Windows, Positive Brand, or Liability?

Now, this post is not about the product. My question is about Windows as a brand. Obviously, Windows has strong brand recognition, dating at least back until 1985.

My question is...is Windows a positive brand or a liability?

It has been around a long time, but isn't Windows the OS that we all love to hate?  We use Windows, but do we love the brand?

People love Apple. They loved Steve Jobs. Some will deny it and claim that they just love the products, but millions trusted Jobs enough to buy an iPad without ever having held one or knowing what they were going to do with it. Jobs said it was magical and millions lined up to give him money for something unlike anything they had used before.

Does anyone have that sort of trust in Microsoft? Well, you certainly would not know it from the sales of the Surface. Microsoft built an incredible product. They paired that product with an innovative new OS. The fact that the pairing works I will judge from the fact that I have yet to meet a dissatisfied Surface owner. Unfortunately, that puts the Surface in the same company as the Zune HD. A product that owners loved, but where sales were not high enough to make it a going venture.

So why aren't people buying more Windows RT tablets, and specifically the Surface?

For the last 25 years there has been no truly viable alternative to Windows. Yea, yea, yea, I hear all you Linux and Apple fanboys, but if you have the brains you claim to have, then you know that neither has been a true alternative to Windows...for the average user. Apples were too expensive and the average user does not want to fiddle with Linux, and no matter what you say, Linux requires fiddling.

The average person wants something that just works, and that leaves Linux out of the equation. Apple would do very nicely in the "just works" category, but they are too expensive. That leaves Windows.

But, how many of those people would buy Apple if the price were the same? And why would they choose MacOS over Windows? Because it just works.  I know more people who are frustrated by Windows than are totally happy with it. Some would say that Windows is the OS we love to hate, but I have never felt the love. Windows is the OS we use...but hate.

So, is Windows a brand name that really helps sell PCs? Microsoft thinks so, but I don't. I think that setting Windows as the OS on the PC you are buying is about the same as seeing that your car runs on Goodyear tires. It's a brand name you know (and probably like more than Microsoft), but you don't choose between cars based on the brand of tires, and we don't buy a specific PC because it comes with Windows. It's what we expect.

Now lets get back to tablets. Microsoft designed a premium tablet, gave it a few more features than an iPad and priced it like an iPad...and it didn't sell. Why?

I think that most users, when presented with the question of iPad or Windows tablet, had no trouble choosing.  Windows never stood a chance.  The iPad just works.  Windows is the OS we use, but hate.  Microsoft did a terrible job of selling the virtues of Windows 8 to the public.  And then, Microsoft foolishly put the basic price at $100 more than the iPad.  Yes, you did get the very cool TouchCover, but again, Microsoft did not bother to push at users that you were paying more, but getting more.  iPad users have been proving that they do not need extra ports, and SD card slots, and yet Microsoft seemed to focus on these as the selling points of the product.

Microsoft runs ads that show off the cool sounds of the kickstand and the TouchCover.  iPad ads show how you use the product.  They often do not say anything at all, just music, and visuals of the cool things you can do with your iPad.

Yes, Microsoft has some disadvantages that it cannot completely control, like the number of apps for Windows RT, when compared to Android and iOS.  But I think they have a much bigger disadvantage, something that goes way beyond Microsoft making the wrong step at every stage of the marketing of Windows 8 and Surface (which runs Windows RT).  I can state that disadvantage in one word...

Windows

The OS we use, but hate.  The OS they make jokes about.  The #1 PC OS in the world, and I might even call it the best PC OS in the world, but also the OS with the worst brand reputation in the world.

Microsoft has not been doing too well of late, in the area of brand names.  First, they had to give up using the name Metro, for the UI common to Windows Phone, Windows RT and Windows 8.  Now, they appear to have lost the name SkyDrive for their cloud service.  They need to come up with a name to replace SkyDrive and they still need to find a true replacement for Metro.  Excuse me Microsoft, but the Modern UI is just lame.  But, I have one more suggestion, and maybe Microsoft can kill three birds with one stone.

Throw out Windows.

At least for Windows Phone and Windows RT.  Neither of them is Windows, because neither uses windows.  Please pay special attention to that lower case windows.  Windows was the OS named after it's main feature, the floating application windows on the screen.  You could open lots of them, and they could overlap.  They let you see into the application.  But Windows Phone has no windows.  The apps take up full screen.  There is only one window, the screen.  Windows RT should be the same way.  Microsoft needs to do away with the Desktop in Windows RT.  Office needs to move to the Modern UI.  All the control panel and system administration applets need to move to the Modern UI.  In Windows 8, the Desktop serves a purpose, legacy apps, but Windows RT does not run legacy apps, so there is no reason for the Desktop.  Because of the Desktop, Windows 8 still uses and needs to use windows, so it can retain the name.  Windows Phone and Windows RT don't need the desktop, so get rid of it.

I wish I had a good suggestion for what to call the new OS.  Everything I come up with I reject almost immediately.  Actually, I like Metro, but that is off the table.  Tiles would be appropriate, but I do not like the sound of it.  The new tiled UI appears on Windows 8, RT, Phone, and XBox, so it really is not the Windows UI anymore, and I think that Windows needs to go away, on everything but PCs.  Not the OS, just the name.

Change the name for any OS that does not run on an Intel processor PC.  Let Windows Phone and Windows RT soar, maybe they can reach as high as the XBox without the anchor that is Windows.  Microsoft needs to wipe the fog from their eyes and realize that the brand, Windows, is confusing their customers and pushing people away from their superb tablet.  Lose nearly thirty years of baggage and let the tablet OS, Windows RT, take over in the new mobile market.

Apples and Oranges

I keep reading reviews of Windows 8/RT tablets that complain that they are too expensive.  I feel like it is time to answer that question once and for all.  Recently, I read another one, a review of the Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2, that ended with the conclusion that the iPad and Nexus 10 were more cost effective.

 

Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2 Review: Just Barely a Laptop

 

All of the prices I list, will be, so far as is possible, from the manufacturer's website.  Obviously, you can find better deals, but by using the manufacturer's list price, we are using level ground for our comparison.  Also, all models are compared with WiFi only.  This is a comparison of price, and not of features...for now.

So, here are the actual figures for the three tablets mentioned in the Gizmodo Review.

 

Apple iPad w/Retina Display

WiFi

16GB          $499

32GB          $599

64GB          $699

128GB        $799

 

Nexus 10

 

16GB          $399

32GB          $499

 

Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2

 

64 GB          $679

 

Now, we have one immediate problem, in that there is no Nexus 10 apple (note the lower case).  We cannot truly compare like models, because there is no 64GB Nexus 10.  And, there is no 32GB Thinkpad Tablet 2.  Now, we can extrapolate either way, and I think we will see that while the Thinkpad Tablet 2 and the iPad are virtually the same price, $20 different, any comparison/extrapolation of Nexus 10 or Thinkpad Tablet 2 prices will conclude that the Nexus 10 will be about $80 cheaper, and it is $100 cheaper than the iPad.

So, the first stage of the comparison shows that the assessment in the article is only half true.  The Nexus 10 is more cost effective, but the iPad is not...well, unless you know that you want 32GB or less in your tablet.

There is one other thing to remember.  The Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2 has many more features than either the iPad or the Nexus. 

 

Thinkpad Tablet 2 (but not iPad or Nexus 10)

• USB support (thumbdrives, mice, keyboards, etc.)
• MicroSD

You can claim these are not needed, but with the Thinkpad Tablet 2, you have them, rather than wishing you did.

 

And don't try to play the app card.  The Thinkpad Tablet 2 runs Windows 8, and will run every Windows app ever written, so it has a larger app ecosystem than iOS and Android put together.

 

And lastly, the Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2 has the longest name.

Windows 8 and Expectations

Will 90 percent of users always hate Windows 8?

 

I am torn by this post.  I found it intelligent and well thought out, and I found the points to be cogent and thought provoking.

But, I think it is all wrong, but now I understand why.

iOS was totally different from anything that came before it, yet millions of users have adopted it and learned it.  Some will say that is because it is intuitive, but I do not really buy that.  What it was, was internally consistent...mostly.  You had to learn new skills to use iOS, and you did, and once you did, it was easy.

So, why doesn't this work with Windows 8.  The Modern UI is as radical as iOS, and like iOS, it requires new skills, but no one seems willing to learn those skills.

We learned new skills when Windows 95 replaced Windows 3.1.

The problem is expectations.  Now, let's look at those three groups.

Experts...were willing to put in the time to learn the new skills.

Willing Adopters...this is where I would put a lot of the naysayers, as well as those who are enjoying Windows 8.  Willing Adopters are usually willing to learn new skills, but they are also the ones who get frustrated first.

Mainstreamers...they buy Windows, they expect Windows, and honestly, the Modern UI is not really Windows.  To me the idea of Windows sort of implies the functionality which both MacOS and Windows have used, where you open a small box, a window, and the app runs inside the window.  The modern UI doesn't do that, and I really think that MS would have been better served with a new name for the OS...sometimes.

But, most people have become used to the way Windows works, and the Experts and Willing Adopters will know that Windows 8 doesn't work like Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7, whether they like it or not, they will know.  This cannot be said for Mainstreamers.  Mainstreamers will expect Windows.

Microsoft has done a terrible job with managing expectations.  They have shown off the fancy new UI start screen, but given little information about how it actually works.

Windows 8 is following in Vista's footsteps in one way, and that is that Microsoft seems to be doing nothing to manage expectations.  Vista's only real failure was that it required up to date hardware to run properly.  People upgraded old machines and the experience was bad.  People bought underpowered Netbooks with the new OS and the experience was bad.

Windows 7 was nothing but Windows Vista fixed.  The problem is that there is nothing to fix on Windows 8.  The Modern UI is not broken, it is just different.  Many people may not want it, but that does not mean it is broken.  iOS wasn't broken because it did not work like MacOS, and Windows 8 is not broken because it does not work like Windows 7.

But, there is a real problem with people's expectations, and if they want Windows 8 to be a Windows 7 style success, they need to deal with those expectations.  One big part of dealing with those expectations will be convincing people that once they learn the new UI things will be simpler and easier.  That may be a very tough sell after 17 years on the same UI.

The Future of Windows RT

This is a follow up to my post To Windows 8 or not to Windows 8, but it is mostly inspired by a different post.

 

Is Windows 8 a bad OS for tablets? It's time to decide...

 

Though many of the commenters did not like the article, but I did.  Unlike his conclusion in the debate, the author decided that Windows RT wasn't a bad OS for tablets, though he did feel that it was not really there yet and needed work.  I think I can sum up the work needed for Windows RT.

1. Get rid of desktop mode.
2. Fix the mail app

Now, that sounds simple, but getting rid of the desktop means porting Office to WinRT (that is the programming layer for Modern Apps), and I do not think that was ready.  Yes, what I am saying is that Office held back the development of Windows RT.  I got no proof, but it is still what I believe.

 

So, where does Windows RT go from here? 

 

Personally, I expect Windows RT sales to be a little pathetic for a while.  There are problems, though most of the ones put forward are ridiculous. Only the two above need to really be addressed by Microsoft.  The other big problem is the lack of apps, and that will fix itself over time, especially with Microsoft working with developers to ensure they (the developers) are making money.

 

Everything needs to be written to work in the Modern UI, Office, File Explorer, Control Panel, etc.  Now, this goes beyond just the built in apps, as I said in a previous post, Microsoft needs to find a way to encourage big 3rd party developers, like Adobe, to move their apps to WinRT.

 

Another key for Windows RT is the success of Windows 8.  Let us look into the future.

 

Windows 8 may or may not be as huge a success as Windows XP and Windows 7, but just like Vista, it is going to end up on a lot of PCs, and Windows 8 does not have the disadvantages of Vista.  Vista's problems were under the hood, and there Windows 8 is streamlined and powerful.  A year from now, I see lots of PCs with Windows 8, and then the change begins.

 

Today, if you use a Windows PC, it is likely to be Windows 7, and if you decide you want a tablet, then you are looking at iOS on the iPad and iPad mini, Android on a selection of 7-11 inch tablets, Amazon Kindle, I will even throw in Nook for good measure, and Windows RT.  You've probably been using Windows for years, gone from Windows 95, to 98, maybe 2000, finally XP and now 7.  There have been UI changes, but it you went straight from Windows 95 to Windows 7, you would learn it very quickly. 

 

Now, look at the array of tablets.  None of them is anything like Windows 7.  One of them says it is Windows, but it don't look like any Windows you remember.  So, buying a tablet will mean learning a new OS, so they all start off even from that standpoint.  To figure out which one you want, and assuming you want to make a considered intelligent decision, then you are going to have to figure out the strength and weaknesses of each.

 

My real point here is that Windows RT does not offer any specific advantages over the others.  Yes, it has some advantages, but iOS has more apps, so does Android.  Kindle has all the incredible Amazon content.  Right now, Windows RT cannot match those.

 

Now, jump forward a year or two.  You've been using Windows 8 on your PC for a year or so.  The UI may have taken a little getting used to, but you did it.  You know how to work the UI.  If you bought a portable (trackpad) or a touchscreen then you may even have learned some of the gestures.

 

Now, you go and look at tablets, and Windows RT offers a big advantage that none of the others do...well, unless you bought another tablet OS previously.  You already know the interface.  It looks just like your PC.  I think this makes Windows RT a much bigger draw than it is today, familiarity will push you towards Windows RT, or towards whatever you already have.

 

In two years, the Windows Phone app ecosystem has grown to the point where it is only a minor deficit.  The same will happen with Windows 8, and Windows RT will actually be the big winner from that.

 

So, the future of Windows RT may be slow sales in the short term, but in one to two years, RT will have matured.  I think that a full WinRT version of Office will appear and the desktop in Windows RT will go away, providing a consistent smooth experience.  The built in apps will improve, and the number and quality of 3rd party apps will improve.

 

And, when you go to look at a tablet, Windows RT will look good, because you already know the interface, and because you will already know most of the apps you want to download (from Windows 8).  The transition from PC to tablet will be simple and smooth.

To Windows 8 or not to Windows 8....

Windows RT: Worthless or the future of Windows?

 

So, this got me thinking.

 

25 January 2013

 

At the time I am writing this, only the opening statements of this debate have been posted, and so there isn't much to go on.

 

I believe that Windows 8 is the future...well, at least for the next two to three years. I do not think that Microsoft is going to do the same thing that they did with Windows XP and Windows Vista. Windows 8 is here to stay. I do not believe that Microsoft is going to rethink its strategy and make Windows 9 closer to Windows 7.

 

Why?

 

Because I think that Microsoft has recognized the trend of the future, fewer and fewer PCs and more and more mobile devices. They have a strong entry in the smartphone market. They dominate the PC market. What they need is an entry into the growing tablet market.

 

The strategy behind Windows 8 and it's sister OS Windows RT is two OSes, one UI. There are constant rumors that Apple is moving in the direction of making MacOS more like iOS, and this is sort of the same thing, except that since Microsoft already owns the PC market, they are working down into the tablet market, while Apple, who grew on the back of iOS in the smartphone market pushed iOS up into the tablet market.

 

Now, think about Microsoft's strategy, one UI to rule them all. This is the Modern (nee Metro) UI, which by the way is similar in appearance to the Windows Phone UI, which had the same name (Metro). You move from your PC to your tablet, and you do not change UI, nothing new to learn, and if you use Windows Live as your log in, all your settings are shared across both devices.

 

That is the future.

 

The problem is when I read the opening statements, I agree with most of what Matt Baxter-Reynolds says. He is right, there are several problems with Windows RT. The reliance on the Desktop Mode for Office is a mistake, and the same is true for the Control Panel, Windows Explorer, etc. These feel a little less like a problem in Windows 8, because there is feels like you are opening the hood and really getting into the engine compartment. That feels really clunky in Windows RT.

 

I wrote before that the success of Windows 8 depends on getting software vendors to write their PC Applications for the Modern UI. I still believe that. Keeping users away from the Desktop makes the experience of the OS much better, and having to go over and over again to the Desktop gives users the impression that the Modern UI is just a thin layer over the real OS. That is not good.

 

Matt Baxter-Reynolds also claims that Windows RT devices are too expensive. Now, this may or not be true, it depends on how you look at it. He points out that "Surface RT is prices around the average selling price of a normal Windows 8 laptop." Okay, I am sure he meant priced, and he is right, it is priced at exactly the same point as the iPad. Now, don't contradict me, the price of a Surface, without the TouchCover is $499, exactly the same as a 32GB iPad.

 

Then again, MB-R does not compare Surface to an iPad on price, which was a good, if deceptive idea on his part. It is priced higher than most Android tablets, but I feel that I can say with little chance of truly being proven wrong that the Surface is better than most Android tablets.

 

Most of the other Windows RT tablets I have seen are clinging to the same price range as the Surface, and that may need to change before Windows RT will really take off. People look at is and ask themselves....

 

Windows 8 portable, or Windows RT tablet?

 

Since the price is about the same, they may choose the more versatile PC. But the question is, do they ever ask themselves either of the following questions...

 

Windows 8 portable or iPad?

 

They are about the same price.

 

Windows RT tablet or iPad?

 

Now, here is the point where I think Microsoft can make some hay. As long as the question is Windows versus Windows, or portable PC versus iPad, I think that Windows RT loses. But, when people look just tablets, then I think Microsoft can make inroads. The real question is....

 

Windows RT tablet, iPad or Android tablet?

 

This is where Microsoft can win. Surface can hold its own against the iPad or any Android tablet, except for the two things usually mentioned, reliance on desktop mode, and lack of apps. I keep hearing price, but that shouldn't be an issue. Yes, as generally priced (with TouchCover) Surface is more, but you get more. You don't want the TouchCover, don't buy it.

The Post-PC Era

Once again, an article on Tech Republic got me thinking.

What's behind the slump in PC sales? Can the industry turn around?

Specifically, it was the following lines at the end of the article.

‘Between now and the next "crucial holiday buying season," it's imperative that PC makers who want to avoid that fate put together product lineups that aren't so, you know, PC-like.’

This got me to thinking about the whole concept of the PC, and what a post-PC era might be.

First, I didn’t buy the post-PC era BS when Steve Jobs said it, and I still don’t…well, maybe not.  PCs are not going anywhere.  We are going to be using PCs for the next several decades.  There is still a need for powerful desktop PCs. 

The problem is that most of us are learning that we don’t really need a PC for most of what we have done on a PC for the last couple of decades.  We really do not need PCs to surf the web, to check our email, check Facebook, watch a video or two.  Netflix and Hulu Plus are both available on tablets and smartphones (Hulu too, if you work at it).  Some tablets even have HDMI ports, so you can push it to your TV.  You can even do Word Processing on a tablet, if you add a keyboard. 

It is beyond these simple tasks where I start to see the weakness of my tablet, but I do not do them very often.  Picture editing is possible, but I find nothing to match Paint.net, which I have on my PC (it’s free).  But, as I said, I do not need Paint.net very often. 

I can easily imagine a future where there is one PC in my house.  Right now there are 4.  As a family, we have not made the switch to tablets.  My son likes PC games too much, and I am the only one with a tablet.  But, I can imagine each of us with our own tablet, and one PC for the things that require a PC.  I cannot yet imagine not having a PC at home.

The PC has dominated for the last two decades because of its versatility.  It could be anything.  It could be a lightweight portable for hauling across the country.  It could be a multimedia machine for listening to music, watching videos, even recording and producing them both.  It could be a graphics workstation, handling the largest pictures with ease.  It became our window to the internet, to email and webpages, to social networking and Wikipedia and all those other things.  For many, that window to the internet is really all a PC was…at home.  That job is being taken over by smartphones and tablets.

I quoted the end of the article above, but I am now going to quote the beginning.

“PCs are for work, tablets are for fun.”

And he quickly followed with…

“No one climbed on Santa's lap and asked for a new laptop. They wanted a Kindle or an iPad, or maybe even a cheap Android tablet, all of which cost less than a PC and are easier to wrap.”

Tablets were the hot gift of the season.  Now, it could be that tablets are just this season’s Tickle Me Elmo, but I don’t think so.  The momentum has shifted away from PCs towards tablets, but the real momentum is for the hearts and minds of users.  Lots of people still use PCs, but people don’t want PCs.  They may still need them, but that need is like how some people actually need Minivans.  They may need it, but it is not what they want, what they desire, what they dream about.

So, maybe we have entered the post-PC era.  The era when the PC slips from being an object of desire, like a sports car, and becomes the tool that we use because we need it, like the Minivan.

A Rant - Windows Surface

There is a lot of stupidity running around in the Tech Media, and even more so among those who comment on the tech blogs. Of course, any major announcement by Apple or Microsoft is a chance for all the haters to try to sound profound...almost all of them fail...and for the fanboys to come out of the walls in support of their side.

Now, I admit to being a bit of a hater when it comes to Apple, but mostly I just get annoyed with the choir of angels they think should sing every time something new runs up the Apple flag pole. Apple makes it, it's perfect. Apple doesn't make it, it's a failure. And of course, sales figures and the number 100 billion will come up as the defense of their position.

Now, Microsoft made a big announcement on Monday, something which I have already commented on, but all day Monday, the tech blogs were just full of crap...yes, crap that is the only thing you can call it when it smells like that. For the Applefanboys, nothing from Microsoft can be a success unless it can match the sales of Apple, and unless the pile of money under Steve Ballmer starts to grow closer to the size of the one under Tim Cook.

I should actually rephrase that, because, they would never use the word unless, that could be an expression of doubt in the inevitable dominance of Apple. They would say that nothing from Microsoft can be a success BECAUSE the sales do not match Apple. Of course, they always forget the sales of Windows, but oh well.

Now, we come to Microsoft Surface, a spiffy new tablet that will be available later this year. First, we must understand that there are two versions of Surface, and this seems to confuse the Applefanboys of the tech media, though it doesn't seem to confuse anyone who has been paying attention to Windows 8 over the last six months.

Surface will be an ARM based tablet running Windows RT.

Surface Pro will be an Intel based tablet running Windows 8.

Now, if that didn't clear it up, then please go away and come back when you understand the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8 and the difference between ARM processors and Intel processors. It has been all over the media for months. I am sorry, but there is no excuse for anyone who calls themselves a technology professional to not know the difference, and when I hear questions like, "well, which one are we supposed to buy?" from someone whose credentials should include technology professional, then I wonder at what they have been doing, because they certainly aren't smart enough to be an technology professional.

If you are a technology professional, you should be knowledgeable, and if you are knowledgable about technology, then the only proper answer to...

Which one should I buy?

is...

The one that best fits your needs.

So, should you buy Surface or Surface Pro? Well, which one best fits your needs?

For all of you who are not technology professionals, you may need some help with that answer...and frankly, that is beyond the scope of this post, but technology professionals do not have that excuse.  They are the ones who are supposed to be giving advice to everyone else.

And then...

Way too many of the pundits are concerned that Microsoft is going to anger their OEM partners with this move.

Oh, and you think that Microsoft did all this without considering that? How stupid are you? Don't answer that, I think I can guess. Well, let's just assume for a moment that Microsoft has some smart people working for them. They considered this point. They decided they could survive this potential problem and they moved forward. So, let's consider why.

• The OEM response to Windows Phone has been less than enthusiastic.

Now, why does that make a difference? I think if you look at the sales of Windows Phone you will understand. More than a year on, and Windows Phone is just not selling very well. There are multiple reasons why, but one big one is that when you walk into your local phone store, you see the iPhone, which needs no explanation and no one compares it to other phones on size, battery life, processor speed, etc. No beef with that, it has earned that status, but I think it is different than other phones.

Next to that you have all the Android phones, which DO complete on feel, weight, processor power, battery life, etc. And, after that you move on to Windows Phone. Unfortunately, most of the Windows Phones don't compete well when all you compare is the internal hardware. It reminds me a little of the AMD/Intel wars, when AMD processors lost because they had slower processor speeds, despite outdoing Intel processors at the same speed. Windows Phone works faster on lesser hardware, that is all there is to it, but that isn't something you can get people to understand easily. It also reminds me of the megapixel wars, both past and present. Anyone with a brain knows that megapixels are only one factor, and that optics, that is the glass out in front of the sensor, are equally if not more important, but that cannot be explained in a sound bite.

The point is that Microsoft could easily feel that the phone OEMs have let them down. It seems that Samsung and HTC both put out better phones for Android while leaving Windows Phone behind. Only Nokia seems interesting in having Windows Phone as their flagship, and they don't do Android.

To a lesser extent, Microsoft could feel the same way about the PC OEMs, but I feel that the ultrabooks might be changing that.

• Android Tablets don't have that much going for them.

Despite what Androidfanboys would have you believe, the Android tablet is not doing all that well. There are many reasons for that and none of those reasons has a place in this essay, except maybe one. Among the hardware designs, there are few big winners. There are some good tablets, and some with cool features, but there is not a lot of WOW! in the Android tablet stable.

These first two tie together into one big thought....in my mind.

Microsoft does not trust the tablet OEMs to produce tablets with WOW!

So, they did it themselves, and thus was born Surface.

But, there is more to look at and it concerns the strategy surrounding Surface. Microsoft could have taken the Kindle Fire route. They could have produced a tablet and sold it near cost, taking no profit from the hardware, and making it up in services, apps, games, music, video, etc. This is a good strategy for Amazon, because they have all the services you could ever ask for, but if you consider, Microsoft it does not work as well, plus it leaves no place for Microsoft's OEM partners to go. They cannot afford to sell at a loss, because they don't get any part of Microsoft's services revenue. The OEMs would be cut out of the deal.

So, where did Microsoft go? Well, the key is to look at the prices mentioned for Surface. Nothing specific was revealed, but the word comparable was used. Surface comparable with the iPad, and Surface Pro comparable with ultrabooks. This places the Surface in the premium range. It sets the gold standard, but has a price to match.

So, where does this leave the OEMs? Well, they can attempt to match the Surface and go head to head against it, and the iPad, or they can attempt to come in below the Surface, going with a lower price, and of course a lower feature set.

More Thoughts on Microsoft Surface

Microsoft Surface is one of the coolest concepts in the Tablet arena, and many questions have been raised, some legitimate, because Microsoft failed to mention any details about it.  So, we don't know the exact cost, the exact specifications, the battery life, or...much of anything. 

One thing that has some worried is that Microsoft is entering into the hardware business, in what should be direct competition with their partners.  Personally, I have a bit of faith in Microsoft.  After the successes of the XBox, Windows Phone 7, and Windows 7.  Some will point out that Windows Phone 7 has not been a huge sales success, but anyone who has used it knows that the OS is a success.  It is the best smartphone OS now, even including iOS 6, and only lacks the app ecosystem.  It is not the same sales success, but it is still better. 

The problem for Windows 8/RT should be obvious when you look at the available Windows 7 and Android tablets.  From the standpoint of hardware, they just don't measure up to the iPad.  The Transformer Prime is probably the best example of the lot, and it comes fairly close to the iPad, and it is priced accordingly.  Most just don't really come close to the iPad, but they do offer the advantage of price. 

Of course, Windows tablets do not offer the advantage of price.  Most of them cost hundreds more than an iPad.  Of course, you are getting a true computer, a PC and not just an iPod Touch with a larger screen.  Which leads to a quick (hopefully) aside. 

iPad fans will say that the iPad is much more than an iPod Touch with a larger screen.  They are wrong.  The internals of the iPad are the same as the iPhone, same processor, same graphics, same everything except the screen.  Now, I do not want to understate the importance of that larger screen.  Apps that are unusable on a 3.5" screen are wonderful on a 9" screen, but that really is the only difference. 

The true difference between the iPad is the variety of apps.  As I said, apps that would be unusable on an iPhone are wonderful on an iPad, but that has nothing to do with Apple.  Apple didn't create a better device, they just attached a bigger screen.  It is the developers who deserve the credit for making the iPad into something more than an iPod Touch with a larger screen.  Well, not really, because that is still what it is. 

Now, close the aside and back to Surface. 

Windows tablets today are PCs without keyboards.  Full PC processors, full I/O support and all the rest.  But, no matter what we look at, we see that the Windows tablets available today are trying very hard to compete against the iPad, and they fail, because they have less battery life,greater size and weight, overly long boot times, and an interface that is not designed for Touch.  Yes, Windows 7 is touch ready, it supports two finger gestures and most of the other cool touch features, but the parts of the UI are so small you cannot use them with your fingers in many cases.  But, the real point is that to stay close to the iPad in price, they have had to skimp on the hardware, and it shows. 

The takeaway from all this, is that Microsoft cannot rely on the OEMs to produce a top of the line tablet.  Even the best Android tablet on the market has admitted that it cannot go head to head against the iPad at the same price.  This is important, because Windows RT tablets are going to be Android tablets with a different OS.  You should be able to take the Asus Transformer Prime and flash it with Windows RT. 

That's for ARM tablets, but if we look at the Windows 7 tablets, it is the same story.  Too many compromises to stay close to the iPad in price.  Just recently, we have see a few Windows 7 tablets that have attempted to do it right, the Asus EeeSlate, Samsung Slate, and the Dell Latitude ST.  Overall, these look quite good, and they are priced well above the iPad, but they still don't quite measure up. 

What Microsoft needed was a flagship.  The Windows equivalent of the Google Nexus.  Something that shows just exactly what you can do with Windows 8/RT, and I believe that Microsoft did not have enough faith in any of its OEM partners to leave that job up to them. 

When I remember that there were rumors over a year ago that Microsoft was thinking of crossing over into hardware for tablets, it makes me wonder if Microsoft didn't pull aside one or more of their partners to ask them to produce a flagship tablet.  If Microsoft didn't point out to Dell or HP for example that they needed a flagship tablet.  I am also wondering if Dell and HP didn't turn them down.   

HP already has the Windows Slate disaster standing against them.  Steve Ballmer must have felt like an idiot, when HP dropped the Slate after acquiring Palm.  Steve Ballmer made the HP Slate a centerpiece of his presentation, and then HP dropped it.  That must have seemed like a real stab in the back.  Dell has never done a Windows tablet until now, and if the Latitude St is the best Dell could do, then I can understand Microsoft leaving them behind. 

Microsoft needs a flagship tablet for Windows 8/RT, and no other partner was big enough to make it.  Especially for the Windows 8 tablet, they needed a big PC OEM and that really means either HP or Dell.  With them out of the running, Microsoft has only one choice, make it themselves.  And so, we have Surface. 

Microsoft said that Surface will have a price comparable to other tablets, and Surface Pro comparable to ultrabooks.  Let's rephrase that.  Surface will have a price that matches the iPad.  Surface Pro will have a price that comparable to the low to middle range of the ultrabooks, maybe even higher. 

This is the flagship.  The is the pinnacle.  Surface is a match for the iPad, at least in my opinion.  Give a choice between an iPad and Surface, I would not hesitate in choosing Surface.  Surface will be a premium tablet, both RT and Pro.  Every OEM will be able to produce a tablet and sell if for less than Surface, and that is the idea.  Microsoft will take the high road, up where the iPad is, where the real risk is.  No other tablet has succeeded in that price range.  OEMs will be able to produce lesser tablets and sell them at a lower price. 

I think that these lower priced tablets will be critical to the success of Windows 8/RT.  I am not sure that Windows RT can beat the iPad if Surface is the only player.  Microsoft needs a lower priced entry point for Windows RT.  Surface Pro and Windows 8 should be a different story.  Yes, they will be competing with the iPad, but they are clearly going to cost more, but when you compare the full computing power of Windows 8, I think you will have a compelling alternative to iPad, Android and even Windows RT. 

So, I hope that I have given a few extra points to consider.  Unlike some, I don't think that Microsoft threw its OEM partners under the bus.  I doubt that this was a big surprise to them.  I think they knew this was coming, and they will be scrambling to fill in underneath Surface, and to provide other innovative solutions, like the ones we saw at Computex recently.  I think that HP and Dell might have been given a chance to produce something like Surface and been refused.  Though I also think it is possible that Steve Ballmer did not make the offer to HP after the Slate embarassment. 

One final aside.  There is a rumor that Windows RT is going to cost $85 a copy.  So far as I know, this was a single rumor, unconfirmed that has been repeated so often by the Tech Media that they all believe it now.  I don't buy it.  What I see if a bunch of anti-MS tech writers (which is most of them) trotting out tired reasons why Microsoft will fail without making any attempt to verify the rumor.  They want Microsoft to fail, and so they repeat any rumor that makes it look like Microsoft is full of idiots. 

A price tag that high would cripple sales of Windows RT tablets.  Windows RT tablets will be competing directly against Android tablets and they do not do enough more to justify paying nearly $100 more for Windows RT.  Remember, the hardware is the same, therefore the cost is the same.  With the already tiny margins in the tablet field (outside of iPad), you cannot expect OEMs to take $85 less on each sale, and if you price them $85 more than an identically specced Android tablet, then they simply won't sell. 

I don't believe that Surface is Microsoft's attempt to push the OEMs out of the way and take over completely whatever market there may be for Windows tablets.  I believe that Microsoft wanted a no compromise flagship tablet that would stand up to direct comparison to the iPad, and I believe that Microsoft decided that the only way to get it was to make it themselves. 

Below is the chart of the prices of iPad and all the top Android tablets that I could find.  Where ever possible, I pulled prices from the manufacturers website.  I was not looking to find the lowest available price, but the manufacturer's suggested retail price. 

	8GB	16GB	32GB	64GB
iPad		$499	$599	$699
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1		$499	$599
Galaxy Tab 2		$399
Acer Iconia A200	$329	$349
Acer Iconia A500		$349
Acer Iconia A700			$449
Asus EeePad Transformer TF101		$377	$599
Asus EeePad Transformer TF300			$384
Asus Transformer Prime		$379	$499	$599
Sony		$399	$499
Toshiba Thrive	$379	$399	$479
Toshiba Excite		$449	$529	$649
Toshiba Excite LE		$529	$599
Motorola Xoom		$499
Motorola Xyboard		$499
Lenovo IdeaPad S	$399	$449	$499
Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet		$499	$569	$669