Microsoft Working on Gaming-Focused 'Xbox Surface' 7-Inch Tablet

[Tech198]

Originally Posted by UpOver

Well this isn't likely to threaten any of the iPad models' market shares, the target market is too narrow. But it could still be interesting. The trouble is it looks like it's a(nother) new platform. Which will almost certainly mean that with the exception of Xbox Live arcade-style titles it will only have its own independent titles. I for one would be more interested if it could play full titles from Windows and / or Xbox so I could keep playing - more or less seemlessly - on the go. And support the appropriate peripherals for each platform of course. How about it Microsoft?

so, basically what your looking for is a replacement xbox console ? everything you play at home, you can play on a tablet ? with a lower powered chip, but performs exactly the same without heating up....

We can't have a tablet that "red rings" now can we. BUt then again.... the original did that, so maybe this may be the same

In addition, all the connectors that your standard console has...

Keep dreaming for that one... It ain't gonna happen. Not in a tablet by any means.....

[divinox]

As a heads-up, do not expect a response if you reply. Wasted enough time as it is on these matters.

Originally Posted by SockRolid

Lest we forget, the OP made some pretty lame claims that Microsoft has the "big picture" in mind as it attempts to lurch forward into the 21st century. That everything is part of a grand, carefully orchestrated Microsoft plan. Because he had a feeling, after using Microsoft products recently, that Microsoft had been planning all their recent failures to build toward some future ideal goal.

I don't think so. I think they're just reacting to each Apple success by feebly attempting to copy it in a knee-jerk reaction. Just to soothe investors.

With that in mind, here is my rebuttal (and note the use of the words "plan" and "planning"):



Microsoft's total failure with Tablet PC is therefore their fault and their fault alone.
But yes, they do have a history of beating a dead horse. Sometimes it works (e.g. Windows 3.1.)
They stuck with a bad plan with Tablet PC, kept trying to push a sub-par product, and failed.

Tablet PC's 10+ year history of failure is either a symptom of the total ignorance of what consumers want or a symptom of arrogant indifference to said consumer. In fact, the failure could be symptoms of both ignorance and arrogance. Bill Gates never had the "common touch," and he built Microsoft in his own image. We've seen the results of that over the past 10 years or so, and that failure in mobile will just keep on getting worse.

Microsoft was born that way.



I am advocating better planning in the first place. You can't plan anything if all you do is hastily copy competitors' latest concepts. Because you don't know what that competitor is planning. You can't plan your own product's evolution because all it is is a reaction.

WinMob was a knee-jerk reaction to Palm's then-success. Microsoft tried jamming Windows, complete with Start button, into a small form factor. Instead of designing a better UX that was more appropriate for the smaller screen. And why not? Because they insisted on forcing the square Windows peg into the round mobile hole. Great plan.

Maybe the best plan would have been to kill off Windows Mobile 6.5, as they did, then not follow up with any hastily mashed-up successor. Maybe Microsoft should have saved all that time, energy, money, and carbon footprint, by not even trying to keep up in the mobile space.

Maybe the best plan would have been to leave mobile to Apple. And to just write apps for iOS. Microsoft *is* a software company, isn't it? (Or is it just a Windows + Office company? Big difference there.)



Can't win any, it seems. Not in mobile anyway. Maybe in the legacy desktop space.



They didn't care because WP wasn't very good. And why was that? Could it be, oh, I dunno, the lack of careful product planning? Or something like that? You know, the kind of planning that successful companies do for their successful products.

Oh, and there's also the small matter of Microsoft stabbing their hardware partners in the back. Remember Microsoft PlaysForSure? The media player partnership between Microsoft and Archos, Creative, Denon, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Sony, Toshiba, and others? The partnership that Microsoft destroyed when they launched Zune? Once burned, twice shy. Beware hardware partnerships with Microsoft.



Again, why not focus on your "core competencies" (Windows and Office, in Microsoft's case.) Why waste time, energy, money, and carbon footprint in a futile effort to replicate Apple's mobile success? Why not stick with a successful plan (milking corporate IT.)



Because choosing one architecture, then making that choice work, is ...

wait for it ...

good planning.

Microsoft is fragmenting their own slice of the mobile computing market. Not that it makes much difference. They're dividing a miniature slice into multiple ultra-miniature slices. All of which will fall into the tiny little "other" slice of the overall mobile computing market share pie anyway.

"No compromises"? More like "no plan." And "no chance."



"No compromises"? More like "no new ideas." And "quickest dirtiest port."
And if you're going to work in Office (extensively) just tell your IT guys to buy a Lenovo laptop.
They'll erase Windows 8 and re-image it with XP. Just watch.



The entire world lives in the past? This is terribly bad news for Microsoft. Just terrible!

If Windows 7, or XP, or 2000, is good enough, then why bother with the crazy Metro-fied Windows 8?
Better to wait 25 years and see if Windows 8 has had enough service pack fixes to be usable.

Coffee will smell just as good 25 years from now. I'm certain of it.



Hey, wow. Maybe Microsoft *did* learn from the Windows Mobile 6.5 to Windows Phone 7 non-transition. Maybe they really are trying to help migrate legacy Windows users to the inevitable mobile future.

Or maybe not. Having two separate "bridges" from the past to the future, leading to totally different futures, isn't very good planning. ARM? Intel? Can't decide? Support both. "No compromises." We'll just kill off whichever is the least successful.

Great planning.
.
.

I dont believe in plans, big or small. Action is always situated, and situated action never pans out according to plan. Thankfully, that is, given that so many radical innovation and great inventions have been emergent in their nature.

Also, given your overall line of reasoning, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Shouldnt you be bitching at Jobs and Apple? After all, they have done their fair share of weeding, killing and pivoting over the years. And, what do you make of the new dock connector? Talk about screwing things over. If only they had planned better....


-----------------
1) Total failure for whom? In comparison with what? If MSFT saw it as a fun thing to do, and something they could offer even if they technology was not there, so what? To fail massively, you need first to make a bet on something. I dont see any indicators of that, really. Once more, there is good reason why Gates stood on stage in 2007 and said that the year of tablets will be in 2012.

1.1) You seem to ignore the fact that trying out new technology is a way of learning about new technology. Yes, it can be done in secret labs - but that has never been how MSFT operates. And, undoubtedly, MSFT is a very successful company.

2) Advocate better planning all you want, just shows how limited you are in your thinking. In a rapidly evolving world of technology, all things come to an end. Good or bad meet the same end. Its the way of life. Being successful in a market environment like this has very little to do with "grand plans", and very much to do with continuous adaptation and proper marketing. MSFT has arguably failed with respect to the latter (in particular segments), but to connect that with poor planning is plain stupid. When it comes down to it, static plans mean very little in a chaotic world. A well known fact that you would do well to reflect upon.

3+4) The war is hardly over. Being late to market is what MSFT does best. For all we know, history will repeat. Apple has its limitations, Android simply does not cut it. (Phones being the exception here; that said, Apple is playing a risky game. Every other weak there is an article about how Apple is pushing the industry around, everyone praying for an alternative. Tables can turn rapidly - if anything, Apple showed us that).

5) Actually, WP was perfectly fine for the vast majority of users. Furthermore, those who actually picked up a WP device seem happy (highest satisfaction ratings, for whatever thats worth). Phones, however, rarely sell themselves. What MSFT (and by extension OEM:s) seems to have failed to do is provide key incentives to sell WP over any other platform.

Then again, Rome was not built in a day. Either way, WP8 is a giant leap for the platform. Betting on convergence seems like a smart thing to do. Not only will it increase the pace of evolution, it also creates significant synergies "across" platforms. Smart indeed.

(In fact, I would say MSFT:s current approach to platform architecture in general is the most thought-through and promising of all. That said, a good architecture is never a guarantee for success - but from the looks of it, MSFT knows what they are doing. At least from the perspective of someone who does research on digital platforms for a living.)

Once again, though, you are not as much criticizing plans (or even their execution) but an overall style. In fact, you know nothing of MSFT:s plans (neither do I). See my first post. What you seem to be criticizing is MSFT:s general approach - that MSFT does things in the open, rather behind closed doors (with some exceptions, like the Surface and to some extent the Xbox). Criticize that all you want, but be clear of what you are actually addressing. Currently, i doubt you even know the answer to that yourself. You're just ranting for the sake of ranting.

As for PlaysForSure, that, to my knowledge, was a certification. Consequently, i do not understand what point you are making.

6) Why not? Well, way to go. Damned if they do, damned if they dont is your approach to things? Businesses want to grow. To grow, you eventually need to diverge. You act as if its necessarily an either or. It is not (once again, Apple can serve as an example if you like).

As for their core markets, MSFT is doing better than ever. And, with the verdicts being in, gaming is now, too, part of that (i sold my Xbox to buy a PS3. while being happy for doing so, i am not stupid nor blind. MSFT is winning*).

* actually, Nintendo plays in its own league, but in the PS3, Xbox war, the latter is the one looking strong. Sony relies (too) heavily on its exclusives these days. Then again, good or bad, all things come to an end.


7) Hahah... what? Wow. Thank god you are not running a multi-billion dollar company.

8) Hahah... yeah. Keep ranting. Quickest solution? How is implementing a very flexible architecture the quickest solution? Dirtiest? Clean as hell, then again you are hardly a developer so what the hell would you know. As for your enterprise rant, that is a red herring - i explained why in an earlier post. Once more, MSFT knows what they are doing. In short, no large enterprise will migrate to W8 until 2014 (at the earliest) anyway (people still on XP have already made plans to migrate to W7, these plans will be executed. people on W7 have pretty much just migrated, and will sit tight until its necessary to move again - like enterprise always do).

I do not get why people construct all these problems that are non-problems in the real world. W8 is largely a consumer product. For Enterprise, it largely matters for tablets. And as far as those go, MSFT is certainly better off to grab a big piece of enterprise orders than Apple are. Undoubtedly so (in fact, i just asked a CIO the other day about this - they were already planning to deploy W8 tablets to 20% of their staff. As a first step. Not to bad, if you ask me... iPads? According to him, "important" people will continue to use them (they have enough say to get away with it), however, for Big-IT w8 ticks the boxes. My guess is that Big-IT will win over time. They tend to, in the end).

-----------------------

Living in the past? Pretty much yes. Ironically, it has a lot to do with planning. You see, the downside of planning (and the implied long-term stability that really does not exist in the world) is reduced agility.

And if the past is good enough, why move at all? Because the world moves, regardless of what you choose to do. Thats how you one day wake up finding yourself out of business. Its a technology threadmill. You may not necessarily have to run the fastest, but stop running and youll stumble shortly.

-------------------------

More likely, Win8 was planned before WP7 was. Different markets, different pace, different plans. In that sense, MSFT might have won the lottery by having WP7 fail in the end. Time will tell.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by charlituna

Maybe for you, but a lot of folks disagree. Apple creates for those folks, not you.

YOU want XBox style games, go buy an XBox. Apple's not crying over it. And they aren't going to try to make an Xbox to make you and the rest of the 1% happy.

----------



I disagree with you for a part. Microsoft does have a big picture in mind and they are doing everything they are doing to service that picture. That is very obvious. Look at everything they are doing of late and you can see the goal they are striving for very very clearly.

The issue, and I think we are in agreement on this part, is that big picture. It's too reactionary. It's too designed around what the other boys are doing. Not just Apple but all of them. And that is where the failure is coming from. The plan is trying to execute a poorly chosen master goal. It's reactionary and based solely on outside influence.

Apple reacts a little but they do it based more on emerging markets as evidenced by the other boys and not literally on what the other boys are doing in said markets. Eddy Cue saw that there were clear signs that folks wanted a slightly smaller device and was willing to put his neck out and challenge Steve on this issue. Steve was an ego yes but not dumb, he loved to be challenged and proven wrong. And apparently Eddy proved his case enough that Steve or perhaps it was Tim was willing to see the issue revisited. But they didn't slap together a cheap plastic 7 inch tablet sold at cost to under cut the other boys. That's a tactic the other side might use. They created what they wanted to create and put it out there to see if folks would agree that their way is better.

By a similar token, they didn't try to create a tablet that was a computer because they knew it wasn't possible to do it well at this time. Microsoft saw that as a fault and tried to one up them rather than really look at why Apple did what they did (or didn't in this case). And many are saying that that reaction was wrong and created a huge mess. A big picture of playing 'one up' with Apple was the wrong way to go. Particularly when that game consists of doing what Apple didn't do without asking why Apple didn't do it. So Microsoft is trying to do what Apple already figured out was a horrid move and trying to sell it as better when it in fact is falling apart on them.

I dont see how MSFT and Apple differ other than in pace. And given that MSFT is the slower of the two, i also fail to see how MSFT is the one too influenced by what others are doing. Big ships are tough to steer. Thats why some of them end up like Titanic.

In 2007, Gates - sitting next to Steve Jobs - told the world that 2012 would be the year of tablets. Certainly, he was speaking of W8. Certainly, the W8 we are seeing is not radically different from what was envisioned. That said, they have not been blind to what has happened these last few years. Likewise, they have not responded in the best of ways at all times. Then again, that is probably just as much - if not more - due to the slower pace, as anything else.

There is a reason why MSFT is generally late to market*. There is also a reason why MSFT - despite "not getting it", to quote Jobs - often succeed in doing so. Sometimes the turtle beats the hare. Being early to a rapidly changing game is not always what pays off, long term.

Apple is different. But different is not always better. There are more than one way to play the game. Undoubtedly, both Apple and MSFT - despite their differences - are very successful companies.

------------

* Actually, the cycle is more like: market first - fail, market last-succeed. But like stated in the post above, that has more to do with MSFT:s way of doing things in the open, rather than behind closed doors. As an illustrative example, I am sure that 10-15 years from now Surface (the table) will be looked on the same way as the Tablet PC. Then again, I am also quite sure that MSFT (if they are still around) will be a dominant player within that exact field (even if Apple or whoever else were the first to commercialize these products successfully). You see, while the shifts are rapid, trajectories remain long. No technology is born out of nothing (e.g., take touch, were talking half a century here).

----------

Originally Posted by UpOver

Well this isn't likely to threaten any of the iPad models' market shares, the target market is too narrow. But it could still be interesting. The trouble is it looks like it's a(nother) new platform. Which will almost certainly mean that with the exception of Xbox Live arcade-style titles it will only have its own independent titles. I for one would be more interested if it could play full titles from Windows and / or Xbox so I could keep playing - more or less seemlessly - on the go. And support the appropriate peripherals for each platform of course. How about it Microsoft?

Were probably better off thinking of this as the same platform. It will run on the same kernel and utilize the same architecture. Its just scaled down to make it run more efficiently. No need to support a gazillion types of hardware, e.g., if you control the hardware environment. Second, in the ways that it will be different, it will undoubtedly build on assets already in place (i.e., Xbox dev. environment).

MSFT are many things, but not stupid when it comes to the hard aspects of technology.

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by divinox

As a heads-up, do not expect a response if you reply. Wasted enough time as it is on these matters. ...

Agree. I can see that you are an expert in sophistry. Whether or not you actually believe what you write.

Wasting words is one thing. But think of the time and money Microsoft has wasted since Ballmer took over.
Microsoft used to be too big to fail. Now they're too small to matter in mobile.

Times change.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

Agree. I can see that you are an expert in sophistry. Whether or not you actually believe what you write.

Wasting words is one thing. But think of the time and money Microsoft has wasted since Ballmer took over.
Microsoft used to be too big to fail. Now they're too small to matter in mobile.

Times change.

You act is if it is a surprise that an incumbent firm fails to capture an emergent market, when in reality, it is not. If anything, history is packed with cases that point to the contrary.

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by divinox

You act is if it is a surprise that an incumbent firm fails to capture an emergent market, when in reality, it is not. If anything, history is packed with cases that point to the contrary.

I was right. You *are* an expert in sophistry.

Getting back on topic, the original poster, whoever s/he was, posted a long-winded and feeble attempt to insinuate that Microsoft's string of failures over the past decade was the result of careful yet mysterious planning. And that his/her "recent experience" with Microsoft's new products indicated to him/her that they were successful. Somehow.

But thank you for summing up my counterpoint perfectly. Your words "incumbent firm fails to capture an emergent market" could be a key phrase in Steve Ballmer's Wikipedia entry circa 2015.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

I was right. You *are* an expert in sophistry.

Getting back on topic, the original poster, whoever s/he was, posted a long-winded and feeble attempt to insinuate that Microsoft's string of failures over the past decade was the result of careful yet mysterious planning. And that his/her "recent experience" with Microsoft's new products indicated to him/her that they were successful. Somehow.

But thank you for summing up my counterpoint perfectly. Your words "incumbent firm fails to capture an emergent market" could be a key phrase in Steve Ballmer's Wikipedia entry circa 2015.

Chances are that they are just that - the result of (too) careful planning. You seem to imply that there is a clear cut connection between "planning right" and "doing right" while no such connection exists. Rather, plans produce both structure and rigidity; they enable and constrain. As time unfolds - and with it, the environment change - this double-sided production creates both problems and prospects for organizations; action is always situated in the present, plans are always situated in the past.

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by divinox

Chances are that they are just that - the result of (too) careful planning. You seem to imply that there is a clear cut connection between "planning right" and "doing right" while no such connection exists. Rather, plans produce both structure and rigidity; they enable and constrain. As time unfolds - and with it, the environment change - this double-sided production creates both problems and prospects for organizations; action is always situated in the present, plans are always situated in the past.

A good plan, executed well, can lead to success. (Apple.)

A poor plan, or a poorly executed plan, can lead to ruin. (Microsoft.)

Take your pick.