
With Tablet, Microsoft Takes Aim at Hardware Missteps - mcgwiz
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/technology/companies/with-tablet-microsoft-takes-aim-at-hardware-missteps.html?hp
======
gamble
Surface is already irrelevant, because Microsoft has decided that to placate
Windows OEMs it won't be sold in retail stores. It doesn't matter that
Microsoft may have scoured the earth for the purest metals with which to craft
its case if the average person is never going to encounter one in the real
world. Microsoft's real problem that Windows OEMs are incapable of building a
decent tablet. Surface does nothing to incentivize OEMs to build better
tablets, and crippling the sales campaign ensures it won't marginalize the
OEMs either. For their part, the OEMs have already scoffed at Surface and
promised to go on with business as usual.

~~~
s_henry_paulson
Irrelevant because it's not sold in retail stores?

Companies don't walk into Best Buy to purchase computers for their employees.

From the time I bought my first Commodore until the present day, I've never
purchased a computer anywhere other than online.

While I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, calling it irrelevant because
it's not sold in retail stores is a bit of a stretch.

------
SoftwareMaven
Is there a fire risk with MS building the cases out of magnesium? Magnesium
fires are intense and difficult to put out.

I can't imagine MS is going to put out a product that oxidizes violently, so
how will they prevent it? Can MgO retain the look (everything I've seen of MgO
is a white powder)?

~~~
pohl
I bet the temperature to get magnesium to ignite is much higher than the
devices would naturally produce or be exposed to. The only burning magnesium
I've ever witnessed was either ground into a powder or in thin strips. It
probably wouldn't burn so well in bulk.

This was the first thing that popped into my mind on Monday, though. The
original NeXT cubes were built out of magnesium, and after NeXT left the
hardware business someone famously burned an old cube. If I recall correctly,
it took quite a lot of effort to get it burning.

The tale of the burning incident is here:

<http://simson.net/hacks/cubefire.html>

 _As you know, years ago, when NeXT first contemplated making computers, Steve
Jobs decided that machines should be in the shape of a cube, and that they
should be built from cast magnesium. Although magnesium is a relatively
expensive metal, it is remarkably strong and lightweight. No doubt, this let
NeXT save on shipping expenses, although the added handling and manufacturing
costs was one of the factors which led to the cube's high cost. At the time
that NeXT brought their system to market, the only other company to
incorporate a magnesium case was Grid, which was making a portable computer.
(I am told that Apple also uses magnesium for the inside case of its Duo
computers, but I haven't been able to verify this fact..._

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Thank you for that link. It was a very entertaining read.

------
femto
This quote jumped out at me:

"..., Apple has proved that there are significant advantages to designing
hardware and software together."

I'm assuming the NYT is referring to "design" in its high-level context, as
used by graphic designers, etc. and not its low-level context, as used by
engineers?

Apple has proved is that there are significant advantages to reusing other
people's low-level designs, in the form of open-source software, such as BSD,
but taking advantage of the source availability to control the high-level
design. In this case, the low-level design has not been done in tandem with
the hardware, since it preexisted the hardware.

~~~
mikeash
There's more to design than just "how it looks" and "it's based on BSD".
Apple's software is not just a bunch of open source stuff glued together as
your post implies. The iOS kernel, for example, is substantially proprietary
and heavily customized for Apple's iOS hardware. You don't get any lower-level
than that, and that was definitely developed alongside the hardware.

~~~
femto
That wasn't meant to be the implication. If I had my time again, I'd add the
word "mostly" to the last sentence, but apart from that I'll just clarify.

The point I was trying to make is that using open-source, in the way Apple
has, allows the customisation to go beyond the mere gluing together of black
boxes. The thing Apple has woken up to is that 95% of the black box is
reusable commodity stuff and it's that customised 5% that makes it "sing" with
your hardware.

This level of integration just isn't possible without the source code. You can
try writing everything yourself, but that blows time to market, and required
development resources, out big time.

------
pippy
This demonstrates everything that is wrong with Microsoft. They identified a
problem, they couldn't get their products up to par with existing processes.
So they go out of their way to copy their competitors.

By following this methodology they'll always be worse or the same as their
competitors. Eventually they'll find a way to lock them out, and then the
market will suffer from stagnation.

This to me is far more evil than anything Apple has ever done. As long as
Microsoft has this culture I can't respect them as a company.

~~~
joejohnson
I came here to write basically this. Additionally, I think that Microsoft is
making a mistake with this Surface tablet. Consumers want a device that will
be easy and fun to use, and that has good access to a lot of content. Maybe
the iPad will eventually transition into more of a productivity device, but
right now consumers (and Apple) don't view the iPad as a PC replacement.

Microsoft's approach (one OS for tablets and PCs) was a poor choice; the two
devices have different needs, and require different UIs and feature sets. They
have done so much work on Windows 8 in order to be a competitor in the "tablet
market" but I fear that there is no such market. People don't want tablets as
MS invisions them. People want iPads.

In my view, the Surface is a step between a laptop and an iPad. Does Microsoft
intend for this to unify and replace these? They have produced a product
inferior to both an iPad and a laptop, and thus I imagine the Surface will
replace neither for most people.

~~~
cooldeal
>People don't want tablets as MS invisions them. People want iPads.

How do you know this? What about corporate users and for company owned
devices?

>They have produced a product inferior to both an iPad and a laptop, and thus
I imagine the Surface will replace neither for most people.

It can do more than the iPad because you can type on it much more comfortably
and has Office and it's better than a laptop because it's much more portable.
It's a device with different tradeoffs.

~~~
daliusd
Actually I find Surface keyboard a joke. I sometimes use my netbook in
positions I don't imagine using Surface in.

Another point: keyboard and Office for iPad is not problem. Here is keyboard
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsIJUiTlrGI> and here is Pages
[http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/apps-by-
apple/p...](http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/apps-by-
apple/pages.html).

The only thing that is cool in Surface is pen and again its value is
questionable. There are multiple pen solutions for iPad if you really need to.

