Pre-announcing your own Windows 8 tablet a few months before your OEM customers are ready to roll out their own products. Thatís not gutsy, itís just gross.
For years, PC makers have slavishly followed your systems requirements, jumped on your bandwagons (like Windows for Pen Computing), and this is their payment. When you think you have a solid product you rush to get in front of them hoping you can steal their sub-five-percent profit margins.
I suspect few will say anything publicly for fear of hurting their relationships with you, so I will say what they cannot. This is bad business.
You could have taken a lesson from Google. Work closely with one or two OEMs on a killer product that would show off the novel features of your software. Perhaps there really arenít any novel features to show off.
One source told me he heard Acer engineers describe this as a betrayal. ďMicrosoft wants to charge $80 to $90 royalty per Windows RT device while bring out this tablet under its own logoóitís unfair competition which will accelerate more adaption of Android,Ē he said.
(In my own interviews, I was told the per unit cost of a Windows license for OEMs is about $45.)
He reports an ODM company saying they feel they have ďwasted all the investment [on a] promised [Win 8 tablet] business [and] will have to shift focus again.Ē
If I was a mobile PC maker, I would be on the phone to Googleís Android team seeking a tight partnership.
Taiwanís PC makers have told me more than once they see Android as a better road to tablets than Windows 8. Itís free and it already has a well-established user base and ecosystem of apps.
The scant information on the Microsoft Surface tablet is unimpressive. It looks very much like a me-too system. I fail to see any compelling differences over the Apple iPad. At least Samsung was quick to market with its iPad-like Galaxy tablet.
Nvida was quick to note its Tegra powers the Surface. Frankly, this is one design win I would try to distance myself from.
I was amazed to read at their hastily called LA press conference, Microsoft did not even answer questions about OEM conflicts. According to the New York Times report:
"When asked whether Surface would damage those ties, Steven Sinofsky, the president of Microsoftís Windows division, gently pushed a reporter in the direction of a stand of Surface tablets and said, 'Go learn something.'"
Maybe someday Microsoft will reap great profits from a tablet business. But at what cost?
The innovation in the Surface is mainly in its chutzpah.
The contradictory arguments in this article made my head explode.
the MS tablet looks like a "me-too" iPad (bad0
the Samsung tablet is "iPad like" (good)
MS makes their own branded tablet (bad)
Apple makes their own branded tablet (good)
MS has worked with developers for decades (bad?)
Google has worked with developers for two years (good)
Everything you say against MS, you find other companies should praised for doing the same thing!!!
One report had it right the morning after when an analyst said the difference between Apple's iPad and Microsoft's Surface is that the iPad was designed to be easy to use, the Surface was designed to be all-inclusive so therefore more complicated to use. Microsoft's attempt to make a mark in the mobile space is wrought with half-baked hardware. Maybe they placed the needed ingredients in their latest attempt, but they may also have held it in the oven too long.
Microsoft has a close hardware partner to work with, Nokia, in addition to all the other Windows device manufacturer. I wonder why Microsoft do not work with Nokia, giving them a leading position in the market. Well! If Nokia had no interest in tablet market would explain it.
Win 8 comes in a version for the x86 for use in everything from tablets to desktops and another version--called Windows RT--for ARM based systems,mainly tablets.
Surface uses Win RT and Nvidia's Tegra ARM SoC.
I have not heard who makes the Surface for Msoft. Has anyone else?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for todayís commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.