Ask HN: Why did Microsoft develop their own tablet?
What do you think, why Microsoft will produce their own tablet? Because they think the other hardware manufacturers will not support windows or because they think the other manufacturers will not produce a good tablet? Or because they think the hardware itself will be the profitmaker?
11 comments
I think it all comes down to demand generation for Windows 8/RT and the broader Microsoft ecosystem.
Case in point, Apple.. People don’t queue up for a launch waiting to get their hands on iOS, they want the iPad! It’s the device that interests people and gets them invested in an ecosystem, not the other way around. What Apple has always had, and what seemingly all its competitors have lacked, is a focus on developing and marketing products that people really, really want (and the ability to actually do it). Doing so gives ultimate mindshare.. You may not have an iPhone and may not even want one, but I’d bet you know more about it and all its iOS goodness, than any other phone out there (bar the one in your pocket, maybe); the average consumer certainly does and that alone provides for a significant lift to Apple's ecosystem.
That’s what Microsoft wants, and why we have Surface. Windows Phone is awesome (my opinion), but no one knows about it; the launch of the Nokia’s Lumia phones are helping, but not really in a big enough way. Microsoft can’t let that happen with Windows 8/RT tablets going up against the iPad; because, and I think rightly so, they see that the market is heading towards convergence between what we traditionally think of as PC’s and tablets/smartphones.
And I’d add that it’s certainly not about increased profitability here.. Microsoft’s margins are the highest in the industry and one of the highest of any Fortune 500 company (Apple ranks 24th on the list by this measure) [1]. I don’t think Microsoft wants to be in the hardware business, it wants to be in the platform/ecosystem business, and part of that business is having devices that drive adoption. Simply put, it’s about getting people to want a device, a device that runs Windows.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/perfo...
Case in point, Apple.. People don’t queue up for a launch waiting to get their hands on iOS, they want the iPad! It’s the device that interests people and gets them invested in an ecosystem, not the other way around. What Apple has always had, and what seemingly all its competitors have lacked, is a focus on developing and marketing products that people really, really want (and the ability to actually do it). Doing so gives ultimate mindshare.. You may not have an iPhone and may not even want one, but I’d bet you know more about it and all its iOS goodness, than any other phone out there (bar the one in your pocket, maybe); the average consumer certainly does and that alone provides for a significant lift to Apple's ecosystem.
That’s what Microsoft wants, and why we have Surface. Windows Phone is awesome (my opinion), but no one knows about it; the launch of the Nokia’s Lumia phones are helping, but not really in a big enough way. Microsoft can’t let that happen with Windows 8/RT tablets going up against the iPad; because, and I think rightly so, they see that the market is heading towards convergence between what we traditionally think of as PC’s and tablets/smartphones.
And I’d add that it’s certainly not about increased profitability here.. Microsoft’s margins are the highest in the industry and one of the highest of any Fortune 500 company (Apple ranks 24th on the list by this measure) [1]. I don’t think Microsoft wants to be in the hardware business, it wants to be in the platform/ecosystem business, and part of that business is having devices that drive adoption. Simply put, it’s about getting people to want a device, a device that runs Windows.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/perfo...
Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about. :)
To go into full bombastic and Cassandra mode: the PC market is vaporizing. People are now fully expecting to have a 24/7 connection to YouTube/Google (Maps)/Wikipedia/Facebook/Hulu/What-have-you. They want media-consumption/entertainment devices (Google's Chromebooks: just an internet browsing device). Before, the only way to access those things was through the home-kitchen-garden PC most people had: a bulky big thing sitting in some corner of the living room or their bedroom. Then laptops became more popular because you can move around with those (though they're still somewhat bulky and cable-y). Then came smartphones and tablets and suddenly you have a light, more portable entertainment device you can carry with you anywhere! Then of course comes the question: why still have a computer in the first place if all you're doing is easily replacable by shaking/tapping the screen? (Yes, for gamers and workers alike, PC's are more than internet-devices and require keyboard/mice-input that's better than a touchscreen, but they're a minority.)
The problem for Microsoft is, of course, that they're missing the boat. Ever since that holy(?) union many aeons ago between the IBM PC and Microsoft, they have been in 90%+ control of the market. That golden era is now at an end since, in the coming years, most people will stop buying a PC and just go for a tablet/smartphone option instead. Apple and Android (and a lot of others with their own OS) have already colonized vast swaths of land in that New World, and Microsoft is now in trouble: if the PC market is going to shrink that means their total domination of that market (and all the benefits that brings when developers want to build things) means less and less. While they're sure to be in total control of heavy-duty-use-computers (that is, computers intended for office work and gaming) for quite a while to come, that means nothing if the future (kids who are growing up and will eventually join the workforce) is being made in a non-Microsoft land. (The main reason why Microsoft is so eager with its academic licenses and so little interested in combatting OS piracy: if people are used to working with X, they'll want to work with X. If the New World becomes the biggest (most profitable) World, whoever's in control of that might one day launch a reverse-colonization of the Old World of said heavy-duty-use-computers...)
None of what I'm saying is really new or shocking (or even correct?). So what does this mean? It means that Microsoft has to focus on a future tablet-dominated market, which means it has to bring out a new OS built/ready for that (Windows 8). But there is no IBM with a PC (tablet) this time Microsoft can hook on to and get a free ride to market domination, so they have to build their own (which they now have) and pray that they can reverse the coming tide that threatens to sweep them as it did IBM so long ago: into being just a huge (but no longer dominating) software company that focuses on work applications. Hopefully the market will stay shattered and no one can establish a quasi-monopoly, since it seems to lead to lack of competition and thus lack of innovation. In the Game of Software, you either innovate or you die. :)
(And now I'm going to click that button and see that in the time it took me to write all that five other people have written the same in a more succinct and funnier way, ah well!)
To go into full bombastic and Cassandra mode: the PC market is vaporizing. People are now fully expecting to have a 24/7 connection to YouTube/Google (Maps)/Wikipedia/Facebook/Hulu/What-have-you. They want media-consumption/entertainment devices (Google's Chromebooks: just an internet browsing device). Before, the only way to access those things was through the home-kitchen-garden PC most people had: a bulky big thing sitting in some corner of the living room or their bedroom. Then laptops became more popular because you can move around with those (though they're still somewhat bulky and cable-y). Then came smartphones and tablets and suddenly you have a light, more portable entertainment device you can carry with you anywhere! Then of course comes the question: why still have a computer in the first place if all you're doing is easily replacable by shaking/tapping the screen? (Yes, for gamers and workers alike, PC's are more than internet-devices and require keyboard/mice-input that's better than a touchscreen, but they're a minority.)
The problem for Microsoft is, of course, that they're missing the boat. Ever since that holy(?) union many aeons ago between the IBM PC and Microsoft, they have been in 90%+ control of the market. That golden era is now at an end since, in the coming years, most people will stop buying a PC and just go for a tablet/smartphone option instead. Apple and Android (and a lot of others with their own OS) have already colonized vast swaths of land in that New World, and Microsoft is now in trouble: if the PC market is going to shrink that means their total domination of that market (and all the benefits that brings when developers want to build things) means less and less. While they're sure to be in total control of heavy-duty-use-computers (that is, computers intended for office work and gaming) for quite a while to come, that means nothing if the future (kids who are growing up and will eventually join the workforce) is being made in a non-Microsoft land. (The main reason why Microsoft is so eager with its academic licenses and so little interested in combatting OS piracy: if people are used to working with X, they'll want to work with X. If the New World becomes the biggest (most profitable) World, whoever's in control of that might one day launch a reverse-colonization of the Old World of said heavy-duty-use-computers...)
None of what I'm saying is really new or shocking (or even correct?). So what does this mean? It means that Microsoft has to focus on a future tablet-dominated market, which means it has to bring out a new OS built/ready for that (Windows 8). But there is no IBM with a PC (tablet) this time Microsoft can hook on to and get a free ride to market domination, so they have to build their own (which they now have) and pray that they can reverse the coming tide that threatens to sweep them as it did IBM so long ago: into being just a huge (but no longer dominating) software company that focuses on work applications. Hopefully the market will stay shattered and no one can establish a quasi-monopoly, since it seems to lead to lack of competition and thus lack of innovation. In the Game of Software, you either innovate or you die. :)
(And now I'm going to click that button and see that in the time it took me to write all that five other people have written the same in a more succinct and funnier way, ah well!)
The problem with writing Operating Systems for general purpose hardware (such as the PC) is that it is expected to work with just about any components - no matter where they are sourced. Sure there are "reference" specs but at the end of the day the OS has to make up for a lot and still try and shine.
The next generation of Windows is crucial to the success of MS long term. Their OS must be seen to be not just relevant to the next generation of hardware - but seen to shine in that role.
I think it is entirely sensible for MS to produce a new product that show the world how they think things should be done - with complete control over every aspect of the design. [has risk of course]
Other manufacturers (the traditional PC companies I suppose) will be free to offer their hardware vision alongside the one from Microsoft.
The next generation of Windows is crucial to the success of MS long term. Their OS must be seen to be not just relevant to the next generation of hardware - but seen to shine in that role.
I think it is entirely sensible for MS to produce a new product that show the world how they think things should be done - with complete control over every aspect of the design. [has risk of course]
Other manufacturers (the traditional PC companies I suppose) will be free to offer their hardware vision alongside the one from Microsoft.
When I'm asked to spec out a new windows based PC, my users compare the price to the Acer at Costco for $349. Then they compare it's performance to a $2200 MacBook Pro. Much of Apple's success is based on forcing good (if expensive) choices. This is Microsoft trying to do the same.
If I were Microsoft, here might be some possible justifications that I would use:
1. Windows Phones - while competent, and people who use them like them, never managed to make any impact in terms of marketshare or market buzz. This is because Windows Phones is just one of many OSes handset makers - Samsung, HTC etc - support. Therefore, there is not dedicated marketing to push it. Nokia, who is now exclusively on WP, did a lot of marketing but still couldn't cut through the noise. Microsoft has use use its clout to generate the necessary buzz and excitement on Windows tablets or risk a 1% market share once again. With Ballmer on stage, they are effectively signalling they are "all-in" with the plan.
2. Google has successfully kick started interest in Android through developing Google Phone as a reference design for other phones to follow. Otherwise, there will be an inevitable fragmentation of screen sizes, capabilities and price points. By setting an "aspirational" target, other manufacturers will be able to build Surface clones that customers can compare against.
3. The Surface is big on product bundling. It is no longer a pure tablet, and the magnetic snap on keyboard is not an option, but rather part of the product. This makes it easier to sell at a slightly higher price-point than an iPad.
4. The reference magnetic dock, and placement of USB points etc sets the stage for all third party manufacturer of cases, speakers, etc in such a way that kick starts the ecosystem.
5. In the worst case where OEMs abandon manufacturing Windows slates, Microsoft is able to ensure that their investment in Windows 8 isn't entirely lost. They might turn this into a long term play just as they have with XBox. Unit cost of slates are around the $250-mark at present. Microsoft could take the ball home and do it all themselves if OEM find Windows slates difficult to push into the market.
1. Windows Phones - while competent, and people who use them like them, never managed to make any impact in terms of marketshare or market buzz. This is because Windows Phones is just one of many OSes handset makers - Samsung, HTC etc - support. Therefore, there is not dedicated marketing to push it. Nokia, who is now exclusively on WP, did a lot of marketing but still couldn't cut through the noise. Microsoft has use use its clout to generate the necessary buzz and excitement on Windows tablets or risk a 1% market share once again. With Ballmer on stage, they are effectively signalling they are "all-in" with the plan.
2. Google has successfully kick started interest in Android through developing Google Phone as a reference design for other phones to follow. Otherwise, there will be an inevitable fragmentation of screen sizes, capabilities and price points. By setting an "aspirational" target, other manufacturers will be able to build Surface clones that customers can compare against.
3. The Surface is big on product bundling. It is no longer a pure tablet, and the magnetic snap on keyboard is not an option, but rather part of the product. This makes it easier to sell at a slightly higher price-point than an iPad.
4. The reference magnetic dock, and placement of USB points etc sets the stage for all third party manufacturer of cases, speakers, etc in such a way that kick starts the ecosystem.
5. In the worst case where OEMs abandon manufacturing Windows slates, Microsoft is able to ensure that their investment in Windows 8 isn't entirely lost. They might turn this into a long term play just as they have with XBox. Unit cost of slates are around the $250-mark at present. Microsoft could take the ball home and do it all themselves if OEM find Windows slates difficult to push into the market.
Honestly? Probably because they can't trust their hardware manufacturers on quality, they can't innovate as fast as they want to with third party manufacturers, and Steve Jobs taught them that hardware matters (more than well engineered mice).
I think you're dead-on. Windows 8 would get a bad rap because some vendor installed it on crap hardware. I think MS releasing their own hardware is wise -- it basically sets the bar for what a Windows 8 tablet should be.
Microsoft has had an interest in producing tablets since they were working on the Courier in the run-up to the iPad's release (and of course Surface itself is related).
In the current market, tablets appear to be similar to game consoles - consumers are willing to accept a closed ecosystem (e.g. iPad, Chromium, Kindle). So Microsoft may be assuming that a branded tablet is a reasonably sound strategy, particularly given the lackluster interest among consumers in Android and Linux based tablets from mainline electronics manufacturers.
In the current market, tablets appear to be similar to game consoles - consumers are willing to accept a closed ecosystem (e.g. iPad, Chromium, Kindle). So Microsoft may be assuming that a branded tablet is a reasonably sound strategy, particularly given the lackluster interest among consumers in Android and Linux based tablets from mainline electronics manufacturers.
Maybe they're taking a page from Apple's playbook in realizing that best user experiences come from harmony between hardware and software?
I'd still peg Microsoft as a software company, although now they seem much more willing to praise the hardware side of their business. It's likely the hardware division's primary goal is not profit, rather to maximize potential software sales.
I'd still peg Microsoft as a software company, although now they seem much more willing to praise the hardware side of their business. It's likely the hardware division's primary goal is not profit, rather to maximize potential software sales.
> realizing that best user experiences come from harmony between hardware and software
You mean there are some Windows specific features in their tablet? Which? And why couldnt they have asked the other manufacturers to implement them?
You mean there are some Windows specific features in their tablet? Which? And why couldnt they have asked the other manufacturers to implement them?
Microsoft has not announced any Windows features that would be specific to their own hardware. And there are other manufacturers gearing up their own Win8 tablets (Acer comes to mind). As a consumer we'll have a choice as to what we feel is the best Win8 tablet. Microsoft doesn't care as long as we're buying Win8 in some form and ensuring their long-term survival.
Microsoft likely wants to ensure Metro app functionality, inking, etc are all available on great hardware. Microsoft is entering the realm of the iPad, and to quickly gain traction in this space they will need to ensure they have a fantastic hardware experience to go along with (what they believe) will be a fantastic software experience. They could leave that to 3rd party manufacturers - and they are certainly giving those manufacturers a chance - but they must feel it's necessary to create something themselves to help lead the way.
I'm intrigued. Let's hope this works out better for them than the Zune did :)
Microsoft likely wants to ensure Metro app functionality, inking, etc are all available on great hardware. Microsoft is entering the realm of the iPad, and to quickly gain traction in this space they will need to ensure they have a fantastic hardware experience to go along with (what they believe) will be a fantastic software experience. They could leave that to 3rd party manufacturers - and they are certainly giving those manufacturers a chance - but they must feel it's necessary to create something themselves to help lead the way.
I'm intrigued. Let's hope this works out better for them than the Zune did :)
I'm willing to bet that despite what they said in the announcement, that the Surface models are based off of reference designs from Acer or Samsung. I think that'll come out at some point.
If Microsoft was really designing their own hardware and engineering prototypes, we would've already heard about it through the rumor mills.
If Microsoft was really designing their own hardware and engineering prototypes, we would've already heard about it through the rumor mills.
If the Surface comes out at an attractive price point (subsidized?) then how long before somebody cracks it and runs Android or Linux on it? It was done with the HP TouchPad and Apples iPad/iPod/iPhone.
Windows 8 is a big risk for MS - they are being sidelined by Apple and Android and running out of time. They couldn't take the risk of other companies designing and manufacturing Win8 tablets not coming up with the goods for the product design/hardware.
That's not to say Nokia or Samsung etc won't be putting out an exceptional Win 8 tablet, they may well do - but then again, they may not.
In terms of profit - I think MS will price the hardware as low as they can, to fight off Apple. Their profit will come elsewhere
That's not to say Nokia or Samsung etc won't be putting out an exceptional Win 8 tablet, they may well do - but then again, they may not.
In terms of profit - I think MS will price the hardware as low as they can, to fight off Apple. Their profit will come elsewhere
> In terms of profit - I think MS will price the hardware as low as they can, to fight off Apple. Their profit will come elsewhere
From where? They do not have a successful media store and they are bundling Office. Aside from Windows and Office, the only things they sell at profit are from 'Server and Tools'.
Internet and Devices/entertainment have been money-sinks. The idea they will start turning Apple/Google-sized profits is wishful thinking
From where? They do not have a successful media store and they are bundling Office. Aside from Windows and Office, the only things they sell at profit are from 'Server and Tools'.
Internet and Devices/entertainment have been money-sinks. The idea they will start turning Apple/Google-sized profits is wishful thinking
only the ARM version of the tablet will come with a free (Metro) Office, with the x86 version you have to buy Office.
Microsoft has multiple revenue streams- http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2012/apr12/04-19fy...
They are going after tablet market share - especially for business use - with this reference design, and will try to keep the price down.
Microsoft has multiple revenue streams- http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2012/apr12/04-19fy...
They are going after tablet market share - especially for business use - with this reference design, and will try to keep the price down.
Microsoft has a surprisingly cohesive ecosystem: xbox gold, xbox music, skydrive, app marketplace. So, I think this is a viable strategy.