Microsoft is not a zero-fat product generating machine like Apple. They're almost a university that happens to produce a few products on the side. Somehow, they're still profitable. They're not as profitable as Apple, but must every company stockpile cash like Apple does before they can be considered successful?
This article argues that MS should kill the Surface because it hasn't been a runaway success. By this logic, the Xbox should go too (the article says as much) and hey, even though he didn't mention it, why not the whole mobile end of the business too? Hey, Windows 8 is a total failure (the article says as much), so why is that sacred cow not on the block too? Microsoft is failing at everything and they should just quit. That leaves... what? Corporate? Embedded servers?
Seriously, this argument is a hot mess. Microsoft obviously has to make smart business choices about what things they can afford to pursue, but a lack of immediate success is not adequate grounds to sever themselves from their aspirations. MS wants to get into the hardware market because it's made Apple gigabuckets of cash. The surface, although not the most commercially hot commodity out there, is a good piece of kit and has some dedicated fans. It's fundamentally different from anything else on the market right now. i.e. It's a tablet that's actually good for more than mere consumption. To date, price has probably been the biggest thing holding it back. Well, prices have a funny way of coming down over time. The Surface's day may yet come.
>The surface, although not the most commercially hot commodity out there, is a good piece of kit and has some dedicated fans. It's fundamentally different from anything else on the market right now. i.e. It's a tablet that's actually good for more than mere consumption.
Right. I have no idea if the new Surface will succeed or not and, frankly, don't especially care as I'm out of the Windows ecosystem and am unlikely to re-enter it. That said, IF someone can really crack the code for making a device that works well as both a consumption and a creation device, it seems as if that would be interesting to a lot of people. Apple arguably made the tablet popular precisely by being willing to break from laptop/creation constraints but there's no reason to believe that reconvergence can't happen whether by Microsoft, Apple, or (possibly) some future Chromebook or Linux variant thereof.
Your last point is important - for many people the Surface tablet isn't competing with the iPad, it's competing with the MacBook Air. And it's already winning on price there.
Perhaps an exception that proves the rule but I bought my macbook pro 13" at 1300€ in 2009 because it was significantly cheaper then the competing offerings (IBM thinkpad and Dell E series)
How is it winning on price vs. the Air? The 11" Air starts at 899 vs. the Surface 3 with similar Core i5, 4GB memory, and 128GB SSD hardware that starts at 999. Add the $100+ keyboard cover to the Surface and it's an worse comparison. The 13" Air is 999 and again comes with the keyboard of course.
I love my Surface Pro 2, and I'm certainly no Microsoft fanboy---it's the first MS product I've ever purchased, and if you'd told me twenty years ago (or even two years ago) that I'd be purchasing an MS-made computer I wouldn't have believed you.
The reason I love my SP2 is that it is extremely successful at occupying the middle ground that it's trying to occupy. I need something like a laptop, for when I'm travelling and it needs to be a general-purpose computer, (with an actual keyboard, among other things). But, I wanted to have a tablet for light media consumption and taking notes in meetings and switching to an electronic workflow for grading things. I have not seen another device that does all that well.
I'm especially impressed with the way that they've treated the stylus as a first-class input device, rather than as an afterthought add-on for the troglodytes that can't be bothered to learn a new input method (I'm looking at you Apple). The stylus on the SP2 clips to the tablet (at least, when it isn't charging), it incorporates a button for clicking and an "eraser" that is a great UI concept, the software filters out your palm resting on the tablet to have really good registration of what the stylus is doing, and it feels like a pen. Most stylus input I've seen on other devices doesn't have any of that, and I haven't seen anything else that nails all of it. This is the particular thing that sealed the deal for me, and I feel like I can't be the only one.
All of which is to say that I really appreciate the direction they've taken with the Surface Pro, and I appreciate their priorities. I very much hope that they keep at it.
I own an ipad and I disdain the thing. It's useful when it's useful, but the painful input makes it something I can't use regularly. I want to, but the input is just too painful for me. I've been considering purchasing a bluetooth keyboard for it for years specifically because I want it to be more useful for me.
When the Surface first came out, I thought "MS has it right, that is what I want". Reading your comment reinforces my idea that they went in the right direction, and I may start considering a purchase.
I'm not sure that I agree with the author's premise. The way it reads is like "Microsoft had a few bad runs, so they should stop trying."
In fact, I wholly disagree with some of the author's content analysis. Example:
>The hardware capability that Nadella claims Surface leverages only exists because of the decision to make Surface. Nadella is basically saying Microsoft needs to make Surface because Microsoft makes Surface.
BUT, in the quote, the first thing that Nadella says IS "We are not building hardware for hardware’s sake." What Nadella DID say is that essentially, they're trying to build a complete ecosystem. Furthermore, this wasn't even listed as one of the goals that the author identified, although I feel that it was certainly one of Microsoft's primary goals with the surface. I don't think that Microsoft was thinking "think of all of the money we'll make off of hardware," especially when all of these hardware companies are flailing. Business decisions at a large company like Microsoft are calculated, if nothing else.
Personally, I think Microsoft should keep going. The only reason that I'm buying Macbook Airs at this point is because I like having a BSD environment at my fingertips. The Surface's hardware is actually better than a MBA's[0], and Microsoft seems committed to the product.
If I had to speculate as wildly as the author did, I'd have to say that Microsoft is building their own hardware simply because their hardware partners are failing so hard. The author touched very briefly upon that line of thinking but didn't linger upon it as long as I would have liked.
My speculation? Microsoft saw the death of Sony, Acer, Dell, and HP and knew they needed hardware to sell their product. If every hardware company went out of business, so would Microsoft. You could make the argument that by getting their own hardware line Microsoft hastened the death of the PC makers, but it's akin to splashing some water on the Titanic as you jump overboard. It's going to make it sink a little quicker, but it's not going to change the final outcome. The only difference is, you survive when all is said and done.
If we end up with Surface v Thinkpad v Macbook, we will have won. Even better if someone like System76 can get in on it too. The last few years have proven that there are a lot of people out there who don't really want to see Microsoft go out of business (and kill Apple's only PC competition), but rather see them get their shit together. That's a good thing.
System76 resells Sager laptops and the hardware quality and attention to detail is not good. Sager is designed around value-sensitive hardware hungry gamers and the like, often young people. So you get a crappy shell with a nice CPU or GPU in it. Very German.
I would...dearly love a competitor to the Thinkpad for Linux-friendly high quality laptops but it just doesn't exist yet. Lenovo has not been stewarding the traditional Thinkpad fanbase well, there's a market opportunity that people haven't capitalized on.
They haven't capitalized on it because making good hardware is really hard.
Yeah I threw in System76 because they're the only name I know selling Linux hardware, but they're not on their game in terms of actually trying to sell anything other than just a standard laptop. Making just a standard laptop is what is killing every other PC vendor.
The MBA just updated a few weeks ago. Admittedly, the Surface Pro 3 isn't shipping for a month, but I think it'll more than a week and a half before the next Air revision.
Meanwhile, Sony is leaving the OEM business, Dell is restructuring, HP can’t
decide whether to sell or not; Acer is barely afloat; only Lenovo seems to be
prospering (and now Surface Pro is aimed directly at their Thinkpad lineup).
When you consider the original goals, none of which have been met, and the
original dangers, all of which have come to pass, the only conclusion is that
Surface is a failure.
Microsoft's OEMs are keenly interested in leaving the low-margin PC business for greener pastures. Of course they are: inventory and market diversity are the horrors of their industry. If they push new hardware too hard, they devalue their inventory. They have to maintain inventory levels because they can't afford to have their competitor's eat their lunch. That is, capitalism works and it was a race to the bottom. I doubt any of the companies mentioned there have a supply chain as efficient as Apple's. To Jobs' credit, his protege was the supply chain guy. Steve knew that living in the margins isn't viable when you're directly selling your own stuff.
Lenovo is privileged as their company was a supply chain company. Until they owned the logos that go on your computer, they owned all the parts underneath or figured out how to put them together. Seems natural they're doing better than most. This supply chain company eating the company that puts the logos on is important for what comes next.
So the curious conclusion: kill the Surface. Kill the Surface because it didn't meet its stated goals - I disagree. Kill the Surface because it didn't save the consumer PC industry - I disagree. Welp. It sounds like the conclusion is to kill one of the only things the consumer PC industry has going for it. If they kill the Surface, it means they're going to rely on Lenovo to make the only handhelds that consumers want a Windows logo on.
This article seems to suggest that Nadella or his strategy team see this all. I don't know if they do. This article also seems to suggest they've seen this and said, "Yes, I like the relationship the operating system company Google has with its OEM, Samsung." Which strikes me as delirious thinking at best. I can't imagine Google is happy to have Samsung eating Android's lunch and subsuming the Google logo, or Nadella thinking that is an enviable model for the future of Microsoft.
> It sounds like the conclusion is to kill one of the only things the consumer PC industry has going for it.
Seriously. Surface Pro 3 is the first Windows machine I'll be buying since a Dell I bought for college in 2002. It's the only thing remotely exciting to me in PC-land. I don't know if it'll be commercially viable, but it's the only standout in the race-to-the-bottom PC industry.
Have you seen the XPS 13 or the Thinkpad Yoga? They're both pretty compelling laptops, and easily stand out from the crowded mass of plastic junk notebooks.
I just don't see any reason to pay $1,000+ for a PC Ultrabook that invariably falls short of an MBP Retina in some core compatency. For example, both machines you mention are $1,000+, have HD 4400 graphics versus the MBP's IRIS Pro, and have substantially worse touchpads (I never use an external mouse). The XPS 13 doesn't have a high-DPI display, and the Yoga 2 Pro has dramatically lower battery life (5.5 hours of web browsing on notebookcheck's review versus 9.5 hours; 6.5 hours of streaming video versus 11 hours on Engadget's review).
Surface Pro 3 probably won't measure up to an MBP Retina in terms of battery life, and the touchpad on the Type Cover is atrocious, but at least it offers something the MBP doesn't: a great form-factor for touch + pen support. If you can't execute a traditional notebook as well as Apple, you can at least try to execute something else.
The Yoga line is quite nice, and Lenovo seems to have wised up and simplified their SKUs (IIRC there used to be over 5 lines of laptops called "Yoga").
I have a Yoga 2 Pro, I love this high DPI 3200x1600 screen. It is amazing to read on, to the point I am willing to put up with a million other small compromises.
But I'd really love it if it had a TPM chip (it has Pro in its name, it should!) or a real digitizer. A Wacom Digitizer on a 3200x1600 screen? Drawing would be beautiful.
The Yoga 2 Pro was 999 when I bought it, although the price seems to have gone up by a fair bit. Also they had supply issues (now apparently resolved, Orange was on a month back order when I was looking to buy!)
The Surface 3 is actually almost a perfect replacement for this machine. The resolution isn't quite as nice, but it is thinner and almost as powerful. (The 4GB of RAM thing is not good, 8GB is almost a minimum just for heavy web browsing these days...)
Asus also makes some really nice hardware. Their ultrabook line is amazing, I am sad that they messed up their marketing of their one ultrabook a couple years back that had a discrete GPU in it. (It was only available through Amazon!!)
The reason tablets appeal to me is that a large part of my time is spent on reading technical books and documents, and in those times I really want the keyboard to just go away. The Surface Pro 3 has the screen size I was dreaming about on a tablet and it seems like a tablet you can use for work, and not just for play.
The one thing that disappointed me was 8GB upper bound on RAM. These things should really start at 8GB and go up to 16GB nowdays.
I am not too impressed by the XPS 13. But the Thinkpad Yoga and the Yoga 2 Pro are actually amazing machines (the later one has an even higher-than-retina display resolution. But again that is Lenovo and the PC world kinda need another player in the competition.
I agree with the negative comments about the surface mini, but the new surface 3 looks good to me. It has been a very long time since I have bought a windows PC, but I am very tempted by the surface 3.
With a 4K monitor capable docking station, it seems like a device that could do it all, except for also having a smartphone.
I'm just worried that the pen (N-Trig this time instead of industry standard Wacom) won't be good enough for serious art creation. If the reviews are good, I'll buy it, but many illustrators are apprehensive and angry that Microsoft seems to have released a generally improved product but which may nonetheless be markedly worse than the Surface 2 for drawing.
I read speculation on another site that said that perhaps Wacom refused to partner with Surface Pro 3 because that device was more similar to devices that Wacom themselves make.
I'm actually not familiar with this area at all, but I guess the argument is that the smaller screen size of Surface pro 1 and 2 made it different enough from the Wacom tablets, where as Surface Pro 3 kind of fudges that line.
Again, just repeating what I read on another site. I'm not actually familiar with Wacom devices.
The N-Trig only has 256 levels of pressure, while the wacom has 1024 level. So it sure doesn't stack upto the old wacom digitizer. However its interesting to compare it to the human hand which can only recognize 32 levels of sensitivity.
Maybe the reason to go with N-Trig was to cut down on cost and they found a way to get rid of the parallax issue (The lag between the pen scroll and the actual output)?
>> I'm just worried that the pen (N-Trig this time instead of industry standard Wacom) won't be good enough for serious art creation.
No matter what pen tech is being used, there are going to be compromises. I calibrated my Surface's Wacom pen with over 100 points (as opposed to the default 4), and you still get really weird detection points at the edges.
And because there's sensitivity issues with the angle you're holding a Wacom pen, the pointer isn't always where the pen tip is. This is especially problematic if you like switching between portrait and landscape mode.
Wacom may be the standard, but it's far from perfect.
>> I agree with the negative comments about the surface mini
If they had released a Mini with the same pen tech for instant OneNote access, I think a lot of people would have been all over it, even if it was running RT on ARM.
Looking at my own use cases for note taking, I often use my Surface Pro in conjunction with my Macbook Pro when collaborating in meetings, because it's simply easier to have the note taking device doing only one thing.
I don't think MS realizes it, but I think there is a market for a small, reasonably priced "virtual notebook" appliance (that can do other stuff as gravy), especially since the NoteSlate turned out to be a dud.
>These goals must have been important, because Surface came at a significant cost.
>Contributing in a meaningful way to the bottom line entails selling at much greater numbers than Surface has to date. Remember, volume was always the goal; that’s why Microsoft made so many Surfaces that they had to eventually take that $900 million writedown on unsold inventory. Clearly this goal has failed as well.
They currently have $88 billion in the bank plus assets, so they are better off returning that to shareholders instead of trying to make better hardware? OEMs just make cookie cutter junk, just look at the state of monitors or bundled crapware as an example. Lenovo is making some good stuff and they're reaping rewards in the marketplace even while competing with Surface. Why the call to reduce the competition?
>However, when it comes to PCs, Microsoft needs to focus on fixing Windows 8, and leave the devices up to its partners, especially Lenovo. Lenovo knows how to compete in mature markets,8 makes great hardware, and Microsoft should see them as their best partner, not a competitor
And yet, Lenovo continues to bundle a ton of crapware and junkware that hooks deep into the system.
People slam Microsoft culture, and while I haven't been at the company long enough to really be a good judge, one of the qualities I love about it is the tenacity that people have here. We don't just give up on things immediately. In fact, if you look at a lot of the successful products of today...they weren't initial successes.
I think we're lucky to have the resources/money to continue trying and trying and trying at something until we do well. Yes, eventually you might want to cut your losses and give up. But Microsoft doesn't give up on the first try. Or second. Or third.
Surface pro 3 is exactly what Microsoft and the Windows Ecosystem needs: an innovative productive device which can compete with Apple products. PC makers like Lenovo, Acer and even Samsung seem not to have visions for new devices. Surface pro 3 is the first 2in1 device which is usable as tablet _and_ pc/laptop.
So killing the Surface is the badest thing Microsoft could do!
The Yoga 2 Pro is very usable as a tablet, in my experience. Not as good as a Surface, obviously, but it is very usable, and in return you get a much better laptop experience.
Of course it always depends on how you use it. If you mostly use it on your lap and type things into keyboard a more laptop device is better. My usage is in average per day:
- 8 hours productive use on my desk with 3 monitors (form factor here is irrelevant, I just need a decent intel machine here)
- 2-3 hours mostly consuming use on bed and sofa (no need for keyboard here)
You could say that I just should use 2 devices but why should I when I can have it in one device?
Another big point about the Surface Pro 3 vs other products is that you can use it for notes and drawings. There will always be compromises in 2in1 devices. For me the SP3 is the best 2in1 till now.
I work with a client that is using yogas.
They are a great alternative to convertible (2-axis hinge) laptops and tablets (iPad & Android) - plus MacBook Airs.
I've not worked with Surface, but think I would likely prefer the Yoga's laptop keyboard to the Surface's cover keyboard.
Strangely the article makes no mention of Microsoft Mobile, i.e. the unit formerly known as Nokia Devices.
Microsoft has just completed a $7B USD acquisition of a hardware division that has 25,000 employees worldwide. They're not about to get out of hardware now!
After the Nokia purchase, Microsoft's hardware volume is on equivalent scale compared to the major Windows PC vendors. The Surface Pro is the high end of a product range that spans everything from the $90 Lumia 520 to the Xbox. In that role, the new Surface Pro is an important halo product. What's the benefit of killing the Surface today?
For those not good at math, that’s $400 more than an AppleTV, and completely unapproachable for anyone who does not care about gaming. In short, it is not enough to consider how the Xbox is doing relative to consoles; the Xbox must be evaluated based on how it is aligning with and contributing to Microsoft’s overall strategy, and in that light, it is an unmitigated disaster.
But the XBox 360 has a nice price point. Sure, it's more expensive than an Apple TV, but well-fit as a media center plus you can play games. The current generations of Apple TV are far to underpowered to play any serious games.
The fact that the XBox 360 is still on the market clearly states Microsoft's (and Sony's) strategy: the XBox 360 is a nice console that competes with media centers, the XBox One is for hard core gamers who want the latest and greatest.
I am not worried about the XBox One, the price will go down eventually and when it's in the 200-250 range, it'll replace the XBox 360.
We did by an XBox One, even though we are only casual gamers. The console will probably stay relevant for five or six years. So, it's a good investment.
I am curious to know though as to if you did end up comparing the Xbox One with a PS4 before buying it and if yes what factors influenced your decision ?
Hardware specs between consoles are really pointless things to compare. It's like trying to compare Windows or Linux for your desktop when you know you absolutely must run Visual Studio.
Yes. The reason is that I had a Playstation 3. When I bought it (~2008 or 2009), Sony promised a lot of mediacenter features. In the end they were only delivered on my PS3 (in The Netherlands) very late.
XBox 360, on the other hand, had many new features since its introduction.
So, I trust Microsoft more than Sony when it comes to promises ;).
It's kind of strange this comes out after the Surface 3 announcement, which from what I've read seems to be extremely well liked. Blogs, Reddit, HN all seemed to have a lot of positive things to say about it (especially considering it's from Microsoft).
That doesn't mean it will DO well but I wouldn't be surprised if it did better than previous surface generations combined.
I don't really get this desire to kill "ineffective" things.
He writes it like Surface costs MS a fortune or distracts customers. Yep, Surface is probably not a win (don't own one, and not an MS customer, although it happened to me to use Windows 8 on some occasions), but who said MS can't have their toy projects?
"Surface is the tablet equivalent of the HTC One: it is high end hardware in a market where Apple has already taken the high end. Both Surface and One are thus stuck in the middle, appealing to no one."
He lost me at that sentence. You have to be a complete lunatic to make such a statement.
Yeah, it's a very well-written article, but here is where I disagree with the analysis.
> The problem, though, is that Surface’s sales numbers show that device quality is not the primary sales driver for Microsoft customers.
Here's the thing: I really want a surface pro. It looks like an amazing piece of hardware, and the keyboard is so essential to what I want to do with it. The only problem, is I don't/can't/won't use windows! I simply require a terminal and a *NIX environment. If there was a really nicely executed linux distro that integrated perfectly with Surface, I'd be all over it for sure. But of course (and understandably), MS is simply not interested in catering to this solution.
I'm in the same boat. I don't mind the Windows UI, but without a proper *nix environment I just can't justify spending the money on a Surface Pro. I currently have both a MacBook and an iPad and I really don't like carrying them both around. Having a laptop/tablet hybrid makes perfect sense to me, but only if it can run the sort of OS that I need.
I can see the Surface being a really awesome device for business managers outside of the technology industry, where Windows and MS Office are still extremely widespread. As a programmer though whose workflow is deeply Unix-y, it just wouldn't work.
Have you seen the XPS 13 Developer Edition? It has a full HD touchscreen and comes loaded with Ubuntu. It's the best you can do if you want a touch capable Linux ultrabook.
I couldn't agree more: Microsoft is trying to target a demographic that doesn't exist. I was the target, and I wanted one, but it never made sense once I looked into it. The high-end model's price was way too high for a tablet alone, but it was similar in price to my higher-performing laptop, and nowhere close to replacing my 3-year-old gaming desktop.
It can't be the "do anything" device - if I still need 2 devices to get my stuff done, I might as well buy one that's less expensive and will give me the same function I need.
I do think Ben built a bit of a straw man out of Nadella's comment, though.
> "Nadella is basically saying Microsoft needs to make Surface because Microsoft makes Surface."
That's a very selective interpretation of what Nadella said. He said he wanted to integrate the company's products into a single experience. He didn't say that's why the Surface exists, nor did he say the reason behind building hardware and products is for the sake of integration. He's just saying the vision is to integrate the experience. Ben makes it sound like there's no other reason behind it, but Nadella may very well see reasons for integration that he didn't go into (there).
>Microsoft is trying to target a demographic that doesn't exist
Well it does exists, its just a small niche for now and the price does play a huge role into it. I am one of the target because I travel a lot and can't be bothered to carry my 9.5pound laptop with me. Waiting at the airport? Just connect to the nearest Wifi, turn on VPN, start up your regular work environment (x86 apps - VM/Vagrant,VS etc) and get that work completed. When it gets too much, switch to the start screen (tablet mode) and play some video, angry birds or 2048 or whatever silly thing. Once I get back home, its automatically syncs the changes to my regular laptop (using BitSync) and I can continue where I left off. Its the convenience I payed the price for. I am still on my Surface Pro 1 and its going good, although it does irk me to see two new versions even before my original warranty is over.
Had the Surface Pro been sold for < $399, it be easily become a top selling tabletPC. Well why not its a full fledged i7 PC capable of dual booting to other OS (secure boot can be turned off) and it runs all your favorite x86 apps. However, the processor itself its too expensive to make that happen. Although I am crossing fingers for AMD's skybridge that mashes up both x86 and ARM in one CPU.[1]
I think it does exist but the surface just isn't there yet.
The concept of being able to use one machine to sit down and do heavy work and then grab just my screen to head off to a meeting is very appealing to me personally. It almost seems like the inevitable evolution of laptop computing.
I think they got the hardware down right (although I cannot attest to that since I don't own one) but where they are really coming up short is software. If I'm going to drop that much cash to buy a portable device, it better have apps/programs on it that have a better experience than what Windows offers.
Are you sure it doesn't exist? I've seen a lot of them in a corporate setting, and in increasing numbers. When I ask what people like, the answer is almost universally that an iPad is good for watching movies, but they can actually get work done on their surface so they don't need to bring a laptop along anymore.
I like it, but DirectX is still king of the game when it comes to high powered gaming. It was a calculated move to keep windows relevant as a gaming platform while still edging in on the console space. Keep in mind that the original Xbox came out about the same time OSX was launching and Apple was gaining mindshare.
There's moves to OpenGL/GLES everywhere but the screens that most gamers typically hold dear: the one on their desk, and the one on their wall.
The insight this author provides into the market-focused side of consumer electronics is interesting. He mentions that Apple tends to lock up the high-end side of tablets and phones, leaving everyone else to chase the low- and middle-end of the market.
Although this makes sense, it is immensely disappointing. I would love to see more high-quality alternatives to Apple products, if only to encourage competition. We need more HTC Ones, not fewer.
Hmm, more HTC Ones running Win 8 Mobile might compete with Apple's build quality, and maybe, just maybe, be price-competitive.
What about Apple ditching DRM on their music?
And what about the thriving unlocking/rooting community for iOS devices?
They make high end iOS devices more palatable to early adopters who rely a lot on custom one-offs before things like in-vehicle integration become so commonplace that it's no longer necessary.
To be brief: the high end is painfully aware of the heavy-handed lockdown tactics that are currently tarnishing Apple's image.
True, I did discount the jailbreaking community. They're a great bunch, but it's such an uphill struggle to break new versions and new chips. I don't see how that's sustainable.
iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad Air, AppleTV. These are the devices I use every day. It used to be Blackberry, iPod Touch, HP Laptop, Xbox 360.
It started with the Xbox. I played a lot of games in college, but before starting grad school I realized that I would need to really bring it if I wanted my M.A. to be useful outside of academia, so I sold my Xbox 360, Kinect, controllers, and games (Halo 3, MW3, DiRT, and some others) for $150. I then bought an AppleTV and had a nice lunch.
After setting up the AppleTV I was really impressed with how easily it connected to, and streamed, my iTunes library and Netflix. So soon after I ditched the Blackberry for an iPhone 4. That, too, was amazing and I soon snatched up an iPad 1 and, finally, ditched the HP for the Air.
Since then I've really enjoyed the Apple "way" and I am always amazed that, regardless of what new hardware comes out by other vendors, I am never jealous of anyone else's rig or laptop. I'm never thinking "Man, I need to get that 'droid device as soon as I can." And I never look at a PC and think I'll be ditching the Air and picking going back to PC.
However, I have coveted the design and hardware of the Surface since the very first one. It's a really solid design that has only gotten better with time, and the Surface Pro 3 seems to be even better. I love how it looks, how it feels, and the utility of the device. The Surface Pro is the first device to come along since I switched from PC to Mac that makes me take notice of anything else.
Unfortunately, there are a few things that I dislike. The keyboard cover is too flimsy to be really useful, meaning that it's really just a mildly-useful accessory that would be better off as a proper keyboard. Also, I dislike the stand aspect of the Surface. If I have a keyboard attached, then I shouldn't need a stand, it should just lock in place, more like a dock than a cover (though of course it needs to be easily adjustable, but I'll leave that problem for the designers and the engineers to sort out).
Other than those two things, the Surface seems like a really solid device, and so I'm genuinely surprised that it's doing so poorly as far as sales figures go.
I disagree with the article though it does make me wonder about the supply chain part of the process with OEMs. The surface 3 is definitely attractive and powerful and I'd love to get one. If only MS would do one last, monumental change and build the OS on top of BSD. I use Apple for most of my daily work but would love a reason to switch or simply to see some viable competition in the space.
> Every version of Surface has been a high quality device, on the same general level as Apple. So I guess reason 2 is a win.
As an owner of a Surface RT, lol. That piece of junk has turned me of to the brand forever. Whether it was apps taking 5-10 seconds to load or having to unattach and reattach the keyboard 1 out of ever 5 uses, I can't imagine ever wanting to own a Surface again.
As an owner of a Surface 2 pro, I've never experienced any of those problems. Perhaps they fixed somethings in revision 2. (Of course, the quote does say every version.)
My boyfriend had some issues with the Pro 1 keyboard along the lines of the grandparent comment, but MS was quick to replace his Type Cover and followup that the replacement worked properly.
I'm quite happy with my Pro 2 as well, but I have no plans to purchase any of the covers when a Bluetooth keyboard can be had for 30 bucks.
Perhaps the quote was going for build quality, which the Surface RT did well in. I agree though that the processor speed + software failed it :(
Windows improvements + cpu improvements in Surface 2 make the experience much, much nicer. No longer do you tap a "new email" icon and wait 2 seconds for the action to register. The fact that it used to behave like that continues to blow my mind.
Go to a best buy or Microsoft store and play around with a Surface 2. You'll see that it's much better than the Surface RT, though I understand if you're reluctant to drop another ~500 dollars on the same brand. At least for now...
Refusing to buy more from the company that sold him a pig in a poke is really the only useful recourse he has in our society unless he has an Internet megaphone to fall back on. Money talks and all that.
A response to the article's high-road argument: "In other words, Surface is the tablet equivalent of the HTC One: it is high end hardware in a market where Apple has already taken the high end."
It's not just that Apple has taken the high road, thanks to Tim Cook's supply chain magic woven over the past decade, Apple has taken the high road, and similarly almost always provides consistently higher end products at lower price points than the competition can offer, with impressive margins.
In other words, you must not only beat Apple's hardware quality (HTC One and Chromebook Pixel got this right, and maybe the Surface3), but you must offer it a lower price than Apple, and do so sustainably for the long haul (so subsidizing would require substantial force-of-will even for large companies). And then fight against Apple's continued "coolness factor" which some argue is dimming, but is still a marketing force to contend with.
I want to bring in a funny point here. Am I the only one who thinks iPad Air screen is too small (not talking about the quality of the screen, which is excellent, no doubt) for reading documents? I have tried it out in Apple Store; it seems like a toy screen to me. This is the single reason that I have not bought an iPad.
I consume passively for about half of my time and produce actively (run programs on a server via Terminal) the other half. So, if I had to read a document, I think Surface 3 is just the right size. Plus the stylus there is very good for annotations. And then I can work in the Terminal using the Keyboard accessory. Also, switch between programs via Alt-Tab, multiple side-by-side windows etc. Install iTunes to bring over my music collection.
So I am very very tempted to move from my 13" MacBook Air to Surface 3. Price is not really a consideration for me. So, what am I missing?
The Surface Pro 3 is the first device that made me want to buy a Microsoft device. That's not to say that they shouldn't kill it, but it would make me sad (similarly to how they killed Zune just as soon as it became a reasonable competitor).
I think that it is safe to say that the Surface is a failure. But that doesn't mean it should be killed, just fixed.
I concur with the article when it notes, Apple's iPad is a clear winner in the high end for now and the immediate future (I'll bet the next 3 years).
But the high end isn't the only market. In the long term, the interesting market will probably evolve out of today's low/middle end. And ceding what was traditionally known as the "white box" market, not to Apple, but to Android, would be a huge mistake. One that could threaten Windows in time.
For the short term, Android is probably going to hold the lowest end ARM tablets. I can't imagine Microsoft being able to compete here any time soon (as price is the big issue). The best MS can do is try to make Android irrelevant. If, 5 years from now, Android is seen as "good enough" by the general population, then Google might be able to use it to make a run on the desktop. I know I would in their shoes.
That leaves the mid-range market. And I believe there is value in a Windows tablet running a low-powered x86. One that plays movies/TV shows, runs Office, has IE, and has backward compatibility with existing apps. A tablet that favours price to specs, but needs to come in a shiny casing none-the-less. This product isn't the Surface 3, but there is no reason it couldn't be the next iteration.
If the price was right, I could see my proposed tablet becoming the "safe" option for IT departments. Once the basic form is there, help third party OEMs get in on the market, and slowly revert to being a software-only company.
>> I think that it is safe to say that the Surface is a failure. But that doesn't mean it should be killed, just fixed.
As a Surface Pro 1 owner, it looks to me that the Surface Pro 3 has fixed just about all of the things I find lacking in the Surface Pro line. It's still not enough to make me upgrade yet, but that's mainly because my Surface Pro has enough horsepower to last me some time.
>> Apple's iPad is a clear winner in the high end
If you're a heavy tablet user, it is. The thing to note, however, is that tablets are getting pressure on two fronts -- the computer side (things like the Surface and touchscreen laptops) and even more so on the phone side (phablets). I only have a 4.5" screen phone, but that's already caused a sharp decrease in my desire to use a tablet. If I had something along the lines of a Galaxy Note 3, I probably wouldn't even bother with something like an iPad.
I'm all for killing Surface along with WinRT, but I believe Surface Pro series is quite useful, especially the latest 12" Pro 3. It's just that MS in its own "cloud and mobile" stupidity keeps marketing the device(s) as media consumption devices with a few "apps", not work tools with full Windows. I would even say that Surface Pro is the best thing MS has come up with since 7.
I don't think this is contrary to the article. The problem is not that nobody will buy the Surface Pro, or that it's not a great device - it's that not enough will buy it to justify an entire hardware business.
Perhaps we'll be proven wrong, but I think the article is correct in assuming that the device won't win over large corporate purchases and isn't a challenge to Apple's hold on consumers. It still screams 'niche'.
It's trying to scream "reference implementation!!!" I'm sure that MS wouldn't mind earning the odd nickel here and there from Surface Pro sales, but they have a much deeper interest in pushing a unified mode of computing, with one device becoming the device you need when you need it. For better or worse, that seems to be their model for the future of their OS and application software, and they seem to understand that a traditional form factor laptop or desktop is not going to be that device. The object of the game seems not so much to be to sell Surface units per se, but to persuade people to want Surface-like (or other convertible) units where there software they want to sell will make more sense.
Why hardware? Because delivery of Microsoft mobile services across Apple & Google devices puts them at a strategic disadvantage in the marketplace. Google isn't going to send users to Bing or Office when people get an Android phone. If the Nokia camera really was what people wanted Windows Mobile probably would have been a HUGE hit and Bing would probably sneak up a bit in share of the search market.
That is the best reason why, it raises the floor for other core services.
It is a quality device, but the marketing just seems wrong. Too expensive, different models of the Surface are radically different products, doesn't have the developers that iOS or Android has, and just didn't take off for some reason.
I don't see a reason to not make the Surface, people I know who have them, love them, and that is something that could be built on. That used to be the space that Apple occupied in the 90s, small user base with intense adoration and love and eventually came to be a dominant player in personal computing.
The surface pro is the first tablet I have seen that looks like a proper drawing tool. I don't really care about portable media consumption, I want the equivalent of a Wacom Cintiq glued to a high-end laptop, ideally in A3.
Surface Pro 3 is only good for one target market: designers.
For everyone else a laptop is better, and a more unified product without moving parts. Surface is also too expensive if you want a decent amount of storage. 40GB of free storage for $930 as a "laptop replacement" is unacceptable. Most people would be much better served than say a $900 Macbook Air.
So from this point of view, the author is right. Surface has been and continues to be a big failure for Microsoft, no matter how well it is designed and made. It doesn't win Microsoft anything other than a very small niche of people who like to design with styluses.
Killing Surface may not be a good idea. Microsoft can not afford losing the tablet market, and I think this time this giant software company have to rely on itself.
On the other hand, I have to admit that the new Surface 3 makes me a little disappoint because Microsoft insist that a tablet not only should be used on work but also should even take the place of notebook.
hmmm.... It's always hard to say what things will be like in the future, but I think I will prefer a notebook for work.
Not at all. Make it clear to OEM partners that this is not a competitor to their low-margin products but rather a competitor to Apple's high-margin products. MS & OEMs both need to understand that it will always be a small fraction of market share. It makes the Windows brand more valuable, though: Some of their customers want a high-end device that's made to run Windows, and where else can you get that these days?
I noticed a couple digs at Xbox here, particularly the one saying their division is "too cool" for the rest of MS. If I were that team I'd do the same thing -- wall off all the internal BS politics and other crap that causes so many good ideas to die. I suppose that leaves an opportunity for that division to manifest its own suboptimal behavior, but at least there's a chance at relative sanity. Maybe.
It might be worth waiting until the Surface Pro 3 has actually been released (20 June) before declaring that it isn't selling.
The pen is it's unique selling point and niche (there's quite a few hybrid tablet/laptops, but not with pen input), and given that Pro 2 (with a less helpful aspect ratio for that) tended to be "out of stock" much of the time, it seems to be in reasonable demand.
I'm in love with the Surface hardware, but the article makes a compelling business argument. As a consumer I hope the surface Succeeds, but I agree that it seems unlikely that Microsoft will see good returns on it.
Google's Nexus 7 was a OK device until after a few month of usage it started to lag like hell. a lot of previous android phones lagged like it was their job. Should Android or Nexus products be killed too?
I do not really see any lenovo device that matches up with any of the Surface Pro line. I had a Thinkpad Tablet 2 and it was a piece of junk compared to my surface pro 2.
Everything in this world has a place, so does the surface. Not everyone can afford the biggest mansion on the hill. For the few that can. I'm happy for you.
>The Surface costs more than the average laptop and tablet it is supposed to replace.
Not necessarily for an i7 machine in the form factor, but yes based on the average its too much to invest into.
>And God forbid you want or need processing power or RAM >= 8GB..
A few years ago I would have disagreed with you but heck what are we feeding browsers nowadays. My chrome with a handful of websites hits the 1GB mark easily. Talking about an IDE and VM on top of that, we are already at 8GB and to think years back I was comfortable with a Netbook with 1GB of ram.
This article argues that MS should kill the Surface because it hasn't been a runaway success. By this logic, the Xbox should go too (the article says as much) and hey, even though he didn't mention it, why not the whole mobile end of the business too? Hey, Windows 8 is a total failure (the article says as much), so why is that sacred cow not on the block too? Microsoft is failing at everything and they should just quit. That leaves... what? Corporate? Embedded servers?
Seriously, this argument is a hot mess. Microsoft obviously has to make smart business choices about what things they can afford to pursue, but a lack of immediate success is not adequate grounds to sever themselves from their aspirations. MS wants to get into the hardware market because it's made Apple gigabuckets of cash. The surface, although not the most commercially hot commodity out there, is a good piece of kit and has some dedicated fans. It's fundamentally different from anything else on the market right now. i.e. It's a tablet that's actually good for more than mere consumption. To date, price has probably been the biggest thing holding it back. Well, prices have a funny way of coming down over time. The Surface's day may yet come.