5 ms·

Looks more complicated that it sounds. MSFT already did the job of sourcing cables, connectors, and power supplies for all their surface line for the next XXX y

by eb0la 9y ago

Looks more complicated that it sounds. MSFT already did the job of sourcing cables, connectors, and power supplies for all their surface line for the next XXX years (where XXX is the time they're commited to support all their hardware products). Switching to USB-C from the bussiness perspective would be a great expense... and would involve higher price tag.

franciscop 9y ago
That is what I mean, it's basically a similar situation to 2005's IE. From the business perspective it wouldn't have made sense to support standards and would have involved a higher price tag. What this means is now people (those who buy an extra $200 device) will be happy for a while until their devices start to be incompatible or work slower than the competition who have a single cable type for everything. Then they will resent the brand and thus not buy again. Of course totally my opinion.
- nailer 9y ago
  I like a single magnetic cable that does power and data. Until there's some open connector that does that [1] I'm happy to keep using the excellent Surface Dock cables. They could add USB C, but I still have more USB A devices, and I suspect others do too. [1] USB C isn't magnetic, and the fake 'magnetic USB C' is just an adaptor and doesn't do data.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zghst 9y ago
Good point, however this whole device line is an experiment itself. Realistically, I decline to entertain Microsoft is risking building these devices in a declining market to make a buck. Their approach, especially with the marketing, imagery, the counterpoints to Mac (pretty much imitating Apple) all points to constructing an image, instilling consumer confidence (and displaying a lot of ego). The deeper purpose of these devices prevail, even if they don't sell, what they bet on returns value. They could've started a low cost evolution on a single device instead of handicapping the whole Surface line. Now it has this whole funk of "no USB-C" all over it and it increases the cost of when they upgrade the whole line. And seeing as Surface is experimental (not core to MS, they would shutter it rather defend if it goes south), I doubt that they bought an overwhelming amount of cables, connectors, etc., I think it has more to do with a slower product development cycle due to politics.

by eb0la 9y ago

franciscop 9y ago

That is what I mean, it's basically a similar situation to 2005's IE. From the business perspective it wouldn't have made sense to support standards and would have involved a higher price tag. What this means is now people (those who buy an extra $200 device) will be happy for a while until their devices start to be incompatible or work slower than the competition who have a single cable type for everything. Then they will resent the brand and thus not buy again. Of course totally my opinion.

nailer 9y ago
I like a single magnetic cable that does power and data. Until there's some open connector that does that [1] I'm happy to keep using the excellent Surface Dock cables. They could add USB C, but I still have more USB A devices, and I suspect others do too. [1] USB C isn't magnetic, and the fake 'magnetic USB C' is just an adaptor and doesn't do data.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zghst 9y ago

Good point, however this whole device line is an experiment itself. Realistically, I decline to entertain Microsoft is risking building these devices in a declining market to make a buck. Their approach, especially with the marketing, imagery, the counterpoints to Mac (pretty much imitating Apple) all points to constructing an image, instilling consumer confidence (and displaying a lot of ego). The deeper purpose of these devices prevail, even if they don't sell, what they bet on returns value. They could've started a low cost evolution on a single device instead of handicapping the whole Surface line. Now it has this whole funk of "no USB-C" all over it and it increases the cost of when they upgrade the whole line. And seeing as Surface is experimental (not core to MS, they would shutter it rather defend if it goes south), I doubt that they bought an overwhelming amount of cables, connectors, etc., I think it has more to do with a slower product development cycle due to politics.