What's new

Investors want Microsoft to kill Surface


Staff member
This is the group of investors that want Microsoft to abandon the Consumer Market and focus only on the Enterprise Software. Remember Wall Street doesn't care what is best for Microsoft's all up long term strategy, it only cares about Short Term Value for stockholders and fund members.

If MS completely looses the consumer space they will loose the foothold in the enterprise. The reason MS made and keeps its end roads into the Enterprise in the first place was due to consumers using Windows at home and wanting the same at work.


Well-Known Member
The investors that told Microsoft that can go to hell. Don't worry, Microsoft is not going to kill the Surface. It may need bring an enterprise version of Windows 8 out that plays like Windows 7. I know the IS manager where I work will only continue to purchase hardware that comes with Windows 7. I support all the PC laptops and desktops where I work and when he passes by my desk, he sees my Surface setting there alongside my standard Windows 7 desktop. He did break down and purchase an RT for our International travelers to take with them for email & Internet.


Active Member
Based on Microsoft's track record for killing products it wouldn't surprise me either way.


Well-Known Member
This the most stupid article I have ever read.
Kill XBox? It's a MASSIVE revenue for Microsoft. It has saved the company numerous times. Every game produced by a third party company is 8-10$ license fees in Microsoft pocket. That is why PC games are usually 10$ cheaper.
In addition, Microsoft get 60$ per year for almost all XBox One and 360 users for it's XBox Live subscription to play online games.

Surface sales has DOUBLED since the last generation, as well. It's no iPad, but it's when it DOUBLES, then you know you are doing something right.

You may say: "Yea but the investors says..."
Most investors are looking for a quick buck. They are not interested in Microsoft long terms success, they want the stock to go up, sell, then never talk about Microsoft ever again, until it drops down, to buy some more.
So the way it works is that anything that does have a HUGE success, in their eyes, should eliminated immediately. Lets say Apple releases the iPhone 6, and the success of it is not as great as iPhone 5. Still very good, but not as great? Guess what investors will say? "Apple should sell the iPhone division, and pull out". That is exactly what they need to say, and it is the role of the CEO to do gatherings, fancy golf games, and all that crap to talk to each of it's big investors, to say: "Look don't pull out, this is the vision of Microsoft, this is the new plan of action we will take, as we know that the product reduce success was not the product itself, was because <insert some reason here>". And do meeting all day, none stop. That's part of the job of the CEO, beside taking company decision, and getting the last word on conflicting idea or paths.

Look at Nintendo. Oh the WiiU sales aren't great? Investors says that they should pull a Sega, or do mobile games... First of, Nintendo is doing A LOT better than with the GameCube. Nintendo had to sale the GameCube for 99$.. a 250$ console, for 99$ rather quickly, and even then, it didn't really help. Yet they are still doing fine, as they spend their money wisely, don't spend more than what they make (unlike Sony, which is now selling it's own headquarters, PC division, firing massive people, just to stay afloat), and make money on the console (well except the GameCube when they drop the price to 99$). Why this decision from investors? Simple:

-> They expect that Nintendo game will magically translate well on phone witch lack any of control. Investors either don't know that, or they do know, and hope that people will buy it for the name "Mario", "Zelda", then the stock will jump really high (Angry bird style), sale everything, people will realize of shitty the games are as you need proper controls for these games, and well the investors don't care, they got their money.

-> If Nintendo sales their games on multiple platform, then it would make more money, GTA style, and pull a Call of Duty where you release every year, massive profit. Ignoring the fact that Nintendo games, the reason why they are successful, is because the console is uniquely adapted for it. That is right, Nintendo makes a game console for themselves, NOT for third parties. Why? Because Nintendo sees themselves as a toy manufacture, and Nintendo games provides a unique experience that you can't get anywhere else. If they put Nintendo IPs on other consoles, then it strips their game from that unique experience, and then it just becomes "generic platformer" or "generic adventure game #12".

Investors aren't loyal. It's not their company. They want revenue NOW. Tomorrow, they dont' care, they'll be invested at some different company, bugging them. That is why Dell switch to private. They were sick and tired of selling out their name by producing el-Cheapo, non-innovative, generic computers, because investors are pushing Dell to meet their quarterly results in a market where people don't buy computers anymore, because they find their tablet and/or phone is plenty adequate to surf the web, and check their e-mail is that is what they do. Hence the joke: iMac: The 2000$ Facebook machine. As the user doesn't need the provided performance, does nothing on it because e-mail and Facebook, but just got it because of the social status value, something fairly unique to Apple in technology (usually it's clothing).

News site LOVES to report investors comments. Why? Because it's "bad news", and people like you, loves to click on them and read them. It buys their newspaper too. People try to find out why, and have lack of information to actually say: "Wait, this article is stupid!".
Notice how, every new version of Windows, it's always, everywhere on the news, and even little corner review sites begging for viewership, going "Windows x sucks!", and then always say how the previous version of Windows was better. Heck it even happened with Windows 7, the beloved OS by many. People called the task bar a replica to MacOS (clearly false), and how Vista.. yes VISTA, got it right. People freakout so much, that you had computer manufacture, like today with Windows 8, build a Task bar replacement program to bring the old Windows look (well with Windows 8 its the start menu). Then it quickly disappeared as people got it, and saw how rather good it was, and what they read was total crap. Look at Windows XP. Same story. "Windows 2000 was the best Windows. Windows XP sucks, it's buggy, it's this and that".. and now "OMG Windows XP for life!!!!". The same crap over and over and over again. Look at Windows 9... people will STILL complain, and say how Windows 8 did things better, and yet, because companies follows a 6 year life cycle for upgrades, they'll get it, and sales will jump sky high, and now all the haters desperate with clicks, will shut up, and actually get the OS to make a proper opinion for themselves, and not base everything on screen shot and assumes how it all works. Remember when people said that Vista could not play MP3's? Or how the """new""" Start Menu, was impossible to use, yet it is identical to the one of XP? Yea... good times.

As long as people click on those things, it won't end. By the way, same applies for Apple new MacOS X versions, and iOS.


New Member
I've seen a lot of corporations do a lot of stupid things. Everyone doesn't operate with total rationality in mind in business either and in general people just want their way for their greed. I'm not SAYING that they will kill it or not, it was merely a piece of information that might be potentially interesting.


Well-Known Member
I've seen a lot of corporations do a lot of stupid things. Everyone doesn't operate with total rationality in mind in business either and in general people just want their way for their greed. I'm not SAYING that they will kill it or not, it was merely a piece of information that might be potentially interesting.

These things are never interesting. They are just click bait.
Companies do theyr risk, else they never become successful. Like Apple with the iPod and iPhone. It has nothing to do with Mac's, but they tried and succeeded. Also, unless some spectacular moment where the planet line up, all new products always brings losses. It takes multiple versions and/or time (depending if it's technology or not, and the market, 'cause it works a bit differently but the idea is the same) to be profitable. In other words, Surface Pro 3 and later will each be more successful, much like Apple with their iPod and iPhone. The first iPad was costing almost 1000$, you didn't have iTunes, and it bombed, It was a big failure. But they give up? Nope, they worked on it, new technology advancement allowed to make their product better and cheaper, and over time time realized the benefits of an MP3 player, over disks, and with iTunes things picked up.

If Apple listened to their investors, you would have no iPod, no iPhone, no Mac Pro's. And without these products, Apple would not be successful. In fact, in 1997, if Microsoft didn't give them a slew of patents and money, Apple would be long gone. Its is for a reason investors, are JUST INVESTORS, and don't run the company. They have great analytical skill and knowledge, but that does not make them great business people. Sometimes do you want to have a product that will never sale, or in very limited quantity, not for making money, but to showcase what the company can do.
Like the initial goal of the Surface 1 and Pro 1. Where you could only get it on select Microsoft stores, and started in limited quantities at first. It was to showcase: The best Windows experience, showcase Windows 8 vision, and showcase what Microsoft can do. Nvidia, if you know them, does the same thing. Look at the GeForce Titan. Over 1000$. Do they care it doesn't sale? No. They use it as an advertisement vehicle to attract people to their product. It says: "Look at what we can do". And for businesses, Nvidia can say: "This is a portion of the power you'll get from our Telsa graphic cards, which you need for your simulations and research". I wont' be surprised if Nvidia didn't pass the 10 000 unit sold of the GeForce Titan. The company treats it as an advertisement.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
@Tekn0, just to say, we are not hitting on you. It's not your fault, it's the media that are desperate for clicks for ad revenues, and Google top search result increase (to be in the top 3 page), so they make it so sound overly dramatic, and how it's end of the company, and all that stuff. And that is what it is sad these days, especially in the U.S. The loss of true journalism. Real journalist get actual info, with fact, and present them without opinion, and the least bias as possible. This is completely loss these days, as journalists are paid for the success of the their article, not for reporting the news.

At this rate, might as well have "Microsoft is closing!" as Title. Then you read: James Jameson has a 1 share in Microsoft, and he said that the company should close, because Linux based OS is the future". I mean come on. Fine I am greatly exaggerating, but this is where things will be at, if people keep clicking on these crap news. And as mention, this is not because it is Microsoft, and this is a Surface product forum, so there is fanboyism. This applies to ALL companies, hence why I mentioned examples with Apple. Lovbe them or hate them, the point I am making still holds. These things will stop, as they are doing now with Apple, when people will be disinterested in reading this, and journalist will have to work harder to get some news... you know proper news. Like leak info of the Surface 3, or Surface mini, with actual evidence, or Windows 9 direction and things like that.


Active Member
I hate to say this as a launch-day purchaser of both the SP and SP2, and also as the owner of an S2, but my guess is that this will end up happening. Satya will announce that "The Surface has blazed the trail it was meant to blaze, now our OEM partners can lead" and sell it off.

The problem is that ValueAct has the non-empty threat of a proxy fight, which could result in the entire board of directors getting thrown out. John Thompson & co will do most anything to prevent that from happening, so they gave ValueAct a seat on the board (huge, huge concession). You heard this ValueAct quote about axing bing/xbox/surface just before the CEO announcement. Coincidence? Ha ha. Satay is their guy. He is an enterprise dude and probably cannot wait to be known as the one who undid Ballmer's mistakes with Win8, Nokia, etc.

I would expect them to pull a Google by divesting Nokia within the next 3 years. Surface probably won't even take that long. Bing they may sell to Yahoo. Xbox, dunno but it is not much of a profit center.

But it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is that MSFT is a battered and undervalued company by investor standards. ValueAct would have no trouble getting other major institutional owners like Vanguard on board for a proxy fight to replace the Board. Gates may not really care about the company that much anymore - the "tech advisor" thing is a joke - but you can be sure that he will not let some Wall Street kid kick him off of his own board.