<p><pre><code> Microsoft this week showed itself willing to do what was once unthinkable: design and sell its own computer hardware
</code></pre>
What about the Zune, Kin and Xbox. Two of them might have been disasters, but clearly MS has a history of designing hardware.<p>They are giving too much choice (1). To me, the real issue is availability. They shouldn't have had the press conference until the device was available on the same day. They _always_ do this, and it rarely works out. They would have sold more devices in the first week, had it been available immediately, then they now will in a quarter.<p>(1) <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...</a>
These stories about the "post-PC future" always make me laugh, I still dont see people working on iPads in real offices where you do REAL work.<p>The future of computing is going to be fragmented. Not unified by a single tablet model.<p>Every time something new comes up we always get the same BS: "netbooks are going to replace computers". "iPhones are going to replace computers", "ipads are going to replace computers".<p>Give me a break.
> Skepticism about these things doesn’t require knee-jerk Apple fandom. It simply requires an open set of eyeballs.<p>This is why I don't read Daring Fireball regularly. It's a blog solely focused on being skeptical about everything. The whole premise seems to be to find flaws in products/services and tell the world about them. I don't mind skepticism, but there's a difference between "it has these cool concepts, but it ain't perfect and probably will fail" and "it's going to fail because of A, B, C, D, … Z"<p>Gruber might be accurate, but in my daily reading I prefer people with a bit more positive thoughts.
> <i>So Microsoft faces a dilemma. Their business model of expensive software on cheap hardware is not sustainable. The future is nearly free software integrated into moderately priced hardware.</i><p>Apple, for all that's said about their software being excellent (and maybe it is) is a hardware maker. As such, they try to commoditize software: make complements to their own products as cheap as possible, so that the overall cost of buying Apple is as low as possible (while keeping their part of the profits as high as possible).<p>They have been immensely successful at this, obviously; but that doesn't mean "the future is nearly free software"! It means, Apple is trying to commoditize software and is doing a fantastic job at it. (Much better than what Sun tried to do for example).<p>But the answer to this, is that software makers should try to commoditize hardware. Of course, this is much harder, since the marginal price of a piece of hardware is non-zero. It may even be impossible, but that's still what Microsoft is trying to do -- it's not trying to jump into hardware making because "that's where profits are", it's trying to attack the hardware value proposition.<p>> <i>the radical shift in Microsoft’s strategy is about the fight over the profits that remain after Apple’s</i><p>No, it really isn't. (Profits are the whole point, yes -- but the question is, what kind of profits are we talking about). Microsoft wants to bring the whole value of hardware down -- it doesn't want to take hardware profits for itself, it wants to make hardware profits disappear <i>for everybody</i>.<p>(It should give the Surface away for free.)
Yes, it really looks like Microsoft wants to be Apple. Based on what Elop does in Nokia I believe that Microsoft wants to buy Nokia as well. There are lot of steps that makes Nokia unattractive company for other companies (e.g. "patent trolling" accuses from Google to Nokia), other steps (MeeGo and Meltemi termination, Symbian support moved to Accenture) that leaves Nokia only with WP and outdated feature phones (what makes Nokia unattractive target again unless you are Microsoft).<p>Other companies might consider buying Nokia only to prevent Microsoft doing that what would be quite fun to watch actually.
I'm not really sure what this post is trying to say. Is it trying to criticize Microsoft? It doesn't really feel like it. Is it just a "this is a very important time for MS" post?<p>I think that's obvious. It IS a very important time for MS and Windows 8 needs to do well. I think the post misses an important angle to Surface though: in large part it is meant to make OEMs step their game up. It shows what Microsoft envisions can be done with a good formfactor and Win8. OEMs need to step up to the plate and make similar hardware. Not necesarily identical but very much in the same spirit.<p>A well execution should dent iPad sales because on paper, Windows 8 with a good form factor destroys the iPad every time.<p>Side note: I thought the keynote was actually fine. I completely agree that something seemed rather off about Sinofsky. He did seem nervous and he usually delivers quite solid keynotes. It was strange. I think everyone else performed fine. I actually liked the way the keynote was set up. At first it's just a tablet which is cool in of itself. Then it has a kickstand. And then it has a keyboard. Surprise after surprise.<p>Re: "Design is about making decisions, and Microsoft could not decide. ARM or Intel? Who should be on stage? Soft or hard keys on the keyboard cover? They went with 'all of the above'."<p>Windows has always been about having a lot of options. I think it's wonderful that there will be both an ARM version and an x86 version.
As a regular Apple user (iphone/ipad/macbook air are my main tools), in my eyes Gruber is jumping the shark here. He comments on the structure of the event, his own feelings watching it. He comments on what information that has not yet been released. He clearly wants to move focus away from the hardware itself. Perhaps because it is just a little too awesome to come from MS?
I think they did rush the demo, but they needed to.<p>They'd revealed Windows 8 and had mixed reactions about teh touch interface, and both users and developers were skeptical about it. They needed to show off this hardware for everything to make sense. When I saw the presentation, I had this 'Ohhhhh....' moment where it all made sense - the interface, the hardware, their strategy.<p>They pushed this launch forward to show they actually had a plan.
I think Surface could be a pretty compelling product if all the stars align, but the fact that Microsoft wouldn't even let members of the press touch a working keyboard and the overall fragmented quality of the launch does not bode well.
<i>Android (which no one wants on anything other than phones)</i><p>Oh? Now Gruber says people want Android on phones?<p>Sorry, we're doing Apple vs. Microsoft here. I'll try to not get distracted.
"Surface is a bold move, and classic Microsoft. If the OEMs don’t like it — and they do not — what are they going to do? Turn to Linux (which no one wants) ... ?"<p>I want Linux over Mac OSX and Windows 7. Imagine how fast Linux would grow if they got the OEMs's support.
I clicked on this story expecting the usual blatantly biased and totally pointless drivel from this guy. I wasn't disappointed. He keeps raising the bar for embarrassing tech commentary and that's why I will keep reading him knowing full well I shouldn't waste my time on that kind of trolling.<p>Now I'm even wasting your time by commenting on it. Please vote me down to -10 or I'll have to fagellate myself for an entire week!
I'm not sure I follow Gruber's post here, which ironically points out how Microsoft's presentation this week for a tablet was incoherent and all over the map (kind of like this post.) I guess he's trying to assess Microsoft's position in the market by comparing their product announcement presentation skills to Apple's.<p>Really, when will the likes of Gruber learn that consumers will decide if they like those products, and they'll do so with their wallets. Surely he doesn't believe that Apple's success with i{whatever} is due to slick, coherent stories told onstage at some event they couldn't get into.<p>The truth is that the masses who buy these devices could care less about product announcements, Apple included. Apple customers will line up for the next item, no matter what it is. Microsoft customers -- well, not quite sure what floats their boat, but they'll do their thing.<p>These announcements are for lighting up the third-parties who like to consider themselves quasi-insiders. Like Gruber, for instance.
Isn't there a contradiction between Apple taking all the profits in PCs and Microsoft's taking of 78 dollars from every PC sold (and maybe half that for every mac with office)? I think he's been confused by the Apple world's tendency to compare Apple to hardware manufacturers and conveniently forget to include Microsoft and Google's profits in their pretty charts.<p>Also odd to see him still claiming that no-one but Apple could have made Samsung's A4 chip.
"Microsoft this week showed itself willing to do what was once unthinkable: design and sell its own PC hardware. ... But make no mistake: for better or for worse, Surface marks a watershed moment in PC industry history."<p>That remains to be seen, and depends on Microsoft being willing and able to stick with the Surface. They could easily screw this up, like the Kin, or lose interest and energy like the Zune.
Are people really using their tablets much? Sure, Apple/Jobs made us want one, but I am still looking for a killer app. My Android tablet mostly gets used for Skype, which is great, but hardly worth the price.