Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hideous

Re:Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hid... by joe_the_user on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @10:17PM (#6131502)

The entire Windows 8 roll-out was a palpably desperate effort to leverage Microsoft's existing desktop monopoly to gain a hold on what was/is seen as "the future of computing" tablets and phones.

Microsoft did very badly. But this kind of thing is hard to do and is not a one product or an incremental-product-improvements affair.

When Microsoft was fighting for it desktop monopoly, it did a good job of leveraging it's strengths to produce products that were "bad" by many measures but which satisfied a lot of user requirements and offered the end user good value. Surface is a logical product in this long lineage (and in answer to the parent's question, you can't create a Frankenstein product like Surface with focus group because Surface had to be a "quantum leap", an ad-hoc product of bucket chemistry). The problem is that apparently either the tablet market is not fluid enough that a product can win by just being a bucket of feature or Google already muscled into the feature-side and Microsoft isn't getting that part.

And equally, until now, Microsoft didn't actually sh-t all over their basic UI. But the approach of removing the start button subtracted more existing users than "Metro" could hope to gain.

You could frame this affair by saying that not only did MS' greed not abate over the years, it grew large enough to strangle the beast. Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hid... by wvenable on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @10:48PM (#6131617)

Microsoft isn't really leveraging their existing desktop monopoly; if they were doing that they might have had a chance. Instead they competing with Apple and Google on their competitors terms. They created an entirely new locked down API and a store; that isn't leveraging anything.

When Windows-on-ARM was demoed running full Windows 7 with all the fixings I was really interested. But then they crippled it.

There isn't anything wrong with Metro. Having a single OS across every platform is good too. But sacrificing the desktop for WinRT/Metro is the opposite of leveraging their monopoly.

If I was in charge of Microsoft, I'd put the Windows 7 start menu back in Win8. I'd make it so metro applications (and settings) could run windowed in the desktop. I'd focus on simplifying the desktop experience to make it more metro-like without forcing people to switch modes. Windows RT would run all ARM Win32 apps unrestricted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hid... by yulaow on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @10:26PM (#6131533)

Also when microsot was fighting for desktop it made one wonderful thing: brought in the platform a shitload of developers ("... developers, developers!"). That was the main advantage and that is why they succeed (if we ignore the "forced monopoly" part).

But now with windows 8 and metro ui with winRT(/JS) it seems the problem is mainly that, simply, the are not developers who want to join the ship. I personally do not know any company or indipendent developer who is betting himself in it or even just exploring it. Anyone! And, infact, if you look at the win8 market (that is also the RT market and only way to get apps for that os) is almost empty or, if you want to see it differently, full of crap-copy-useless-apps.

At least with windows phone 8 the situation is a bit different, but here who we have to thank? Microsoft or Nokia? I bet in the second one.

[ Parent | on HN ]