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. S

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.