
Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hideous - ytNumbers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/30/microsoft_surface_sales_disaster/
======
AceJohnny2
Ben Kuchera of the Penny Arcade Report has a scathing and spot-on review of
Microsoft's advertising strategy for the Surface (as well as for the rest of
their product line).

It's interesting that PA's Mike "Gabe" Krahulik had a better pitch than MS
themselves.

[http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/microsoft-is-
killing-...](http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/microsoft-is-killing-
surface-with-breakdancing-and-its-going-to-hurt-xbox-o)

~~~
rayiner
It's easy to blame marketing for Surface's failure, but I don't think that's
the whole or even the most of it. If you read the reviews, nearly all
mentioned or hinted at one thing: you should probably wait for the next
iteration. And that's absolutely a product management failure, not a marketing
failure. In tech, it is always the case that the next version of a product
will be better, but it's a product design failure if the limitations of the
device leave the user hankering for the upgrade from Day 1.

Re: Surface RT, Microsoft launched at the same price point as the iPad 4, but
substantially later, with a last-generation CPU/GPU, non-Retina screen, and a
buggy, slow, pre-release version of Office RT. That last point was
inexcusable, a product management fuck up of Apple Maps proportions. The whole
point of Surface RT was Office, and every review of the device said "Office RT
is slow and buggy." The overwhelming feeling with Surface RT is that "I'm
really going to be kicking myself in 6 months when they release the next
version with flagship specs to match the flagship price."

Re: Surface Pro, Microsoft launched at a Macbook Air 11" price point, without
the Air's great keyboard and with substantially weaker battery life (in
Engadget's test, half the battery life of the comparably-sized Acer W700). The
overwhelming feeling with Surface Pro was "I'm really going to be kicking
myself when they release the next iteration with Haswell and usable battery
life."

On top of all that, the segmentation was arbitrary and capricious. What's the
difference between Surface RT and Surface Pro? It's an explanation that
probably makes sense to a marketing guy somewhere trying to differentiate
SKUs, but not one that I think resonated with consumers. Nexus 7 versus Nexus
10, iPad versus iPad Mini. That's how to do product differentiation--in a way
that's immediately obvious to the consumer.

There was also some weird design choices. Why the extreme wide-format screen?
Did anybody even try reading a Word document in portrait mode on the thing? I
can understand the format for consumer-oriented tablets, but Surface was
supposed to be a "real work" office machine! Why are there two ways to manage
settings, one set in Metro and another set in the Desktop? Why do so many
things require going into the Desktop anyway? Who thought it was even a good
idea to expose the user to two completely different UI's in the same device?

~~~
barista
regarding comparison with iPad, the CPU GPU combination does not matter
because Surface was/is still plenty fast with the hardware it has. Agree on
the screen and Office though. Although office was updated a month or two after
the release and fixed the performance issues in time. I wouldn't necessarily
attribute the problems to that. Marketing seems to have come around and have
started chaning the message and attacking the iPad more directly in adverts
like this
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA)
and
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w)

plus the reduced price should help make it attractive. It's one very
functional device though. Just today I read an article of how it was perfect
for a student. Will update with a link if I find it.

~~~
rayiner
> the CPU GPU combination does not matter because Surface was/is still plenty
> fast with the hardware it has.

It really isn't. Nearly every review mentioned that it felt a little slow.
Anand Tech mentioned it was "almost" as smooth as an iPad, but felt slower
starting apps. Tech Radar said its graphics performance was "sluggish." Ars
mentioned apps starting slower than they would like. I had a Surface RT for
several weeks, and that was exactly my impression: it felt just a step slower
than my wife's iPad, and that wasn't an admirable quality in a $500+$100
tablet. If Surface RT had started at $350, people would have perceived it as
an acceptable compromise.

> Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the
> performance issues in time.

It doesn't matter what happens "a month or two" after all the reviews are
written. Nobody who wasn't hoping for the Surface RT to succeed bothered to go
back a couple of months later to check for updates.

------
Zigurd
OK, so you run a company with practically infinite resources, an OS that is
portable across architectures, and a managed language runtime that's portable
across architectures that powers hundreds of thousands (millions?) of useful
applications with a suite of languages including what is arguably a nicer
language than Java.

You see Android running the same apps on multiple mobile device architectures
using Java and the Dalvik VM. That's a technology you had since 13 years ago
with NETCF.

Hmmm. What to do? What to do? I KNOW: Let's segment the market by blowing off
compatibility with a gazillion apps my enterprise customers have written and
use and let's use Surface RT to go for a Quixotic attempt to beat Apple and
Google with Modern apps which are over-sandboxed and can't talk to .NET apps.

That comes off as derisive, but how do you say it nicer? They lost a billion
dollars in a write-down - not a write-off - doing that, and not one word about
"Gee, can we fix the product formulation?"

Well, at least they didn't buy Motorola. That's going to be a write-down that
leaves a mark.

~~~
cryowaffle
Google bought Motorola as a defensive patent move, it's almost completely
intangible.

~~~
strandev
12.5+ billion dollars isn't intangible, even for Google.

~~~
treeface
He's trying to say that Google paid something tangible for something
intangible. It's difficult to estimate the present value of a patent
portfolio, ergo it's "intangible".

------
brudgers
Suppose Microsoft was a pharmaceutical company. Would this be news?

Merck had nearly $7 billion in operating losses last year on $48 billion in
revenue. Microsoft had $22 billion in net revenue on $78 billion in income.
The write down affected profits by less than 5%.

Surface is a research project - like Kin before it. Microsoft put several
million Windows RT devices in the field in less than nine months. They will
probably put another several million in the field in the next few.

That's a lot of stinking data, a lot cheaper than clinical development of a
new new drug, and almost certain to be repaid over the long term because
they've got Windows running on ARM and while there's the normal calls for
Ballmer - Microsoft's second largest stockholder after his college buddy Gates
- to fire himself, there are not widespread reports of technical failure from
the field. On top of all that, every device they sell recoups part of their
sunk cost in R&D.

Microsoft built a reference device for a new operating system. They have
collected data to help their hardware partners develop more devices. They have
collected data upon which to build a roadmap for Windows on ARM. Microsoft
does not live and die quarter to quarter with Wall Street because the founder
and first Business Manager still hold enough stock to call the shots.

They also realized well over a billion dollars of wealth apiece last year from
Microsoft's operations. Both the numbers and the standard journalistic refrain
that Microsoft is failing are pretty much the same as last year and the year
before etc. It's just another news cycle.

~~~
joe_the_user
Uh,

I don't think you have provided a persuasive argument (or any argument
actually) for the contention that Microsoft's performance has a relation to
the performance of a pharmaceutical company.

Drug development is hit-or-miss like software development. But that's about
it.

Unlike drug development, software development often involves creating and
maintaining a platform that will give you profits for years to come - or
failing miserably and spectacularly. Microsoft's recent performance has been
beyond abysmal and they've only only survived on the profits from their
previous successes at building a platform - many people are still forced to
use Windows. But everyone is looking around and the prospects look, uh, dim.

Sure, Microsoft doesn't live quarter to quarter. Which is why it's death is
not yet finished but that's about it.

~~~
sirkneeland
"it's [sic] death is not yet finished"

They made more money in the last 3 months than any tech company on earth save
for Apple and you're writing as though they are an almost dead, twitching
patient in a hospice.

For a group of smart people who at least consider themselves open-minded and
objective, an astonishing amount of stupidly closed-minded things are said
about Microsoft.

~~~
maskedinvader
> For a group of smart people who at least consider themselves open-minded and
> objective, an astonishing amount of stupidly closed-minded things are said
> about Microsoft.

completely agree. My question to everybody who's out there with their knives
and fork is this, so microsoft's surface tablets lost a lot of money and did
not sell , you think companies like microsoft and google should quit trying to
compete with apple for gaining tablet market share ? I believe the next
iteration would fare much better and win 8.1 or maybe even win 9 could be when
we begin to see microsoft gaining market share in mobile device sales.

------
freehunter
Anyone remember Microsoft's last huge push into the hardware market, the Xbox?
How would this headline have looked in 2001? If we remember, Microsoft took
seven straight year-over-year billion dollar losses until the Microsoft gaming
division finally posted a profit in 2008.

I don't mean to directly compare Windows RT with the Xbox, the point I'm
making is that Microsoft is used to sustaining huge losses for long time
periods until they finally capture the market they want.

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox.html](http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox.html)

~~~
mmastrac
They spent quite a bit on the Zune without getting much traction. Sure, they
"pivoted" some of the experience into Windows Phone, but that product
basically sunk to the bottom of the market.

~~~
freehunter
I'd say that Microsoft didn't so much fail at the Zune as they realize that
the PMP market wasn't a place where success could happen even after dropping
billions per year. Zune became part of Xbox Live, Windows 8, and Windows
Phone. Apple is the only major player in the PMP market for a reason, Android
has barely even touched that space. Everyone I know who used a Zune loved the
experience, although it was ridiculously easy to make fun of. The problem is,
PMPs are a niche market, and upending the iPod will cost more than any profits
there are to be had.

------
crazygringo
My simple, genuine question is: how did this happen?

I mean, Microsoft has _huge_ resources, and presumably does testing with focus
groups, etc. They must test these devices with potential consumers, and it's
not rocket science to do some sampling to determine how many units will sell,
to get a very rough ballpark figure.

How could Microsoft mis-estimate the market on a scale of this magnitude? This
isn't just a random extra camera or cellphone model that maybe doesn't sell so
well. I honestly don't understand how a company this large, could get it this
wrong.

~~~
joe_the_user
The entire Windows 8 roll-out was a palpably desperate effort to leverage
Microsoft's existing desktop monopoly to gain a hold on what was/is seen as
"the future of computing" tablets and phones.

Microsoft did very badly. But this kind of thing is hard to do and is not a
one product or an incremental-product-improvements affair.

When Microsoft was fighting for it desktop monopoly, it did a good job of
leveraging it's strengths to produce products that were "bad" by many measures
but which satisfied a lot of user requirements and offered the end user good
value. Surface is a logical product in this long lineage (and in answer to the
parent's question, you can't create a Frankenstein product like Surface with
focus group because Surface had to be a "quantum leap", an ad-hoc product of
bucket chemistry). The problem is that apparently either the tablet market is
not fluid enough that a product can win by just being a bucket of feature or
Google already muscled into the feature-side and Microsoft isn't getting that
part.

And equally, until now, Microsoft didn't actually sh-t all over their basic
UI. But the approach of removing the start button subtracted more existing
users than "Metro" could hope to gain.

You could frame this affair by saying that not only did MS' greed not abate
over the years, it grew large enough to strangle the beast. Couldn't have
happened to nicer people.

~~~
wvenable
Microsoft isn't really leveraging their existing desktop monopoly; if they
were doing that they might have had a chance. Instead they competing with
Apple and Google on their competitors terms. They created an entirely new
locked down API and a store; that isn't leveraging anything.

When Windows-on-ARM was demoed running full Windows 7 with all the fixings I
was really interested. But then they crippled it.

There isn't anything wrong with Metro. Having a single OS across every
platform is good too. But sacrificing the desktop for WinRT/Metro is the
opposite of leveraging their monopoly.

If I was in charge of Microsoft, I'd put the Windows 7 start menu back in
Win8. I'd make it so metro applications (and settings) could run windowed in
the desktop. I'd focus on simplifying the desktop experience to make it more
metro-like without forcing people to switch modes. Windows RT would run all
ARM Win32 apps unrestricted.

------
dmfdmf
I see two big issues with Microsoft.

First is that they have drifted away from a basic principle that made Bill
Gates a billionaire -- backwards compatibility, or at least when backwards
compatibility had to be broken there was clear benefits and an upgrade or
conversion path to ease the pain. Surface RT, Surface Pro, Win8, etc are just
confusing choices to any customers thinking of a purchase. I'd rather just buy
an iPad, quite frankly.

Secondly, Microsoft is still bitter and stinging over the old "I'm a Mac, I'm
a PC" commercials. Those were epic, hilarious commercials that stuck a cord
with users and that MS never countered. They should have blasted back with the
truth -- yeah, Macs are cool but when you want to get real work done you use
Windows. Instead they were silently stewing with resentment. Surface and the
Surface marketing campaign can be summed up as MS's attempt to show the world
that they are "cool" too just like Apple. But as most people know, trying to
be cool is uncool and everyone laughs at the attempt. MS needs to embrace and
be proud of their identity and stop trying to me-too Apple and just build
products that work and run the world.

~~~
cubicle67
_Macs are cool but when you want to get real work done you use Windows_

Speaking as a Mac user (who considers what he does to be real work), I think
it would be more cutting to play on the games aspect of Windows. That really
is the One Thing™ Windows has over other OSs

~~~
yulaow
I do not use a macbook but totally agree with you. And in comparision with
linux it would just change in "Linux is cool but when you want to play AAA
games and use our proprietary office suite you use windows"

------
stickhandle
Let's face it, this is the MS way. Most of the time, anyway. Office products
were inferior once. Same goes for search, xbox, touch devices. MS iterates,
sometimes slowly, and plays the tortoise. It doesn't always work (zune, bing),
but sometimes it does (word, excel, xbox). The only caveat is the competition
this time is Apple and Google. That's tougher sledding than Sony, Nintendo,
Corel, Lotus, Novell et al. Then again, they've done battle with IBM, Oracle,
and a different version of Apple in the past and found wins. Never write MS
off on v1.

------
coldcode
As much as I used to hate them (competed vs Excel in the 1980s and lost) now I
mostly pity them. I was at Apple in 1995 and it was both depressing and sad
that a once great company was on death's door. But other than a huge amount of
cash (which Apple sure didn't have, they even took away our popcorn maker)
there doesn't seem to be a savior on the horizon.

~~~
gruseom
_competed vs Excel in the 1980s and lost_

I'd like to hear more about that. What was the product? Why did it lose?

~~~
coldcode
Trapeze was a very different kind of spreadsheet program, more like a cross
between a numerical Mathematica and a spreadsheet. It was not built on the
traditional row and column grid. We made the mistake of trying to market vs
Excel when in reality it was a higher level modeling tool. I still get emails
from former users who still remember it fondly.

~~~
gruseom
That's fascinating. I googled a little and found [1], which speaks highly of
Trapeze. It even says that modern spreadsheets still haven't caught up to it.

I'd heard of Improv, but not Trapeze. It sounds like you were earlier. Did you
see a lot of similarity when Improv (and later Quantrix) came out?

Also, why do you think that Excel users, even sophisticated ones, tend to
stick to Excel instead of using higher-level modeling tools? Is it simply that
Excel is entrenched, or are there conceptual reasons?

[1]
[http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_V...](http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_View/Entries/2011/3/26_Trapeze.html)

~~~
coldcode
Improv came later. We released Trapeze in Jan 1987. People followed some of
the ideas we did but no matter every spreadsheet ultimately failed vs Excel. I
think being part of Office made Excel the only game in town. Powerpoint won vs
Persuasion (another app I worked on part of) for the same reason.

------
tomkarlo
So if I'm interpreting this right, they did $853 of sales on two product lines
that probably had about an $700 and $1200 average sales price (including
accessories like the keyboard that attach at time of sale.)

It depends on the mix, but is that something like 750K units of Surface RT and
200K units of Surface Pro? (Not ridiculously terrible for a first effort, but
obviously disappointing given the marketing spend.) Why doesn't the article
estimate the units?

------
michaelpinto
If Microsoft is going to succeed they'll have to make mistakes. And the
Surface shows some original thinking which I haven't seen before. So I think
we should be rooting for Microsoft to bring new things to the industry because
that benefits everyone else in the space. And I say this as a long time Apple
fanboy...

~~~
purplelobster
I honestly think the Metro UI is pretty neat. I don't really like most of the
apps I've tried though, but the OS itself is pretty innovative compared to
iOS. Love the app switching by swiping in from the right. The charms bar makes
sense. Swiping from above to close an app is convenient. Search is good (but
improved in 8.1). Most of all it's really snappy. Of course I'm biased because
I actually bought one. It's the first MS product that impressed me for a long
time. I like humble, beaten down Microsoft, I can feel they're actually trying
and fighting for their life this time around, and I think if people would just
try it out instead of spewing the default hate for M$, they might actually
like it too. I have a feeling it's too little too late though, not sure if
their business model can survive this decade. If Apple came out with an Air
tablet that could be used as a laptop replacement, then that would probably be
it for the surface and Windows 8.

------
lowglow
I know some people at Microsoft. They said their entire team was gifted the
Surface. They were used maybe twice and then never again. That's pretty sad.

~~~
fsck--off
Surface RT or Surface Pro? Were the Surfaces (or Surfactants, I'm not sure
what the plural is) meant to be used in a professional capacity, or were they
intended for personal use?

~~~
Danieru
Surface RT, Personal use.

The RT was the subject of several lunch time discussions over my recent
internship. I remember one dev recounting the nightmare of buying a video
rental through the xbox video app I think it was. The nightmare hinged on
several issues one of which being the lack of silverlight support. His surface
was out of space so downloading did not work yet streaming required the not
present silverlight. He had to clear out some files in the end.

Another dev used his as a picture frame. Beyond those two cases I only ever
heard of the RT going unused. This despite an internal program one could use
to unlock the surface. Once unlocked any developer could then recompile one of
the windows binaries and generate a testing package which could be installed.
In theory this means the devs could have full control of the device. In
practice no one appeared to care.

Another fun fact I learned: the Apple store gives discounts on the iPad if you
show them your microsoft badge while the Microsoft store does not.

~~~
Happer
The Apple store gives discounts to employees of other IT companies as well:
IBM, SAP, Dell, HP, etc. The list is pretty extensive. Just ask for it and
don't forget to bring your company badge :)

~~~
chii
does it work if you borrowed someone else's badge? :D

------
zmmmmm
This is an interesting counter to the popular wisdom about what can be
achieved with marketing. An unlimited marketing budget may be necessary but it
is not sufficient, even with a notionally attractive proposition like the
surface. It cannot overcome fundamental product issues like being too
expensive, lacking killer applications, poor product targeting (who is the
Surface RT _really_ for?), or even just entrenched negative consumer
perception. I think the Surface RT had all these issues and the marketing was
not all that great on top of it.

------
throwawaykf02
Wait, so assuming any reasonable ratio of Surface to Surface Pro sales, they
still sold more than a million devices? That's... more than I expected.

Still far short of the "few million" they expected to sell, but a million
seems respectable for the first year of a late entry in a hypercompetitive
market, no?

------
olefoo
Something that has been true for the past decade; inside of Microsoft are
hundreds of small companies that will never get out.

As I see it almost everyone involved with the Surface ended up paying the
Windows strategy tax. Microsoft should have released two separate OS's Surface
for tablets and Windows 8 for the workstation market. But, they should not
have done what they did; which is to create a confusing frankenstein of a UI
that will drop you into the windows explorer when you were trying to open an
app with your fingers.

This is a sterling example of how Ballmer's management team and the culture he
has created have failed to understand both customers and markets. Too many
agendas working at cross-purposes and no one who can outright say no to a bad
idea coming from a powerful or connected source.

~~~
njr123
> Microsoft should have released two separate OS's Surface for tablets and
> Windows 8 for the workstation market

This was the fatal mistake IMO, and I don't know why it doesn't get more
discussion. I think Metro is a great tablet interface, and I can imagine that
a Surface just running Metro with just the app store would sell pretty ok.
Instead its confusingly positioned as some sort of tablet hybrid that still
runs the old windows, but with a new start menu or something.

And on the flip side, you have PCs running Metro, which not only absolutely
sucks to use with a mouse and keyboard, the new interface puts off
corporations from upgrading because they are worried about training costs etc.

Its like thinking, 'So, Excel sells pretty well, and Word does too. Therefore
we should develop a hybrid Word processor-spreadsheet application'.

Incidentally, I don't know that Ballmer is totally to blame here. I strongly
suspect that Sinsofsky pushed very hard to make sure every new operating
system initiative would come under his division. I think this is why Windows
Phone is called Windows Phone too, even though it would probably by much much
easier to market under its own brand.

~~~
yulaow
They need developers and they need to make people feel ok with the new
interface before buying a tablet. So it made sense to put the same UI in
windows 8 so people can try it and then feel comfortable and buy a related
tablet.

Problem is: the most of the people hate metro ui, the medium user can get the
difference between w8 and wRT and really a incredible small part of the total
windows developers joined the ship of winRT/JS and no one of the "main"
contributors

------
ww520
They have priced the devices way too high. Microsoft has been mostly
successful before when started with low end products to build market share,
got market feedback, and iterated over the years to iron out the kinks, and
then moved up the chain eventually.

Apple has been in the premium product game for their whole life and know how
it work. Microsoft needs to stick with their strength and avoid their
weakness.

~~~
barista
They priced it competitively with the product they were fighting. But now its
prices way less than iPad. iPad - $500 Surface RT - $350

~~~
ww520
IPad is already in its N-th iteration. What was Microsoft thinking that it
could pitch an alpha/beta product against Apple's mature product head-to-head?

Pricing it low initially gives value to the users and they would be more
forgiving of its shortcomings. It at least creates market share and momentum.

Priced it high initially and then low it is the worse marketing approach. The
initial high price kills market penetration, and the subsequent price slash
creates a sense of desperation and signals something is wrong with the
product.

------
Aldo_MX
Without the ability to recompile desktop apps I don't see a good reason to
have a WinRT device. Office is not enough.

~~~
rschmitty
Thats like saying your iPad is worthless because non of the OSX apps work on
it

If MS had the insane push of apps that iOS did your statement would not be an
issue

~~~
Aldo_MX
My point is: What's the reason to enable the Desktop if you won't be able to
run Desktop Apps? To play Minesweeper and use MS Paint? The Desktop doesn't
even make sense in a Tablet!

In my honest opinion I perceive the desktop as a last-resort when "there's not
an app for that", and considering that "there are not a lot of apps for that"
in Windows RT, for me it's ridiculous that they didn't allow the ability to
use the desktop the way we have been using it in the last 18 years.

If Microsoft were serious against the iPad they should have included the full
Desktop experience in the first place.

------
ternaryoperator
It's a shame b/c the Surface Pro (not the RT) is a great device. It strikes
the right balance between a tablet and a laptop. In addition, it runs all
Windows apps.

I think the biggest problems (and likely the chief barriers to better sales)
are the price and the short battery life when compared with other tablets.

~~~
MBCook
The Surface Pro was really kind of cursed. It came out after the Surface RT,
which was a confusing product that didn't meet expectations or match up well
to the competition. It also became something of a poster child for Windows 8
which received a ton of negative press. Finally the decision to call them both
Surface and have them be indistinguishable in hardware & interface was
designed to create confusion.

------
lucb1e
"If at first you don't succeed, you're about average" comes to mind.

I personally think Windows 8 is the core of all issues. Many hate the OS,
justly or not, and that causes any device with Windows 8 on it to sell a lot
less units. They're actually lucky selling as many Windows 8 licenses as they
have, even I got two and use neither (they forced it down my throat while
buying new hardware, even though the OEM license states that there must be a
license return policy, which HP just violates).

The ads for the Surface are pretty neat I think, and others I heard about it
thought the same, but meanwhile nobody is buying. Apple somehow got people to
use iPad as synonym for the word tablet. Microsoft really has to show an
advantage over the iPad or a laptop, but so far nobody has seen any.

------
milhous
I'm in the Apple camp, but I think the crazy rumor that Surface was going to
go on sale for $199 disappointed a lot of people. Definitely would've bought
one at that price. Heck, I would've stood in line at a Microsoft store on
launch day.

------
conroy
Could we please change the headline? No need to scream in HN headlines. Edit:
thanks mods

~~~
e3pi
"Microsoft's Surface sales figures are in, and they're hideous"

>Could we please change the headline? No need to scream in HN headlines.

Don't blame the mirror when you see the reality of who you truly are.

------
bhauer
I use my Surface Pro nearly every day, so this sort of report makes me feel
that:

a. I am an oddball (probably true).

b. Microsoft's marketing for the Surface sucks (generally accepted as
objectively true).

c. The Surface was a weak attempt (A subjective matter. I like mine, but there
is lot of room for improvement. Ask me if you want more details).

The pundits have said their pieces, and I have written my own thoughts/rant
about Microsoft's current unenviable situation [1]. But as a user of a Surface
Pro, I'll offer up some of my random thoughts here as well.

Hardware-wise, the Surface Pro is one generation too early; it needs a Haswell
CPU in order to provide user-friendly battery life and perhaps shed some
weight. To meet their launch timing objectives, Microsoft had no choice but to
use Ivy Bridge. As it was, the Pro was disturbingly late to market compared to
the RT. The RT's flailing in the market muted the thunder of the Pro release.
The market's response to the lackluster RT had already set in, casting a long
shadow over the Pro. When the Pro finally arrived, less technically-savvy
consumers were already disinterested. Even us tech folks were lukewarm despite
the Pro being quite nice even if you use it as merely an ultrabook.

If Surface 2 is entirely Haswell (that is, both entry-level and Pro-level are
low-TDP x86), and nothing else changes, I think the hardware will be just shy
of superb. As it is, the Surface Pro packs ultrabook performance in a tablet-
like form factor. Browsing the web, writing code, working with e-mails,
Twitter, IM, IRC, the works--it's all as fast and smooth as the workstation I
have at the office (a first-generation i7). It makes conventional tablets seem
alarmingly slow and limited.

On the other hand, because the Pro is heavy and encumbered by a hungry CPU,
it's not as versatile as conventional tablets.

I think it is now evident to most that Windows RT should be unshackled.
Microsoft was apparently worried about cannibalism, but that worry is
overshadowed by an utter dearth of sales. Microsoft should strongly shun their
baked-in culture of capriciously angering consumers. They _know_ arbitrary
software limitations will upset consumers but they do it anyway. Stop that.

Personally, my computing lifestyle is not especially amenable to "computing
device addition," and yet I half-reluctantly acquired a Surface Pro because I
wanted portable computing capability and had never owned a high-end laptop. My
tablets left me wanting more, but laptops never quite fit my desires (too
large, too low-DPI). Plus, I am a bit of a Microsoft fanboy, I'll admit it.

Rather than adding another computing device, I would prefer a model where all
my applications run on a compute server I own and operate (my workstation at
home would suffice), and all of my devices connect to views of those
applications. Adding a Surface Pro gives me yet another first-class computing
device to manage. So now I have all of the following devices in my life
wanting me to manage applications, manage data, manage configuration, manage
presence, manage and synchronize state: my home workstation, my office
workstation, my media PC, my phone, my Surface Pro, and my other tablets.

It's frustrating to add another device to the pile with no change to the
underlying model of working with devices. I feel Microsoft is fairly uniquely
positioned to present a unified computing model to users that Google and Apple
seem reluctant to provide due to cloud stickiness (that is, a desire to solve
application continuity and data continuity by moving applications to their
public cloud rather than user-owned/managed applications). Microsoft is
chasing the Google and Apple model and so far they are failing. As a Surface
Pro owner, and Windows user on my workstation, I'd like to see Microsoft
change course to provide a unified computing model focused on my devices
working in a master-slave configuration over (tunneled) private networks.

Frankly, I want my Surface Pro to be a touch and keyboard-enabled, high-DPI,
remote terminal to responsive (in the web-app sense of the word) application
instances running on my workstation. That way, it's not a first-class
computing device with all of the encumbering nags that entails. I want a
subservient tablet that is just one view, one set of input and output devices,
for my singular computing.

Finally, as I included in the linked rant, I believe a massive problem for
Microsoft is the insanity of MSDN pricing. I strongly believe that their
pricing model is actively hostile to developers, especially in this time of
indie-oriented application development. They may have all sorts of special
business programs that provide exceptions to the standard pricing--I honestly
don't know--but the standard pricing stares you in the face and says, "Go
away, Windows development is not for you." That sucks.

[1] [http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft](http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft)

~~~
Tloewald
I don't own a Surface Pro but I was at one stage determined to buy one, until
I tried several out in different stores. The keyboard covers are both _awful_.
This isn't a generation too early, it's just horribly bad.

So having designed the device around a crappy keyboard cover, Microsoft
painted itself into a corner. Is it a usable laptop replacement? No, it's not.
So, how is it as a tablet? Well, no apps to speak of, heavy, and crappy
battery life.

I agree about using a tablet as a remote access point for a desktop computer
(or whatever). The iPad makes sense for that too (and third party tools make
it quite functional in a pinch). A really well-thought-out implementation of
this idea would be wonderful (and I hope Apple does this too).

~~~
atourgates
I'm glad to hear someone else address this, so I don't feel like a crazy
person.

I really liked the idea of the touch keypad, and as I write things for a
living, I thought it might be a reason for me to get a surface.

I tried one at BestBuy, and it was so awful I assumed it was broken. Then I
went to a MSFT store and tried 4 before I realized it was broken, but at a
much deeper level than I had initially assumed.

The Type cover is usable, bit feels oh so cheap and breakable, out of
character for the rest of the device's quite high build quality.

So you're stick with a keyboard that's broken by design, or one that feels
like it will break at any second.

If they made a usable touch keypad, I'd buy a Surface.

------
boyter
I predict that a refreshed Surface Pro with Haswell will sell quite well. I
know that it is a product I want to buy (or a Transformer with Haswell
whichever comes first).

The Surface Pro is an excellent device let down only by battery life IMHO.

~~~
ihsw
Haswell works well in the laptop space, but Intel's tablet/mobile offerings
aren't there yet.

About seven months ago an Intel CPU architect/designer did a Q+A session on
reddit, and here is a choice quote:

> For mobile, we have no choice but to become relevant. As for when, my
> personal prediction for substantial growth is Q1 2014, domination in 2015.

Source:
[http://r2.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/15iaet/iama_cpu_archite...](http://r2.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/15iaet/iama_cpu_architect_and_designer_at_intel_ama/c7mppzh)

~~~
boyter
The thing is I don't see the Surface Pro as a tablet so much as an ultra-book
that can be a tablet. I want it as a highly portable laptop that I can use as
a tablet on the way home.

For me Surface Pro with 6+ hours of battery life (which Haswell should give
it) would be perfect.

------
geuis
Took the Xbox years to be profitable. Microsoft is turning in a new direction
and its going to take a while before they get onto their new course.

[http://septemberlove.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/turning-...](http://septemberlove.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/turning-ship.jpg)

Big ships don't turn on a dime.

------
pqdbr
I'm amazed by reading all these comments that nobody touched on the lacking 3G
issue.

Last time I checked, Surface was supposed to be a tablet, to compete with iPad
and all.

What were they thinking when they released it without offering a 3G option,
even at a premium price ?

~~~
jonaford
Great point. This was the actual reason I didn't buy a surface.

------
yuhong
I think even Thurrott don't recommend the Surface RT:
[http://winsupersite.com/windows-rt/surface-rt-350-time-
buy](http://winsupersite.com/windows-rt/surface-rt-350-time-buy)

------
skc
I think they'll be alright in the end, Microsoft tends to iterate their
products in the classic if infuriating way.

I expect v2 to be good and v3 to be pretty stellar. The question is time.

Off topic, does anyone have Chromebook Pixel sales figures yet?

------
kabdib
The RT was doomed when the priced it too high, by about a hundred dollars.

I've heard this was because the COGs were quite high, because Apple had a
bunch of the components market sewn up.

I think the base model RT might have had a chance at $350.

------
damian2000
MS should consider going back to being just a software company, as IBM did
when they sold off their PC division to Lenovo. Their key strength is still
their business software and desktop/server OS (Windows).

------
kylebgorman
I know just where to put all those extra Surfaces nobody wants:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial)

------
bwang29
The majority of PC users are probably cooperate users, gamers, non technical
casual users, developers. Windows RT provide very small value to these people.

------
jonaford
If they had simply targeted RT at corporates and Pro at consumers this would
have all turned out very differently.

------
corporalagumbo
>fondleslabs

Ugh, I HATE this word. Why do people use it? To make themselves feel clever
and superior?

------
HashThis
Yikes. They better turn this around quickly, or they may no longer be the
country's best technology company.

------
barista
iPad sales in a year were close to 7 million
[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ipad-
estimat...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ipad-estimate-
sales-vs-iphone-ipod-nintendo-2010-4). RT has sold close to 2 million in a
year.

~~~
pedalpete
I kinda like what those numbers say, except that when the ipad was launched
tablets were a new thing. People weren't sure what they would use them for,
and were wary of making the purchase. Apple educated the market.

