Second Guessing Microsoft’s Surface Strategy

Regarding Windows RT, I haven’t seen any hard numbers, but it appears as if Intel’s Atom processors are superior to ARM which makes me wonder whether Windows RT was a mistake to begin with.

I think Win RT probably made sense when they started developing it and ARM had a massive lead in the power consumption stakes but it's clear Intel has made great strides in this area.

MS should have launched Regular Surface with an Atom processor and Pro with a Core processor and killed Win RT. Not because RT is a bad product (I don't htink it is) but because it just doesn't fit anywhere and distracts from the good things MS has done with Windows 8.

surface will always be a small player. it was never meant to take over the sales of all OEMs and make it their own. Just how could it? there are hundreds of price points served by the OEMs and MSFT was only shooting for the high end.

ultimately surface is nothing more than a reference design for OEMs.

Paul, as much fun as altering the timeline is it doesn't draw away from the fact that MS is serially bad at its message whilst at the same time being really good at doing things in the public eye.

Consider the fact that the world and his dog can download a preview/beta copy of software and use/complain about it as loudly as they want and you hear next to no addressing of that through positive marketing.

As a guy who makes my living off MS I am happy to go and find stuff out myself, but, the rank and file generally are not.

I draw to this point the recent "price increase" or in fact where it was a return to list price. Those of us whom follow the tech press and read around know the facts but average Joe just sees it as MS making a mistake again, add to that all the vacuous bloggers and "analysts" (that's for another day I think) whom do not add anything to the pile and just ship on a partial message and then you get into the situation where the bad press is inconveniently out of control.

Now I personally love Windows 8 and RT and like to evangelise and convert as many people as I can but surely MS should be the ones whom are out there banging the drum with great ads (like the 6 year olds who showed people it was childs play) heaven knows its their balance sheet after all.

I kind of let my point get away from me here.

so TL;DR MS has a terribly fragmented marketing strategy and that I think is the problem.

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows has no serious competition. Unfortunately for Microsoft, considering the general MSM's propensity to be anti-Microsoft, I don't believe it would have made any difference when RT was released. With RT, the storyline will always read like Windows phones: destined to always be a very distant third place.

Don't forget that today it's the MSM that drives the narrative and, consequently, public perception. Even when trying to seem unbiased, somewhat positive reviews are conditioned with highlited caveats or comparisons. Remember when the Windows 7 phone was released: The narrative was that MS released these phones without "cut-and-paste" capability. Remember the very first iPhone Apple released: there was no copy/paste support, you couldn't multitask, you couldn't tether, you couldn't send pictures or video via MMS and there were no apps.

Regardless, Microsoft will work out the issues with RT. But one thing is for certain: Microsoft took PC mfgrs. to school on how to design and build a stunning piece of equipment!

BTW, over on the Verge, members are wondering if the Verge will rate the Surface Pro above 6/10.

I don't think a Surface Pro would have ever been compared favorably to ultrabooks. They don't have an advantage in size, weight, available disk space, or price, and you can get touch screen ultrabooks. Also, battery life on a portable device is a major issue, not a concern.

RT is and was a stopgap, but Pro would have done better being released later, with either more power-efficient Intel processors or a more stripped down Windows or cheaper and larger SSDs.

I'd say most people are losing perspective on why events transpired as they did. Paul, your timeline is one that makes plenty of sense, but I think it's easy to explain the rationale for Microsoft's release schedule.

Rather than releasing Windows RT just because they could, I think they knew they HAD to create this version, not with the Surface in mind, but for an expanded range of low-powered devices that, as has already been hinted at, is yet to come. These will be 7" tablets that will come with the refinement of RT, that is, Windows Blue. 10" devices from now on, I would think, will come with Atom and Core CPUs.

The problem was, and I'm speculating but I'm trying to stay logical, that the Surface Pro design was NOT ready for a xmas 2012 launch. Maybe it was heat dissipation, maybe it was parts (we know it's the first time MS deals with creating all those 200+ specific parts, so production can't be ramping up fantastically so far). Still, they HAD to release something pre-xmas since they were so adamant on the Hardware + Software Windows 8 showcase they had in mind: this respects and proves their new Devices & Services approach, Surface device, Windows 8 software/service.

Seeing that they would not make the xmas due date with Pro and Clovertrail Atom number of CPUs out there was negligible, what other hardware option was widely available at the time? Nearly 1 year old Tegra 3, that's what. Change initial plans of Surface to include RT and an ARM CPU and voila, while not ideal, at least they had something to release with the new OS, even if limited.

Now, this might not have been at all how it panned out, Surface RT might have been an ARM device since its inception. I refuse to believe MS did not know Intel would come up with a 10h battery life Atom CPU, of course they knew, these companies talk to each other and benefit from it. What I can believe, is Intel telling MS exactly that, MS not believing them - based on track record - and deciding for ARM which had proven amazing battery life.

If I were to dream, I would have much rather had an Atom based Surface and a Core based Pro. Now that Clovertrail has proven completely competitive against curret ARM CPUs, I don't think it makes any sense for MS to release the non-pro Surface "2" with an ARM CPU, Intel has proved there's no benefit to this approach anymore. You have to keep in mind, ARM is moving up in performance, Intel is moving down in power. Both of them WILL inevitably meet and Intel just got there faster. I wouldn't blame MS for not believing them, I wouldn't have either considering Intel's crappy power history, but I'm gladly surprised that they did it. Add to this that in late 2013 we will FINALLY get Atom Silvermont architecture, which is the FIRST new architecture since Atom was born, and there's bound to be huge performance gains and lower power use than Clovertrail even (since we're jumping down to 22nm and we'll finally get out-of-order cores).

So, what do I find logical for 2013? I believe companies are creating vertically integrated HW families, so I think this year we'll see the continued expansion of the full-fledged Surface family:

Surface Phone (2013/2014)
Surface Xbox (2013) - 7" Tegra 4
Surface (2013) - 1080p 10", Atom - hopefully Silvermont or at least refreshed Clovertrail)
Surface Pro (2013) - Core based on Haswell
Surface XT (2014/2015) - Multi-Touch all-in-one for the home

Whether the Surface Phone comes in 2013 or 2014, I think it's inevitable if MS is looking to have a family of products. They've repeatedly said 7" devices are for play and not work - and I agree - so a Surface Xbox is basically a given (strip out the desktop, leave only metro stuff with some special XboxNext connection, you're good to go). By fall 2013, we'll have a new Atom architecture Silvermont based Surface (with ARM reserved for the 7" tablets) and the Pro will be refreshed with Haswell. Eventually, they'll release a desktop all-in-one.

I realize this is making things up, but you can't deny it's LOGICAL. Will it happen? No clue, but it would certainly not be a bad roadmap and it'd be enough to compete directly AND fill the gaps from competitors like Apple or Google.

Just to add. I think Surface RT was Microsoft's effort to prop up the Windows Phone 8 app selection more quickly.

Here is a possible thing that could happen. We'll have 3 versions of of Surface (Pro, RT and ATOM...yes I think MS will make a Surface with ATOM). The ARM will be the cheapest, ATOM will be a hundred or two more and Pro will be even more. If ARM doesn't sell well then maybe they'll get rid of it and just have ATOM and Pro.

I've been saying for a while that Pro should have come out first. I also think that Microsoft should have done what they've been doing with the Xbox and that is take a hit on the price in hope they'll make up for it in app sales. They could have given some of their hardware partners some of the app sales money as well so they can do the same.

Next Saturday is the real launch of Windows 8. With such uninspired hardware out there (save a few Lenovo yet to launch announcements like Helix), the Surface Pro will finally provide an inspiring platform for Windows 8.

There is no doubt Microsoft should have released Surface Pro first. The RT is not ready for prime time, mainly because the Store is still sadly lacking in software options. My thought is that since Microsoft is lead by a pure marketing man, he couldn't stand risking OEM defections when Surface Pro blew the OEM's out of the water. They've now had their 90 day grace period and the real show begins.

Paul,
Please try to get a job as a paid consultant for MS. Do whatever it takes to get that position. They seriously need someone from outside their fortress to help with decision making. They make all the wrong moves and don't learn from their failures of those of others. Remember HP and the TouchPad? $499 with no keyboard? How did that sell? And MS does the same thing with Surface RT. I want MS to succeed. I like open platforms. But MS keep stabbing themselves all over with many pains by making bad marketing decisions.

You left it as implicit that releasing RT after Pro provides a well-defined differentiator between the two OSs. The move you suggest here could have reduced a lot of the confusion over what RT is and its limitations because consumers could look at the Store and know that's all they were getting app-wise.

A professional (tongue in cheek) question - why are reviewers bound by NDA embargoes when the manufacturer live demos the device for customers in its own stores?

Even more interesting would've been a Windows 8 and Surface Pro release in early October followed by a Surface RT and Surface Phone (running Windows Phone 8) release in late October.

I can think of one reason why Microsoft had to release the RT first: the iPad. The first tablet released by Microsoft would inevitably be proclaimed as Microsoft's response to the iPad.

Imagine the media skewering that would have taken place if Microsoft's answer to the iPad cost twice as much, had half the battery life, had a lower resolution, lost 60% of its storage to the OS and had no Metro apps to boot.

"That's the best they could do?" comes to mind and I'm sure media would've written it off as Microsoft not being ready to compete with Android/iOS tablet offerings.

I thought I would be getting a Surface. But I will not. And there's a good reason. I bought my Mother an iPad for Christmas (Surface wasn't available and she specifically wanted the iPad). After giving the thing a spin I realized :

I HAVE NO NEED OR EVEN DESIRE FOR iPADS! And the Surface won't be much different. Why work with a teeny tiny keyboard when a nice laptop handles all that so much better !?

I can see some niche uses for these things e.g. going from station to station in some factory or bed to bed in some hospital. But otherwise they just are TOYS that do email and display webpages on screens a little too small. As if we need more email and email isn't already in phones, PCs, cars, websites, and even refridgerators ...

And there's no mulit-tasking! NONE! You can't do two or three things, it's all LOCK STEP single tasking. No thanks.

When time comes to replace these things expect the market fizzling out. IPOD sales are DOWN 15 % over last year - no surprise. People are beginning to go from gadget to gadget -- When will they realize there are too bloody many of these gadgets, LOL!

So this is the tech version of post SuperBowl quarterbacking I guess. ;)

I don't think the problem is the order in which Surface RT and Surface Pro have been released at all. Most of you guys are forgetting this, but internationally, the presence of either Surface is practically 0. (I'm a German expat who is currently living in Japan, and I have yet to see one in either country.) So essentially for much of the world, these two products can still be released simultaneously. ;-)

The launch of the Surface reminds me of the launch of RIM's ill-fated Playbook: RIM, the company that prides itself on e-mail and communication, ships a tablet without an e-mail client (apparently you could do e-mail if you tethered that thing to a Blackberry, but it couldn't do e-mail by itself).

Microsoft uses Office as one of the main arguments, supposedly you can use either Surface for »serious work«*. But by all reviews (and since I don't live in the US, reviews are all I have to go on), the experience of using Office on a Surface as intended (i. e. using touch) is mediocre at best. In addition, Outlook isn't available and the built-in mail client isn't up to snuff.

* I don't think this is necessarily true for everyone, but I cannot use tablets as my sole computing device -- yet. Not because of MS Office, though, I need different apps that don't exist for tablet yet.