tablets: Microsoft Surface Pro - WTF?

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by skaertus

I think it's a waste of potential too. When I connected the iPad to an Apple Wireless Keyboard, I realized that it could be a really great computer, IF it had mouse support and support for multi-tasking. But it doesn't.

Yeah, and what's ironic is a lot of the productivity apps (IE Pages) use the same UI as desktop counterparts and would actually benefit from mouse/trackpad replacements.

However, the iPad is less than 3 years old, and its "ecosystem" (people seem to really like to use this word lately, so perhaps should I) is still under development. The apps available today are much more complicated and feature-rich than they were 2 years ago. Although the iPad is still very limited, it has evolved a lot.

I think we're already seeing the limits on iOS software and I don't expect it to evolve much further. iOS software is pretty much a race to the bottom and there's only so much devs can do with a cheap pricepoint in a commoditized store. I like everything about iOS and Apple mobile devices except their software library, which to me is the type of software you would've found in cardboard sleeves in the $5 bargain bin at Fry's 10 years ago.

Google is certainly not capping the development of Android as much as Apple is doing with iOS. And Microsoft made a very capable Windows RT (even though there are quite few apps developed for it yet). If competition poses a threat to Apple, then it may find itself forced to loosen the limitations of iOS.

Google is in the same boat as Apple because they follow the same business model. Notice how both Google and Apple don't really care about the pricepoint of software that much. Google gives away their software for free because it's a gateway to ads. Apple makes their software cheap because it's a gateway to hardware. Both of them use commoditized distribution to make their app stores ultracompetitive among developers. Third party developers are affected by this because they have to pricedrop accordingly. Software quality follows

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

I think we're already seeing the limits on iOS software and I don't expect it to evolve much further. iOS software is pretty much a race to the bottom and there's only so much devs can do with a cheap pricepoint in a commoditized store. I like everything about iOS and Apple mobile devices except their software library, which to me is the type of software you would've found in cardboard sleeves in the $5 bargain bin at Fry's 10 years ago.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. There are a ton of extremely good apps available on iOS; the fact that there are also a lot of junk ones doesn't negate the fact that there are a tremendous number of good ones.

Many of those apps charge a fairly hefty price - and of the good ones that don't - it is because the model is different on iOS than on the desktop. Early on it became clear that mobile users, especially iOS users, were far more willing to pay for content than they were on their computers. Since that makes the market so much broader for mobile than desktop apps, it means that one way of monetizing that is to charge less money in the hopes that you will sell more volume. Would you rather sell 500,000 copies of your game at .99 on iOS or 10,000 copies of it at $10 on the desktop?

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Many of those apps charge a fairly hefty price - and of the good ones that don't - it is because the model is different on iOS than on the desktop. Early on it became clear that mobile users, especially iOS users, were far more willing to pay for content than they were on their computers. Since that makes the market so much broader for mobile than desktop apps, it means that one way of monetizing that is to charge less money in the hopes that you will sell more volume. Would you rather sell 500,000 copies of your game at .99 on iOS or 10,000 copies of it at $10 on the desktop?

I think there are a ton of reasons iOS users are willing to pay for content that don't necessarily validate the model - the cheaper pricepoint (less buyer's remorse), ease of purchase (one of the cool things about the app store is it blew up digital distribution), and the fact mobile software is a pretty new market. On iOS I like to think Apple blew up the budget software market. The thing I don't like is they did it at the expense of software that isn't budget.

With iOS software pricing, it's not cheap because it's a better value proposition. It's cheap because that's the only way for devs to survive on Apple's commoditized ecosystem. It's also worth noting that as a hardware company, Apple gains hardware sales when the value of software drops, which is why they probably have no intention of changing anything.

A link talking about it

[lordofthereef]

Originally Posted by ActionableMango

There is plenty of room in the market for both the Surface and the iPad tablets.

While I agree, historically, tablets have been utterly dominated by Apple. Right now, there really is no competition in terms of sales. Before, there was a bit of a market for budget devices. Even that has virtually been crushed with the mini. Again, I do agree there is room in the market for more than one tablet. BUT, it's going to depend heavily on merketing I think. MS is doing a fine job marketing their Surface. The other Windows 8 tablets, not so much.

----------

Originally Posted by zhenya

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. There are a ton of extremely good apps available on iOS; the fact that there are also a lot of junk ones doesn't negate the fact that there are a tremendous number of good ones.

Many of those apps charge a fairly hefty price - and of the good ones that don't - it is because the model is different on iOS than on the desktop. Early on it became clear that mobile users, especially iOS users, were far more willing to pay for content than they were on their computers. Since that makes the market so much broader for mobile than desktop apps, it means that one way of monetizing that is to charge less money in the hopes that you will sell more volume. Would you rather sell 500,000 copies of your game at .99 on iOS or 10,000 copies of it at $10 on the desktop?

Perhaps some examples of said powerful software would be helpful?

While I don't disagree that there can be good iOS software, something on a true desktop OS is always going to leave the end user more options. Whether the end user is going to want/need those options remains to be seen. Again, we really haven't had a good contender yet. While the iPad has its limits, there hasn't REALLY been anything else with fewer limits on the market.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by lordofthereef

Perhaps some examples of said powerful software would be helpful?

While I don't disagree that there can be good iOS software, something on a true desktop OS is always going to leave the end user more options. Whether the end user is going to want/need those options remains to be seen. Again, we really haven't had a good contender yet. While the iPad has its limits, there hasn't REALLY been anything else with fewer limits on the market.

Just ones that I own that I've paid a hefty amount of money for -

Oxford Dictionary of English and Thesaurus
TomTom and Navigon GPS
SlingPlayer
Harry's Lap Timer

Plenty of other ones I have either integrate with outside devices or services to bring value in a way that a desktop app doesn't, or provide a ton of value and functionality despite being inexpensive. For many people there are very expensive reference manuals or industry-specific apps that have been ported to these devices (primarily iOS).

What many people in this particular forum tend to forget is that the removal of extraneous stuff - hardware, software, etc. is exactly what makes mobile devices and tablets so powerful. The engineers who design these products tend to stick every feature they think anyone might ever want into their devices and software, and you end up with products that provide a terrible experience to the end-user. The best thing that has happened to computing in the last 10 years was that devices have gotten better by being simpler.

Less is more, and polished apps that provide a single function in a tightly controlled environment often provide a better end result than a completely flexible system. They both have their places, but I for one don't want Windows on my tablet if it means I have all the Windows baggage as well.

----------

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

I think there are a ton of reasons iOS users are willing to pay for content that don't necessarily validate the model - the cheaper pricepoint (less buyer's remorse), ease of purchase (one of the cool things about the app store is it blew up digital distribution), and the fact mobile software is a pretty new market. On iOS I like to think Apple blew up the budget software market. The thing I don't like is they did it at the expense of software that isn't budget.

With iOS software pricing, it's not cheap because it's a better value proposition. It's cheap because that's the only way for devs to survive on Apple's commoditized ecosystem. It's also worth noting that as a hardware company, Apple gains hardware sales when the value of software drops, which is why they probably have no intention of changing anything.

A link talking about it

The cheap software on iOS tends to be software that is either wide in appeal and the developers benefit by the potential of a huge number of impulse purchases and/or software that has a lot of competition and no one app stands out (ie. Scanning apps that offer a ton of functionality to me on the road. If there was only 1 good one - I'd gladly pay $10-20 for it, but there are LOTS of them that do the job well. As a result, they all cost about $1). Apps that offer something unique are still not particularly cheap, and many of those are doing just fine.

[lordofthereef]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Just ones that I own that I've paid a hefty amount of money for -

Oxford Dictionary of English and Thesaurus
TomTom and Navigon GPS
SlingPlayer
Harry's Lap Timer

Nothing you listed here is specifically for business use though. Also, and this is not meant to sound rude, but our definitions of "hefty price tag" are a little different. I am not talking $50. I am thinking hundreds, if not thousands for enterprise software. That is where a true desktop OS shines, and iOS fails. I mentioned why in my above post.

----------

Originally Posted by zhenya

Less is more, and polished apps that provide a single function in a tightly controlled environment often provide a better end result than a completely flexible system. They both have their places, but I for one don't want Windows on my tablet if it means I have all the Windows baggage as well.

With this I disagree. I work in the medical field. Less is almost never more (in terms of records), because people are sue-happy. So the more options I (and my nurses) have to document everything under the sun, the better. Not having to learn two different UI's (one for tablet, one for desktop) is also a HUGE deal. Again, I am speaking enterprise, not personal use. here.

EDIT: I guess my point is this. With WIndows 8, you CAN have all the apps that you have on iOS, presented to you in the same way (some are not developed yet, but my point here is that there is no technical limitation to their existence). All the while, you can have a full-fledged desktop application running on the thing. AND, I don't need to pass it through Microsoft first if I don't want to, because I can install the application traditionally (as we have been doing on Windows and OSX desktop platforms for decades). Simply put, Windows 8 Pro on the Surface has the potential to be everything the iPad is and MORE. I don't see the drawbacks (when comparing the OS's specifically).

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by lordofthereef

Nothing you listed here is specifically for business use though. Also, and this is not meant to sound rude, but our definitions of "hefty price tag" are a little different. I am not talking $50. I am thinking hundreds, if not thousands for enterprise software. That is where a true desktop OS shines, and iOS fails. I mentioned why in my above post.

----------



With this I disagree. I work in the medical field. Less is almost never more (in terms of records), because people are sue-happy. So the more options I (and my nurses) have to document everything under the sun, the better. Not having to learn two different UI's (one for tablet, one for desktop) is also a HUGE deal. Again, I am speaking enterprise, not personal use. here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zhenya
Just ones that I own that I've paid a hefty amount of money for -

Oxford Dictionary of English and Thesaurus
TomTom and Navigon GPS
SlingPlayer
Harry's Lap Timer
Nothing you listed here is specifically for business use though. Also, and this is not meant to sound rude, but our definitions of "hefty price tag" are a little different. I am not talking $50. I am thinking hundreds, if not thousands for enterprise software. That is where a true desktop OS shines, and iOS fails. I mentioned why in my above post.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhenya
Less is more, and polished apps that provide a single function in a tightly controlled environment often provide a better end result than a completely flexible system. They both have their places, but I for one don't want Windows on my tablet if it means I have all the Windows baggage as well.
With this I disagree. I work in the medical field. Less is almost never more (in terms of records), because people are sue-happy. So the more options I (and my nurses) have to document everything under the sun, the better. Not having to learn two different UI's (one for tablet, one for desktop) is also a HUGE deal. Again, I am speaking enterprise, not personal use. here.

EDIT: I guess my point is this. With WIndows 8, you CAN have all the apps that you have on iOS, presented to you in the same way (some are not developed yet, but my point here is that there is no technical limitation to their existence). All the while, you can have a full-fledged desktop application running on the thing. AND, I don't need to pass it through Microsoft first if I don't want to, because I can install the application traditionally (as we have been doing on Windows and OSX desktop platforms for decades). Simply put, Windows 8 Pro on the Surface has the potential to be everything the iPad is and MORE. I don't see the drawbacks (when comparing the OS's specifically).

Well, I was not talking enterprise apps - my initial post clearly indicated that I was just pointing out that there are plenty of quality apps available, and not all of them are priced at .99.

As for the enterprise, while these devices are making some inroads, also realize that you are dinging a device that is no more than 2.5 years old for not having taken over in industry that measures change in decades. How many enterprises are still primarily on Windows XP?

Regarding your edit - as I've said over and over again here - what you lose with Windows 8 on a tablet is the simplicity and appliance-like nature of the mobile operating systems. Devices turn on instantly, virtually never crash, and have battery life 2,3,5x greater than devices running Windows. Those are not insignificant losses.

[Night Spring]

Originally Posted by lordofthereef

Nothing you listed here is specifically for business use though. Also, and this is not meant to sound rude, but our definitions of "hefty price tag" are a little different. I am not talking $50. I am thinking hundreds, if not thousands for enterprise software. That is where a true desktop OS shines, and iOS fails. I mentioned why in my above post.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm sure large enterprises develop their own custom iOS apps, for which they very well might spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. But those apps aren't going to show up on the app store, they are going to be distributed internally within the company only. In fact, I believe that the highest you can charge for an app in the iOS app store is $999. (Remember the "I Am Rich" app incident?)

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by zhenya

The cheap software on iOS tends to be software that is either wide in appeal and the developers benefit by the potential of a huge number of impulse purchases and/or software that has a lot of competition and no one app stands out (ie. Scanning apps that offer a ton of functionality to me on the road. If there was only 1 good one - I'd gladly pay $10-20 for it, but there are LOTS of them that do the job well. As a result, they all cost about $1). Apps that offer something unique are still not particularly cheap, and many of those are doing just fine.

What do you think about the ideas in the link I posted?

[lordofthereef]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm sure large enterprises develop their own custom iOS apps, for which they very well might spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. But those apps aren't going to show up on the app store, they are going to be distributed internally within the company only. In fact, I believe that the highest you can charge for an app in the iOS app store is $999. (Remember the "I Am Rich" app incident?)

In my example of medical charting software, no, this is not the case. Large chain companies, sure, but there are a whole plethora of licensed softwares that individual smaller companies utilize.

----------

Originally Posted by zhenya

Regarding your edit - as I've said over and over again here - what you lose with Windows 8 on a tablet is the simplicity and appliance-like nature of the mobile operating systems. Devices turn on instantly, virtually never crash, and have battery life 2,3,5x greater than devices running Windows. Those are not insignificant losses.

Have you used a Windows 8 device? Specifically the tablets? They load VERY fast. Battery life is also fine, when speaking the RT devices. They get 8 hours plus. The pro devices, however do not, though the newer, more efficient chips around the corner should remedy that.

As far as the interface, again, I can only assume you haven't used it. Because it loads and runs very similar to iOS on a tablet. Metro really is nothing like running traditional Windows on your machine from a user interface perspective.

[TheHateMachine]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm sure large enterprises develop their own custom iOS apps, for which they very well might spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. But those apps aren't going to show up on the app store, they are going to be distributed internally within the company only. In fact, I believe that the highest you can charge for an app in the iOS app store is $999. (Remember the "I Am Rich" app incident?)

Originally Posted by lordofthereef

In my example of medical charting software, no, this is not the case. Large chain companies, sure, but there are a whole plethora of licensed softwares that individual smaller companies utilize.[COLOR="#808080"]

I too work in the Healthcare Industry and used to be in Rebroadcasting. Neither company has yet to roll out custom iOS software. One of the big problems is securing the iPad in an enterprise. Can you imagine if some guy got a hold of an iPad with all the EMR and other sensitive data. HIPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I tried to replace my laptop with an iPad. I used VPN and a keyboard case. The lack of mouse made that such a cumbersome experience and I still required a Windows Machine to be somewhere on the network. Then we tried the Surface RT but its lack of IT management options and features makes it another simple tablet but with the option to foray into some smart full OS tasks and has some excellent support for PC peripherals. The Surface Pro is going to be amazing, we are currently in the process of testing the Acer W700 out, our Corporate Windows 8 Enterprise image for desktops and laptop hits user QA in January and we have a deal with the local Microsoft store to get a bunch of Surface Pros to replace our Laptops when we go on the move.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

What do you think about the ideas in the link I posted?

I think they pretty much confirm what I said earlier - that apps with a lot of competition have to minimize their pricing in order to keep mass appeal. As the article states, the bulk of users are not after a particular game - they are after something to spend some time on. For those people, $1-2 is where the impulse ceiling lies. For games or apps that provide real value, those prices aren't dropping nearly so far. I think the big problem most app makers have is they are trying to compete in crowded markets. Find something new and you can get away with charging more money.

Originally Posted by lordofthereef

Have you used a Windows 8 device? Specifically the tablets? They load VERY fast. Battery life is also fine, when speaking the RT devices. They get 8 hours plus. The pro devices, however do not, though the newer, more efficient chips around the corner should remedy that.

As far as the interface, again, I can only assume you haven't used it. Because it loads and runs very similar to iOS on a tablet. Metro really is nothing like running traditional Windows on your machine from a user interface perspective.

I have, albeit briefly - in no small part because, as I've detailed here before, both of the Windows 8 tablets I've tried have completely locked up within the first 10 minutes of use. I've also been testing Win 8 on regular laptops at the office. The real problem is that the Modern and Desktop interfaces don't integrate. Total non-starter once you run across that little gem the first time. I hate keeping apps in sync across devices, now I have to try and keep them in sync on a single device?

I'm still not buying that battery life is anywhere near where it is on the ipad yet.

This is unusual, but 20 hours is about the norm for me:

[spinedoc77]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Regarding your edit - as I've said over and over again here - what you lose with Windows 8 on a tablet is the simplicity and appliance-like nature of the mobile operating systems. Devices turn on instantly, virtually never crash, and have battery life 2,3,5x greater than devices running Windows. Those are not insignificant losses.

Why is this myth perpetuated so much? Seriously what is so hard about tapping something originally meant for a mouse click? For me its quite the opposite, the "simplicity" that ios introduced has brought us backwards. If there isn't a big green go button and a big red stop button on an app its considered too complicated for todays liberated tablet user. Besides windows has Metro which is as "simple" as ios if a user chooses to ignore the desktop aspect, its a non argument right out of the gate.

Taking it a step further win8 tablets also start instantly, virtually never crash (on par with ios IMO) AND have battery life matching ios (cloverfield cpu's). There are no losses, you get the pluses of the iPad, but none of the minuses of the watered down OS. Granted you may be specific to the surface pro which does have limitations, but it just seems inane to only talk about the pro, similar to me only talking about the mini for example.

----------

Originally Posted by zhenya

I'm still not buying that battery life is anywhere near where it is on the ipad yet.

This is unusual, but 20 hours is about the norm for me:

Image

Battery life is just as good, whether you want to believe me, or any number of reviews on the net. Although IMO this was MS mistake, the cloverfield should have been there lower end tablet instead of RT. RT should have never existed.

[Random 995K]

Originally Posted by dazz87

Let see. 64gb storage half the space is taking up by the OS, 4 hrs battery life (stated by M$) which in real world means 2-3 hrs... For 900 bucks shut up and take my money.......

This, its already a failure (the RT one).

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by spinedoc77

Why is this myth perpetuated so much? Seriously what is so hard about tapping something originally meant for a mouse click? For me its quite the opposite, the "simplicity" that ios introduced has brought us backwards. If there isn't a big green go button and a big red stop button on an app its considered too complicated for todays liberated tablet user. Besides windows has Metro which is as "simple" as ios if a user chooses to ignore the desktop aspect, its a non argument right out of the gate.

Taking it a step further win8 tablets also start instantly, virtually never crash (on par with ios IMO) AND have battery lice matching ios (cloverfield cpu's). There are no losses, you get the pluses of the iPad, but none of the minuses of the watered down OS. Granted you may be specific to the surface pro which does have limitations, but it just seems inane to only talk a out the pro, similar to me only talking about the mini for example.

Except you are virtually the only person anywhere saying those things. Most people don't want to interact with Windows desktop on a touchscreen because its nowhere near as easy as iOS or Android. Most people don't want to have to figure out whether that bookmark they made is in Metro IE or Desktop IE. Most people don't want to administer Windows if they don't have to. Most people don't want to buy an RT device that has no apps and no larger ecosystem when alternatives exist that do. A limited subset wants the ability to run all their Windows programs in a laptop despite those negatives. You clearly do. I just haven't found many others like you.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by spinedoc77

Battery life is just as good, whether you want to believe me, or any number of reviews on the net. Although IMO this was MS mistake, the cloverfield should have been there lower end tablet instead of RT. RT should have never existed.

Maybe, but I'm not seeing people sing the praises of week long usage and 20-hours+ of battery life. At best we are seeing review tests that come within a few hours of the ipad 4. In any case, RT pretty much negates the entire point of a Windows tablet in an effort to achieve the goals I outlined earlier.

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by zhenya

I think they pretty much confirm what I said earlier - that apps with a lot of competition have to minimize their pricing in order to keep mass appeal. As the article states, the bulk of users are not after a particular game - they are after something to spend some time on. For those people, $1-2 is where the impulse ceiling lies. For games or apps that provide real value, those prices aren't dropping nearly so far. I think the big problem most app makers have is they are trying to compete in crowded markets. Find something new and you can get away with charging more money.

The article was actually saying more than that:
- App store games started out at a $10 pricepoint. Then one developer decided to price all their games at 99 cents and stayed at the top of the charts. Everyone else had to follow and it's been a race to the bottom ever since
- Developers have no choice but to price at what competitors set, even if their product is worth more, even if they can't cover their development costs. And you wonder why more complex productivity software and AAA games aren't being made for iOS. Developers are unable to take risks because the app market is too cheap.
- Developers have had to go to Freemium in many markets because one type pricing is no longer viable. He gives an example of how gaming has suffered because instead of a Premium one type purchase experience, you now get an intentionally boring Freemium game monetized by using IAP to curb the boredom
- The problem is Apple's design of the app store. It's too crowded in general.
- Apple has no incentive to fix this design because its strategy is to commoditize its complements. It makes money off hardware. Software is a complement. It benefits Apple for the software that runs on its hardware to be cheap crap.

I really believe the way Apple treats software is a weakness. If they had maintained a healthy iOS software pricepoint instead of letting it become a race to the bottom, the Surface Pro would not have a market right now. Instead people are talking about using the Surface Pro to do "real work", which is code for using it to run software that will never appear on the app store because it's too expensive to develop

Originally Posted by article

So, let's recap what we know for sure:

Numerous iOS devs are reporting that they are struggling to make enough money to stay afloat because consumers won't buy "premium" (i.e. more than a buck or two) apps.
Apps that cut their prices report very high sales boosts.
Apple makes much more money from iOS hardware than it does from its commission on App Store sales.

I believe that points one and two together are rooted in consumer psychology; we're locked into a feedback loop, where about the only way for a dev to get attention is to cut the price of an app, but that only further encourages users to avoid expensive apps. And I believe point 3 means we can't count on Apple to do anything to fix this.

If we don't fix it, I don't forecast doom and gloom. I'm not suggesting devs are going to flee the App Store in droves. However, I do think we'll see less interesting apps and less indie devs, as the excess risk scares away the people who can't deal with it and causes risky ideas to be shelved before they are developed. Meanwhile, the big players like EA and Rovio will churn out mostly bland, risk-adverse titles. I think that would be a shame.

[teknikal90]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

The article was actually saying more than that:
- App store games started out at a $10 pricepoint. Then one developer decided to price all their games at 99 cents and stayed at the top of the charts. Everyone else had to follow and it's been a race to the bottom ever since
- Developers have no choice but to price at what competitors set, even if their product is worth more, even if they can't cover their development costs. And you wonder why more complex productivity software and AAA games aren't being made for iOS. Developers are unable to take risks because the app market is too cheap.
- Developers have had to go to Freemium in many markets because one type pricing is no longer viable. He gives an example of how gaming has suffered because instead of a Premium one type purchase experience, you now get an intentionally boring Freemium game monetized by using IAP to curb the boredom
- The problem is Apple's design of the app store. It's too crowded in general.
- Apple has no incentive to fix this design because its strategy is to commoditize its complements. It makes money off hardware. Software is a complement. It benefits Apple for the software that runs on its hardware to be cheap crap.

I really believe the way Apple treats software is a weakness.

I believe that the Appstore thrives on 99c games.
Most people i know who buy games on their ipod touches are kids. kids who can't afford to buy games at $10 a pop.
the app store thrives off of the angry birds of games, the fruit ninjas, the temple runs... I don't think Apple's treating this as a weakness at all...it's a plus!
btw, nice audio rig (signature).

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by teknikal90

btw, nice audio rig (signature).

thanks bro

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

The article was actually saying more than that:
- App store games started out at a $10 pricepoint. Then one developer decided to price all their games at 99 cents and stayed at the top of the charts. Everyone else had to follow and it's been a race to the bottom ever since
- Developers have no choice but to price at what competitors set, even if their product is worth more, even if they can't cover their development costs. And you wonder why more complex productivity software and AAA games aren't being made for iOS. Developers are unable to take risks because the app market is too cheap.
- Developers have had to go to Freemium in many markets because one type pricing is no longer viable. He gives an example of how gaming has suffered because instead of a Premium one type purchase experience, you now get an intentionally boring Freemium game monetized by using IAP to curb the boredom
- The problem is Apple's design of the app store. It's too crowded in general.
- Apple has no incentive to fix this design because its strategy is to commoditize its complements. It makes money off hardware. Software is a complement. It benefits Apple for the software that runs on its hardware to be cheap crap.

I really believe the way Apple treats software is a weakness. If they had maintained a healthy iOS software pricepoint instead of letting it become a race to the bottom, the Surface Pro would not have a market right now. Instead people are talking about using the Surface Pro to do "real work", which is code for using it to run software that will never appear on the app store because it's too expensive to develop

The problem with your argument is that there are still plenty of quality games and apps priced much higher than 'the bottom'. The .99 games are the time wasters, the ones that people don't HAVE to have but will take a chance on for a buck. The quality stuff distinguishes itself by offering something that nobody else has - and draws buyers somewhat irrespective of price. I'm not much of a gamer but my take is that people actually want to play Infinity Blade or Real Racing whereas they don't care so much whether they play Angry Birds or Cut the Rope. For the latter developers, they are better off at .99 because they sell hugely more volume.

And that's what that article was saying - initially developers didn't know how to price apps - but it quickly became apparent that many apps were making much more money at .99 than 9.99. And that's the crux - people are making money on this platform. What other platform has the app or game development that iOS does today? Personally all Apple needs to do to get people to take the App Store more seriously is a) overhaul the search engine and b) allow me to remove games from my view entirely since I'm not interested and they drown out all the stuff I might buy. Part of the problem I think is the developers themselves - a few got really lucky early on and made a lot of money from not much work. That jackpot is largely finished but everyone is still hoping for a payday. When instead what needs to happen now is for them to buckle down and build real apps even if it takes months instead of weeks. I think we'll naturally see the App Store morph back towards this model as more and more people tire of the time wasters.

[spinedoc77]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Except you are virtually the only person anywhere saying those things. Most people don't want to interact with Windows desktop on a touchscreen because its nowhere near as easy as iOS or Android. Most people don't want to have to figure out whether that bookmark they made is in Metro IE or Desktop IE. Most people don't want to administer Windows if they don't have to. Most people don't want to buy an RT device that has no apps and no larger ecosystem when alternatives exist that do. A limited subset wants the ability to run all their Windows programs in a laptop despite those negatives. You clearly do. I just haven't found many others like you.

Nah, using the desktop on a touch basis is not a big deal at all, but I understand the current conditioning of push the huge red button on iOS to get something done, it's idiot proof. Granted I'm pretty tech savvy and don't have an issue correlating a mouse click with where my finger should go. I don't disagree with you though, part of Apple's sheer genius was realizing that the grandmas of the world would love something as simple as iOS.

With that said, I also don't disagree that Windows 8 is half baked, in many ways terrible. In many ways MS is tied to this paradigm, many legacy programs which will never be considered for iOS, or more true is that iOS is not powerful enough to iterate them, these programs require the legacy desktop. As I've espoused to others, I have the choice of having that desktop, or I can completely ignore it and run it as a dumb tablet just as simple as the ipad. This is where I get very confused, why users would want to limit themselves like this.

I can't disagree with you on IE10, just a HORRID decision on MS part, I have no idea what they were thinking there. Can't argue with you on RT either, it should have never ever even existed.

The thing is that you can't argue that the ipad out-ipads a cloverfield windows 8 tablet except in one category, that is the app ecosystem, but then we can compare that to legacy windows programs. I get what you are saying, that apps are easier to use. For me it's the opposite, they are harder, in their quest for simplicity they leave out many important functions which the desktop programs have. Now here is where many of you are getting confused with what I'm saying, I'm NOT an advocate for a desktop on a tablet, but I understand it will take time for the desktop to adapt itself to a touch environment and MS, unlike Apple, has at least taken the first step to provide users with a real OS. Is it ready today? Certainly not, it stinks today (not for me, but I understand the reality for consumers).

And as you mention, the real power is that I CAN run it as a laptop, I can't do that with an ipad. I respect your choices, but for myself I could not possibly see limiting myself to iOS when I could have a dumb tablet like the ipad, a desktop OS if I so choose with thousands if not millions of legacy programs, and the ability to use it as a true laptop all with the same specs as the ipad such as thinness, battery life, price, etc.

----------

Originally Posted by zhenya

Maybe, but I'm not seeing people sing the praises of week long usage and 20-hours+ of battery life. At best we are seeing review tests that come within a few hours of the ipad 4. In any case, RT pretty much negates the entire point of a Windows tablet in an effort to achieve the goals I outlined earlier.

What? You are seeing reviews which say it's close to the ipad 4 battery life, I don't understand what else is there? My windows 8 tablet can also get 20 hours and a week if I use it sparingly, exactly like my ipad, but that's not really a battery test unless we equal out all other factors and specifically run a certain load for a certain amount of time, just like the reviews you and I are talking about.

FYI I'm not talking about RT, I'm talking about FULL windows 8 Pro tablets.

Regardless, the battery lives are very close, it's not even up for discussion, it's there in black and white.

[skaertus]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

Yeah, and what's ironic is a lot of the productivity apps (IE Pages) use the same UI as desktop counterparts and would actually benefit from mouse/trackpad replacements.

Definitely. A mouse/trackpad would also make it easier for developers of current software for Mac/Windows to convert their apps for use in iOS, as the interface would not require major changes.

I think we're already seeing the limits on iOS software and I don't expect it to evolve much further. iOS software is pretty much a race to the bottom and there's only so much devs can do with a cheap pricepoint in a commoditized store. I like everything about iOS and Apple mobile devices except their software library, which to me is the type of software you would've found in cardboard sleeves in the $5 bargain bin at Fry's 10 years ago.

Well, I don't know about that. iOS is being developed at a slow pace, and most features are for iPhone, not iPad, users. iOS 6 was a disappointment for me. But depending on how Windows RT and Android evolve, iOS will have to catch up.

Google is in the same boat as Apple because they follow the same business model. Notice how both Google and Apple don't really care about the pricepoint of software that much. Google gives away their software for free because it's a gateway to ads. Apple makes their software cheap because it's a gateway to hardware. Both of them use commoditized distribution to make their app stores ultracompetitive among developers. Third party developers are affected by this because they have to pricedrop accordingly. Software quality follows

True, but to a certain extent. Developers of Mac software may charge a lot for their apps, but the market is very limited (only Mac computers). Developers of software for iOS devices benefit from a huge market - more iPads were sold in less than 3 years than Macs on more than 20. Price is low, but there are many more consumers using it.

Now, this strategy seems to work fine with small and even medium developers, for simple apps. Among large developers, only a few have embraced this model. Adobe did it, but only to a certain extent - flagship software is not available for iOS devices. And Microsoft is probably debating with Apple right now which model will be adopted for the sale of MS Office in iOS devices.

[milk242]

I think I'm going to wait for Microsoft to merge windows rt and windows together before I buy it. It just seems like that was what they were going for but ran out of time.

Also I don't really understand why people are comparing this tablet to the iPad and nexus 10. This thing is the pro version, which means you can do a heck of a lot more things without being restricted to an AppStore. I like the idea that I can use this for coding by installing any IDE available on windows.

[Night Spring]

Originally Posted by spinedoc77

Nah, using the desktop on a touch basis is not a big deal at all, but I understand the current conditioning of push the huge red button on iOS to get something done, it's idiot proof. Granted I'm pretty tech savvy and don't have an issue correlating a mouse click with where my finger should go. I don't disagree with you though, part of Apple's sheer genius was realizing that the grandmas of the world would love something as simple as iOS.

With that said, I also don't disagree that Windows 8 is half baked, in many ways terrible. In many ways MS is tied to this paradigm, many legacy programs which will never be considered for iOS, or more true is that iOS is not powerful enough to iterate them, these programs require the legacy desktop. As I've espoused to others, I have the choice of having that desktop, or I can completely ignore it and run it as a dumb tablet just as simple as the ipad. This is where I get very confused, why users would want to limit themselves like this.

It's not that users are chosing to limit themselves, it's more that they are picking the simplest and easiest tablet to use, and as you admit, Win8 is still half-baked at the moment. The *idea* of one device that can do it all is certainly something nobody finds objectionable, but then, as keep saying, there are costs that come with trying to do it all. I looked at a few cloverfield Win8 devices, and they all look a bit awkward and not as sleek as my MacBook Air. Probably because they have a docking mechanism to attach and detach from the keyboard, which no matter how you build it, adds to the thickness of the unit. None of them makes me want to give up my iPad + Air combination.

I have no doubt that eventually, we'll have a mobile system that can do it all, but personally, until that day comes, I'd rather carry two separate devices that's each best at what it does. I can also see why some people, like yourself, prefer to have an all-in-one device now, even though Win8 is half-baked. What I'm not sure is why you think people who prefer the iPad are limiting themselves. I don't feel particularly limited at all, I can do everything I need to do with iPad + Air. I'm just not hung up on doing it all with one device.

[spinedoc77]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

It's not that users are chosing to limit themselves, it's more that they are picking the simplest and easiest tablet to use, and as you admit, Win8 is still half-baked at the moment. The *idea* of one device that can do it all is certainly something nobody finds objectionable, but then, as keep saying, there are costs that come with trying to do it all. I looked at a few cloverfield Win8 devices, and they all look a bit awkward and not as sleek as my MacBook Air. Probably because they have a docking mechanism to attach and detach from the keyboard, which no matter how you build it, adds to the thickness of the unit. None of them makes me want to give up my iPad + Air combination.

I have no doubt that eventually, we'll have a mobile system that can do it all, but personally, until that day comes, I'd rather carry two separate devices that's each best at what it does. I can also see why some people, like yourself, prefer to have an all-in-one device now, even though Win8 is half-baked. What I'm not sure is why you think people who prefer the iPad are limiting themselves. I don't feel particularly limited at all, I can do everything I need to do with iPad + Air. I'm just not hung up on doing it all with one device.

That's a very reasonable way to look at things, and actually exactly the same way I looked at things just a few short months ago. I was fairly happy with my MacBook air and ipad combination, but I would certainly look at my MacBook air and wish it detached into a tablet, and I would also look at my ipad and wish it would perform the same functions as my MacBook air. I could never see carrying them both, so I'd compromise and travel with the ipad and leave the MacBook air as basically a home desktop, but I never had the feeling that the ipad was anywhere close to being as functional as the air, it was mainly a consumption device.

It's quite freeing to have that functionality on you at all times though. I gave my wife my ipad, my ipad mini is in the box ready to be returned tomorrow, I just don't see any need for them at all anymore. I also sold my MacBook air a while ago.