5 ms·

Microsoft fails to pacify PC vendors about Surface tablets

15 points by Toshio 14y ago

damian2000 14y ago
Microsoft seriously needs to get some new acronyms ... WinRT (Windows Runtime) is the name of the new SDK that all new Windows 8 (Metro apps) use. Whereas Windows RT is the name of the Windows 8 OS running on ARM. WinRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime WindowsRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
- cargo8 14y ago
  Why is that entirely unreasonable? WindowsRT only metro apps so it kind of fits, no?
  - damian2000 14y ago
    Naming an OS after an SDK seems wrong to me... ;-) sort of like if they called it Windows COM+ or Windows .NET
    - saurik 14y ago
      I take it you don't remember Windows .NET Server 2003? ;P (The .NET moniker actually got attached to so many things that there was supposedly a serious memo sent internally asking other departments at Microsoft to make the point that .NET wasn't just a buzzword, it was a meaningful brand for a specific product.)
      - damian2000 14y ago
        Yeah I vaguely remember that one with some hilarity. ;-) I posted a blog post about the topic recently actually ... "Why was .NET called .NET?" ... http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/05/why-was-net-called-net.html http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/05/why-was-net-called-net.htm...
- gagege 14y ago
  It's similar to NT(New Technology). It's just as meaningless and twice as confusing.
JoelSutherland 14y ago
Why would they build a Windows RT tablet? Intel now makes price/performance/power-competitive x86 chips that can run full Windows. Microsoft only made Windows RT as a hedge against another Intel mobile failure and as a way to push developers to make WinRT apps.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  > Intel now makes price/performance/power-competitive x86 chips that can run full Windows. They do? Where's the evidence?
  - JoelSutherland 14y ago
    Intel Medfield idles at 2.6 Watts and peaks at 3.7 Watts. The Windows 8 tablets will be using its successor, Clover Trail. there are roughly 40 tablets that will launch with it. Intel isn't efficient enough for phones (see the comment below about the 1W tdp ARM SoCs) but they are efficient enough for tablets. Every report indicates they are price competitive as well. Additionally, Clover Trail is being printed at 32nm vs. Krait's 28nm. It was just announced that Intel is going to bump up their timeline and move their Atom SoCs to 22nm next year. It's not like Intel is destroying ARM by any means. They are barely keeping up. But that's HUGE on Windows where you have decades of legacy x86 apps that you might want to run.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      This is all Intel vaporware. Until they release something with comparable battery life to ARM chips, Microsoft would have to be insane not to choose ARM.
  - vetinari 14y ago
    It is called Medfield: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z246...
- gsnedders 14y ago
brudgers 14y ago
The article fails to mention that HP and Dell haven't exactly been setting the world on fire with sales of Android tablets nor has anyone else other than Amazon. HP lost their shirt on their last foray into slates. The only business model which seems to work well currently in the slate market is to make money on software and services, not the hardware (e.g. Apple and Amazon). Microsoft is clearly in a position to use that model. HP and Dell aren't. Furthermore, low hardware margins will make it difficult for those companies to create quality consumer hardware for an untested market.
- czr80 14y ago
  "The only business model which seems to work well currently in the slate market is to make money on software and services, not the hardware (e.g. Apple and Amazon)." Huh? Apple makes tons of money on the hardware and a (relatively) small amount on software and services. Amazon is trying to buy share with cheap hardware and eventually make money off associated services, but it's too early to say that this is really working well as a model.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    Your point about Apple is correct (I was editing on my phone). On the other hand, Amazon has a proven track record with the Kindle line. Fire is not their entry into the slate segment.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- hammersend 14y ago
  "The article fails to mention that HP and Dell haven't exactly been setting the world on fire with sales of Android tablets" HP has never released a single Android tablet and Dell's Streak efforts have been half-hearted at best so your entire comment is extremely specious.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
So instead of trying to outrun the Surface, they're just folding? And then do what? Their Android tablets have been a failure. Are they going to make their own tablet OS? Good luck with that, the shittiest software in history has been made by OEMs. Ever see the crap they build and bundle with Windows? The crashing and bloatware make the machine unusable. WebOS was quite decent though(though it was made by the old Palm rather than HP), but we all know where it ended up. Why don't they take it as a challenge to improve their Windows RT offerings instead of churning out the same crap from the same ODMs that everyone else is using? Their profit may be squeezed by license costs, but surely there's a place for a truly innovative product? Surface runs the exact same Windows RT that the OEMs can use. MS is not stacking the deck regarding the software.
- lmm 14y ago
  You can call it a failure if you want, but ASUS has made some very good, useful android tablets; likewise Samsung. They may not be matching ipad sales yet but they're gradually gaining momentum, much like android on phones a few years ago. Suppose you're one of these manufacturers and you want to make a new tablet. You can build it on android, where you get thousands of existing tablet-optimized apps, an established developer base that's increasing that number by the day, and no licensing fees (well, maybe a small patent shakedown from MS if you decide to pay them). Or you can build it on WinRT where there are no apps, no developers, and you pay MS. Why on earth would you choose the second option? It's funny you mention how WebOS went, because I expect WinRT to do roughly the same thing.
- velodrome 14y ago
  The OEMs are lazy and risk adverse. They just want to sell their hardware. I don't understand why the OEMs don't see the long term picture. Would they rather have a totally dominant Apple where they have no chance of selling their product? They should take the opportunity to learn from Microsoft's example and help push the platform forward with great hardware devices - by taking risks. The more they give way to Microsoft, the more more they will cripple their own business. The same can be said about Google-Motorola situation. OEMs should focus on what they are good at. Making hardware.

15 points by Toshio 14y ago

damian2000 14y ago

Microsoft seriously needs to get some new acronyms ... WinRT (Windows Runtime) is the name of the new SDK that all new Windows 8 (Metro apps) use. Whereas Windows RT is the name of the Windows 8 OS running on ARM. WinRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime WindowsRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT

cargo8 14y ago
Why is that entirely unreasonable? WindowsRT only metro apps so it kind of fits, no?
- damian2000 14y ago
  Naming an OS after an SDK seems wrong to me... ;-) sort of like if they called it Windows COM+ or Windows .NET
  - saurik 14y ago
    I take it you don't remember Windows .NET Server 2003? ;P (The .NET moniker actually got attached to so many things that there was supposedly a serious memo sent internally asking other departments at Microsoft to make the point that .NET wasn't just a buzzword, it was a meaningful brand for a specific product.)
    - damian2000 14y ago
      Yeah I vaguely remember that one with some hilarity. ;-) I posted a blog post about the topic recently actually ... "Why was .NET called .NET?" ... http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/05/why-was-net-called-net.html http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/05/why-was-net-called-net.htm...
gagege 14y ago
It's similar to NT(New Technology). It's just as meaningless and twice as confusing.

JoelSutherland 14y ago

Why would they build a Windows RT tablet? Intel now makes price/performance/power-competitive x86 chips that can run full Windows. Microsoft only made Windows RT as a hedge against another Intel mobile failure and as a way to push developers to make WinRT apps.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
> Intel now makes price/performance/power-competitive x86 chips that can run full Windows. They do? Where's the evidence?
- JoelSutherland 14y ago
  Intel Medfield idles at 2.6 Watts and peaks at 3.7 Watts. The Windows 8 tablets will be using its successor, Clover Trail. there are roughly 40 tablets that will launch with it. Intel isn't efficient enough for phones (see the comment below about the 1W tdp ARM SoCs) but they are efficient enough for tablets. Every report indicates they are price competitive as well. Additionally, Clover Trail is being printed at 32nm vs. Krait's 28nm. It was just announced that Intel is going to bump up their timeline and move their Atom SoCs to 22nm next year. It's not like Intel is destroying ARM by any means. They are barely keeping up. But that's HUGE on Windows where you have decades of legacy x86 apps that you might want to run.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    This is all Intel vaporware. Until they release something with comparable battery life to ARM chips, Microsoft would have to be insane not to choose ARM.
- vetinari 14y ago
  It is called Medfield: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z246...
gsnedders 14y ago

brudgers 14y ago

The article fails to mention that HP and Dell haven't exactly been setting the world on fire with sales of Android tablets nor has anyone else other than Amazon. HP lost their shirt on their last foray into slates. The only business model which seems to work well currently in the slate market is to make money on software and services, not the hardware (e.g. Apple and Amazon). Microsoft is clearly in a position to use that model. HP and Dell aren't. Furthermore, low hardware margins will make it difficult for those companies to create quality consumer hardware for an untested market.

czr80 14y ago
"The only business model which seems to work well currently in the slate market is to make money on software and services, not the hardware (e.g. Apple and Amazon)." Huh? Apple makes tons of money on the hardware and a (relatively) small amount on software and services. Amazon is trying to buy share with cheap hardware and eventually make money off associated services, but it's too early to say that this is really working well as a model.
- brudgers 14y ago
  Your point about Apple is correct (I was editing on my phone). On the other hand, Amazon has a proven track record with the Kindle line. Fire is not their entry into the slate segment.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
hammersend 14y ago
"The article fails to mention that HP and Dell haven't exactly been setting the world on fire with sales of Android tablets" HP has never released a single Android tablet and Dell's Streak efforts have been half-hearted at best so your entire comment is extremely specious.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

So instead of trying to outrun the Surface, they're just folding? And then do what? Their Android tablets have been a failure. Are they going to make their own tablet OS? Good luck with that, the shittiest software in history has been made by OEMs. Ever see the crap they build and bundle with Windows? The crashing and bloatware make the machine unusable. WebOS was quite decent though(though it was made by the old Palm rather than HP), but we all know where it ended up. Why don't they take it as a challenge to improve their Windows RT offerings instead of churning out the same crap from the same ODMs that everyone else is using? Their profit may be squeezed by license costs, but surely there's a place for a truly innovative product? Surface runs the exact same Windows RT that the OEMs can use. MS is not stacking the deck regarding the software.

lmm 14y ago
You can call it a failure if you want, but ASUS has made some very good, useful android tablets; likewise Samsung. They may not be matching ipad sales yet but they're gradually gaining momentum, much like android on phones a few years ago. Suppose you're one of these manufacturers and you want to make a new tablet. You can build it on android, where you get thousands of existing tablet-optimized apps, an established developer base that's increasing that number by the day, and no licensing fees (well, maybe a small patent shakedown from MS if you decide to pay them). Or you can build it on WinRT where there are no apps, no developers, and you pay MS. Why on earth would you choose the second option? It's funny you mention how WebOS went, because I expect WinRT to do roughly the same thing.
velodrome 14y ago
The OEMs are lazy and risk adverse. They just want to sell their hardware. I don't understand why the OEMs don't see the long term picture. Would they rather have a totally dominant Apple where they have no chance of selling their product? They should take the opportunity to learn from Microsoft's example and help push the platform forward with great hardware devices - by taking risks. The more they give way to Microsoft, the more more they will cripple their own business. The same can be said about Google-Motorola situation. OEMs should focus on what they are good at. Making hardware.