Microsoft’s Mobile Strategy is Correct

You can debate the specifics, but Microsoft's mobile strategy is a sound one

With Windows 8 off to an allegedly “awkward” start, some tech industry bloggers are starting to write Microsoft’s obituary, which requires actively forgetting how diverse this company really is. But rather than focus on the broader company, I’d like to hone in on one area that I think doesn’t get enough attention: Microsoft mobile strategy actually makes sense.

That strategy is: Bring the 1.3 billion Windows users forward to a completely new mobile platform, which is still called Windows, by combining the legacy past (desktop) with the mobile future (Metro), and do so while keeping an eye on what Microsoft calls the next billion customers.

Now, we can argue with the specifics of the strategy. Some still pine for the Start button for some reason, while others more sensibly debate whether the comingling of Metro and desktop—which genuinely is awkward—was handled properly. I don’t care about that stuff. The strategy is sound.

To understand why, let’s look at what Microsoft’s critics are saying about it.

The Mac Observer’s John Martellaro is promoting Warner Crocker’s viewpoint that Microsoft’s marketing is “clueless” for promoting compatibility with USB ports and legacy x86 applications because “the mobile computing world is moving (has moved) far beyond that kind of thinking. We’re not talking horse and buggy vs. automobiles just yet, but we’re damned close.” So, Windows is horse and buggy (worse than the “truck” in Steve Jobs’ explanation of the iPad) whereas truly mobile devices like the iPad and iPhone are automobiles. Windows is old fashioned in other words.

“The problem is … that Windows 8 has to do double duty as a desktop and mobile OS in order to preserve both the Windows legacy and MS Office,” Martello concludes. “Cough. Horse and buggy indeed.”

Indeed.

See, the reason this strategy actually makes sense is that Microsoft does have a Windows and Office legacy, a legacy that has a combined user base of well over a billion people. That it was able to bring those people forward and create a new mobile platform in the same OS is arguably one of Microsoft’s technical greatest achievements, akin to Apple’s port of Mac OS X to Intel. And when Microsoft moves from Metro + desktop to just Metro in the future, let’s all remember that the reason that even could happen is that “Microsoft marketing” focused on USB ports and x86 desktop applications first. You know, the stuff actual customers actually care about.

Let’s not forget that Apple didn’t start over from scratch with the iPad, either, folks. It took its iPhone “legacy” in a new direction and created a system based on what was popular for that company. It did basically the same thing Microsoft did: What made the most sense given its past and its user base.

And by the way, Apple doesn’t exactly do a great job of starting over when it does have to bring forward about a billion users to something new either. After foisting about 10 absolutely horrible iTunes upgrades on Windows and Mac users over the past decade, Apple finally (and belatedly) shipped iTunes 11 this week. This release is the first version of iTunes that isn’t a “horse and buggy” and is instead the PC version of a mobile app: It’s simple, easy to use, and stripped of non-essentials. So while you’re patting yourself on the back for Microsoft’s supposed missteps and for Apple’s supposed victories, let’s please remember how long that latter company got iTunes wrong too.

There is a lot of hand-wringing going on these days in the Microsoft camp. Most of it is unnecessary. And none of the problems are unfixable.

Discuss this Article 61

zorb58
on Dec 1, 2012

That horse and buggy analogy is absolutely ridiculous. I always look to the Windows XP "Power Toys" and closely related gadgets as examples of why that way of thinking just doesn't work. I *frequently* use a small tool called file date changer and an old XP power toy (thankfully retrofitted for 7/8) called image re-sizer. These tools are extremely lightweight and would only be unnecessarily massive and clunky if they were to be Metro or iOS apps. While I'm looking ahead to the future I'm also confused by people that think the desktop is old fashioned... I can't even imagine opening simple tools like these as stand alone apps, even if they are able to be "snapped" or what have you. But, I get it... I'm not the general consumer. I'm a power user. There are plenty of me and it'll be interesting to see how we will be accommodated in the future.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

Yeah, remember the good old days when we used DOS and felt the same about that new fangled Windows.

Asgard
on Dec 3, 2012

Indeed. Something called contracts makes it possible to do this kind of thing already in Metro environment. The user can call other apps to perform some kinds of functions inside other apps. It has never been possible to make the user be able to run your code from other apps without tricks or plug-in support from the app, now it is part of the platform. It takes some time before developers starts to take advantage of these things, but hey we are just in the beginning.

In this case however, one could argue that something is wrong in the first place if user have even need for that kind of plugins.

17thMustang
on Dec 1, 2012

Not sure how a chap from Apple feels the need to comment on Microsoft 's OS marketing when after all this time theirs still has a pitiful market share. I am wondering how long before Win 8 surpasses the OSX market share. Just a bit of sabre tattling by the sounds of it.

On a related note I showed off Nokia City Lens and win phone features to a friend and she was impressed with it all. She has an Android phone. She then said that my phone was one of those new phones. I have had mine a year now and I am not sure that final comment was a good or a bad thing, though she was impressed.

rob_kellington
on Dec 1, 2012

Paul - agree that move to mobile is valid. However, why do neither of the Surface products - especially the Pro version - support 3G/LTE. How can Microsoft say that Windows 8 is the mobile future when it only supports WiFi ?

spinedoc
on Dec 1, 2012

Can't deny that you don't have a good point, but there are cloverfield tablets coming out with 3g. I think MS is trying to set the standard for hardware, but at the same time needs it priced lower and 3g seems to add quite a bit to the price of anything for some reason.

Harry Buttle
on Dec 1, 2012

Paul, I may have read it here, but MS did the market research and (from memory) only 1/3 of tablets sold have 3G/LTE and only half of them ever have the feature activated. on a personal front, my phone hot spots (as do almost all of them now), why would I want the extra bill involved in duplicating a capability that I carry with me everywhere?

JimmyFal
on Dec 1, 2012

" some tech industry bloggers are starting to write Microsoft’s obituary"

I find it exhausting to keep up with the hacks over at Business Insider, but I feel it is my duty as one of those commenters to keep the comments section loud with sanity, as the folks over there try to sway user opinion in search of "click bait" and away from Microsoft with constant tidbits about a dying empire that can't stay out of it's own way.

There is this little thing called reality that needs to be checked with a lot of these guys.

I really hope MS will be adjusting the look and feel of Win 8 in a much more rapid fashion than every 3 years, it seems designed for that ability from the start, or lack thereof. :)

vrmerlin
on Dec 1, 2012

Excellent article, and dead on. Lately I frequently find myself thinking of the Xbox platform -- everybody said Microsoft was too late to the market, and it wouldn't succeed. It's second iteration is now the big dog to beat, and a third iteration is in the way.

Bringing Office and Sharepoint to nimble tablet like devices will be a huge boon to the business world. At work, I see many eyes wandering to iPads. With Win 8, Surface, and their subsequent iterations, I think Microsoft will be an obvious choice for all businesses that need to combine the past with the future.

spinedoc
on Dec 1, 2012

I agree, MS strategy is sound, it's their execution that is horrible. First off, Windows 8 is a compromise of different ecosystems within MS that don't collaborate with each other, Sinofsky leaving will be a very good thing IMO. They have people like Joe Belfiore who are making great strides in the mobile aspect of windows, but it seems as if Metro was just hastily thrown on top of windows and it shows. The integration of the desktop and mobile aspects are crucial to the future of MS and hopefully with new management we can see them meld them together in a better way than Win 8.

There are some other horrible missteps though, such as even releasing RT. RT should have never existed, why bother trying to out-ipad the ipad? You just are never going to do it, especially if you price it at or more of the ipads price. At the very minimum take a cue from the nexus 7 and price your product appropriately. Better yet don't bother with RT, price your cloverfield tablets close to ipad pricing, and really tout the fact that you have a REAL OS instead of the toy OS we've been stuck with for the past 3 years. Unfortunately it looks like MS left the cloverfield market to the OEMs and they are slacking a bit, but there are some incredibly nice units coming down the pipe such as the Thinkpad tablet 2, Dell Latitude 10, all priced close to the ipad. Those will be the turning point, not RT or the ivy bridge units.

bdegrande
on Dec 1, 2012

I couldn't disagree more. Windows 8 and Windows RT, for example, are in no meaningful sense "the same OS", they run different software bases. They share some common code, but so do Linux and Android and OS X and iOS, and to try to call those the same OS would be both confusing and inaccurate.

iTunes is flawed for the same reasons that Windows is, they were intended to do a few simple things and have had every function on earth grafted onto it. In both cases the right approach would have been to blow it up and start over from scratch. Apple switching to OS X was an example of this, The new core was small and fast, and old software was run by virtualization for a few OS revisions. I don't see why Microsoft couldn't have done this, they own good virtualization software and Windows runs fine on virtual machines, and there is no reason at all why legacy hardware couldn't be supported by USB or whatever.

If they had done, this, the new OS (let's say Windows 9) would be a GOOD tablet OS, one which didn't require a ton of disk space or drain a battery or require a fan on a tablet, as opposed to the current "no compromise" solution.

I think Windows 8 is a good desktop OS, the criticism is mostly that people hate ANY interface change (look at Unity on Ubuntu), but wasn't the revolutionary change that it needed to be.

So, anyway (sorry about the length) I actually think that this was a pretty good (as you say, there are some fixable problems) implementation of a badly flawed vision.

spinedoc
on Dec 1, 2012

Windows 8 doesn't have any more of a drain on the battery than the ipad does. This isn't because of the software, but because of the CPU. The cloverfield easily get as much battery time as the ipads do, your issue should be with the ivy bridge tablets which will end up a niche product anyway. The cloverfield units also have no fans at all and don't get hot.

I do agree with you on the disc size though, this is inexcusable. Taking up half the space of a 32gb drive is horrible, especially when you advertise as a 32gb drive. They either need to address this, or advertise the hard drive space differently.

The interface change was necessary, most everything is going towards touch, even desktops are going this way. The problem is that MS is making this transition in a very very clumsy manner, but the switch has to be made sooner or later. With Windows Blue and yearly updates it will be much better for keeping up with the market.

bdegrande
on Dec 2, 2012

It's actually Clover Trail, but that's a minor quibble. The Clover Trail units which have been announced so far have their own set of compromises. They are limited to 2GB of RAM, for example, which is not going to run Windows 8, and especially the sort of pro apps that you buy a "no compromise" tablet for, well.

While using more efficient processors is definitely a step in the right direction, it is not the best solution for Microsoft, as other tablet makers will get the same benefits from these hardware improvements. A FAR better approach would have been to create a leaner, more efficient OS, which might still happen, only now it's further away than it should have been.

I agree, I have no problem with changing the interface.

Mark from CO
on Dec 1, 2012

Paul: Great article. I was looking forward to your perspective.

I am in agreement, though as others have noted, execution of the strategy is the key, particularly given their late entrance in a very fast moving market (mobile). Time will tell if Microsoft has the time to break into these markets in a meaningful way. The execution of the Windows 8 rollout should give everyone pause. Microsoft did not have the right product available (blame the OEMs, but Microsoft should have been pushing and monitoring aggressively); did not have product in the right numbers (case example: WP8 supplies), it looks to have had the RT/Intel offerings in the wrong order ; and their is an open issue if they have their pricing right (reports tell us Surface RT orders will be half Microsoft's expectation - result of improper pricing?).

In the end, time will tell us what they got right and what they got wrong. But I don't think we who like and use Microsoft products should fool ourselves. Microsoft is the diverse company it is because of the OS - Windows. If Microsoft, due to poor execution or missed timing, fails to make Windows a meaningful mobile OS, it's other diverse businesses will suffer. When IBM licensed MS-DOS for its PC, essentially nobody saw that the decision would be the most significant transfer of wealth in history. And when OS/2 came out, many in the tech world thought IBM had more than a fighting chance to recapture market share. But poor execution and not understanding how much the market had moved (too many customers satisfied with MS-DOS), IBM lost it's leadership and market position. Despite being a large diverse company, IBM went though many troubled years and had to 'reimagine' itself. Today, some parts remain, but arguably it is a different company.

Let's hope that both time allows and that Microsoft get's its act together. It does looks like Microsoft has missed this holiday season, effectively giving Apple and Android another 6 mos to strengthen/consolidate their positions.

ozaz
on Dec 1, 2012

Agree with the main point - it makes sense to force the mobile interface onto their desktop customer base. This not only gives it massive instant exposure, but it also means developers immediately have a huge incentive to develop quality apps for the Windows store.

But I doubt "moves from Metro + desktop to just Metro in the future" will happen. I just can't see how professional engineering, scientific, and graphical editing applications, too name a few, could possibly work within the confines of Metro.

blakjedi
on Dec 3, 2012

i dont think that Metro has confines... i think that because its a "new" api (not really) that it has been constrained to play well on tablets... in the future i believe that MS will innovate Metro so that the benefits of the desktop will be extended to Metro making the desktop metaphor redundant and therefore unnecessary.

NetLogic
on Dec 1, 2012

Most of the so called 'bloggers' lack technical skills ( not you Paul) and its a real pity that these useless people write about technology. The only Office software they have used is Google apps and they have no clue about technology or exposure to enterprise software.

Microsoft is right in the mobile strategy... The only missing thing is a dumb tablet, that is a 7 inch or 10 inch Xbox tablet without office, but pure Windows store apps and cheaper the $250.

Now that MS is into hardware, a Surface phone ( sorry Nokia, 3.5% US market share for WP8 is more than pathetic), a Surface Laptop ( something like Samsung series 9) is a must in MS product line up. Sell these devices everywhere, not just online or MS stores.

The more devices in market, the more developers will write apps for Windows 8 store. Success will be guaranteed.

OEMS has screwed up big time for whatever reason.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

For whatever reason? OEM's including MS could do squat in mobile with Windows7 and Intel processors. You would need more than technical skills to make that combo work.

Doug
on Dec 1, 2012

Great article,

I started feeling the same way last summer, I had the opportunity to speak on the Microsoft campus in Redmond. A lot of people were complaining about the new UI but it struck me as smart that Microsoft was trying to get out in front of mobility and build a new UI before they completely missed the party. If MS doesn't start doing something different than what they did in the past, in a few years we'd all be looking back wondering how Microsoft could have so completely missed the transition to a post PC world.
I was also struck by a couple of other things, that Microsoft seems to have really matured in the past five years from the company that used to churn out mediocre software, and the incredible diversity and resources they have to draw on. They can afford to be patient and keep trying until they get it right.
I run windows 8 now, and don't miss 7 at all, if I had a choice between identical machines and the only difference was the OS, I'd go win8 every time. As more people become comfortable with 8, which won't be too long, it won't seem to be an awkward launch at all, just smart.

sulimir
on Dec 1, 2012

Out in front of mobility? That ship has sailed.

spinedoc
on Dec 1, 2012

You do have to admit there are some stupid things in Metro that make you wonder who was asleep at the wheel. Not having bookmarks in IE10 Metro (pinned sites don't count, no thanks to having a thousand pinned sites) to name one. The Metro start screen is also kind of inane, you can only group stuff but cannot create folders, even primitive OS' like Android and iOS have this. So if I have a hundred programs installed I have to scroll through all of them every time I open the metro start screen, someone please spin that in a positive way because I've been unable to.

I think you will find more windows 8 users stay primarily on the desktop side than in metro.

Oldschooljohn
on Dec 1, 2012

I agree the strategy is sound, but people don't buy strategies, they buy products. The products at this point, Win8 and Surface, are deeply flawed in many ways. What we are looking at here is a good strategy but a lackluster execution. Microsoft used to be able to get away with that but the marketplace is far less forgiving now.

Hamranhansenhansen
on Dec 1, 2012

What you mean is “Microsoft's mobile strategy could prove one day to be correct.” They have zero success in mobile thus far.

Or maybe you mean “Microsoft's mobile strategy is correct — if Microsoft's assumptions about the mobile PC market prove to be true.” I don't think that their assumptions will prove to be true, though.

Specifically, I don't think there is a long transitional time between desktop PC's and mobile PC's that requires a transitional system like a Surface RT. iPad outsold the Mac within one quarter, and within one year it outsold HP. And that was almost 2 years ago. Every CEO now has an iPad. Every corporate power user. Most point-of-sale terminals that are purchased today are iPads or iPhones, when they used to be Windows PC's just 2 years ago. I've watched many people go from having just an XP PC to having an XP PC and an iPad to having only an iPad over the past almost 3 years. The only thing that is holding this trend back is the slow purchasing cycles in low-end $500 PC's. But when you ask people who have Windows PC's in 2012 what their next PC will be, half of them say iPads. The decision has already been made.

Also, there is just not as much demand for Windows as Microsoft is allowing for. You can tell Windows RT is not right because only about 10% of iPad users use one of the many, many cheap and even free remote control apps that enable you to pull up a Windows desktop with Microsoft Office on your iPad. For that 10% of users, that is pure gold, being able to get Microsoft Office on their iPad. For the rest of us — we spent $40 and got Pages, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, and iMovie and we didn't want for anything. And iPad would not have sold more if it had a 20 GB hunk of the Mac sitting on its storage, solely so it could sometimes be a really, really bad Mac. Microsoft Office costs more than an iPad mini — why should iPad mini run that? Adobe Creative Suite, or 5 Retina iPads? Same price? iPad has no need to run Creative Suite. The $5 iPhoto app for iPad is a much better solution for most people most of the time than a $599 Photoshop for Mac. Especially better than Photoshop for Mac running on ARM architecture inside an iPad.

The thing is, with the number of iPads and iPhones that have been sold, there are Windows PC's lying around all over, not being used very much. People are putting their old Windows desktop in the den and everybody gets iPads. They don't want the Windows PC in their iPad. They want to not use the Windows PC at all because it reminds them of the last 10 years at work, where they worked around the same BS problems in Windows again and again and again while they never got fixed. Their iPad reminds them of the time they met a big name investor in an elevator and gave him a 1 minute presentation off their iPad and sold him on a project.

In other words, Surface RT in 2008 might have been a mobile strategy that was correct because by now, in theory, Surface RT would have evolved into an iPad competitor by 2012, with a Metro-only Microsoft Office and many touch apps. Right now, even if you are only into making office documents, you're still much better with iPad and Keynote, Pages, Numbers, iPhoto, and iMovie.

I don't see what Microsoft has done to stave off the iPad doing to the low-end PC market in its first 5 years what Intel Mac did to the high-end PC market in its first 5 years. Which is to take 90% of it. The fact that a Microsoft Office for Metro might arrive just at the end of the transition from Windows PC to iPad is no help to Microsoft.

And I still don't see what incentive a developer has to make a Metro app? If making an app for Apple, you target either the desktop system and get n number of highly-engaged users, or you target the mobile system and get 10n the number of highly-engaged users. With Microsoft, you target the desktop system to get XP/Vista/7/8 users and that is that. There are almost no other users. So Mac development is going strong, iOS development is huge, and Windows XP/Vista/7/8 development is in a sort of maintenance mode, where you have to build an app that runs on the 10 year old system. So there are developers who have Mac/Windows desktop apps and iPad mobile apps and that is it. If they have another app, it is Android.

For the last 4–5 years, Apple moved its 3rd party software library from Intel to ARM. Microsoft did not do that at all. For the 3–5 years before that, Apple moved OS X from PowerPC/Intel to ARM. Microsoft is just releasing an ARM version of NT in late 2012. That is all just too far behind.

So again, maybe Microsoft's mobile strategy is correct if deployed 3–5 years ago, but I don't see how it is correct now. iPad has redefined the low-end PC ($300–$800) in the same way that iPhone redefined the smartphone, Intel Mac redefined the high-end PC ($999 and up) and iPod redefined the music player. The low-end PC is now an iPod PC — a PC built on iPod hardware, with iPod ease of use, iPod ease of administration, and iPod small size, long battery life, low cost. This had to be done because people access Wi-Fi networks and Web servers and cloud resources today as readily as they accesses a hit song in 2001 on their iPod, and they have no CS/IT training and no IT help nearby and the 95% reduction in AC power use when you switch from Wintel to iPad is welcome also. A PC today is replacing the Yellow Pages, road maps, and so on. Everybody has to be able to use them. Not just the office workers in their 40's that Microsoft is building systems for.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

Whew, sort of. Apple has already defined mobile strategy. What more can it be? Maybe an ipod that I can stretch bigger like an accordion? MS scratching head wondering how to do just that. Admit it MS, you just got dragged into the future, so no use fighting and kicking the inevitable. Just copy Apple and move away from the darn desktop. Desktop on the Surface just to run Office? Well you get what you deserve. Users have also agreed judging by comparing MS & Apple sales.

Nine54
on Dec 3, 2012

Long post, but I think it epitomizes the larger challenge MS has: despite being entrenched, many of MS's cash-cow products all face very real competitive threats that could see their market dominance disappear in short order. Windows already is succumbing to iOS and Android. Office could be replaced by Google Docs or some $19.99 productivity suite in the App Store. SharePoint could be replaced by some online collaboration or social networking site. Etc., etc.

Now before you say that competition isn't unique to MS, note that there's a difference between a competitive product and a competitive paradigm. Apple has plenty of the former, but that doesn't seem to be scaring off investors. MS, though, has the latter, and unlike competitive products, competitive paradigms can undermine your business model. Software that sold for $100s or $1000s of dollars is battling with App Store apps that cost a fraction of the price or are even "free" from the likes of Google.

Basically, every MS franchise is "2 years" away from being replaced, which is why I think the stock has been stagnant. Yes, MS makes a ton of money and, yes, it is entrenched in many markets. But people buy iPad because they *want to* and use Windows because they *have to*.

MS knows things are changing, but it is playing the marathon game. There is merit to its strategy, and MS has a lot of compelling pieces (Azure, for example, is key). The real challenge isn't products, though: it's the business model. I'd imagine that internally, MS is torn between those who see it as a software/application company and those who see it as a platforms company. It can try to get its own software and apps onto as many platforms and devices as possible (like the Office team is doing) or it can be an OS company. Increasingly, doing what's "best" for one side will come at the expense of the other.

MediaCastleX
on Dec 1, 2012

What's this cloverfield everyone keeps mentioning, the new Clover Trail Intel chips? I'm confused... =/

roncerr
on Dec 1, 2012

Paul said about iTunes: "It’s simple, easy to use, and stripped of non-essentials." But it that is true, why did the download file size increase from 70 MB to 83MB?

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

True. Compare iOS footprint (less than 1GB) to Surface 32GB (definitely more than 10GB) esp since only 16GB usable.

winram
on Dec 1, 2012

The ironic strategy was to unify all their platforms and yet NOT unify their platforms.

What happened to common kernel, different builds? I mean even Server 2012 uses the start menu in different ways, and has no Metro IE.

Windows is not Windows in metro. Unless they're truly going to take the Apple methodology and redefine the actual word. Even the new icon for Windows is a four-paned window, that which you absolutely cannot do in Metro, and yet absolutely CAN do in the "legacy" windows.

This article pretty much justified the hard-stance monopolistic attitude of "we suddenly have a billion people potentially using our apps, please design for it" with no regard for it's actual functionality on the target hardware.

Metro is not currently designed for desktop machines. I remember the day when operating systems were designed for the environment they were in, not the other way around.

ryanrpalmer
on Dec 1, 2012

Moving beyond USB ports? Then why does everyone I know who owns an iPad buy docks and accessories to put a USB port onto their iPad?
Just another example of Apple telling people what they want.

pjsercel
on Dec 1, 2012

The problem with Microsoft's mobile ambitions is not one of strategy, it is one of execution. Apple has created a set of expectations in mobile, the most important of which is a responsive UI. iOS apps load very quickly and the UI is flawlessly fluid. While Windows 8 goes a long way to make the UI fluid, apps load too slowly and overall the user experience is heaviness. Put simply,mother software gets in the way.. In short, Windows is still a pig and no amount of lipstick can cover it up.

henador
on Dec 2, 2012

Paul, I cringe everytime I see you write, "when Windows is Metro only". That's not going to happen. The Metro/WinRT API simply doesn't have the ability to handle complex apps (whether it's file access, heavy computational tasks, data sharing, etc.). Metro is a shell designed to simple apps on small screens. There's a good reason why the built-in Metro apps are so simple, with few settings, and it's not due to "immaturity".

pthurrott
on Dec 2, 2012

You're implicitly assuming Metro won't evolve. It will. And when it evolves enough, desktop will go the way of the command line, and a vestigial technology that's not needed or used by most. After that, I bet it just disappears.

henador
on Dec 2, 2012

WinRT is just another programming environment on top of the Windows core (which, I guess, is now what people refer to as the "Desktop"), with the Metro shell being the container. It's not anything magical. Previous examples of this scheme: ActiveX in MSIE container, Silverlight in MSIE, WPF in the "Desktop" Shell, etc.

There's no fundamental problem with running a Metro app in a window on the standard desktop and I imagine that's how things will evolve over time (rather than the reverse, which is what you believe will happen). If MSFT created a decent scalable environment for desktop apps, WinRT could easily fall by the wayside over time.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

Exactly Paul, why wouldn't Metro/ModernUI evolve. Just like Windows 3.1 OS and apps. Just that Metro and apps will evolve back to being just as lightweight and grow from the 1st iteration. Why judge future tech by today's hardware or your own limitewd thinking. Back when Motorola came out with that brick of a cellphone, you would have laughed if someone said we'll be able to take photos or communicate like Dick Tracy.

henador
on Dec 2, 2012

pipsqueek [sic], I can tell that you haven't written a Metro/WinRT program of any complexity. How? Because you wouldn't hyperventilate extolling its virtues like you have in this discussion. There are severe limits on WinRT programs and that's why Metro apps are so primitive. It will take years and fundamental design changes in WinRT to make it a decent development environment.

Why were all the limitations introduced? Because the target was the ARM, a joke of a CPU. MSFT had to resurrect programming techniques (e.g. cooperative multithreading) that were abandoned more than 20 years ago. Why don't we bring back TSRs while we're at it?

Note that there's nothing wrong with defining an API and shell for limited devices. Metro and WinRT are perfectly fine for that. HOWEVER, MSFT should have gone "all in" on that and made a system that would be common across smartphones, tablets, and desktops. They didn't. My Metro/WinRT XAML+Direct3D C++ app will not work on WinPhone8 without a significant rewrite because MSFT doesn't allow access to the XAML UI capability in C++ on WP8. OK, so I rewrite it in C#. Well, I can't do that because C# doesn't have access to Direct3D in either Metro or WP8. So, all the core of my program would have to be in a C++ runtime component with a C# shell on top. If MSFT was a small company I could understand screwups like this ... but it's a huge company with 90,000+ employees. Apparently they couldn't even find a handful of summer interns to write a C++ XAML layer for WP8. Unbelievable.

pipsqueek
on Dec 3, 2012

I could care less how Metro apps are programmed. I just use them and if W8 doesn't evolve then you will be coding for a 20yr old platform.

RickyTang
on Dec 4, 2012

Hi Paul, thanks for the clarification. I felt the same as the person you replied to. Metro in it's current form is not something I want to use long term.

Socialist_Reagan
on Dec 2, 2012

Like frogs sunbathing in a boiling vat, the Apple/Android community is celebrating without realizing that they've been checkmated by Microsoft. Windows 8 never had to be a smashing success - the sheer scale of Windows is such that even with the "modest" 40 million initial copies that Microsoft sold, they've created a gargantuan user-base of customers for the app store. In doing so, they've managed to overcome the chicken-egg problem of mobile apps in a big way: Windows users come for the legacy x86 and USB support, and stay for the apps. The only developers who will not be jumping on this opportunity will be those who hate money.

Apple was winning because of their app advantage. Now that virtually every computer user (i.e. every human with access to electricity and a ounce of disposable income) will have access to Microsoft's Metro/mobile interface, Apple's first mover advantage will just become a footnote.

I'm not even going to bother mentioning the mess that is Android.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

MS was sunbathing with their toe in a boiling mobile vat, if they don't get their act together.......

Sheer scale? How gargantuan does iPhone business alone is bigger than all of MS sound to you? Legacy x86 on Surface? Like dragging my house on vacation.

jedavies
on Dec 2, 2012

Perhaps we should leave aside the antipathy with Apple for a while. The 'friendly' rivalry between the two camps is distracting from the main enemy -- Google. Microsoft professionals rely on market dominance to sell their skills. Apple was never going to dominate this or any market.

But consider this. If android gets the sort of traction in tablets that it has in phones, Microsoft pros have a real problem. Tablets can replace PCs. All it would take is a free (or very low cost) Android Enterprise Server to supplement all those devices and Microsoft is in the cold. The linux-based technology is there, it's just a matter of glueing in the android parts.

It wouldn't be a big stretch for large businesses to adopt Android going forward... and there goes Microsoft. Apple will always be a popular minor player. Microsoft would focus on them at their peril. In fact, an alliance makes more sense.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

"after all this time “Apple” still has a pitiful market share"
"Apple will always be a popular minor player"...
"Ballmer comments that Apple is a low volume player"
!! Hilarious.

Are some of you living under a rock, got your head under your armpit. Listen up folks!! Apple sales are equal to total sales of MS and ALL PC manufacturers COMBINED!! If that doesn't give you pause, don't know what will. This is a wakeup call for MS! and they better get their mobile strategy working..period!

Koldwyn
on Dec 2, 2012

Saying it is the right strategy is like congratulating the captain of the Titanic for turning the ship after it hits the ice berg.. Yes correct move Captain Ballmer and first mate Sinofsky... Now tell the band to keep playing...

Windows has such an enormous base, it will take decades before your billion could logically live without their PCs and be on Android mobile or IOS mobile devices and no longer use a Windows PC OS...

So it will not sink fast enough to prove their strategy wrong or right, thus those who wish to remain on the ship can listen to the band, appreciate the new carpeting, and feel like all is okay. And if enough resources are applied, the ship may be able to stay afloat.

But in the process, it will no longer be MICROSOFT, it will be another company, much like IBM is today...

While you may praise 1 billion, that happens to be the amount Microsoft paid to fix the first generation of Xbox's, and what of the smart watch? Or the Danger phone? Still waiting for that Windows 7.8 upgrade? Device Company? Surface RT will fail horribly, for all the reasons Windows 8 is an unacceptable alternative to Windows 7.

They built an Internet Firewall between the Metro UI and the Desktop UI...? In Win RT, you create a file in a Metro app, and you can't access it unless you save it to Skydrive? Are they insane? And the Metro version is watered down versions of the desktop apps.. Insanity...

Your right Captain, we will keep the boat afloat, and for those who wish to cross over to the decks underwater we will supply scuba gear and call that feature enabling you to be more mobile...

AllRaj
on Dec 2, 2012

@Netlogic, just wanted to comment on your idea of "selling these devices everywhere". I was out and about in Sydney (OZ) yesterday and I wanted to see a win8 phone. I have had an online order pending for almost 3 weeks now but they aren't able to get the HTC 8x shipped for whatever reason. Of all the phone vendors I saw open, only 1 had a Lumia 920 and there was only 1 phone available for people to look at.

There were benches full of iPhone 5's and the rest were Andriod variations. And, this shop was directly across the road from a Apple store. The shop belongs to a local telco who has stitched up Nokia phones for an exclusive period so no phone without a contract.

How are people going to buy WP8, Surface RT or whatever if it isn't there to see? Only half the PC's I saw on display were win8. There's still a lot of Win 7 machines for sale and I don't think people want to try their hand at upgrading the OS themselves, no matter how cheap it is to do so.

They need to get these phones and tablets out there everywhere, for maximum exposure.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

Lots of back seat drivers with blinders, both MS and Apple. I've upgraded to W8 on both my desktop and laptop. I grit my teeth sometimes. Full screen apps on a 24" monitor? Come on. I've also got an iPhone, ipod, ipad. Yes I grit my teeth with the iDevices. Just separate the darn devices. Esp do a proper Office app instead of jumping back to the desktop on the Surface. Geez.

17thmustang? "Not sure how a chap from Apple feels the need to comment on Microsoft 's OS marketing when after all this time theirs still has a pitiful market share. I am wondering how long before Win 8 surpasses the OSX market share"

Nice blinders. Looking at a small part of the picture that favors you. Both MS haters and Apple haters guilty of this. I'm glad Apple turned mobile upside down. Was MS anywhere near being mobile. Ballmer liked his strategy with 6.5, where did that get him? His infamous spot on Youtube.

Win8 surpasses OSX. Funny. iPhone alone generates more sales than all of MS. iPhone $22B, MS $17B. Apple generates more sales than all of the PC manufacturers combined. Why? Because MS and a whole lot of companies and industries got caught flat footed. Cameras, gps, media players and more.

Quite protecting your turf.

JeffinLondon
on Dec 2, 2012

Paul,

I've tried Win 8 and Win RT and do think they made a mistake. They should have released:

- Windows 8 Desktop as an upgrade to Win 7 for desktops and laptops. Win 8 could become the new XP and go on for a decade or more.
- Windows RT for tablets and touch enabled laptops
- Windows Phone using the RT OS
- And when ready, released Office for RT as a Metro-style app.

This would have been cleaner, cooler and more coherent. Allowed the new Metro environment to grow on its own unencombered with legacy desktop. And customers to stay on the desktop path forever if that's what they wish to do.

The current mismash is a mess and appeals to no one.

Jww

neonspark
on Dec 2, 2012

the problem with these mac sites is that until apple doesn't do it, then everybody who attempts it is wrong. and when finally apple goes the same direction, they will off course be the "first" to have done so.

pipsqueek
on Dec 2, 2012

This is a Mac site? Got your blinders on? Does it matter who was first? Just because someone says so, bothers you?

pthurrott
on Dec 2, 2012

OK. Let's be civil, folks.

pKaiser
on Dec 2, 2012

Microsoft doesn't care about people who use computers to work: writing reports, using pivot tables, designing buildings, doing civil engineering, measuring air quality, calculating orbits, or searching DNA. They are concentrating instead on people who spend their day "swiping" and "scrolling", listening and watching, socializing and downloading.
I remember sadly the reverence programmers felt for every CPU cycle in the 50's. Today we spend Tera-watts supporting a UI that gets us to "apps" which don't do anything for us or society

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use