MSFT - Microsoft

[Guest hellsten]

Jakob Neilsen's UI testing of Windows 8:

 

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/windows-8.html

 

Thanks. Interesting to read his personal opinion on the future of Windows 8 and Microsoft:

 

I have great hopes for Windows 9 on mobile and tablets. Just as Windows 7 was "Vista Done Right," it's quite likely that the touchscreen version of Windows 9 will be "Windows 8 Done Right."

…

Because this column is very critical of Microsoft's main product, some people will no doubt accuse me of being an Apple fanboy or a Microsoft hater. I'm neither. I switched from Macintosh to Windows many years ago and have been very pleased with Windows 7.

…

I'll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9. One great thing about Microsoft is that they do have a history of correcting their mistakes.

 

I wonder why Nielsen switched to Windows? Maybe this sentence gives a clue:

 

I am a great fan of the dramatic "ribbon" redesign of Office (we later gave several awards to other applications that adapted this UI innovation), and I proclaimed the Kinect an "exciting advance in UI technology."

 

This is something I was thinking about yesterday; how big is the moat of Microsoft Windows without Microsoft Office and other apps? My guess is that without all the expensive and useful apps the moat wouldn't be very big. But even without Windows they would still have all the other software, hardware and services to sell...

 

Interestingly it seems Steve Jobs initially didn't want 3rd party apps on the iPhone:

"When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them," writes Isaacson. "He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/oct/24/steve-jobs-apps-iphone

[Guest valueInv]

Scroogled:

 

http://scroogled.com/#second

 

;D ;D ;D

[compoundinglife]

Interestingly it seems Steve Jobs initially didn't want 3rd party apps on the iPhone:

"When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them," writes Isaacson. "He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/oct/24/steve-jobs-apps-iphone

 

Yes. I was at the Apple developers conference when they launched Iphone. The idea was that you could make your web sites/webapps look like a native app and then you did not need an Iphone SDK, nor did you need to install software on the customers phone. SJ tried to make it sound "better" than running native apps. My guess is that they did not have the pieces ready yet, such as the SDK, "push" to prevent apps from killing the battery, and the app store and app verification process, so they made up this story to buy some time.

 

Then when they released it was spun as "we listened to our customers and developers and gave you apps!", when in fact that was probably their plan all along (at least that is my opinion).

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

http://bgr.com/2012/11/29/windows-device-sales-decline/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Despite the company’s latest milestone, U.S. sales of Windows devices have fallen 21% since last year. NPD Group reported the latest numbers, noting that sales of laptops, which have been weak throughout most of 2012, have fallen 24% year-over year while desktop sales dropped 9% from last year. While it is still too early to place the blame of a weak PC market on Windows 8, vice president of industry analysis at NPD Stephen Baker believes that the operating system “did not prove to be the impetus for a sales turnaround some had hoped for.”

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

the surface: a disaster.

 

[Palantir]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

[compoundinglife]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

For the class of device its low. The RT is in par with the Ipad. But if you compare the Pro to the current Macbook Air and even Macbook Pro Retinas (7-8hrs max) its not very good in my opinion. In theory this device is like a hybrid tablet laptop so I would expect it be better than a Macbook Air or at least equivalent.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

it's supposed to be msft's answer to ipad.

[Guest valueInv]

If this it true, there are some rough seas ahead:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20121128PD215.html

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

If this it true, there are some rough seas ahead:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20121128PD215.html

 

yeah for surface, which never should have been launched. but surface is a tiny tiny piece of msft revenue and profit. but it does not bode well for the msft "device" forary that's for sure.

[Palantir]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

it's supposed to be msft's answer to ipad.

 

Incorrect. Surface Pro is a laptop alternative, not an iPad alternative. There is zero commonality between the iPad and the Surface Pro.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

it's supposed to be msft's answer to ipad.

 

Incorrect. Surface Pro is a laptop alternative, not an iPad alternative. There is zero commonality between the iPad and the Surface Pro.

 

wrong. it's a "hybrid". it definitely was designed to do battle with the IPAD. And so far the Surface has not done well as a product. The hybrid model of the surface has been a design failure. And whether it competes directly with IPAD or not, 4.5 hours this day and age is unacceptable.

[Palantir]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

it's supposed to be msft's answer to ipad.

 

Incorrect. Surface Pro is a laptop alternative, not an iPad alternative. There is zero commonality between the iPad and the Surface Pro.

 

wrong. it's a "hybrid". it definitely was designed to do battle with the IPAD. And so far it's failed. The hybrid model of the surface has been a design failure. and whether it competes directly with IPAD or not, 4.5 hours this day and age is unacceptable.

 

Uh No. The Surface RT is "meant to do battle" with the iPad, not the Surface Pro. They are totally different devices.

[Palantir]

Your comments about MSFT "failing" at Surface because sales have been subpar is also off the mark. The Surface is merely the beginning of a huge companywide transformation. There is no way that the product was going to beat or match the iPad in sales, and it would have been foolish to entertain the possibility. If Microsoft can simply make a good product, which many accounts indicate it has, it is a success. It takes time to develop institutional expertise and thus will take a long time to establish MSFT in hardware.

[Myth465]

Microsoft is failing because their strategy is off. They need to compete on price, and the RT is a bad idea. The only toe hold Microsoft has is that thousands of companies have legacy apps which have to run on Windows.

 

They should create a business device at a reasonable price that is a tablet and laptop. It should be only slightly more expensive than a decent laptop inmo.

[Guest valueInv]

4.5 hours is perfectly reasonable for a laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

 

it's supposed to be msft's answer to ipad.

 

Incorrect. Surface Pro is a laptop alternative, not an iPad alternative. There is zero commonality between the iPad and the Surface Pro.

 

wrong. it's a "hybrid". it definitely was designed to do battle with the IPAD. And so far it's failed. The hybrid model of the surface has been a design failure. and whether it competes directly with IPAD or not, 4.5 hours this day and age is unacceptable.

 

Uh No. The Surface RT is "meant to do battle" with the iPad, not the Surface Pro. They are totally different devices.

Do you see people buying a both Surface RT AND a Surface Pro?

[Palantir]

Why is Surface Pro going to cost twice as much as an iPad if they're competing? Answer - it's not supposed to compete with the iPad. They are different machines in different markets. It might be a hybrid, but it is not an iPad enemy.

 

Myth454 - MSFT chose not to go in the direction you're suggesting. It's not obvious that competing on price is going to be successful. Also they have a huge toehold among customers, not just enterprise! They want to make a great product, rather than making a cheap product people use by default. Given the criticism people like to fling at MS for lacking quality, this comment is bizarre.

[Myth465]

Competing on price doesnt mean making a crappy product. Look at the Nexus 4. This is the same strat tried with the Zune. Good luck is all I have to say.

[Guest valueInv]

Why is Surface Pro going to cost twice as much as an iPad if they're competing? Answer - it's not supposed to compete with the iPad. They are different machines in different markets. It might be a hybrid, but it is not an iPad enemy.

I'm guessing its because of MSFT's cost. The Intel chip is more expensive, it is going to require more memory, a more powerful battery, etc.

Running traditional Windows applications requires lot more resources than running lightweight mobile apps.

[Palantir]

You have given the reason for the cost, but then why would they make a Pro version in addition to RT? Nobody who is considering an iPad will look at Pro. Mr Softy knows that. They are designed to be used in different ways. Surface Pro is a laptop/ultrabook equivalent.

 

 

Strictly speaking, I don't think either is an iPad rival to begin with. Rather a different interpretation of the tablet and its role. I think the Surface is great for students.

[Guest valueInv]

You have given the reason for the cost, but then why would they make a Pro version in addition to RT?

 

Backwards compatibility. Without the Pro, they cannot leverage their existing user base to gain adoption for their new platform. They screw their existing customers and partners by not providing a bridge/migration path to the next generation. Without Pro, they would drive their customers very quickly to Android and Apple. Its not clear that that is not the case even with it. 

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

Your comments about MSFT "failing" at Surface because sales have been subpar is also off the mark. The Surface is merely the beginning of a huge companywide transformation. There is no way that the product was going to beat or match the iPad in sales, and it would have been foolish to entertain the possibility. If Microsoft can simply make a good product, which many accounts indicate it has, it is a success. It takes time to develop institutional expertise and thus will take a long time to establish MSFT in hardware.

 

so in essence you use your customers as guinea pigs to test your beta hardware and software till you get it right? the surface is a flawed product that only pure windows die hards will buy. I can't see an ipad buyer also buy a surface. I can't see a surface buyer also buy an Ipad. sure there are a very few exceptions. therefore, they compete for Eyeballs and $$.

[texual]

I think they have a clear idea of how Surface will play out - the first generation is really a way to establish the hardware business and engineering. If you look into this product itself, they machined almost every part and have the entire thing designed in-house. Materials, machining and engineering is all from scratch. This means the next generations will be far easier to tune to their specifications. I think Surface got a lot right, but expect the next generations to be slimmer, faster, with updated software and things like a Kinect camera and who knows what. Surface 2, 3 will likely outperform this one.

 

Just my two cents on the product.

[Palantir]

I think they have a clear idea of how Surface will play out - the first generation is really a way to establish the hardware business and engineering. If you look into this product itself, they machined almost every part and have the entire thing designed in-house. Materials, machining and engineering is all from scratch. This means the next generations will be far easier to tune to their specifications. I think Surface got a lot right, but expect the next generations to be slimmer, faster, with updated software and things like a Kinect camera and who knows what. Surface 2, 3 will likely outperform this one.

 

Just my two cents on the product.

 

This. The goal was to put together a high quality product. It's not perfect, but I think  we should expect slicker products in the future as the product matures.

 

rimm you seem to have some sort of agenda against MSFT, care to explain what it is? "Windows 8 has been a failure", "Surface is a disaster". Most people I know who've used Win8 have liked it, and some of them have posted on this very thread, and yet you continue to promote your opinion as incontrovertible fact. If you don't have any insight into MS's product strategy and are only interested in offering vague generalizations, you can simply avoid commenting.

[Palantir]

 

Backwards compatibility. Without the Pro, they cannot leverage their existing user base to gain adoption for their new platform. They screw their existing customers and partners by not providing a bridge/migration path to the next generation. Without Pro, they would drive their customers very quickly to Android and Apple. Its not clear that that is not the case even with it.

 

I agree it helps build traction for their platform, but no iPad customer will pay twice the price to get a Surface merely to get MSFT software. iPads are used for consumption, not creation.

 

Also it's not obvious Surface Pro will function as a tablet very well, it's going to be bigger, heavier, and hotter. Nothing like the cool, light, and mobile iPad.