3 ms·

The picture for MS and tablets doesn't look good whatever way they go. 1) The go with touch bolted onto Windows on x86. While it's understandable that they'd

The picture for MS and tablets doesn't look good whatever way they go. 1) The go with touch bolted onto Windows on x86. While it's understandable that they'd like to carry along a base of existing software, what are the chances of the interface working well? The CES demo didn't seem to show any more touch than flipping through pages in an e-reader someone else wrote. The lack of OS features and other apps to show off was very telling. It's doubtful many are surprised that HP hasn't shipped yet. There's been touch support in Windows since XP, but as an add-on, how can it being anything but an awful kludge? Even if they succeed with a Windows offering, it is apt to be a failure in the sense that it'd just be cannibalizing their own netbook/laptop sales. Vendors do seem to be waiting for Intel to ship a lower power x86 part, so a Windows kludge seems to be the most likely path. 2) They could go with something new... run on another CPU (different instruction set) porting some frameworks from Windows but using a new U.I. Can they pull off a great touch U.I? Can they write code that'll deliver speedy performance and good battery life with a low-power CPU? Can they write a few great core apps and make the platform attractive to developers? (They've got no phone to migrate an alternative base from). Can they out-Apple Apple? I don't think it's the competition that's going to be scared of big old Microsoft... more likely the users and developers, and to a lesser degree the stockholders. With something new, a so-so offering would fail big time. (Think Zune). It'd really have to offer something Apple doesn't. If lower price is the only draw, it may get sales without making anybody any money. Apple has room to cut prices if they want to. Having picked up Palm and WebOS and BeOS, I think HP has a better chance of cooking up a viable tablet OS (and hardware bundle) than MS and other partners.

Encosia 16y ago
To be fair, Zune has sold many millions of units and is profitable. It hasn't dominated the market, but it's not very accurate to call the Zune a "big time" failure.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  My friend has an iPod and on more than one occasion people have come up to him and asked him if that was a skin for an iPod. Personally, I consider that a failure. Even in the poop brown colour people still assume it is an iPod.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Microsoft hyped it (like so many such devices) as an “iPod killer”, and dumped massive advertising at it. It has 2 or 3% market share, is perhaps nominally profitable but barely makes a dent in Microsoft’s bottom line, is only available in the USA, and is mainly known to the public as a joke punchline. I don’t see how that can be called success.

Encosia 16y ago

To be fair, Zune has sold many millions of units and is profitable. It hasn't dominated the market, but it's not very accurate to call the Zune a "big time" failure.

X-Istence 16y ago
My friend has an iPod and on more than one occasion people have come up to him and asked him if that was a skin for an iPod. Personally, I consider that a failure. Even in the poop brown colour people still assume it is an iPod.
jacobolus 16y ago
Microsoft hyped it (like so many such devices) as an “iPod killer”, and dumped massive advertising at it. It has 2 or 3% market share, is perhaps nominally profitable but barely makes a dent in Microsoft’s bottom line, is only available in the USA, and is mainly known to the public as a joke punchline. I don’t see how that can be called success.