware making because "that's where profits are", it's trying to attack the hardware value proposition.
> the radical shift in Microsoft’s strategy is about the fight over the profits that remain after Apple’s
No, it really isn't. (Profits are the whole point, yes -- but the question is, what kind of profits are we talking about). Microsoft wants to bring the whole value of hardware down -- it doesn't want to take hardware profits for itself, it wants to make hardware profits disappear for everybody.
(It should give the Surface away for free.)
[+] [-] AllenKids|13 years ago|reply
Consumers do not see profit, they see price tag. Hardware comes with a price tag, so the options are sell at cost or find a way to subside the hardware.
With Apple pushing for ever so cheap App Store software so much so it is willing to drastically cut its own premium software's price. The potential for a software subsided hardware business is diminishing fast. While Apple may forever lost the ability to sell hardware at 100% markup, Microsoft in the mean time is losing the ability to sell software for $100 and more . It is already reality in consumer space, and the price structure is collapsing too in the business world.
Microsoft has the money to give millions of Surfaces away for free, then what? It kills all its OEM in the process and can not make the money back on 30% software sales cut. And next year Apple brings out fucking iPad 4... Genius plan then?
[+] [-] fpgeek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
Plus, Windows RT/Metro has no ecosystem yet, whatsoever. Even if Android has only a few thousand or whatever tablet apps, it still has all the other 500,000 phone apps, and most of them should work on tablets.
[+] [-] daliusd|13 years ago|reply
Other companies might consider buying Nokia only to prevent Microsoft doing that what would be quite fun to watch actually.
[+] [-] rlu|13 years ago|reply
I think that's obvious. It IS a very important time for MS and Windows 8 needs to do well. I think the post misses an important angle to Surface though: in large part it is meant to make OEMs step their game up. It shows what Microsoft envisions can be done with a good formfactor and Win8. OEMs need to step up to the plate and make similar hardware. Not necesarily identical but very much in the same spirit.
A well execution should dent iPad sales because on paper, Windows 8 with a good form factor destroys the iPad every time.
Side note: I thought the keynote was actually fine. I completely agree that something seemed rather off about Sinofsky. He did seem nervous and he usually delivers quite solid keynotes. It was strange. I think everyone else performed fine. I actually liked the way the keynote was set up. At first it's just a tablet which is cool in of itself. Then it has a kickstand. And then it has a keyboard. Surprise after surprise.
Re: "Design is about making decisions, and Microsoft could not decide. ARM or Intel? Who should be on stage? Soft or hard keys on the keyboard cover? They went with 'all of the above'."
Windows has always been about having a lot of options. I think it's wonderful that there will be both an ARM version and an x86 version.
[+] [-] wvenable|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martinkallstrom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2muchcoffeeman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AllenKids|13 years ago|reply
It is not record setting thin, or impossibly light, it has worse screen than the retina iPad, battery life is not mentioned at all, neither is th price,the look is quite minimalist and good, but not new or stunningly interesting ... pray tell, what's so awesome about the hardware? The glorious kickstand?
[+] [-] technoslut|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeutronBoy|13 years ago|reply
They'd revealed Windows 8 and had mixed reactions about teh touch interface, and both users and developers were skeptical about it. They needed to show off this hardware for everything to make sense. When I saw the presentation, I had this 'Ohhhhh....' moment where it all made sense - the interface, the hardware, their strategy.
They pushed this launch forward to show they actually had a plan.
[+] [-] Tloewald|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noveltyaccount|13 years ago|reply
All that said: take my money. I want one of each.
[+] [-] quadhome|13 years ago|reply
Oh? Now Gruber says people want Android on phones?
Sorry, we're doing Apple vs. Microsoft here. I'll try to not get distracted.
[+] [-] Zolomon|13 years ago|reply
I want Linux over Mac OSX and Windows 7. Imagine how fast Linux would grow if they got the OEMs's support.
[+] [-] middus|13 years ago|reply
I would love to buy laptops et al. with good Linux support. In fact, I once bought a glorious Dell XPS M1330 ... with a horribly outdated Ubuntu install.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|13 years ago|reply
Now I'm even wasting your time by commenting on it. Please vote me down to -10 or I'll have to fagellate myself for an entire week!
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] antidoh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technoslut|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jroseattle|13 years ago|reply
Really, when will the likes of Gruber learn that consumers will decide if they like those products, and they'll do so with their wallets. Surely he doesn't believe that Apple's success with i{whatever} is due to slick, coherent stories told onstage at some event they couldn't get into.
The truth is that the masses who buy these devices could care less about product announcements, Apple included. Apple customers will line up for the next item, no matter what it is. Microsoft customers -- well, not quite sure what floats their boat, but they'll do their thing.
These announcements are for lighting up the third-parties who like to consider themselves quasi-insiders. Like Gruber, for instance.
[+] [-] NaOH|13 years ago|reply
I thought Gruber's point was very clear: Consumer expectations have shifted such that companies which survive (read: profit) are those which make money from reasonably priced hardware while the software is sold at low, low prices. The phenomenal, decades-long profitability of Microsoft has been based on consumers behaving in an opposite way: paying bare-minimum prices for hardware but a premium for software.
The computer hardware industry is lined up to favor the hardware makers. They can also make the software (like Apple does with iOS) or they can acquire it at low cost (like Samsung using Android), but the profits come from hardware. The Surface, no matter how good it may or may not be since no can reasonably evaluate it yet, is a testament to Microsoft recognizing this shift.
Really, the details of the market shift are irrelevant. The point is that the market is moving away from what has made Microsoft profitable, and the company has publicly (if in some ways indirectly) shown it understands this. The Surface (and Windows 8), despite how important it may be to the future of Microsoft, is most notable for the change it represents Microsoft making in its approach to profitability.
[+] [-] viscanti|13 years ago|reply
The big thing here is developer mind-share. Microsoft is trying to leverage their large pc software library, but that seems like a mistake here. Tablet users want touch specific apps. A large library of nearly unusable programs isn't a winning move. They need to get developers engaged with the platform and give them a reason to support a third OS.
It's a chicken/egg problem. They need to convince both consumers as well as developers WHY they should care. That's a tough sell, made all the more difficult by poor presentation skills and no good answer for the question. If Microsoft wants to disrupt the tablet market (and they'll have to if they want to gain any significant market share), they have to do better than just living off their name. They need a game changer and I'm just not seeing it (and that might just come down to their poor ability to communicate).
[+] [-] pooriaazimi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
The disconnects imply that MS doesn't understand how to communicate with the non-technical, "buy stuff because it feels right" crowd. Instead, they try to market to everyone, and when you try to market to everyone, you succeed in marketing to nobody.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|13 years ago|reply
Also odd to see him still claiming that no-one but Apple could have made Samsung's A4 chip.
[+] [-] antidoh|13 years ago|reply
That remains to be seen, and depends on Microsoft being willing and able to stick with the Surface. They could easily screw this up, like the Kin, or lose interest and energy like the Zune.
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply