Microsoft lost $900 million on the Surface RT last quarter.

[mitchellvii]

They should have gotten rid of the desk top completely and called it surface metro , than the pro with desk top could be metro pro. Either way still confusing..:big smile:

Well why did they call it the "Surface" in the first place? Isn't Surface what they were calling table-top computers a while back? And when you are trying to promote a tablet you can use without a surface, why call it the "Surface"? Is "Surface" a particularly sexy name or does it describe the product? iPad I get, Surface I don't. "Surface" just sounds so pedestrian.

Just off the top of my head, how about the Microsoft World and the World Pro? Sounds big and sexy. Implies that it can do anything.

 

[kristalsoldier]

Hmmm...I kinda like "Surface" as a generic name-holder for a MS line of tablets. But how they leverage that is the key, which they haven't done very well, I'm afraid.

Edit: I would like to see MS doing the following:

Surface Play (or something like that): 7-8.4 inch tab. Should run Win RT and should have no Office version - rather it should have a very light MOX version of Office. Just enough for viewing documents and for very light editing. No desktop!!!! Here the focus should be heavily on "consumption". Low cost; no keyboard.

Surface Essentials: 10 inch tab (current Surface RT). Should run Win RT and have the full Office RT (which case it should have the desktop) or a feature-rich MOX version of Office. This should be offered with the keyboard-cover, which should be included in the price. Here the focus should be on "mobility" + essential tasks + consumption and in that order.

Surface Professional: The current version with everything that it has on it. Keyboard should be included in the price. Here the focus should be on heavy content creation (primary tasks) + mobility + consumption in that order.

The long term plan should be to collapse the Essentials and Professional platforms into each other, which will depend on how the SoC world evolves. The objective would be to give the user the freedom to choose what kind of functionality he or she wants from the device.

 

[lindamartin123]

Even though it's a $900mn discount, it's still huge, I'm just checking my pocket to see how much is remaining today, lol. And yes, it's a strategic move, something like google does usually.

 

[pallentx]

Today I saw an article about Google's new Chromecast device. It occurred to me that Microsoft's competitors do all kinds of confusing things with product names and no one seems to bat an eye. Take Google for example:
Chrome - A web browser for PC, Mac, Mobile
Chrome OS - An operating system
Chromebook - A hardware laptop running Chrome OS preinstalled
Chromecast - A media streaming hardware/software solution.


Then there's Apple:
iPhone - A phone running iOS that can run apps for iOS
iPad - A tablet running iOS that can run apps for iOS, but cant make phone calls
iPod touch - A media player that can run apps for iOS, but cant make phone calls
iPod Shuffle/Nano - A media player that cant run apps or make phone calls.

I don't see how what MS has done is that far out from what others do with product naming.

 

[TeknoBlast]

It's MS hating time, that's all.

I can never hate on MS. MS provides products which provides me a job since I deal with SQL and Reporting Service. For enjoyments, I have my Surface, Xbox, Windows Phone, and any computer I install Windows 8 on. How can anyone hate MS with such great products.

 

[Matt]

I agree with many of the above posts - mis-labeling and branding combined with crazy marketing are the culprits here.

The strange thing about the Surface is MS's backwards approach.

As apple started it lets follow their foot steps

Create Desktop OS and get it popular (osX)

Create a well marketed and well produced portable music player (iPod)

Add a touch screen to that player and allow it run a new OS designed for the job (iPod Touch)

Add phone to the touch screen portable media player (iPhone)

Make the portable player bigger (iPad)

Now lets look at MS approach

Create market leading desktop software (Windows)

Create mobile platform for phones (Windows Mobile)

Create portable music player (Zune)

Update desktop software

Ditch Windows Mobile
Create Windows Phone
Ditch Zune

Decide to build an Arm powered tablet to take on iPad. Rather than making Windows Phone 8 based tablet (Bigger screen with more powerful apps - think iPhone to iPad) they take great desktop software (windows) and cut it down and recode it to run on Arm. Existing phone apps don't work and unable to run legacy x86 programs leaves it a great tablet with poor apps.

Don't get me wrong I love my Surface RT and I except its shortcomings but I cant help wondering if MS had build a 10" tab based on Windows Phone 8 rather than porting the Desktop WIndows version if it wouldn't have been a better product (with an existing App store to play off...)

Sent from the SurfaceForums.net app for Windows 8

 

[pallentx]

Again, why should MS copy Apple's business model when they have a better idea? If MS had built a tablet based on Windows Phone, I would still have my iPad. The fact that its the same ecosystem and platform as the desktop Windows is what makes it attractive. I don't want a bigger phone, I want a smaller laptop.

 

[kristalsoldier]

For all the negativity swirling around the Surface RT and Windows RT, here is an article which shows how RT devices may creep into the market - and I hope over time they do, Read here: OMG! They?re using Windows RT! | ZDNet

 

[pallentx]

I fully expect them to gain in popularity slowly as the app marketplace fills up with quality apps. If my parents can buy one and enjoy using it from day one - this is a dive that will appeal to most people who actually give it a try.

 

[pallentx]

Great article - finally a tech writer that gets it.

 

[Rvacha]

I still see that as a strategic move. I really think Microsoft will kill Windows Phone RT, and will be replaced by Windows RT eventually. I don't want to associate this wish with how slow the Windows Phone RT updates are being released. When Windows RT 8.1 gets released with support for LTE and other mobile functionality, Microsoft can now kill off Windows Phone RT.

Personally I think it will be the other way around - we'll see WP replace RT. WP8 has a kernel, network stack, and security model that is almost identical to Win8. Rumor is that MS's goal for WP9 is for it to be exactly the same. WP8 already has support for telephony and mobile data. And yes, being a WP8 AND SP user I can tell you that the WP8 app ecosystem is larger and of higher quality than RT (it had a head start and is more mature then RT). So... I think we'll see WP9 being used for phones, tablets, and phablets with RT as we know it being dumped. This is NOT a bad thing. Given that Win8 can run RT apps there is no reason why WP9 couldn't run them as well (while also being able to continue running WP apps)

 

[kristalsoldier]

Personally I think it will be the other way around - we'll see WP replace RT. WP8 has a kernel, network stack, and security model that is almost identical to Win8. Rumor is that MS's goal for WP9 is for it to be exactly the same. WP8 already has support for telephony and mobile data. And yes, being a WP8 AND SP user I can tell you that the WP8 app ecosystem is larger and of higher quality than RT (it had a head start and is more mature then RT). So... I think we'll see WP9 being used for phones, tablets, and phablets with RT as we know it being dumped. This is NOT a bad thing. Given that Win8 can run RT apps there is no reason why WP9 couldn't run them as well (while also being able to continue running WP apps)

You mean like this: Ubuntu: One OS, one interface, all devices | ZDNet