To Ballmer, Grabbing iPad's Market Is 'Job One Urgency' 764
Barence writes "Microsoft's Steve Ballmer has vented his frustration at the success of the iPad and said developing a Windows alternative is 'job one urgency.' 'Apple has done an interesting job of putting together a synthesis and putting a product out, and in which they've... they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell, let me just be clear about that,' Ballmer told analysts. The Microsoft boss said the company plans to deliver a range of tablet formats in the next year, some based on Intel's next-gen Oak Trail processor. 'It is job one urgency around here. Nobody is sleeping at the switch. And so we are working with those partners, not just to deliver something, but to deliver products that people really want to go buy.'" In Microsoft's vision, slates will run a derivative of Windows 7.
I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Asleep at the Switch (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has been asleep at the switch for a long long time.
They chase every new product Apple comes out with, instead of actually innovating and putting a product out there that customers want. Sure, they do quite well in the operating system and Microsoft Office world, but outside that they do very little of any worth. The Xbox is only now profitable, and will probably never recoup the original costs.
Ballmer wants to chase the sexy gadgets that Apple is putting out, but Microsoft's operating system is not sexy.
Granted, there is a serious threat here, Microsoft has almost completely missed he mobile market both with phones and tablets. The irony being that Microsoft has already come out with a tablet operating system that has barely seen adoption, and the mobile OS market will only continue to grow.
So, will Microsoft come out with a tablet that "people will really want to go and buy"? Maybe - if they licence the iPad 2.0
Microsoft has become too bulky for meaningful development. Infighting between departments is crippling the ability for Microsoft to actually innovate. They will be relevant in the OS and Office Space for some time to come, but so far, Ballmer has not carved out that "third" tier of highly profitable business that he promised he would when he took the position.
Steve Ballmer - Life and Death (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty much it for Steve Ballmer. They are playing a catch-up game with Apple (and others). They have had so many things just fizzle while he's been at the helm. Vista, Zune, Mobile, "Slates". It's obvious he's a business guy and not the forward thinking visionary the company needs. There's been a lot of Wallstreet chatter that Steve Ballmer's time to turn things around is very short.
Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
It really is a shame because I'm sure, if their braintrust was let loose to create without the petty corporate politics getting in the way, they could probably make some really cool shit but, until their corporate culture is slaughtered and replaced with a new one (in other words, Ballmer is replaced...), they seem intent on remaining a me-too company.
Way way too late Ballmer (Score:3, Interesting)
Way way too late Ballmer... Hint: for Microsoft to succeed in the new iPad space the wow factor needs to be so much higher to make an impact on the already infatuated crowd. Any investor and board member should just kick him out. Ballmer is not on top of things and will NEVER... I repeat NEVER be on top of things. Even Gates wasn't fully on top of things BUT he was at least in the same ballpark.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Brother, I must say that yes, you dont get it at all.
IT competition is all about control and platform. Microsoft is worried of anything that gets enough market to constitute a viable investment for development firms because if those firms make more money of the ipad/iphone then investing in microsoft develpment platform is less atractive and, given enough time, can even kill or seriously hinder the windows platform income which is way, way, way, way much more than anybody is ever going to get out of any ipad/iphone app.
And thats because, really, nobody can claim any kind of "moral" authority in that world (we foss guys are somehow different): if you ever make an app that makes that kind of money you can bet your ass Apple will kill it by copying it, extending it and including it in their base app set for the ipad.
It has been this way since there has been any kind of competition in personal computing.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1, Interesting)
I guess what I am trying to say is that overtaking the Ipad will NOT be as easy as overtaking the technologies you listed.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really something to see how times have changed. 10 years ago the Mac user's lament was that the software options for their computers were too limited and now Microsoft is trying to launch hardware or OSs for new hardware into markets where Apple and Google have the mindshare nearly cornered between iTunes and the Android Marketplace.
This is why Microsoft is becoming the stuff you use at work and Apple is slowly becoming the stuff you use everywhere else.
MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating (Score:5, Interesting)
Ballmer seems incapable of directing his company to do anything innovative. It's like he only sees a product category as valid when it's already been defined by someone else.
Apple defined a new category of tablet device with the iPad. Now Ballmer has MS chasing after it madly. But meanwhile, he's killed innovative new products like Courier. Apparently what he wants is to create something that's essentially a clone of whatever Apple's come up with, rather than a genuinely new kind of product.
This has been the Microsoft curse for decades, going back to the creation of Windows as a Macintosh knockoff. Yes, I know Apple didn't invent the GUI concepts used in Macintosh -- but they were the first to successfully make them into a commercial product. And MS wasn't interested until they saw that Apple was doing it.
Well, there is that. (Score:4, Interesting)
But that's what Microsoft doesn't want. The thought process hangs up there.
Have you ever had much interaction with two-year-olds?
Re:Innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anger. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you imagine what it must be like to glance upon a small child delighted with a shiny bauble or piece of candy; and then feel the insane urge to take it? To revel in the misery left in the wake of your theft; jealousy and elation forming an overwhelming melange as you escape the scene?
This is what it feels like to be Steve Ballmer. And it has been a long, long time since he was last able to take a piece of candy from a child.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
seriously, could they have not done it themselves, years ago?
Seriously: No. Microsoft can't make something like an iPad because it goes against their way of life. They are trying to make products that will deliver what their corporate allies want, not what consumers want, and that's why they can make a Zune to squirt things at you but they can't make an iPhone.
Apple fights its corporate partners to give its users the DRM-less files they want, Mircrosoft fights its users to give its corporate partners the "this file will autodestruct" DRM they want. It's an antithetic mindset.
Re:Anger. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's actually kind of surprising, usually company execs aren't quite as blatant as that in expressing things like that. In fact, they almost never are. I find it refreshing.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
That's interesting, because I've been talking this idea up forever. Taking over full support of the Mono platform would ingrain .NET development into so many platforms that MS would have a massive link between developer culture, operational congruency, good will, and several other perceptions that I cannot imagine a good reason for keeping .NET a MS-only platform. Just bad reasons, like manager stubbornness, ROI-only-based accounting, and hubris.
Ironically, I remember when .NET was first released, competing with Java for a run-on-everything multi-language framework. It's now a painful reminder that MS cannot seem to shed their chains of pride and interact with the rest of the larger computing market.
For example, even their web proposal (IE/Silverlight) cannot compete with the likes of Chrome, where Google doesn't care what platform it runs on, just that they're a presence in the space. IE on anything but Windows? I doubt it, and this means it'll simply be a corporate layer or noob-home-user default, like today.
Instead of integrating and offering ideas to available platforms, MS buys/builds their own space and competes in it, then wonders why it's so damn expensive to start such ideas (Xbox, for example).
Re:Anger. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're complaining that the iPad/iPhone isn't your computer. Well no shit. If that's what you want, then the iPad isn't for you.
If, on the other hand, you want a web tablet with insane battery life that you can watch movies on, listen to music, read ebooks, or browse (part of) the web, an i device might be worth it for you.
World of Warcraft isn't there, but Plants vs Zombies is a pretty nifty experience on the iPad. If 90% of everything is crap, that still leaves thousands of non-crap applications that these things can run.
Basically, I would say it comes down to the form factor and the applications. Either one could be the killer feature that makes the device worth the money. If it didn't require a computer to set it up, it's the device I would be telling my parents to get when they call me and say they want a computer.
Plus, it's only $500 or so. It's a pretty nice piece of technology for that much money. Lots of programmers (including me) love programming and this is a very interesting platform.
Re:Anger. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can I develop software using the iPad as a platform? Nope - not easily.
Yes, you can. Maybe not compiled stuff, but writing javascript stuff works, and plenty of nice quick programs I've written through the years were web-based. You can also SSH into your LAMP server or RDP into your IIS server, and use vi/notepad there, but that's sorta like cheating.
Can I play World of Warcraft on an iPad? Nope - not really.
I'll be glad when my friends give up WoW and start Role Playing or playing other computer games again. ^&@$ing money sink
Can I watch a high quality movie on an iPad? I suspect not really.
I suspect you've never even seen one. You can't watch 1080p high Definition movies, but a friend watched three high Quality movies on his plane flight home and still had 50% battery.
So what's left? Telephone calls and texting.
On an iPad? It's not a phone... Me::Fail I didn't check to see if this is copypasta. I'm sure it is now.
That said, I hate iPad and its "this is the new computing" BS to its very core. I just hate lying and misrepresentation more.
Re:Anger. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be surprised that there are so many Slashdotters who don't get the iPad. When you look at a feature matrix, the iPad seems lame. No usb port, no flash, no camera, it doesn't run existing programs, integrated battery and multitasking is a joke.
It's hard to fit the qualities that the iPad gets right into the chart. Instant-on is key is a big deal and multi-touch is pretty sweet but the qualitative features are harder to define. I'm talking about how the device feels in your hands or how it responds when you use the touch screen or rotate it. Very subjective qualities. Android does all this stuff, but it just doesn't feel as refined.
We have an iPad in our house and it's just more fun to use than the netbook, laptop, or desktop. Perhaps the novelty will wear off, but for now it's still novel and gets a lot of use.
Re:MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating (Score:5, Interesting)
While sad, it's been a smart business tactic for Microsoft. Let someone else take the risk first and do the legwork, then if it works out, bomb the market with a copy - albeit usually inferior, but often much cheaper. Nearly, if not actually, everything Microsoft has comes to being that way. Sometimes it bombs, most times it succeeds with Microsoft laughing all the way to the bank, even tho their consumers end up often wishing they spent a little extra and bought Apple. Apple is about creating neat and new stuffs. Microsoft is about copying and leeching off anything that appears to be making money in the market. All IMHO, of course.
Re:Anger. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pen Computing's offerings were a threat to Microsoft's core cash cow. Microsoft's philosophy back then was to kill anything that threatened the OS. Microsoft finagled their way into Pen's offices under the guise that they wanted to praise Pen if what they were creating was worthy. Pen, being flattered, allowed them to see the product. A few months later Microsoft announced Pen Windows. Everyone that was adopting Windows (the industry was headed that way en masse) directed their attention to Pen Windows. This told them that they shouldn't want to consider any alternatives when the pen concepts were being added to Windows itself. That began the downfall of Pen. It is the only reason Microsoft entered that market.
Re:D'oh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ballmer is pissed not because Microsoft was late, but that they were never able to capture the user's imagination with their tablet technology. Apple got it right because they were able to see the mistakes that Microsoft made compared to their opposition at the time.
Then he's going to be pissed for a long time to come unless he can do some serious turning of the Microsoft ship.
As a company, Microsoft have had a lot of trouble dropping or substantially re-thinking a concept once they've got it. As soon as you say "general-purpose computer", the concept automatically becomes "with 17" screen, keyboard, mouse, being operated by someone who is competent to deal with more-or-less anything that they system can throw at them, running fairly independently of anyone else". Frankly, it's only been since Vista that the "with 17" screen" bit has been dropped, and quite a few official bits of documentation for domains still assume that even non-technical users will be perfectly comfortable doing fairly complicated things with their PC rather than expecting the IT department to do so remotely.
Even if you qualify "general purpose computer" with "that is about ten inches in height, is driven entirely by a finger-operated touchscreen and for most practical uses will never even have a keyboard or external display connected", I guarantee you will still see vestiges of the original idea - and they'll make so little sense that the end result will be horribly clunky and will need to be marketed to hell and back to sell at all.
Re:MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
do you really think that 150 million made a difference to a company that had billions in the bank? That deal was all about cross licencing of pattents and a commitment from MS to make Office for the mac. MS made a lot of money off that stock, which, if I recall correctly, was non-voting stock.
You are off your rocker if you think 150 mil mad the iMac, iPod, iPhone or iPad possible.
Not late, never arrived (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather than being late, they were too early so that the tablets were too big and heavy. ...Also, they assumed that people wanted the full Windows interface, which doesn't lend itself to the less precise controls of pen and finger input. They made that same mistake with Windows Mobile too
So fast forward to today. They can deliver a Windows tablet that's relatively thin and light.
Do you honestly see it as succeeding? I don't, for the very reasons you laid out just after - the full Windows interface, without seriously taking into account finger input. As you said they made the same mistake in tablet and mobile space, and they are making it now with the current tablet push.
So in the end, it's not that they were too early. It's that they went down the wrong path in regards to UI, and for some reason refuse to correct that mistake for the tablet space even though they have changed course in mobile...
And that's the craziest thing. At great cost (both money and reputation) they have done the about-face they needed to in mobile - but they aren't going to leverage that for tablets! That seems insane. It's like Microsoft can't pick one direction (example: Kin). If Microsoft does not even really trust the new Windows Mobile 7 direction why should the market? Or hardware makers for that matter.
Re:Anger. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, god.
I had hopes for the Zune.
See, I thought the response to the iPod was obvious. The Zune would be compatible with the Microsoft-created DRMed music format used by the wide network of then-extant "PlaysForSure" download services. The Zune would come with the ability to play pretty much any non-DRM audio format in existence at the time. The Zune would have a user-replaceable battery and a user-replaceable hard drive. The Zune would have a standardized, fully-documented (both hardware and software), royalty-free accessory interface, to actively encourage third-party add-ons. Zune would be launched in a huge co-marketing deal with Walmart (which ran one of the PlaysForSure download stores). Initial pricing would be 20% off the iPod of equivalent storage, just to drive initial adoption. And, to top it off, Walmart and Microsoft would pay Apple Corps (then in a lawsuit with Apple Computer) a fortune to bring the Beatles to the Walmart music store at the launch.
In short, I thought Microsoft would actually try to beat the iPod by attacking the iPod simultaneously at every point of potential vulnerability. Not just put up a near-clone and hope it sold.
Since then, I've been pretty certain that Microsoft can't do anything but flail in consumer electronics. They're dead in the water. The future is either Apple or Android.
Re:Steve Ballmer - Life and Death (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anger. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously dude, just because you can list it does not mean any of those contribute to any relevant (profitable) revenue. I would lump SQL under Windows.
Noise, just like I said.
Re:Anger. (Score:3, Interesting)
None of you are looking at the big picture. Microsoft started out selling operating systems quickly followed by Office products. The bulk of their revenue and profit today is from operating systems ( I would include Exchange and SQL in the lot) and Office products. They name on the box may be different but at its core what they sell today is basically what the sold when they started.
Apple started selling only computers, then printers, then anything Coke man and Amelio could think of and then Jobs had the presence of mind to see that portable devices would enable his end game which is content and services. Drastically different. Jobs he pushed to create the iPod and then had the balls to kill it now with the iPhone. He recognized that to survive you have to eat your own. Microsoft OTOH crippled all of its previous tablet entries because the Office GM did not want to port Office to Pen OS. Pen OS was killed because it was viewed as a threat to Windows. You have massive internal turf wars inside Microsoft that prevent any real innovation and at the top they reinforce this behavior. I stand by what I said. If Microsoft does not change they will be history.
Re:MS: Always imitating, rarely innovating (Score:3, Interesting)
While sad, it's been a smart business tactic for Microsoft. Let someone else take the risk first and do the legwork, then if it works out, bomb the market with a copy - albeit usually inferior, but often much cheaper.
Except ... MS is no longer the low end either. I have just purchased a cheap tablet - 1/3 the price of an iPad. It runs Android. There are plenty of Android tablets, and more and more coming out all the time. And MS do not have much of an advantage in the ARM-based tablet market where Android operates, because Windows cannot rely on existing MS and third-party PC apps working on ARM: they don't. Microsoft would have to create an application landscape from scratch, with Apple and Android already established.
Personally, I think MS are no more likely to win here than they did with the Zune.
But it was still a PC... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with the tablets that were investigated at the bank where I consulted was that they brought nothing worth bothering about. With MS security problems, they weren't interested. (They had many tens of thousands of PCs. Saving money would have interested them.)
Changing form factor just to run MS stuff on a portable, (stealable,) insecure, low-power platform just was not an appealing option to people who were quite content to have everything done much cheaper on their locked-down LANs and intranets.
Microsoft has to fight their own existing customer base and that is NOT happening. The "palace eunuchs", the accountants, won't let it. In fact they're legally obliged NOT TO.
Microsoft has always made their money from selling their stuff to people who didn't have to use it.
Ergo, the Zune and the other flops. (The X-Box is the ONLY qualified success.)
While Balmer embarrasses himself doing the "developers dance" with a complete lack of style, poise or acumen, Microsoft still collects its "Microsoft Tax" from the locked-in and probably resentful buyers of PCs (who try NOT to make any changes but the planned obsolescence of the PC industry means that its cheaper to to buy new hardware than to take it in to be repaired [specially with the development of NAS with hot-swappable drives reaching even the smallest businesses.])
As long as Microsoft is making money, lets pray they don't get rid of "Ol' Clueless."
Microsoft's biggest handicap is the "fool on the hill."