Microsoft airs its first Surface tablet ad

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by xendula

I disagree: the Surface RT is a media tablet, the Surface Pro is a PC.
On the Pro, I can install regular windows software. On the RT, I can install tablet apps only from the MS app store. The RT is not the complete Windows 8 experience.

A long time ago one of the MS execs in charge of PocketPC made the point that when it came to content you could align devices along a consumption/creation spectrum: TVs are a pure consumption device, Cameras are a pure creation device.
He went on to line up PocketPCs and smartphones as primarily consumption devices and PCs primarily creation devices. The area in between is a gray area but if you look at the iPxxx and Android devices they are overwhelmingly about consumption and only to a small degree about creation.
The Surface RT, in addition to being architected as a PC is being *marketed* as a PC: functional keyboards, MS Office, USB peripheral support. It may not be as open as an x86 PC but it meets the content creation test better that the iPad which itself is way more of a creation device than most androids.
Just because a device curates application distribution doesn't alter its functionality and the primary functionality of RT tablets is to substitute for netbooks.
Note that most of the people who expect RT tablets to fail see them as media pads whereas most people who see them as worthy of consideration or even buying see them as PCs.
In the end, MS chose to build Surface tablets with a full PC OS instead of their excellent if underappreciated Gadget OS (WindowsCE) so it is clear *they* intend it as primarily a PC.

[xendula]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A long time ago one of the MS execs in charge of PocketPC made the point that when it came to content you could align devices along a consumption/creation spectrum: TVs are a pure consumption device, Cameras are a pure creation device.
He went on to line up PocketPCs and smartphones as primarily consumption devices and PCs primarily creation devices. The area in between is a gray area but if you look at the iPxxx and Android devices they are overwhelmingly about consumption and only to a small degree about creation.
The Surface RT, in addition to being architected as a PC is being *marketed* as a PC: functional keyboards, MS Office, USB peripheral support. It may not be as open as an x86 PC but it meets the content creation test better that the iPad which itself is way more of a creation device than most androids.
Just because a device curates application distribution doesn't alter its functionality and the primary functionality of RT tablets is to substitute for netbooks.
Note that most of the people who expect RT tablets to fail see them as media pads whereas most people who see them as worthy of consideration or even buying see them as PCs.
In the end, MS chose to build Surface tablets with a full PC OS instead of their excellent if underappreciated Gadget OS (WindowsCE) so it is clear *they* intend it as primarily a PC.

I can only repeat I personally disagree. MS did not choose to build Surface tablets with a full PC OS, they chose to build Surface Pro tablets with a full PC OS, and Surface RT tablets with something I would not even know what to call, their answer to Android and iOS.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by afv011

I think the ad should have less jumping around and more highlighting of the features. All you take away from it is that you have a choice of colors and an attachable keyboard.

Yes, a very inane commercial.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by xendula

MS did not choose to build Surface tablets with a full PC OS, they chose to build Surface Pro tablets with a full PC OS, and Surface RT tablets with something I would not even know what to call, their answer to Android and iOS.

Your definition of a Windows PC is overly narrow, methinks.

Once upon a time, Windows NT ran on a superb Line of PCs from SGI that were not IBM compatible; no BIOS. It also ran on DEC Alpha-based PCs. Neither could run Legacy PC software natively yet both were unmistakeable Windows NT PCs. MS even had a version of NT for PowerPC from which code-base they developed the XBOX360. MS has *never* been comfortable with relying solely on x86 CPUs and has always ported Windows to real and potential alternatives as a hedge.

Their alternative to iOS and Android, WindowsCE also ran on pretty much every CPU architecture and still runs on a broad range of different architectures in industrial computing and embedded mission-critical systems. In fact, WindowsCE has seen use in actual PCs for sale in China and other developing markets.

A PC does not need an x86 processor or Legacy software compatibility to be a PC. This *has* happened in the past, most notably in servers.
Windows RT is the exact same Windows as Win8, minus the Legacy support add-ins like POSIX, Win16, and Win32. The Core OS is the same. For software development purposes Windows 8 apps are WinRT apps.
If RT ships with a relaively small catalog it is because Windows 8 also ships with a small catalog of Win8 (nee Metro) applications. Over time as the Legacy apps get updated the catalog for both will grow.

What we are seeing in the Surface RT and Pro isn't Microsoft responding to Android and iOS with a belated gadget OS but rather an attempt to leapfrog them both to get *now* to where Apple is only now starting to go: complete OS compatibility from low-end gadgets through mobile computers to desktops and larger.

It is a big risk: their conservative desktop-and-larger partners are worried that this move is too big a leap too soon while the mobility and gadget crowd don't think the extra functionality hidden in RT (emphasis on hidden, for now) adds no added value to *today's* market.
Both may be right.
But MS has made big leaps like this before and made them pay off.

This may be the one time they don't but if you take a big-picture look at the whole computing space the timing actually looks about right for a big forward-looking gamble. Both Android and Apple have been on the ascendancy for a while but a close look will reveal cracks in their foundations.

The thing to keep in mind is that Surface, in either version, is not really a 2012 product line. It doesn't need to unseat either of the gadget OSes. If it actually reaches the Analysts pipedream of 14% market share by 2013 it will be a major success. But even with lower penetration it'll still get MS where they want to be. Partly by prodding the hardware oems into less conservative designs, partly by raising the bar on the functionality people can expect out of tablet, and partly by laying the foundation for the *next* turn of the wheel in computing, a time where data portability across a person's devices wont suffice and where having the same OS on everything from the Smartphone to the mainframe will be a big plus.

As I said, I don't see a match for my *current* needs in the SurfaceRT. (I'm not a corporate Road Warrior.) But that doesn't mean I can't see a big market for whom a SurfaceRT (or its OEM brethren, let's *not* lose sight of other RT products) would hit the sweet spot.

This is just the warm-up act.
The real show has yet to start.
And the real show is bigger and deeper than most of us yet know.

Earthquakes lie ahead.

[xendula]

@fjtorres, I can agree with your comment that my perception of a full fledged PC OS is narrow minded
If I considered the RT to be it, I would get one. At $500, it would be a steal, even with the lousy, LOUSY screen resolution, and it would nicely complement my iPad 3. MS has not yet announced how big the app store is, and what kind of apps they will have, so I (narrowmindedly, granted) am waiting to see the pricing of the Pro, which I know will have access to all Win 8 PC software. To know that it comes with Office may have gotten me excited 5-10 years ago. I remember how I used to tell everyone that my PPC had Pocket Word and Pocket Excell, like it was the best thing since sliced bread. How times have changed....

I do hope the analysts are right. The more they succeed in that space, the more alternatives we have.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by xendula

I do hope the analysts are right. The more they succeed in that space, the more alternatives we have.

Me, too.
Especially because I think MS is in the right: we *will* need a common interface and app suite across all our toys. We are moving from Home LANs to personal LANs and personal clouds and we will need more homogeneity in our computing; dealing with different OSes, GUIs, and apps for our phones, tablets, PCs, TVs, gaming, and what-not is going to get old real quick.
And Apple's "just buy an iSomething" strategy is not going to work unless Apple starts making a whole lot more classes of devices, not just different sized phones and tablets.
We are moving into an environment where LINUX makes a lot more sense than ever but LINUX seem irretrivably fragmented and too obssessed with the IT community and its UNIX legacy to evolve into a lean and unified future-focused application platform. Basically, since LINUX belongs to nobody, nobody is willing or capable of mounting the kind of risky and expensive, bet-the-company unified effort MS is trying.
We may be headed into an environment where only the big boys can play the full game and everything else will fade into nichedom...

[fjtorres]

Speaking of RT making sense for somebody, ZDnet has an interesting take:
http://www.zdnet.com/buying-tablets-...73/?s_cid=e539

Oddly though, if you need to buy fifty, a few hundred, or a even several thousand tablets to give to staff, it might make sense to move on Windows RT rather than iPad. Maybe don't sign the PO today, but soon.

If your organisation already sponsors delivery of private, in-house, line of business (LOB) apps on the Microsoft platform - either web apps or desktop apps using things like WPF, Silverlight, or Windows Forms, you should find it easier to extend that capability into delivering on Windows RT than it would be in targeting iPad. This is based on a common-sense understanding that extending current skills, tools, and processes into a new but related area has to be easier than entirely retooling everything and re-skilling everyone. That's a theme that I'm going to keep coming back to over the coming months. But it's not clear cut - it may well be easier, but that doesn't mean it's the correct decision in the long run.

For now, I would say that it's no longer obvious to just run with iPad if you want to push out your own software to a tablet estate that you own and operate. We can now, today, start talking about Windows RT as a credible alternative. Go back even just a month had you have said to me you want to buy a few thousand iPads for a project I would have told you to "go right ahead". Today, for me that's moved to "we need to think about that".

And note: these are the *conservative* guys who aren't comfortable with RT or Win8 to start with.

Just by releasing Surface RT, MS has already achieved its primary mission: blunting, maybe stalling, corporate iPad adoption. It has also greased the way for its OEM partners: businesses may not feel comfortable buying tabletss from MS but they'll have no problem buying HP, Dell, or Lenovo. Still a win for MS.
There's many ways to win when the game is this complex.

[Andy_T]

I just had a business meeting with Microsoft sales people and had the possibility to use a Samsung 7 series slate with a (not officially supported) Windows 8 install. Very nice.

I will definitely wait for the Surface pro before making any decision on that...

Best regards,
Andy

[John F]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

...

A PC does not need an x86 processor or Legacy software compatibility to be a PC. This *has* happened in the past, most notably in servers.
Windows RT is the exact same Windows as Win8, minus the Legacy support add-ins like POSIX, Win16, and Win32. The Core OS is the same. For software development purposes Windows 8 apps are WinRT apps.
If RT ships with a relaively small catalog it is because Windows 8 also ships with a small catalog of Win8 (nee Metro) applications. Over time as the Legacy apps get updated the catalog for both will grow.

...

Could you define what an app is? I thought that they were different: a native x86 app/exe would not be able to execute on RT?

[scrapking]

Originally Posted by xendula

I can only repeat I personally disagree. MS did not choose to build Surface tablets with a full PC OS, they chose to build Surface Pro tablets with a full PC OS, and Surface RT tablets with something I would not even know what to call, their answer to Android and iOS.

You do not need a "full PC OS" to have a device built around content creation rather than content consumption.

I have an iPad. I pre-ordered a Surface. My frustration with the iPad is the difficulty of extensive data entry. My intent with the Surface is to be able to have a tablet experience, but also use it in the ways people might otherwise use a netbook or an ultrabook. I'm happy with the RT version because its cheaper, lighter, has good battery life, and (as much as this is abhorrent to many who like the open nature of PCs) I actually like the simplicity of downloading apps from the Windows Store.

It helps that Microsoft (if Xbox and Windows Phone is any indication) does their app stores best: for example, with Xbox you have been able to unlock the full version of an app from within its free trial. I can't believe that when I had an iPhone a few years ago I had to download the free trial, and if I liked it I had to *delete it* and then purchase and download the full version. What a pain, and so behind the times when Microsoft's been doing this right since 2005 on the Xbox. Maybe Apple's subsequently corrected this but, at any rate, Microsoft has a strong history of doing app stores right IMO.

But back on topic, my interest in the Surface is definitely about content creation. You seem to disagree based on how capable the OS is, but that misses the point: Microsoft is marketing it along the lines of content creation, and is providing content creation tools right out of the box.

[scrapking]

Originally Posted by xendula

At $500, it would be a steal, even with the lousy, LOUSY screen resolution,

I read this: http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-f...ng-reddit-iama

"On the display not being super high resolution, Microsoft addresses this through a three pronged method: ClearType for pixel smoothing, Custom designed 10.6” high contrast wide angle screen and optically bonded the screen with the thinnest optical stack anywhere on the market. In turn, the reflectiveness of the Surface’s display is much lower than the iPad, resulting in higher contrast of colors and more visible detail"

And now I don't know what to think about the screen resolution. It sounds like resolution isn't the be-all, end-all of tablet displays. Very interesting.

[xendula]

Originally Posted by scrapking

I read this: http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-f...ng-reddit-iama

"On the display not being super high resolution, Microsoft addresses this through a three pronged method: ClearType for pixel smoothing, Custom designed 10.6” high contrast wide angle screen and optically bonded the screen with the thinnest optical stack anywhere on the market. In turn, the reflectiveness of the Surface’s display is much lower than the iPad, resulting in higher contrast of colors and more visible detail"

And now I don't know what to think about the screen resolution. It sounds like resolution isn't the be-all, end-all of tablet displays. Very interesting.

I had cleartype on my PPC back in 2002. It was nice for font rendering for sure, but it still had a crappy resolution for today's standards. It is. Eryainly not important to everybody, but since I am a web designer, it is important to me. Not necessarily for work, but because to me, this is a very important buying decision factor.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Windows RT is the exact same Windows as Win8, minus the Legacy support add-ins like POSIX, Win16, and Win32. The Core OS is the same. For software development purposes Windows 8 apps are WinRT apps.

I think that is overly simplistic.
If you write WinRT apps for tablets, they will also run on PCs.
But how many PC developers will decide to limit themselves to just the WinRT interface, and lose Win32 and .NET functions?
Converting an existing Win32/.NET app will not be a trivial task, the question will be whether WinRT tablets sell enough to make it worthwhile for developers to bother, rather than sticking with the .NET platform they are used to, which will continue to work on 'real' Windows 8.

Edit: Especially as WinRT/Metro apps can only be distributed through the Microsoft Store, it seems that sideloading will be disallowed not just on the Surface but on the Surface Pro as well.

[xendula]

Originally Posted by scrapking

You do not need a "full PC OS" to have a device built around content creation rather than content consumption.

I have an iPad. I pre-ordered a Surface. My frustration with the iPad is the difficulty of extensive data entry. My intent with the Surface is to be able to have a tablet experience, but also use it in the ways people might otherwise use a netbook or an ultrabook. I'm happy with the RT version because its cheaper, lighter, has good battery life, and (as much as this is abhorrent to many who like the open nature of PCs) I actually like the simplicity of downloading apps from the Windows Store.

It helps that Microsoft (if Xbox and Windows Phone is any indication) does their app stores best: for example, with Xbox you have been able to unlock the full version of an app from within its free trial. I can't believe that when I had an iPhone a few years ago I had to download the free trial, and if I liked it I had to *delete it* and then purchase and download the full version. What a pain, and so behind the times when Microsoft's been doing this right since 2005 on the Xbox. Maybe Apple's subsequently corrected this but, at any rate, Microsoft has a strong history of doing app stores right IMO.

But back on topic, my interest in the Surface is definitely about content creation. You seem to disagree based on how capable the OS is, but that misses the point: Microsoft is marketing it along the lines of content creation, and is providing content creation tools right out of the box.

I feel the exact same frustration with my iPad and would ditch it if something came along with the same sexy body, connectivity, battery life, screen resolution, zero freezes, affordable price AND a more open system. To me, the RT is not it; the Pro may be a contender with a more open system but at the cost of the screen and possibly actually most other factors as well.

Apple is marketing their iPad many different ways, including content creation, yet they are more limited than the PS/Mac versions and thus inferior. I do not want to rely on one specific app store and MS' goodwil to allow a specific app into their store.

I may eat my words in a few days, who knows....

[QuantumIguana]

The video is cute, but not very informative. Still, the product looks intteresting. I like bridging the tablet at the laptop. I remember one other product that tried to do this, you rotated and then folded the keyboard when you wanted to use the device as a tablet, and reversed the process when you wanted to use it as a laptop.There are a lot of times when the function of a tablet is all you need, and there are times when a keyboard is really nice.

The desktop is no dinosaur, each has its own advantages. The desktop gives you power and flexibility at a much lower price. My desktop is tucked away under my desk, it really doesn't take up much room. I have a large display, and I'm comfortable using my desk, my keyboard, monitor and mouse are just where I like them. I have a laptop, I use that for writing or when I'm away from the desk.

My laptop is awfully old, it's a Pentium 4. One of these days I'll get something better. If this device is good for word processing, I might consider it.