[jamesbressi]

I smell fear. I am not a Microsoft fan-boy... far from it, but I have been wondering for years if Microsoft is ever going to drop the hammer and get some control on their software distribution by designing hardware with the intention of allowing the software to run as intended.

For many years I watched the bloatware that totally ruined the user experience, especially at the turn of the century.

Can Microsoft make quality hardware to compliment their software and in turn make their software feel "better" to the many of those who have turned away from it? They have the capital to figure it out.

The only "huge negative impact" that I can see from this is pushing the hardware manufacturers to innovate harder and do better with the use and distribution of the software. It is going to thin the herd for sure. I think this is necessary for Microsoft to gain some control over the user experience.

Yes, resellers and hardware manufacturers helped make Microsoft the huge corporation it is today, but the time has come. I think Microsoft only has to gain from this--if they do the hardware right.

[technoslut]

>The only "huge negative impact" that I can see from this is pushing the hardware manufacturers to innovate harder and do better with the use and distribution of the software.

MS can't have it both ways unless they want to become Apple. You can't ask an OEM to innovate and take most of their profits away in a race to the bottom market. It's simply not fair.

MS is going to have to make a choice in the future of who they want to become. They can't slam Google a year ago for what they are doing now.

I'm not sure how MS can find a way out but they had better do so soon because the future is being decided during MS's conflicted beliefs and the risk is greater than just losing Windows dominance.

[LockeWatts]

MS can't have it both ways unless they want to become Apple. You can't ask an OEM to innovate and take most of their profits away in a race to the bottom market. It's simply not fair.

Why not, exactly? As long as it increases Microsoft's profits, what prevents them from doing this?

[tedunangst]

MS is doing the opposite of a race to the bottom. They are raising the bar. Your product must this good to enter the market. Make something better than the Surface and sell it for a 20% margin, instead of the 0.2% margin the current crap makes.

[bitdiffusion]

It's not like this is the first time MS have done the hardware/software combo (which has been pretty successful for them)... xbox anyone?

[sek]

If the Surface is like the Xbox, Microsoft has a problem. The Xbox did cost billions and took years until it made a profit. When the Surface costs billions for years and at the same time Microsoft pisses off the hardware producers they will focus on Ubuntu/Android/ChromeOS devices. This would hurt the big cash cow Windows licenses and make Microsoft weaker than ever.

[Karunamon]

That's an entirely different level though. A game console is a far different beast (with arguably a different customer base with wildly different expectations) than a general purpose computer.

As it stands, the only company to have been successful in the consumer sector with that formula has been Apple. It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft can pull it off.

[nodata]

Or the Zune.

[hollerith]

>I have been wondering for years if Microsoft is ever going to drop the hammer and get some control on their software distribution by designing hardware with the intention of allowing the software to run as intended.

But they did not have to decide to make their own hardware: they could have imposed controls on bloatware as a condition of OEM's licensing Windows.