4 ms·

Was it the device itself that caused such poor sales? I assumed all along it was a marketing/image problem which remains unsolved. Has relentlessness by a compa

Was it the device itself that caused such poor sales? I assumed all along it was a marketing/image problem which remains unsolved. Has relentlessness by a company ever overcome this issue in the past?

JohnTHaller 13y ago
For the RT, it's marketing (which was lame), confusion (it says it's Windows but it won't run any actual Windows apps), and a lack of any compelling apps. It's Microsoft trying to use their dominance in Windows to extend to the tablet. That's why we're all forced to use the half-assed Start Tiles on the desktop when running Windows 8, so they can put 'Modern' apps (which suck on a desktop) front and center.
- CodeCube 13y ago
  If they would just make commercials that show artists using the surface as a portable digital easel, authors/students using it as a digital paper replacement, and even some of what they hinted to at the event earlier with someone editing footage on the go ... I think they'd do a heck of a lot better. Focus on what this device does fantastically, rather than poking fun at what "siri can't do".
Finster 13y ago
Exhibit A: Xbox vs. Xbox 360.
Metrop0218 13y ago
I think it was the device. If you read the reviews (or better yet, used one) you'll see that it suffered from severe performance issues. That seems to have been resolved in the new one (the demos on stage looked convincing, but you have to take that with a grain of salt). The marketing/image problem was to be expected considering it was a new product entering a slightly fermented market. It was always going to take time to build a brand. (full discloser: Windows Phone employee)
creativeembassy 13y ago
It was the Surface RT that did so poorly. $900M writeoff that forced out Ballmer. Which is why I'm so surprised that they're attempting to do it again, with the Surface 2. People familiar with Windows want a cheap way to take their desktop with them. That's the primary audience, and introducing an ARM-based tablet that CAN'T run their desktop apps, is killing them. I would have gotten rid of the ARM one entirely (at least until there's a big enough native app economy for it), and found ways to bring down the cost of the Pro, and just sell that one. That said, the smart covers are pretty innovative. Being able to switch between a keyboard one, an extra battery one, and that amazing looking music production, is a stand-out feature. Something that Microsoft needs desperately.
- Geee 13y ago
  How do you exactly use legacy Windows apps on a tablet? I think the Surface Pro should be killed immediately.
  - ximeng 13y ago
    Not exactly sure what you mean, Windows apps work fine on the tablet. You either plug in the keyboard and a mouse, or you use an on-screen keyboard or the stylus. I looked at a lot of the hybrid machines before buying a Surface Pro and was pretty happy with the purchase.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
Surface marketing was everywhere. I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that. The devices were definitely to blame. Surface RT squandered Microsoft's ace in the whole in this space: Office + Outlook + Windows network integration. Not only did Office RT not ship in Metro form, but the product that shipped initially was a buggy pre-release. It was disastrous execution. Besides that, Surface RT sold for an iPad/Nexus 10 price without comparable specs (Tegra 3 and low-resolution screen).
- JonFish85 13y ago
  > I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that. I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). They really were two very different devices for different uses. Trying to call them both Surface tablets was a mis-step in my opinion because of their very different use-cases: one is a desktop replacement, the other is a tablet. To me, that's a marketing problem, not an engineering problem.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Well, they seem to have doubled down on that mistake by making the names even more similar this time around.
  - yaeger 13y ago
    >I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). And here we are observing them do it all over again. Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. Just by the name you still could figure they are the same machine and maybe the pro is a little bit faster or has a bigger flash drive etc. Just as you figure with the different Windows editions. "Ultimate", "Professional" "Home" etc. People who get the Surface 2 will still be very surprised to see that that they cannot do anything with it seeing as not one "exe" they already have will work on them.
- timthorn 13y ago
  Office RT being a desktop app is as it should be - no learning curve, and each pixel works harder than in Metro. What was wrong was the lack of Outlook at launch, and then the other things like no AD integration, and the inability to run non-signed desktop apps.
goostavos 13y ago
My opinion is that it's a combination of firstly a massive, massive marketing error, and secondly them shooting themselves in the foot a little bit by packaging a heavy app like word on the RT (which most early reviews I saw slammed it for its huge performance lag). The Surface, to me, beats out all the other tablets. At its core, it's a tablet that made to do more than simply consume media (which is what drew me to it), but they did nothing to sell this fact. I mean, their launch commercial? Jesus.. people dancing to dubstep? It makes it look like just another ho-hum, late to market product. Do you remember the commercials when Apple started using intel processors[0]? I would have loved to see Microsoft go in that direction and play to their image of "doing work." Finally a tablet that is built for people to do things, rather than consume things. Heck, go after the gaming crowd, play Civilization, do something! [0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prImvDVHzTM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prImvDVHzTM
programminggeek 13y ago
I think it's a long term problem. Microsoft and its partners trained customers to buy $300-500 PC's in volume (with razor thin margins). Now, they are trying to get people to spend 2-3x as much on what many of them see as a machine that "does the same thing". Apple spent a decade getting people to understand that a $1,000 machine is worth the money. It is a lot easier for Apple to move downmarket than Microsoft to move upmarket. The iPad is really Apple's $300-500 computer and it is cannibalizing the Windows machines because millions of people would rather use an iPad to do email and facebook and youtube than they would a junky $300 laptop that weighs 7 pounds, has a 15" display, and a 3 hour battery life. Microsoft will probably figure out how to sell computers to consumers like Apple does, but it's a long road and it's not the bargain basement volume game that they're used to.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I think this is probably the best explanation I have heard so far. You got me thinking differently about this. Thanks.
corresation 13y ago
It was terrible marketing. Microsoft went through a period where they treated Apple as an ally instead of as the company that was eating their lunch, and it was reflected in their "just like Apple" advertising. Quirky music, aspiration lifestyle stuff -- that doesn't work when you're an underdog and someone else is owning the market. Microsoft seriously seemed to fear offending the Gruber and Sieglers of the world. Their more recent advertising that goes directly at the iPad is much more compelling, and will have a very positive impact on their sales.
Touche 13y ago
I think it's the size. Tablets that size have not done well except the iPad. I think what people primarily want from tablets is small portable computers they can carry around easily, and the Surface is the opposite of that.

JohnTHaller 13y ago

For the RT, it's marketing (which was lame), confusion (it says it's Windows but it won't run any actual Windows apps), and a lack of any compelling apps. It's Microsoft trying to use their dominance in Windows to extend to the tablet. That's why we're all forced to use the half-assed Start Tiles on the desktop when running Windows 8, so they can put 'Modern' apps (which suck on a desktop) front and center.

CodeCube 13y ago
If they would just make commercials that show artists using the surface as a portable digital easel, authors/students using it as a digital paper replacement, and even some of what they hinted to at the event earlier with someone editing footage on the go ... I think they'd do a heck of a lot better. Focus on what this device does fantastically, rather than poking fun at what "siri can't do".

Finster 13y ago

Exhibit A: Xbox vs. Xbox 360.

Metrop0218 13y ago

I think it was the device. If you read the reviews (or better yet, used one) you'll see that it suffered from severe performance issues. That seems to have been resolved in the new one (the demos on stage looked convincing, but you have to take that with a grain of salt). The marketing/image problem was to be expected considering it was a new product entering a slightly fermented market. It was always going to take time to build a brand. (full discloser: Windows Phone employee)

creativeembassy 13y ago

It was the Surface RT that did so poorly. $900M writeoff that forced out Ballmer. Which is why I'm so surprised that they're attempting to do it again, with the Surface 2. People familiar with Windows want a cheap way to take their desktop with them. That's the primary audience, and introducing an ARM-based tablet that CAN'T run their desktop apps, is killing them. I would have gotten rid of the ARM one entirely (at least until there's a big enough native app economy for it), and found ways to bring down the cost of the Pro, and just sell that one. That said, the smart covers are pretty innovative. Being able to switch between a keyboard one, an extra battery one, and that amazing looking music production, is a stand-out feature. Something that Microsoft needs desperately.

Geee 13y ago
How do you exactly use legacy Windows apps on a tablet? I think the Surface Pro should be killed immediately.
- ximeng 13y ago
  Not exactly sure what you mean, Windows apps work fine on the tablet. You either plug in the keyboard and a mouse, or you use an on-screen keyboard or the stylus. I looked at a lot of the hybrid machines before buying a Surface Pro and was pretty happy with the purchase.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

Surface marketing was everywhere. I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that. The devices were definitely to blame. Surface RT squandered Microsoft's ace in the whole in this space: Office + Outlook + Windows network integration. Not only did Office RT not ship in Metro form, but the product that shipped initially was a buggy pre-release. It was disastrous execution. Besides that, Surface RT sold for an iPad/Nexus 10 price without comparable specs (Tegra 3 and low-resolution screen).

JonFish85 13y ago
> I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that. I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). They really were two very different devices for different uses. Trying to call them both Surface tablets was a mis-step in my opinion because of their very different use-cases: one is a desktop replacement, the other is a tablet. To me, that's a marketing problem, not an engineering problem.
- makomk 13y ago
  Well, they seem to have doubled down on that mistake by making the names even more similar this time around.
- yaeger 13y ago
  >I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). And here we are observing them do it all over again. Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. Just by the name you still could figure they are the same machine and maybe the pro is a little bit faster or has a bigger flash drive etc. Just as you figure with the different Windows editions. "Ultimate", "Professional" "Home" etc. People who get the Surface 2 will still be very surprised to see that that they cannot do anything with it seeing as not one "exe" they already have will work on them.
timthorn 13y ago
Office RT being a desktop app is as it should be - no learning curve, and each pixel works harder than in Metro. What was wrong was the lack of Outlook at launch, and then the other things like no AD integration, and the inability to run non-signed desktop apps.

goostavos 13y ago

My opinion is that it's a combination of firstly a massive, massive marketing error, and secondly them shooting themselves in the foot a little bit by packaging a heavy app like word on the RT (which most early reviews I saw slammed it for its huge performance lag). The Surface, to me, beats out all the other tablets. At its core, it's a tablet that made to do more than simply consume media (which is what drew me to it), but they did nothing to sell this fact. I mean, their launch commercial? Jesus.. people dancing to dubstep? It makes it look like just another ho-hum, late to market product. Do you remember the commercials when Apple started using intel processors[0]? I would have loved to see Microsoft go in that direction and play to their image of "doing work." Finally a tablet that is built for people to do things, rather than consume things. Heck, go after the gaming crowd, play Civilization, do something! [0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prImvDVHzTM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prImvDVHzTM

programminggeek 13y ago

I think it's a long term problem. Microsoft and its partners trained customers to buy $300-500 PC's in volume (with razor thin margins). Now, they are trying to get people to spend 2-3x as much on what many of them see as a machine that "does the same thing". Apple spent a decade getting people to understand that a $1,000 machine is worth the money. It is a lot easier for Apple to move downmarket than Microsoft to move upmarket. The iPad is really Apple's $300-500 computer and it is cannibalizing the Windows machines because millions of people would rather use an iPad to do email and facebook and youtube than they would a junky $300 laptop that weighs 7 pounds, has a 15" display, and a 3 hour battery life. Microsoft will probably figure out how to sell computers to consumers like Apple does, but it's a long road and it's not the bargain basement volume game that they're used to.

ThomPete 13y ago
I think this is probably the best explanation I have heard so far. You got me thinking differently about this. Thanks.

corresation 13y ago

It was terrible marketing. Microsoft went through a period where they treated Apple as an ally instead of as the company that was eating their lunch, and it was reflected in their "just like Apple" advertising. Quirky music, aspiration lifestyle stuff -- that doesn't work when you're an underdog and someone else is owning the market. Microsoft seriously seemed to fear offending the Gruber and Sieglers of the world. Their more recent advertising that goes directly at the iPad is much more compelling, and will have a very positive impact on their sales.

Touche 13y ago

I think it's the size. Tablets that size have not done well except the iPad. I think what people primarily want from tablets is small portable computers they can carry around easily, and the Surface is the opposite of that.