4 ms·

To me, it's almost as much of a reflection on Microsoft's OEMs as it is on Microsoft that, in 3 years, Microsoft has iterated from it's first device, which was

To me, it's almost as much of a reflection on Microsoft's OEMs as it is on Microsoft that, in 3 years, Microsoft has iterated from it's first device, which was a commercial flop, to a tablet/ultrabook that's only real criticism is the lack of a USB Type-C port. Where would Microsoft be today if they had given up on their OEMs 5 years sooner, and gone head to head with Apple on hardware?

josefresco 11y ago
The OEM's participated in a race to the bottom in an effort to maximize how many people bought PC's. This caused damage to the Windows/PC brand. By the time they pivoted to "ultrabooks" the damage was done and these brands were seen as low end/discount unable to produce quality PC's. I'm not sure that Microsoft could have stopped that, even if they rolled out a "high end" Surface like device 5 years prior. It believe it's the lack of a low end product that makes Apple, and now Microsoft attractive to premium buyers.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > The OEM's participated in a race to the bottom in an effort to maximize how many people bought PC's. This caused damage to the Windows/PC brand. That's what strengthened the Windows brand in the first place - availability, unbiquity, and the sense of it being the "default" ("nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft"). Over time, the lack of control over the quality resulted in variation, and Apple was eventually able to capitalize on that by selling themselves as consistent experience, but that's only within the last decade. The OEM situation with Windows has been the case literally since before Windows (it existed during the DOS era as well). It's good that Microsoft is finally responding to this pressure and providing a default, consistent experience (analogous to the Nexus experience on Android). But I wouldn't say that it's what did damage to the Windows brand, because without it, there wouldn't be a powerful Windows/Microsoft brand in the first place.
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    Exactly - how can you hurt the Windows brand when the whole point of the product was to commoditize the hardware to bring the cost of the total solution - hardware + software - down in price? Microsoft's goal has always been to encourage and in some cases even mandate interoperability. That's typically been thought of as a good thing, but you can't be surprised when hardware makers do everything they can to cut corners - when you're selling a commodity you can't charge anything above the prevailing marginal cost of production. The only path to success is to ruthlessly cut the cost of production.
    - jameshart 11y ago
      If your product is being commoditized, the only way to seek margins is to fight commoditization. You do that by deifferentiating your products. And what laptop OEMs seem to have concluded is that differentiating on build quality/design/attention to detail/form factor wasn't an option. And they continued to believe that even when Apple demonstrated conclusively that people would go out of their way to buy Apple hardware, rip off the Mac OS that they'd paid for, and install Linux/Windows on it. Why is it obvious to Microsoft that the Surface Pro, or the SurfaceBook, is a valid addition to the PC hardware marketplace, but it wasn't obvious to any of the many competing OEMs?
      - CountSessine 11y ago
        How profitable is the Surface for Microsoft? Does Microsoft consider it a loss-leader reference design? If it's been profitable, why hasn't anyone else in the PC space copied it?
        josefresco 11y ago
        I believe (don't quote me on this) Microsoft is closing in on a billion (1) dollars in annual revenue from Surface. Not sure how much is "profit" but someone who follows earning more closely might be able to clarify.
pavlov 11y ago
Microsoft actually did start competing with Apple on hardware already back in 2006: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/microsoft-launches-the-zune/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/microsoft-launches-the-zu... So clearly Ballmer had this in the cards for a long time. The various iterations of Zune, even though commercially unsuccessful, laid the groundwork for both the "Metro" UI language and Microsoft's in-house hardware design. Maybe Zune was a necessary "weaning period" in reducing Microsoft's OEM dependency.
- Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
  The Zune wasn't half bad. I liked it much more than my ipod at the time.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    It's biggest problem was timing -- launching less than a year before the iPhone was a huge problem. The market had moved on from the entire dedicated MP3 player space before the Zune had a chance to find a market and iterate on the product to refine it.
    - rchaud 11y ago
      I don't know if that's true. The first few iPhones were very expensive unlocked and on contract, required signing up for a $70-$100/month phone plan, which was close to double what dumbphone users were paying. The iPod Nano, iPod Touch and iPod Classic saw updated versions each year, slowing down only once iPhones and Androids became mainstream and replaced dedicated music players.
      - shmed 11y ago
        The original iPhone was 400$ without contract (it was locked to AT&T though). However, it could be jail broken by simply going on a website using the built in browser. Unlocking it wasn't much more complicated too (within the launch week, you could unlock it with a turbo sim, and couple months later software unlock were released).
halo 11y ago
I'm under the impression they were legally prohibited from "[giving] up on their OEMs 5 years sooner" due to US antitrust action. DOJ oversight ended in May 2011 and the Surface line was announced in June 2012.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Yep this was painfully clear a long time ago. Their entire tablet PC/pen computing stuff was DOA because of shitty vendors. (And MS not really making the UI accessible, but that's another point.)
panglott 11y ago
Interesting b/c Microsoft had made a big push to promote the tablet form factor back in 2002, but the OEM devices weren't popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Tablet_PC_Edition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Tablet_PC_...

josefresco 11y ago

The OEM's participated in a race to the bottom in an effort to maximize how many people bought PC's. This caused damage to the Windows/PC brand. By the time they pivoted to "ultrabooks" the damage was done and these brands were seen as low end/discount unable to produce quality PC's. I'm not sure that Microsoft could have stopped that, even if they rolled out a "high end" Surface like device 5 years prior. It believe it's the lack of a low end product that makes Apple, and now Microsoft attractive to premium buyers.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> The OEM's participated in a race to the bottom in an effort to maximize how many people bought PC's. This caused damage to the Windows/PC brand. That's what strengthened the Windows brand in the first place - availability, unbiquity, and the sense of it being the "default" ("nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft"). Over time, the lack of control over the quality resulted in variation, and Apple was eventually able to capitalize on that by selling themselves as consistent experience, but that's only within the last decade. The OEM situation with Windows has been the case literally since before Windows (it existed during the DOS era as well). It's good that Microsoft is finally responding to this pressure and providing a default, consistent experience (analogous to the Nexus experience on Android). But I wouldn't say that it's what did damage to the Windows brand, because without it, there wouldn't be a powerful Windows/Microsoft brand in the first place.
- CountSessine 11y ago
  Exactly - how can you hurt the Windows brand when the whole point of the product was to commoditize the hardware to bring the cost of the total solution - hardware + software - down in price? Microsoft's goal has always been to encourage and in some cases even mandate interoperability. That's typically been thought of as a good thing, but you can't be surprised when hardware makers do everything they can to cut corners - when you're selling a commodity you can't charge anything above the prevailing marginal cost of production. The only path to success is to ruthlessly cut the cost of production.
  - jameshart 11y ago
    If your product is being commoditized, the only way to seek margins is to fight commoditization. You do that by deifferentiating your products. And what laptop OEMs seem to have concluded is that differentiating on build quality/design/attention to detail/form factor wasn't an option. And they continued to believe that even when Apple demonstrated conclusively that people would go out of their way to buy Apple hardware, rip off the Mac OS that they'd paid for, and install Linux/Windows on it. Why is it obvious to Microsoft that the Surface Pro, or the SurfaceBook, is a valid addition to the PC hardware marketplace, but it wasn't obvious to any of the many competing OEMs?
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      How profitable is the Surface for Microsoft? Does Microsoft consider it a loss-leader reference design? If it's been profitable, why hasn't anyone else in the PC space copied it?
      - josefresco 11y ago
        I believe (don't quote me on this) Microsoft is closing in on a billion (1) dollars in annual revenue from Surface. Not sure how much is "profit" but someone who follows earning more closely might be able to clarify.

pavlov 11y ago

Microsoft actually did start competing with Apple on hardware already back in 2006: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/microsoft-launches-the-zune/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/microsoft-launches-the-zu... So clearly Ballmer had this in the cards for a long time. The various iterations of Zune, even though commercially unsuccessful, laid the groundwork for both the "Metro" UI language and Microsoft's in-house hardware design. Maybe Zune was a necessary "weaning period" in reducing Microsoft's OEM dependency.

Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
The Zune wasn't half bad. I liked it much more than my ipod at the time.
- cwyers 11y ago
  It's biggest problem was timing -- launching less than a year before the iPhone was a huge problem. The market had moved on from the entire dedicated MP3 player space before the Zune had a chance to find a market and iterate on the product to refine it.
  - rchaud 11y ago
    I don't know if that's true. The first few iPhones were very expensive unlocked and on contract, required signing up for a $70-$100/month phone plan, which was close to double what dumbphone users were paying. The iPod Nano, iPod Touch and iPod Classic saw updated versions each year, slowing down only once iPhones and Androids became mainstream and replaced dedicated music players.
    - shmed 11y ago
      The original iPhone was 400$ without contract (it was locked to AT&T though). However, it could be jail broken by simply going on a website using the built in browser. Unlocking it wasn't much more complicated too (within the launch week, you could unlock it with a turbo sim, and couple months later software unlock were released).

halo 11y ago

I'm under the impression they were legally prohibited from "[giving] up on their OEMs 5 years sooner" due to US antitrust action. DOJ oversight ended in May 2011 and the Surface line was announced in June 2012.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Yep this was painfully clear a long time ago. Their entire tablet PC/pen computing stuff was DOA because of shitty vendors. (And MS not really making the UI accessible, but that's another point.)

panglott 11y ago

Interesting b/c Microsoft had made a big push to promote the tablet form factor back in 2002, but the OEM devices weren't popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Tablet_PC_Edition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Tablet_PC_...