4 ms·

Opinion: RT was an interesting strategy and most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. It came at a time when Microsoft didn't have a t

Opinion: RT was an interesting strategy and most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. It came at a time when Microsoft didn't have a tablet to compete with iPad. So, what did they do? They converted their existing Start interface to occupy the entire desktop into Metro Mode. If you think about it, the desktop was always a huge waste of space. After they converted, Microsoft had couple of major issues - if they allowed for tablets running legacy apps or forced x86 on tablets, people would ignore the new interface and continue building legacy apps. The new metro was going to be used by their phones and game consoles in a one screen, 3 devices policy and in case they didn't have metro apps, their phones and consoles would suffer. Windows was always the driver - it had to be. So, they decoupled desktop from their new interface and put it in a new set of devices supporting low powered ARMs. And as such, current Office is never really meant for Touch. So, I am guessing they were forced to bundle a pseudo-desktop along with RT to support Office which is also a cash cow. Would they have loved to remove Desktop completely? I would bet so. Maybe Microsoft foresaw that x86 prices would fall, power would increase and battery life would increase etc., but they had to continue down this road and take a hit because they needed metro apps. My bet is that they were willing to take the hit. I don't think anyone in Microsoft had the impression that RT would come save the day. It is a necessity because of their new direction. If RT designs in app interest being generated, I would say that it did it's job to some extent. Of course, I don't know how this will play out but according to me, these are some very daring decisions being played out at MSFT and I would say better than Google.

maskedinvader 13y ago
I agree with everything you say ! I am no fanboi, I use whatever works for me best, I own an iPod touch (for the music), the galaxy s4 (running touchwhiz flavor of jelly bean v4.2.2) , own the xbox360 and a win 8 desktop PC, New Lumia phones and win 8 pro tablets have impressed me.I think the new xbox and how surface pro and rt have seen Microsoft going for those 3 segments and almost inevitably converging to a single os that runs them all ! I wouldn't be surprised if windows 9 or 10 perhaps would have you writing code once and deploy them to your new xbox, new PC, new surface, new Lumia and new smartwatch and who knows maybe even some sort of kinectified glass you wear all the time, Imagine the big win for hitting so many screen sizes with one codebase.
Steko 13y ago
"most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. " That's why you look for a CEO that isn't most people. The CEO isn't a service award you hand out to the general who won the most battles 30 years ago.
- hbharadwaj 13y ago
  Well, I used it in a casual way for making it seem like an obvious decision - the perception having been part of my opinion. Please allow me to correct myself - Most people wouldn't have taken the bet nor have the insight to do so. Steve Ballmer or maybe Steve Sinofsky or someone did. And they are not most people. It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make. Well, since it was lost, it was quite easy. And it's not their first billion dollar down the drain strategy.
    - iaw 13y ago
      The problem with Microsoft (since it's inception) is a complete lack of originality. The company is based upon intellectual theft and dominant business strategies. It worked for years and years but the ecosystem has evolved now. Microsoft has been chasing Apple since they released the Zune with some vague hope of success. The sad thing is there are a number of exceedingly talented individuals working at the company, it just sounds like innovation was strangled by corporate culture years ago (if it ever existed there).
      - beagle3 13y ago
        I saw my first Microsoft store a month ago. It looked exactly like the Apple Store I just came out of - except the tables had a different shade, and there was nothing comparable to the XBox360+Kinect station in the Apple store. They've been copying "things that work" for so long, and up until a few years ago, it just worked. And now that it doesn't, it seems that they have no idea what to do.
CamperBob2 13y ago
So you make decision after decision based on what the company needs, instead of what the user needs, and this is where you end up. I agree with the other comment: Ballmer isn't paid nine gazillion bucks to do what "everybody else" would do in his place.
- hbharadwaj 13y ago
  If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes. And consumers always choose near term interests than long term benefits. I don't understand why HN Users need to single out MSFT/Steve Ballmer as making mistakes all the time. They have made mistakes but my point is - RT wasn't one of them. It's cool to analyze strategies without associated fanboyisms/ individual hatred.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes. Would you have said all of this about Apple around the time of the iPhone launch?
    - workbench 13y ago
      No because that entire user base transitioned to an entirely new OS where ALL the old software didn't run natively just a few years earlier.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        I don't follow you. I was talking about the iPhone, not the Mac.
jser 13y ago
Daring or repeating history? Windows NT was ported to a host of platforms -- DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, and Itanium. None have gained substantial traction. Had they been daring, the desktop would have been removed. Instead, Metro feels like a reincarnation of Apple's At Ease. RT could have had a chance, but beyond the crayon colors, I believe the root cause was the bland, simple Metro interface. The textures, shadows and other elements of iOS 1 - 6 are engaging in a way that the flat interface is not. Side-by-side I'm always more compelled to pick up my iOS 6 phone over the iOS 7 phone. Or the flat-before-it-was-cool Blackberry. When I visit a museum, people spend less time at simple modern art pieces. When I turn on pop radio, heavy layered beats dominate. I might have bought an RT tablet if didn't feel like the Ikea of tablets.
cpleppert 13y ago
Their is no 'RT' strategy to speak of. Microsoft decided to use a desktop operating system in tablet devices instead of using a mobile os like everyone else. So instead of having to make a single adjustment for applications(larger screen) microsoft built an entirely new interface and APIs to support that interface. New applications built for that interface are designed to replace traditional desktop applications and work well a variety of screensizes and both with and without touch input. The motivation behind this decision was to leverage windows' market penetration to build momentum for their mobile strategy. This isn't so much a strategy as an overwhelming desire to always leverage windows when entering a new market segment. It is a crutch that makes true innovation impossible. The problem is that this 'strategy' is impossible. There is no such thing as a magical toolkit that can do what Microsoft wants. Instead, you have massive consumer confusion and applications that don't work well on non-touchscreen devices. Now Microsoft has to support new 'Modern/Metro' applications going forward on Windows for the foreseeable future. It takes resources away from the traditional desktop experience. Imagine if Microsoft had simply taken Windows Phone and adapted it to a larger screen size. It would have used the same API and provided a considerably better experience for consumers(without any confusion) at virtually new development cost or adoption of a new toolkit/application experience for the desktop. The only thing microsoft would have lost was the ability to run mobile applications on the desktop. A dubious benefit to say the least. RT was an interesting strategy and most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. I strongly disagree as I know many other people did as well.
tmzt 13y ago
Microsoft and everybody else has been waiting for years for Intel to reduce the power consumption of x86, so long that ARM has caught up from an CPU appropriate for mobile devices to an serious competitor to the dominant platform. Intel has done everything they can to "prove" that their chips are ready, but they've done the same thing before. They partnered with Nokia and rebuilt their system for internet tablets into a general purpose system for mobile devices (including netbooks), then automotive systems. They released a chip for smart TVs and set-top boxes, then abandoned the entire line, leaving devices without firmware updates in certain devices (like Boxee). They've gone to great lengths to target smartphones and smaller tablets where the larger footprint would be a serious downside. I will admit that intel has finally delivered a chip that is competitive with ARM on smartphones and smaller tablets. I will agree with another commenter (either here or on the other story) that it is too early for the RT to be introduced as a product category. But I also believe that Microsoft has to succeed in getting a Windows product on ARM based on the NT kernel if they want to maintain their long-term dominance in personal computing, particularly for businesses. They may have the wrong idea with trying to build a media consumption tablet built around applications in the same device as they have with Windows RT. I would suggest they take the opportunity with the 8.1 upgrade to support arbitrary compiled Windows applications, starting with Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. (Both would likely be ported if that was possible.) That they embrace developers using Visual Studio 2012 to build applications on the device, not just for the device. I would suggest that they use Microsoft Installer (MSI) to hide the fact that the applications are compiled for ARM, call them "Universal Windows Applications" if they must. I considered the Surface RT before getting my Samsung Chromebook (ARM) and went for the latter of both price and lack of support for Windows (Win32) applications on the RT.

maskedinvader 13y ago

I agree with everything you say ! I am no fanboi, I use whatever works for me best, I own an iPod touch (for the music), the galaxy s4 (running touchwhiz flavor of jelly bean v4.2.2) , own the xbox360 and a win 8 desktop PC, New Lumia phones and win 8 pro tablets have impressed me.I think the new xbox and how surface pro and rt have seen Microsoft going for those 3 segments and almost inevitably converging to a single os that runs them all ! I wouldn't be surprised if windows 9 or 10 perhaps would have you writing code once and deploy them to your new xbox, new PC, new surface, new Lumia and new smartwatch and who knows maybe even some sort of kinectified glass you wear all the time, Imagine the big win for hitting so many screen sizes with one codebase.

Steko 13y ago

"most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. " That's why you look for a CEO that isn't most people. The CEO isn't a service award you hand out to the general who won the most battles 30 years ago.

hbharadwaj 13y ago
Well, I used it in a casual way for making it seem like an obvious decision - the perception having been part of my opinion. Please allow me to correct myself - Most people wouldn't have taken the bet nor have the insight to do so. Steve Ballmer or maybe Steve Sinofsky or someone did. And they are not most people. It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make. Well, since it was lost, it was quite easy. And it's not their first billion dollar down the drain strategy.
  - iaw 13y ago
    The problem with Microsoft (since it's inception) is a complete lack of originality. The company is based upon intellectual theft and dominant business strategies. It worked for years and years but the ecosystem has evolved now. Microsoft has been chasing Apple since they released the Zune with some vague hope of success. The sad thing is there are a number of exceedingly talented individuals working at the company, it just sounds like innovation was strangled by corporate culture years ago (if it ever existed there).
    - beagle3 13y ago
      I saw my first Microsoft store a month ago. It looked exactly like the Apple Store I just came out of - except the tables had a different shade, and there was nothing comparable to the XBox360+Kinect station in the Apple store. They've been copying "things that work" for so long, and up until a few years ago, it just worked. And now that it doesn't, it seems that they have no idea what to do.

CamperBob2 13y ago

So you make decision after decision based on what the company needs, instead of what the user needs, and this is where you end up. I agree with the other comment: Ballmer isn't paid nine gazillion bucks to do what "everybody else" would do in his place.

hbharadwaj 13y ago
If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes. And consumers always choose near term interests than long term benefits. I don't understand why HN Users need to single out MSFT/Steve Ballmer as making mistakes all the time. They have made mistakes but my point is - RT wasn't one of them. It's cool to analyze strategies without associated fanboyisms/ individual hatred.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes. Would you have said all of this about Apple around the time of the iPhone launch?
  - workbench 13y ago
    No because that entire user base transitioned to an entirely new OS where ALL the old software didn't run natively just a few years earlier.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      I don't follow you. I was talking about the iPhone, not the Mac.

jser 13y ago

Daring or repeating history? Windows NT was ported to a host of platforms -- DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, and Itanium. None have gained substantial traction. Had they been daring, the desktop would have been removed. Instead, Metro feels like a reincarnation of Apple's At Ease. RT could have had a chance, but beyond the crayon colors, I believe the root cause was the bland, simple Metro interface. The textures, shadows and other elements of iOS 1 - 6 are engaging in a way that the flat interface is not. Side-by-side I'm always more compelled to pick up my iOS 6 phone over the iOS 7 phone. Or the flat-before-it-was-cool Blackberry. When I visit a museum, people spend less time at simple modern art pieces. When I turn on pop radio, heavy layered beats dominate. I might have bought an RT tablet if didn't feel like the Ikea of tablets.

cpleppert 13y ago

Their is no 'RT' strategy to speak of. Microsoft decided to use a desktop operating system in tablet devices instead of using a mobile os like everyone else. So instead of having to make a single adjustment for applications(larger screen) microsoft built an entirely new interface and APIs to support that interface. New applications built for that interface are designed to replace traditional desktop applications and work well a variety of screensizes and both with and without touch input. The motivation behind this decision was to leverage windows' market penetration to build momentum for their mobile strategy. This isn't so much a strategy as an overwhelming desire to always leverage windows when entering a new market segment. It is a crutch that makes true innovation impossible. The problem is that this 'strategy' is impossible. There is no such thing as a magical toolkit that can do what Microsoft wants. Instead, you have massive consumer confusion and applications that don't work well on non-touchscreen devices. Now Microsoft has to support new 'Modern/Metro' applications going forward on Windows for the foreseeable future. It takes resources away from the traditional desktop experience. Imagine if Microsoft had simply taken Windows Phone and adapted it to a larger screen size. It would have used the same API and provided a considerably better experience for consumers(without any confusion) at virtually new development cost or adoption of a new toolkit/application experience for the desktop. The only thing microsoft would have lost was the ability to run mobile applications on the desktop. A dubious benefit to say the least. RT was an interesting strategy and most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. I strongly disagree as I know many other people did as well.

tmzt 13y ago

Microsoft and everybody else has been waiting for years for Intel to reduce the power consumption of x86, so long that ARM has caught up from an CPU appropriate for mobile devices to an serious competitor to the dominant platform. Intel has done everything they can to "prove" that their chips are ready, but they've done the same thing before. They partnered with Nokia and rebuilt their system for internet tablets into a general purpose system for mobile devices (including netbooks), then automotive systems. They released a chip for smart TVs and set-top boxes, then abandoned the entire line, leaving devices without firmware updates in certain devices (like Boxee). They've gone to great lengths to target smartphones and smaller tablets where the larger footprint would be a serious downside. I will admit that intel has finally delivered a chip that is competitive with ARM on smartphones and smaller tablets. I will agree with another commenter (either here or on the other story) that it is too early for the RT to be introduced as a product category. But I also believe that Microsoft has to succeed in getting a Windows product on ARM based on the NT kernel if they want to maintain their long-term dominance in personal computing, particularly for businesses. They may have the wrong idea with trying to build a media consumption tablet built around applications in the same device as they have with Windows RT. I would suggest they take the opportunity with the 8.1 upgrade to support arbitrary compiled Windows applications, starting with Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. (Both would likely be ported if that was possible.) That they embrace developers using Visual Studio 2012 to build applications on the device, not just for the device. I would suggest that they use Microsoft Installer (MSI) to hide the fact that the applications are compiled for ARM, call them "Universal Windows Applications" if they must. I considered the Surface RT before getting my Samsung Chromebook (ARM) and went for the latter of both price and lack of support for Windows (Win32) applications on the RT.