
How to save Windows Surface? - squeakynick
http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/september12013/index.html
======
radicalbyte
No, that's not the problem.

The problem is that they've now got three operating systems: a phone OS, a
tablet OS and a productivity OS. They should have stuck to two.

The Surface RT should have been a branded as Metro (along with WP!). The OS
should have been licensed at a low cost (not the $80 Windows fee). It should
have cost $400 at release, with the cover keyboard.

The Surface PRO should be an Air++ - the logical evolution of the Air concept.
A small, light but fully featured computer. Only they could have made it
smarter. Sell it with a hub which connects the Surface to monitors + KB/mouse
whilst home. Make that switch to desktop mode automatically (with an override
button, aka the orientation switch on the iPad).

PCs: the whole Metrofication of Windows 8 stinks of arrogance and head-up-ass
syndrome. Yes, offer it as an option. Yes, bring the visual style to all of
your tooling (it's pretty!). But no, don't do it in a way that makes working
with a keyboard/mouse painful, breaks multi-screen support, breaks a whole
host of games and only works to annoy your customers.

Instead, offer it as an option: if the user has a touchscreen installed, ask
them what they prefer. Make it easy to switch. Heck, switch automatically
(like what I suggested with the Surface Pro). Heck, open that up via APIs, and
let smart companies do cool stuff with it.

Instead we have someone senior at Microsoft trying to turn himself into Steve
Jobs by copying his negative traits - stubbornness and ego - without having
the brilliant vision and marketing ability to make it actually, you know,
work.

~~~
MichaelGG
The Metrofication of Windows 8 hasn't even been extended to other programs.
The whole ALL CAPS nonsense that VS and Office embraced isn't found in Windows
8. (Not to mention, it seems haphazardly applied in VS/Office; some things are
caps, others aren't. There's no rhyme or reason that I've discovered as a
user.)

~~~
Livven
Windows Phone does use all caps titles, though in a more subtle way. In
general Windows Phone, Windows 8 and Office 2013/VS 2012 all seem to interpret
Metro in a different way, with a surprising amount of inconsistency between
WP/W8.

------
kolinko
In my opinion giving bounties to developers is a flawed idea. Devs may be
motivated to do an app, but if the userbase is small, they will simply cut
corners, and do the bare minimum, forgetting about support and further
development after the bounty was acquired.

In other words - if there are no users, a bounty will not convince devs to
build a reasonable product, as there will be no incentive to do so. If there
are users within the ecosystem, then the bounty is unnecessary.

That is why so far the bounty programs did little to improve the ecosystems.

A nice idea someone posted here in the comments - instead of giving devs
bounty money, Microsoft could give free cash to users left & right, so they'd
spend it on the apps. This would force the devs to not only do an app, but do
a really good app...

~~~
r00fus
Alternatively, create startups using a fund (I know that Google and Apple have
both done this - but only really could find the iFund [1] )

Benefits: * Not free cash * Startups own their product, but are forced to
develop for your platform * Multiplies the amount of money * Allows some form
of control through stock ownership * Can pay for itself if the platform is
successful.

Cons: * Requires more overhead * Fund management needs to be trusted *
Startups thus created could "branch out" of your platform, thus creating
competition (see. Spotify - now competes with iTunes).

Personally, I see most of the negatives as "good problems to have", esp. when
you're about 3+ years behind existing (and rapidly growing) platforms (in the
case of Apple, that was vs. Windows/Web and in the case of Microsoft, it would
be iOS/Android).

[1]
[http://www.kpcb.com/initiatives/ifund/](http://www.kpcb.com/initiatives/ifund/)

------
faddotio
Blackberry paid bounties for every app developed in their store, and they got
what they paid for - developers repackaged worthless content like wallpapers
in the form of "apps" and listed them in the thousands. They made a killing. I
don't think RIM really cared one way or the other, because they were looking
to plump up that meaningless statistic that the press bandies around. Look, we
have M apps in N months, check dat growth!

------
mkenyon
Microsoft does this. I have helped port a few apps that are popular on other
platforms. The incentive for the company was, in fact, quite sizable.

~~~
hrvbr
To have the honor to be a developer on their platforms, we have to pay
Microsoft 49€ per year for Windows and 99€ per year for Windows Phone. That's
the opposite of a bounty.

------
sksksk
They have tried this, I used to work for a company that makes an app for
Android and iPhone. The app isn't great in itself, but it's part of a bigger
service, and was even featured in an iPhone ad at one point.

Microsoft said that they'd pay $100,000 towards an app for WP7 but we said no.
It sounds like a great deal, but the problem is that making the app is just
the first part. You're now on the hook for maintaining the app, providing
customer support, fixing bugs, adding new features etc...

If MS provided a guarantee that they'd pay for the ongoing support costs,
that'd be one thing, but I'd imagine that would get very expensive very
quickly.

~~~
harrytuttle
Depends what the app is.

We were asked to take part in such an offering for our portal but we declined
as there is little point in making an app when you already have a working
mobile site that is tested on the platform in question.

Whilst I really like WP, this is not the way to promote your platform.

------
theg2
I want a surface, but everytime I get close to buying I do the same thing
every time I consider buying a tablet, realize I have a laptop. Android, iOS,
Surface, doesn't matter, they're all a luxury for people who already own a
laptop or smartphone. Doesn't help that I already have a WP8 phone.

~~~
fumar
I agree with you, if you already have a laptop, then another device can be a
luxury. I purchased a Surface Pro about three weeks ago, my 2005 Macbook died.
I had been using my girlfriend's Surface RT for work, and that sufficed for
three months. But, I missed running Adobe CS, and it wasn't my machine. After
ten years of using OSX I turned to Windows.

The Pro has tackled all the tasks, I've thrown at it so far. For example, I
recently worked on a case study for a startup I work with. That meant writing,
doing interviews, researching, and some graphic design. A good amount of work
was done in Google Docs. But, the rest of my work flow lived in OneNote, Adobe
Illustrator and Photoshop.

At one point I had Illustrator, Photoshop, Chrome, Metro IE, and Xbox Music
running, without any hiccups. This was all while sitting at 1871, a
collaborative workspace in Chicago. A laptop can handle this right? Yeah. But,
the Surface is a tablet, that costs 799-899 dollars. Before, I purchased the
Pro, I was looking at getting a Macbook Air or a Macbook Pro. The Macbook Pro
was out of my price range, and the Air was a close competitor. I mention cost
to make a point on the price to value ratio for this machine.

The Surface is the sum of its parts. It has a high DPI screen, headphone jack,
a digitizer, a kickstand, a USB port, MircoSD card slot, and a mini DVI port.
At home it sits alongside a monitor, acting like a desktop.

The Surface Pro, has quickly become one of my favorite pieces of technology,
in a long time. The battery life could be better, and not every piece of
software is optimized to work well on the screen. But, overall, its a dream to
use on a daily basis. In my head this is what a tablet should be. Maybe, it
was the idea of the iPad, I wished existed, before it was officially
announced. Before, Steve Jobs, unveiled a 10 inch tablet that ran iOS not OSX.

PS. After using both Surfaces for a while now, I came to realization that
there should be more than one type of input for devices. We have an iMac at
home, I have to make an effort to not touch the screen!

~~~
hga
I think what you're attesting to is that the Surface Pro is not a bad or
uncompetitive device, as I've heard elsewhere, and e.g. Wikipedia reports that
Bloomberg reports that as of March 2013, total Surface sales were 1.5 million,
with the Pro accounting for 1.1 million of them.

Which echoes what you say about what was in competition for your dollars, not
iPads but real, not locked down with lots of software available laptops. E.g.
the Pro is a niche product like Apple's OS X ones are now. The real trouble
for Microsoft is how badly they executed on the Surface RT, and how many 10s
billions of dollars they're letting their competitors snap up.

~~~
fumar
Yes, Microsoft did a terrible job communicating what the Surface RT is, what
it does, and why it mattered.

I have used it extensively. Even then, I would not compare the Surface RT to
an iPad. It is closer to a Chrome Laptop. Sure the RT runs apps, and is a
tablet. But, in reality, it runs a full fledge browser and Microsoft Office
2013. When I was using the RT, I spent all of my time in the browser; Google
Apps, Basecamp & Campfire, and soundcloud, and Office. Sometimes, I would
treat it like a tablet, and watch a movie side-loaded. (My lady uses Netflix
and Hulu on it almost everyday at home)

I remember the day, my girlfriend purchased the RT. We were walking in the
mall, she walked into the Apple store, picked up an iPad. Then she walked over
to the Macbooks and couldn't make a decision. She wanted a tablet, but really
needed some laptop functionality. We left the Apple store thinking, an iPad
would probably be the best choice. This mall happened to have a Microsoft
store, and there it was, the Surface. We were both taken in by the colorful
keyboards, and the sleek metallic feel of it. But, we knew after a few minutes
of playing around, it lacked an App eco-system!

Neither of us, knew that it had full Office, and that it had a desktop
mode(app). Or why those would even mattered on a tablet! None of the store's
employees were of much help. While I was playing with the kickstand, she came
over and showed me the type keyboard. I hadn't cared much for it, it didn't
look as cool. The keyboard made a huge difference in the usability of the
device. It all made sense to me then. The Surface RT isn't a consumption
tablet, its a modern day netbook that doubles as a tablet. It could hold its
own in the real world.

That day she left with Surface RT. This was back in October, almost a year
ago. Since, then the Surface RT has proven to be a failure in the market. But,
I don't blame the device. The RT was the wrong device to take on the directly
iPad. The RT is in its own category, as is the Pro. I see both tablets as a
potential future for computing devices. Unfortunately, Microsoft did not
communicate that, they barely communicated anything.

~~~
jinushaun
The problem is that they called both devices Surface, when they were clearly
two different devices. One is a "laptop" with desktop mode, and the other is a
tablet with only Metro UI. To make matters worse, both devices ran "Windows".
But one "Windows" ran Photoshop, and the other "Windows" didn't. Apple did the
right thing by making a clear distinction between OS X and iOS. It gives users
clear expectations and doesn't create confusion and disappointment.

The only thing wrong with Surface RT is MS saying that it runs Windows, which
in most people's minds means mouse and keyboard. MS should have scaled up WP8
to tablets and called it something like Metro OS.

PS: Can MS please rename "Windows Phone 8" to something else without "Windows"
in its name?!

------
venomsnake
Or you know - a better solution - allow recompiled programs to be run on the
desktop and allow sideloading of metro applications. The surfaces will
disappear in a matter of days.

~~~
iamshs
You are talking about Surface RT. Side loading will allow the present troves
of ransomware and nasty toolbars to run amok on the Start Screen. And just
allowing sideloading will not generate considerable interest among masses, to
be frank.

~~~
venomsnake
No it won't ... it is very easy to add additional to MS key to allow singing
of code.

Sideloading will create interest in geeks and developers. And in some
businesses.

Anyway this is very cheap experiment to make ... the tablets are written off
and it requires a simple patch.

~~~
iamshs
Enterprises have their own separate store and the Enterprise Surface RTs allow
sideloading [1]. And I think XDA developers already have a jailbreak tool and
can compile desktop applications on RT [2,3].

[1]- [http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows/jj874388.aspx](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows/jj874388.aspx) [2]- [http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=2092158](http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=2092158) [3] - [http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=2092348](http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=2092348)

------
drewying
As other users have pointed out, Microsoft actually does a lot of this. If you
have a successful app MS will pay you handsomely to port it over.

Honest, the Surface's problem is more perception than anything

~~~
squeakynick
How handsomely? Will anyone step up and say? If this is happening, what is the
going rate? If you were offered, but did not accept, what value would have
changed your mind? (Everyone has a price) Are there really people out there
that turned down half a million, a million, five million dollars? Are there
smaller companies who would turn down 250K or 100k?

------
DennisP
A related but better idea is what Amazon did: create a digital currency and
give it to users to buy apps with. App sellers redeem the digital money for
real money from Microsoft. Now you're still subsidizing apps but real users
decide where the money goes.

------
johnchristopher
Oh, I know what they should do with Surface ! I mean... I know what I wish
they would do with Surface:

\- Produce a surface pro with 13" mate screen ;

\- 128gb ssd at least of whatever performance (upgradeable) ;

\- 4GB of RAM (not soldered, upgradeable) ;

\- keep the same vapor-mag chassis ;

\- 1xHDMI, at least 2xUSB (at least one 3.0), 1xVGA for every situation,
1xEthernet, 1xSD reader ;

\- an apple track-pad. Yes, they should buy the license. Stop messing with
random knockoffs of lesser quality ;

\- no weird 1080p screen on a 13" inch screen. hd+ is fine ;

\- a quiet CPU (quiet > power) with IGP.

For the magical price tag of 1000€, VAT included.

And how they should promote it:

\- Refresh the line every year or something ;

\- don't talk every day about it for 10 months before the next refresh hits
the drawing table ;

\- talk about it the day before it's available on-line and at retail store ;

\- produce one or two versions (10 or 11 and 13 inches) and let people upgrade
it the way they see fit.

Basically be an alternative to Apple.

Of course, I am only looking at it through the laptop angle. Not a care for
those tablets.

They are sitting on enough cash to try this for 3 years. Play it on the high
quality of build and a decent price tag and see what happens.

~~~
MichaelGG
That's what Lenovo should be doing, too. Properly revive the X-Series with
good screens and serious hardware. Except, put a proper screen on. Google
ships a 4K screen on a 10" tablet. There's no reason for any 12"\+
laptop/tablet to come with less. Your suggestion of HD+ literally means that
this 13" device has less pixels than modern phones.

~~~
johnchristopher
> Your suggestion of HD+ literally means that this 13" device has less pixels
> than modern phones.

Which isn't a problem in my opinion. 1080p on such a device means you have to
scale up fonts and graphics elements to get to sthg like 1366x768 anyway (so
things are actually readable). It's not about pixel counts, it's about usable
optimal size for things displayed on the screen. Upscaling is bad because it
requires more energy and heat more. HD+ or macbook air is enough for laptop
resolution.

I forgot to add a good lenovo keyboard (or good island style keyboard but not
those mushy surface keyboard).

~~~
MichaelGG
A: 1366x768 is especially junk, as 720p video is going to get slightly
upscaled and blurred. So it's low-res _and_ looks bad for video.

B: Pixel doubling is a fine alternative. I recently saw a MacBook Retina, and
I spent 15 minutes just reading colorized HTML because it was so shockingly
good looking. Windows 8 (at least the WinRT side) supports scaling much
better, and 8.1 is supposed to be able to do 200% (aka perfect) out of the
box. So again, they're just lagging by not even offering the option.

C: Not everyone has terrible eyesight. Lenovo offers no 1080p (or higher, like
they IBM did) on anything less than their 15" device (and the 11" Helix, I
think). There's no excuse for that. I'd be exceedingly content with 4K on a
12" X-Series. I'd be overjoyed even to get 1920x1200 on an X-Series.

------
simonh
Paying developers to write apps only gets you so far, and anyway Microsoft is
already doing it.

The main problem right now is they don't have Metro app versions of their own
flagship products. When the iPad launched, it launched with Garageband, Pages,
Keynote and Numbers in the App Store and ready to go (maybe a few weeks wait
for some of them). Windows 8 was rushed and botched, plain and simple. There's
just no excuse for launching without at least a plurality of native Metro
versions of their flagship apps. You just can't expect third party developers
to help float a platform if you don't bootstrap the ecosystem with apps
yourself. This has been a problem for Android on tablets as well as Google
only provides phone type apps. Relying on third parties means there's a long
lag between platform launch and decent app support, and that gap is filled
with the sound of crickets chirping and tumbleweeds blowing through your app
store. Not a good way to encourage user adoption.

Having said that, from everything I hear the Surface Pro 128 is a great
machine. If I hadn't bought into Mac/iOS 6 years ago I'd be tempted.

------
matt__rose
RIM tried the same thing with the Playbook... We all know how well that worked

~~~
hga
RIM shipped it without supplying native email or a calendar, you were supposed
to use your normally Blackberry to supply those to it.

Hard to imagine it being successful without such basic functionality, let
alone it not being what you'd expect from RIM, it caused more than a little
brand damage.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Both Surface tablets should've had the cover included from the start, and
honestly the prices should be, oh, $100.00 lower than they are now. The
Surfaces remind me of those 2011 era Android tablets running 3.x-decent specs,
but poor apps, poor user experience, the same price or more expensive than the
iPad, and were usually vaporware (or one small step up from that).

MSFT is in the position Android was back then, the big difference being
obviously that Android has moved ahead.

------
od2m
The design of this site is intolerable.

------
Toshio
microsoft should understand that mobile is a battle they can never win, they
should count their blessings and focus entirely on the enterprise side of
their business.

~~~
MichaelGG
Not that this is unassailable reason, but I've heard people say the exact same
thing about Microsoft in 1999. "Palm's so far ahead of them, etc. etc." \- a
few years later, Palm was shipping Windows.

Microsoft's fundamentals on Windows 8 mobile are quite solid. Even the design
aspect ("pure digital") is something that both Android and iOS are moving to
in some form.

It's true that WP7/Win8 haven't launched as well as they'd hoped, but calling
it over seems rather premature.

~~~
Shamanmuni
It's true what you say, but we have a different world nowadays. In 1999
Microsoft was the undisputable world champion in IT, they were the only ones
who had deep pockets, lots of users and a tremendous software ecosystem. Now
we have both Google and Apple with deep pockets, lots of users and software in
their stores.

Google is even playing the Microsoft card, developing a desirable OS for the
hardware manufacturers to use in their devices. And the hardware manufacturers
are delighted because not only it's free, but they also can have their own app
stores and add value to differentiate themselves from the competition (look at
Samsung with the Galaxy devices). It must be a hard sell to convince these
guys to return to Microsoft, be just another "Windows devices + crapware"
manufacturer and stay away from the profits of purchased apps.

On the other hand, the much touted inertia towards Microsoft products has been
debunked, I think. Many people seem quite happy and productive with iWork or
QuickOffice on their devices. And that cannot be overstated, once you see that
in the end you could do work without Microsoft Office, it's really hard to put
the genie back in the bottle. The other part was games, and you can find
plenty of them both in iOS or Android.

So, not impossible, but it's clear that this time it will be very difficult
for Microsoft to be topdog in mobile. They are late and struggling.

