Microsoft May Finally Put Windows RT Out To Pasture 293
onyxruby writes "Microsoft may finally be ready to put Windows RT out to pasture. After ignoring pundits, the public, and a staggering $900 writedown, the subsequent lack of sales for the second edition of the RT have finally gotten the message through. Speaking at a UBS seminar, Microsoft VP Julie Larson-Green said, 'It just didn't do everything that you expected Windows to do. So there's been a lot of talk about it should have been a rebranding. We should not have called it Windows (.DOCX). How should we have made it more differentiated? I think over time you'll see us continue to differentiate it more. We have the Windows Phone OS. We have Windows RT and we have full Windows. We're not going to have three.'"
Shooting Itself in the Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has developed a habit of killing every new product the second it runs into a little difficulty, and now wonders why consumers don't want to risk their money on new Microsoft products that will probably be dead in a year.
What microsoft SHOULD have done... (Score:5, Insightful)
What microsoft SHOULD have done is what Google and Apple did and basically made "Windows Tablet" based on the Windows Phone OS. So they would have had x86 machines running Windows 8 with a normal desktop OS (possibly with a few enhancements to make it run better on x86 tablets) then ARM devices (phone and tablet) running the Windows Phone codebase and supporting the Windows Phone interface and apps.
Try not to fuck up the product in the first place! (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows RT was a failure because no geek (the ones that would be the early adopters that, then, would pull another users to the platform) would spend money on something that doesn't allow dual boot!
Common, by the price you could get a ARM Notebook totally (and relentlessly) locked down to Windows RT, you could get instead a x86 netbook where you can install, also, Linux and its plethora of applications - that aren't the best thing in the World sometimes, but are far better than the Windows RT alternatives (not a surprise, as very few Microsoft developers manage to build *real* multiplatform applications! - remember the time when a Microsoft "multiplatform application" was a program that used to run on Windows 95, 98 ME and NT?)
The tablet niche was already taken, and the x86 niche wasn't threatened by a (yet more locked down) RT system whose only selling point was being capable to stay lit for more time without having anything to run.
Branding matters, both for consumers and for (Score:5, Insightful)
project management.
The product is called "Windows." Windows are static things. They are embedded into walls. They provide an unmoving portal into another space.
A monitor on your desktop behaves like a window in some sense. It is always in the same place. You sit and you look at it.
Windows Phone and Windows RT just don't make sense for mobile devices, and provide a kind of complacency to project vision and the wrong idea (unpalatable) to consumers looking for mobile devices.
MS should call the mobile product something mobile:
MS Pathways
MS Journeys
MS Passages
MS Ways
MS Compass
MS Latitude
Then they should focus relentlessly on small-screen/long-battery/mobile UX for the mobile system; design toward the lightweight, mobile ethos of the new name, and market it relentlessly not as "the same as windows" but in fact as exactly different from it.
MS Windows in your office
MS Compass for going places
"Because you're not always sitting still.
"Busy people do more than sit by Windows."
I'm not saying that the marketing is the product; we all know that's ridiculous and leads exactly to a product fail (mismatched expectations vs. reality). I'm saying that if MS was as marketing-led as they ought to have been, they'd do the field research to know what mobile users need (field research they clearly haven't done well) and target the product to those needs, as well as the marketing campaign.
Who needs Windows in their pocket on the street? Nobody. Windows belong inside walls.
Same thing goes for the hardware product. "Surface?" Sounds static and architectural. The opposite of mobility. You can see that they themselves imagined the product this way based on what was shipped out the door. Come up with something lightweight and mobile.
The Microsoft Dispatch.
The Microsoft Portfolio.
The Microsoft Movement (tablet) and Microsoft Velocity (phone).
These are not great ideas yet, but they're light years ahead of "Windows" and "Surface" for a mobile device that ends up acting just like a "Window" or a "Surface."
Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this has anything to do with consumers risking money on new products. This is a case of Really Bad Branding. Many consumers are not even aware that their new Windows tablet won't run Windows applications (if it's Windows RT). Not only so, but deciphering whether a tablet had "Real" Windows or Windows RT isn't always clear when looking at products even if you do know the difference.
I also don't think there's room for a "me too" tablet OS that has nothing compelling over iOS or Android.
OTOH, I really think Microsoft should be tooting their horns a little louder about tablets running real Windows 8.1 that can run any Windows application.
Re:Try not to fuck up the product in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense.
The problem was simple and obvious. It was called "Windows", but when Joe Schmoe tried to install a windows application on it, it wouldn't run.
The "geek" market isn't even a statistical blip on the radar of market share nowadays.
General confusion is #1. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is a surface?
Is it a tablet?
A laptop?
Is it highly mobile (well sort of, but not like iPad)
Really lightweight and fast (well sort of, but not like iPad)
Powerful for stationary work (well sort of, but not like a laptop)
Easy to carry (well sort of, but not like an iPad)
Heavy, substantial, and durable (well sort of, but not like a laptop)
People do two things:
(1) Use technology for work or play at their desk
(2) Use technology for work or play not at their desk
Two basic use cases. Just two, at the very bottom of things. In case (1) you go all-out on hardware and power; don't make them sit longer than they have to, let them get their work DONE! (Power, power, power, some ease of use, no compromises.) (2) you go all-out on not making them feel like they need to return to their desk; give them what they need to do what they need to do without feeling tethered (Mobility, mobility, mobility, touch-friendliness, battery, no compromises).
Two basic use cases and Microsoft managed to not hit either one of them well.
$billion brand embarrassment an expensive method (Score:3, Insightful)
blowing a billion dollars making your brand look like shit is an expensive way to motivate in Intel. And rumors would have done that.
Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, I really think Microsoft should be tooting their horns a little louder about tablets running real Windows 8.1 that can run any Windows application.
I agree with you. Microsoft probably shouldn't have set their new OS up to be primarily about the metro interface. It's clear that they want to replace as many Windows applications as they can with modern UI applications. Any use case that isn't 100% modern, or 100% desktop has a bad interface for people to switch between.
Thinking about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The HP WebOS tablet lasted longer then the Surface 2.
Re:General confusion is #1. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft? ASK SLASHDOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot also knew the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all going to be flops. I don't trust any tech predictions that originate from here.
Re:If they hadn't locked it down... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems as well that Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment to prevent Windows RT from having viruses,
I don't think so.
Microsoft, ultimately wanted to duplicate Apple's App Store Environment. They were hoping the lower price point would bring in the users, which would spur development of the Applications for it, which would of course induce more to join the ecosystem. Once Microsoft realized the value of the entire system, they were willing to try and duplicate it.
Of course, the hardware was there, but the Apps and the OS itself fell short, and they were not able to complete the task at hand. In order for them to have a chance at success here, they need more time. Time that just may not be available.
Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
...the Microsoft store, so that Microsoft could get the same kind of 30% cut that Apple and Google get.
Re:Shooting Itself in the Foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people never bothered to customize their Start Menu by moving shortcuts or arranging them in custom folders. They just got used to the poorly designed mess created by each program making it's own folder filled with mostly unnecessary shortcuts for things they didn't need (uninstall shortcuts, readme files, url links). The Start Screen is more like a phone in that each program is given just 1 icon in most cases. It's easy to arrange and becomes faster to use. Idiots, assholes, morons, and troll like you will cry about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an improvement in the long run.
What has changed that will make people bother to customize their start screen now? For many users it'll quickly degrade into the same mess that their start menus were. If they exclusively install windows store apps, they'll have 1 icon for 1 program. If they install many desktop applications, they'll have icons flooding their start screen soon enough.