This looks like Zune all over again. Let's go over some points. First the UI has been around for a few years on phones and has yet to catch on at all. Market share has actually shrunk even with positive reviews from the technorati. Data point 2: I'm seeing lots of comments on how the pricing is "worth it" because you get a full computing experience... err no, the RT model is ARM based so it will only run native metro apps. The fact that geeks reading tech sites get this wrong should be a huge warning sign for MS. Think of how confused a normal customer will be when trying to figure out what runs on what? Point 3: MS office Touch enabled as a throw in for free, great until you actually try to use it. Instead of re-imagining from the ground up for a touch interface (Apple Style), they decide to hack on a touch mode and call it a day. All reviews have been deservedly scathing. The silver lining if your a MS fan is this will be the end of Ballmer. I assume the reviews should be out within a week, should be interesting.
Anyone with half a brain knows that that is not the reason. Microsoft came way too late to market with a 1.0 version product while everyone else was 3 or 4 revisions deep.
edit: a few more thoughts
The mobile phone industry had become an echo chamber, then Apple came in and made a clean break, dropped the cruft everyone else was clinging to and pushed the envelope. Apple changed the mode and completely shook up the market, Google was the quickest in responding while Microsoft was clearly caught completely off guard and is finally putting its best foot forward, but they are very late to the party.
The sudden success of the BlackBerry and the iPods also had something to do.
Sony Ericsson was in the right path with their P800-P900-P910 line of smartphones running Symbian OS. Big Screen, behind a 'normal' but removable phone keyboard.
After the iPad success, Sony Ericsson abandoned the P line to produce walkman phones.
After the BlackBerry success, all smartphones were abandoned to make BlackBerry clones.
That's the echo chamber you mention. Thank his Steveness Apple had something else in mind.
Microsoft was busy with Windows Mobile 6.5(1) which after many years of revisions was complicated to use and in dire need of a complete reboot. Motorola was living high off the Razor (which I purchased at launch at $300) creating a million different versions of it until they watered down the brand name.
Apple even teamed up with Motorola to do an iPod phone(2), which I think stands as the poster boy of what was wrong with the industry at the time, the echo chamber I refer to, everyone was so caught up with refining the innovations of the past that they ended up blind sighted by the original iPhone and scrambling to catchup; Many say that Google was finally able to do that with the Jelly Bean release of Android, the much more polished look of the OS combined with Project Butter for an overall very refined experience. In Microsoft's case it's clear Windows Phone 7 wasn't what it need to be necessitating another reboot of the mobile OS, maybe the shared Windows kernel, Direct X, native SDK and product integration Microsoft is promising will be the push it needs.
The funny thing is I think Apple as of late is falling into the same trap the mobile phone industry found itself in before the original iPhone. Most everything out of Apple lately is iterative and not innovative; it's very difficult if not impossible to keep an innovative streak going and not get bogged down on endlessly refining the original innovative product.
From the wiki (1)
"Ballmer also indicated that the company "screwed up with Windows Mobile", he lamented that Windows Mobile 7 was not yet available and that the Windows Mobile team needed to try to recoup losses."
I agree with many of your points, but want to point out that Apple's goal was not to introduce the iPhone and then continue to innovate it, it was to perfect it; which they are very close too. Furthermore, Techies want innovation, general consumers want design and function that works and looks good, period. They don't give a crap that you can touch your phones together and transfer a playlist, or "innovation" as some would call it. My prediction is Apple's next innovation will not be in the phone or music industry and it may not come for a while.
iPad 42.5-watt-hour clearly mentioning browsing time (its called confidence on your quality).
Surface RT 31.5-watt-hour Pro 42-watt-hour.
WiFi+Cellular:
iPad Yep.
Surface WiFi only.
Weight:
iPad 1.44lbs to 1.46lbs.
Surface RT 1.5lbs and Pro 2.0lbs.
Applications:
iPad Rock solid platform unified.
Surface Choose between RT and Pro messed up ARM and x86.
For me I think Microsoft has done same mistake again, introduce "complexity" and if you look closely they are actually selling you a "not a gorgeous quality stuff" for same price as iPad. I don't see Microsoft dominating the market! Just getting a market douche on stage that makes you hear sound of click with no quality in product pisses me off!
So ya Microsoft is reinventing in fact "reimagining" how to create mess in Tablet world!
Thank you for this completely level-headed and unbiased comparison of the two products. You clearly outline all the relevant aspects of each product instead of just cherry picking to make one product look better. I know I can trust your comparison because you state only the facts and are careful to not play favorites.
LOL thanks for sarcasm but Yep believe it or not, Memory cards, and USB support has not hurt sales of iPad before. I am actually pissed of at the ecosystem split (ARM and x86), I had high hopes maybe so thats why I was pissed off on Microsoft claiming to re-invent!
Except that Microsoft has zero brand recognition in this category. Why on earth would anybody choose this over an iPad for the same $$? I half expected MS to be dropping these things from helicopters.
That would be OK, except that Windows RT does not run Windows software. It runs only software from MS App Store, i.e. Metro apps plus preinstalled Office. That's it.
iPad and Android tablets have much more software available.
My brother in law, who is a foreman for a crew of painters on Disney property, has been waiting for this, specifically for office. I've often suggested that he could just collaborate on documents (and they do this often) through google docs ... but office/windows is entrenched, and he'd love it if he had access to office on a tablet.
"That's it" is in the context "(people) want to run Windows software on it". Existing, Win32 desktop software that people are used to.
This part is not going to happen.
And sorry, office on tablet is not a big deal. You will understand, when you will have to use it. It is the same reason, why PC tablets were not successful - the usability is way worse than existing solution.
I'd also argue that non-metro IE is significant. Browsing immersive internet with a mouse keyboard is frustrating so it's nice I won't need to do that with the Surface.
3x the screen resolution...a little less than 1x the usable screen real estate. Comparing to a high pixel density display isn't really fair. The Surface Pro is 1920x1080, but that is all usable space, no pixel doubling for non-"retina"-ready apps.
I just don't want to see any pixels from 10-15 inches away when I'm using it in bed. I doubt the surface will be able to accomplish this feat. I have superb vision and cannot discern pixels on an iPad unless it is within a couple inches of my nose.
I suspect that you are in the minority, outside of tech circles. I'm yet to meet a non-techie that "requires" a "Retina" screen on their device. MS describing it as "HD" will likely suffice.
Do you REALLY want to program on a tablet? How would you use those IDEs (because that's what you're really asking for) to sync with version control software/servers?
I use a MacBook Air because I like to work and write often while travelling. The thing I miss in the MBA is a touch screen.
The Surface seems like it might fit my needs in the future, especially since I am not in the mood to buy more Apple gear given their behavior recently that I don't like. Ironic to me that I am viewing Apple in a more negative way than Microsoft.
In any case I don't need any more writing development gear right now so I can wait several months and see how well the new Surface platform is viewed when I need to buy.
I see the Surface as a great replacement to netbooks. I'm not sure if I'll get one yet, but a lightweight, small laptop that is not at all a pain to take with me anywhere is still a useful thing.
I got a lot of use out of my 10" MSI netbook, and at 1.5lbs with a great keyboard/cover system, this could fit in as a nice replacement for that, without nearing the cost of a Macbook Air. The ability for it to double as a tablet for light internet browsing makes gives it some added value, as well.
I think that a key market for this will be for people who could use a tablet and a laptop, but can't justify purchasing both a decent laptop and a tablet. Of course, as the price of a good Android tablet moves closer and closer to an ultra-affordable $99 price point, this advantage may disappear pretty quickly.
It will be interesting to see how the market responds, and how much people enjoy using the hardware. It's different enough that it has a real chance to make a dent in the market.
Here is a killer feature on Surface: Host Mode aka USB-OTG
But it also has a USB port and a cover that doubles as a keyboard; it works with a wide range of other devices, like printers and external hard drives; and it will even charge up your phone.
How does that help if the tablet does not have a full USB port that is powered? Fiddling around with another power adaptor and cable is pretty annoying.
I don't know about you, but almost all Android tablets I've seen have one (or two.) This (rather popular low-end tablet in India): http://www.hclmetablet.com/, for example has one too. It's a regular USB port and no adapters are required.
So they're going head-to-head with iPad on price and they have few third party apps or games. Obviously this was a wonderful strategy for Palm, RIM, Android (before 2012), Fusion Garage (ha!), HP's slate, etc.
Also, the T30 is seriously long in the tooth at this point. The A5, A6, Qualcomm 8960, Exynos 4 all beat it on GPU perf, and most of them beat it on CPU perf. $500 for a T30-based computer? No way!
As the first public release of Windows for ARM processors, Surface RT is probably going to have rough edges for quite some time, not to mention limited software support, so it makes sense that they're being conservative with the pricing. If they dumped them on the market, they'd still get pummeled by poor reviews, their margins would be nil, their partners would be irate, and they'd have a much bigger support issue on their hands. The people they really need to be buying these at launch are developers who want to bet on a future market for Windows RT apps, at least until they've had a chance to fix some of the bigger bugs.
I haven't been this excited for a Microsoft product...perhaps ever. Then I saw the price and thought "We've been down this road before (HP Touchpad). You can't sell Apple competitors at Apple prices."
As soon as the Touchpad dropped to $99 they couldn't stay on shelves for even the first day. So let's find a compromise where the company still makes money. $299? It's just odd that the company who won the PC Wars by enabling manufacturers to win on price seems to have forgotten the only one of the 4 P's that they could have had over Apple.
$499 is probably pretty aggressive- MSFT doesn't have the supply chain magic or economy of scale that Apple has. I suspect they aren't making much/any money at $499... But I think you're right that they need to buy market share with a lower price-- they are too late to the game to get a foothold otherwise unless the product is near magical.
"MSFT doesn't have the supply chain magic or economy of scale that Apple has."
I keep seeing the supply chain thing mentioned a lot. Microsoft has been in the hardware game for a long time, and the XBox has had been around long enough and shipped enough volume that MS probably has people just as competent at managing the logistics of consumer device delivery as Apple. Apple might be just a smidge better at but it's like comparing Wal-Mart to Target, Wal-Mart (Apple) maybe the #1 but Target (MS) is a logisitical behemoth in its own right to the point where the supply chain alone does not decide the winner.
"I keep seeing the supply chain thing mentioned a lot"
Because it is very important, at the same price Apple could be getting 40% profit and MS barely getting break even.
It does not matter how much Xbox they ship, but how many tablets they are already shipping, and Apple is selling millions and it has been doing for years.
this already happened with macbooks and ultrabooks, ultrabooks has been loosing money at the same price ranges because they got late.
Had to chime in on this. MSFT has had a lot of experience but not at the quality level of Apple. Look at the $1B XBOX charges. Something like 1/3 of all xboxes got a red ring of death (I know people who went through 3-4). More like Wal-Mart to K-mart :).
> It was responsive and impressive and, well, weird. Keys fired well, but other aspects, like the track pad or pressing keyboard combinations, felt odd.
Due to (supposed) focus on productivity, Surface has piqued my interest, but there's no way I'm going to order one without putting my hands on the touch keyboard first. Microsoft has not done a good job showing me how it works or convincing me that it is better than the on-screen keyboard I'm currently using (compare to Apple's iPhone keynote, etc.).
I was rather hoping the keyboard would be included with the package. I think Microsoft can ill afford to charge so much for an accessory that is pretty much a USP for their tablets.
Eh, in a way it kind of does? What I mean is I think of it as "you can pay less without" because if you get it WITH the keyboard then it matches the iPad price. If you get it without, it undercuts iPad by $100.
I don't think it is fair to say it undercuts the price - the cheapest surface matches the cheapest ipad 3 at ~$500, while apple still offers the ipad2 for $400.
The surface does offer more storage at the $500 level, but the ipad has a higher resolution screen.
With as much fan fare as they have given to the two keyboards and their prominence in the first commercial, it seems like a missed opportunity to not include it.
I don't know the retail logistics, but they could have at least put together some sort of "savings bundle", so that they people could choose their keyboard colour.
I prefer it without the keyboard - a simple tablet. If I feel the need I can purchase one later. We may even have 3rd parties (Logitech, etc) provide keyboards for this.
I love my Microsoft keyboard, I use it with my MacBook Pro all day long at work (I do NOT like the standalone Apple keyboards). If they came out with a keyboard cover for the iPad I'd buy one, and I'm willing to bet it would be a huge seller. As for the Surface tablet itself, I'll be blown away if it ever makes it as high as the #2 tablet. Only their usual pigheadedness will keep them from actually succeeding in "reinventing the tablet" by releasing one.
Hey, I'm an avid MBP, iPad, iPhone user and I love them, but I think this is really going to be big for Microsoft. There are many, many people who are completely immersed in a Microsoft world. These people use iOS and Android devices because they are the only viable options. I foresee this being a huge blow to Apple, which will (hopefully) wake them up a bit and focus back on innovating a bit more again.
The only Surface I'm interested in is the Pro version. Without access to the wider world of Windows software, I'll just keep using my ASUS Transformer. Based on the lack of a release date and likely significantly higher pricing for the Pro I'll probably just end up buying someone else's hybrid Windows 8 solution (eg. ASUS seems like a good bet based on my positive experience with the aforementioned Transformer).
I may be wrong due to my tech geek biases but I think leading out with the "RT" model is a mistake. The only super-compelling thing Windows 8 tablets bring to the table for me is the possibility of running "real" Windows software when using it as a laptop.
I think that is a big tech geek bias. It's really hard (impossible) to put ourselves in the shoes of the non-nerd, but we should try. I don't think the non-nerd will care as much as you do, or if at all. I think that leading with the RT model was actually a great call, because it will jump start the market of tablets that can only use modern apps and then in turn give a lot of incentives for developers to make them. If they led with the x86 surface, then the app market would have been a lot smaller come end of year.
Non tech geeks are going to buy the iPad though, surely. They are about the same price and the iPad is a far more elegant and simple solution. Chances are that the non tech geek will also own an iPhone/iPod Touch and the ability to share apps and music etc. is definitely going to appeal.
At the price MS has this I am finding it hard to see who it will appeal to except tech geeks and maybe corporate.
"They are about the same price and the iPad is a far more elegant and simple solution." - Elaborate. You didn't give any substance at all and that's an empty statement. How is it more elegant? It is an accessory. You can bet that the Microsoft marketing blitz will pound on this. They will drive home the point that you can write your term paper on your surface. I guarantee it.
The only good argument against the surface right now is pre-existing ecosystems. People have apps/music/etc purchased on other ecosystems and that makes it tougher to drive home adoption among these 'entrenched' customers. But if the product is appealing enough, that can be overcome. The jury is still out on whether people will drop their iPads in favor of Surfaces.
Haven't we put the "it's an accessory" bit to bed yet? It's awfully tired.
Also, the second someone needs to use that keyboard's bizarre-o trackpad to drive the software to write their term paper, you can bet the utility of having "traditional" apps on your tablet is going to be more carefully considered than simply assumed.
The argument against the surface remains that when you need a tablet, a 'full desktop OS' is not a feature you care about. And when you need a 'full desktop OS', the surface may not be a very good one.
So the comparison will, again (and as it almost always does) hinge on what people need or want these things for and how good each product is at performing those tasks in reality.
Also, pretending that all the iPad brings is ecosystem is just as silly as flatly stating the iPad as more elegant.
We, as a collective community of tech industry members, have put it to bed. But that isn't at all true on the consumer side. For example: In one of my classes today, we were talking about how we're going to be taking our exam online. We come into class, bring our laptops, and write out essays and submit them. The teacher explicitely mentioned not to bring a tablet, even going further as to saying that doing that would be silly. A girl who usually brings an iPad to class on a regular basis agreed with the professor and mentioned that "yeah, it's better for consumption". That in itself, proves to me that it has not been put to bed yet.
And on the ecosystem thing I agreed with someone else who posted below that I meant more than that.
Not just the ecosystem. A reliable company behind it.
Remember the PlaysForSure fiasco.
I could invest lots of money on surface digital content, and lose every cent of that content if suddenly surface is not the market leader and MS wants to steer in another direction.
By elegant I mean the iPad hardware/OS is more focussed and better defined. Microsoft compromises by trying to blur the world of laptop and tablet, the iPad is all tablet.
The MS solution is less elegant because it lacks confident direction.
"The only good argument against the surface right now is pre-existing ecosystems."
It isn't just ecosystems, it is massive mindshare (and keep in mind I say this as someone who is anti-Apple).
For a lot of people I know who don't own tablets yet tablets basically are "iPads", the way web searching is "Googling" or adhesive bandages are "Band-Aids".
"Oh is that a Droid iPad? I've heard of those, but never saw one before".
Yes, I agree. That too, mindshare is very important. Almost as important as marketshare! I meant to lump this in to my statement but didn't elaborate on it.
Even corporate is a hard sell on the non-Pro version because then they lose their VPN, their bitlocker, etc, and it is going to take a while for the "BYOD"-style enterprise security apps to start appearing for Windows 8 RT.
WinRT supports BitLocker (with remote wipe) and all native Windows VPN standards. You are not going to get the install-able VPN connector 'applications' (Cisco etc) on WinRT, but if you have a standards compliant VPN this is not an issue.
Corporate is more conservative with putting money into something, that will not bring tangible benefits. In many companies still have process for deciding, whether someone needs laptop or desktop will do. Yes, the difference may be 50-100 EUR, but multiply that by the size of workforce and you get a serious coin.
Consumer market on the other hand is much more emotional. Consumers will buy something without clear reasons, just because they want it.
> It's really hard (impossible) to put ourselves in the shoes of the non-nerd
Really? It doesn't seem that difficult. I imagine if the Surface RT is easy to use and good (hopefully great) at basic web browsing, email, social networks, etc. while having a decent selection of apps (this is the hard part with a new ecosystem), non-nerds will be fine with it.
Non-nerds generally tend to seek advise from nerdy in their vicinity (social circle). Sort of trickle down effect. The impact is quite significant now, given that nerds and semi-nerds are aplenty.
True, but it is also true that nerds HATE with a passion to be referred as the de-facto helpdesk for those they will give any recommendation.
I would never EVER, recommend any Linux distribution at the time being to any of my non-nerds contact, in favor of a product that is simple to use (even at the cost of some freedom) and very hard to break.
I actually switched my parents from XP to Ubuntu few years ago (because any support would involve travelling). Since then, the most serious problem was yanked ethernet cable.
That might be on purpose -- releasing the RT model first just to force the rest of the manufacturers to also release something on Win8's debut, without releasing a Pro model to directly compete with the initial sales. As much a reference design as part of the marketing campaign -- ensuring Win8's launch looks concerted.
Exactly same thoughts. But I will give my Transformer to my wife and get the Pro, simply because I want to experience Windows 8 "how its meant to be" and because the Surface will have a big modder / hacker community.
>"Microsoft instantly becomes the third major player in the tablet market, a market where it is taking a fundamentally different approach than its rivals, Apple and Google."
I'd put Amazon in the group of Microsoft rivals...at this time, at least. I could see Amazon moving to a Windows platform. A clear roadmap and development partner would be consistent with Amazon's core business.
I think this is going to be absolutely great college and high school students, but I don't know how eager people will be to buy a Surface as a Christmas present compared to a Summer purchase for school.
Time will tell, I guess. It's not like people knew what the hell they were going to use an iPad for, when it was first announced.
I've not seen the major complaint yet in any of the HN articles.
Microsoft has traditionally made software, and rebranded things like mice and small peripherals. They only 'recently' got into the xbox, but that was different for it was a game system.
Now, with them being a computer dealer now, where does that leave Dell, HP, and other manufacturers?
As mentioned by someone in another thread, one possibility is that Surface is partly meant to set the bar for third-party manufacturers.
It's high enough make the competition (Dell, HP, etc) put out good products that won't tarnish the new Windows platform image. But not so high as to make third parties not want to bother competing.
This was a problem with early Android. There were so many poor devices that the entire Android brand was hurt (but since recovered).
I think that's just smoke screen. Microsoft clearly wants to be in the hardware business and to make money this way. They are envious of how easily Apple can make a ton of profit with a lot less "market share". I don't think they really care what happens to the manufacturers, if in the end they make more money on hardware than they do through licensing.
Requirements for licensing Windows RT could have also stipulated certain hardware minimums. I know that MS did something similar with netbooks, where they stipulates hardware maximums.
I believe the major difference is that Microsoft has entered the computer manufacturers arena as a 1st tier manufacturer. Everybody else is now tier 2. And this leads to problems with monopolies and vertical integration.
