Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft To Sell Its Own Windows RT Tablet

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the end-to-end-integration dept.

Windows 288

Glasswire writes "ComputerWorld reports that Microsoft will announce a Microsoft-branded tablet on Monday running the Win RT (ARM-based) subset version of Win 8. MSFT choose not to offer a x86 Win 8 version, which could have given them a performance advantage over ARM-based Apple iPads. A PCMag opinion piece titled 'A Microsoft Tablet Would Be Dumb' says, 'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.' No reaction yet from Microsoft's system OEM customers that it will now be competing with."

cancel ×

288 comments

This summary is terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344097)

"MSFT choose"? Seriously?

Well, what do you expect? (3, Funny)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344341)

This is ./ , what doe you expect from us you...you...Anonymouse Coward!

Re:Well, what do you expect? (1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344373)

Why by garbage from Toshiba or Panasonic? If you really want something to come apart at the seams, go MS all the way.

Based on the overwhelming success of the KIN and "Play Anywhere", Microsoft soon to sell it's OWN TURD! Thought to be the perfect vehicle for Windows 8, itself deemed the best Apple marketing campaign since Vista.

Re:Well, what do you expect? (5, Funny)

starless (60879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344447)

This is ./ , what doe you expect from us you...you...Anonymouse Coward!

dotslash?
Is that slashdot's evil counterpart from a parallel universe?

Re:Well, what do you expect? (3, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344629)

+1, In The Agoniser

Re:Well, what do you expect? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344649)

Yeah, over there it's a well edited, properly moderated, fully functioning technology discussion website. It also has a goatee.

Re:Well, what do you expect? (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344783)

Yeah, over there it's a well edited, properly moderated, fully functioning technology discussion website. It also has a goatee.

That was funny!

Goatee. Tee hee...

Re:This summary is terrible (5, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344389)

"MSFT choose"? Seriously?

Using business and other organizational names as collective rather than singular nouns is more common in British than in American English, but both usages are increasingly acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. Your objection is silly, unless of course you're complaining about the use of the stock ticker symbol in place of the company name, which I agree is an abomination.

Re:This summary is terrible (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344523)

M$ is a much better alternative for an influential tech site like slashdot.

It's clumsy language at best: a better alternative is "MSFT decided not to offer a x86 Win 8 version, which may have given them a performance advantage ..."

Makes the collective/singular nouns issue irrelevant on a site that has a large percentage of readers that use British English. But hey, the editing here is a joke anyhow - why did I just waste 3 minutes of my life stating the obvious?

Re:This summary is terrible (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344607)

The stock symbol usage seems to come from those who have started thinking the worth of a company whose product you use is not the product but the value of the company. Personally, I think a company that makes obscene boatloads of money is charging too much.

Re:This summary is terrible (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344851)

I also consider it an indicator of the same sort as a BlueTooth headset.

Re:This summary is terrible (1)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344981)

And here I was thinking that usage of the plural form was related to gender neutrality [wikipedia.org] ... While companies are collections of people, or collective personas, you still refer to individual collections as singular entities.

Re:This summary is terrible (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344411)

It's called English. British English to be exact.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344109)

A PCMag opinion piece titled 'A Microsoft Tablet Would Be Dumb' says 'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.'

Looks like knee-jerk anti-Microsoftism to me. Nobody has said the same thing about Google branded tablets, despite the reports Google intends to release one in the next month or two. Moreover, several PC makers, noteably Asus [businessinsider.com] , have already announced Windows RT tablets.

Microsoft have engaged in some sordid business practices, and prior to Windows 7 their desktop operating systems were terrible. But just making up any old crap about them makes you look stupid, not Microsoft.

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344149)

to be fair, Micro$oft have had some pretty shitty hardware ventures over the years.

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344253)

As the GP pointed out, if Google can buy Motorola and own the Xoom and the RAZR, what's wrong w/ Microsoft having its own tablet or phone? In fact, given that most OEMs sub-contract that work out to the likes of Foxconn, LiteOn and other actual manufacturers in China and Taiwan, does Microsoft have anything to lose by doing exactly that, getting someone to make a tablet specifically for them, and then putting their logo on it? They're not even making it, so the end product will be no better nor worse than other vendors. Only difference will be Windows RT vs Android vs iOS, but that's a real Microsoft vs Google vs Apple differentiator.

Particularly given that since they want to price it higher than either Apple or Google/Mot, chances are that no vendor would want to bat for them w/ such a market disadvantage. So Microsoft is probably pitching this themselves, hoping that their brand name will help sell it.

Only odd decision of theirs, though - they'd have done better to have gone w/ either Medfield or Fusion, rather than ARM.

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344673)

My understanding if Google charged for Android and if Google didn't allow OEMs to modify Android then there would be more outcry. Android isn't quite free as Google gets their money from advertising and services and Google is starting to put in more requirements for Android. The main worry here is that OEMs have to pay for Win RT. MS will pay nothing and will be at an advantage in terms of cost. The latest rumor is $80 per tablet. For a $500 tablet, that is a significant amount of money. Second is that MS can relax requirements for themselves for Win RT which OEMs cannot do.

Besides screwing over OEMs, what else does MS can do? Many OEMs are still a little miffed about Zune where they supported PlaysForSure for years trying to battle Apple only to have MS abandon them with Zune only DRM that locked them out of the market. While music is no longer DRM laden, video and books still have DRM attached.

The last thing is MS has not been very successful at hardware. Sure mice and keyboards are okay. But Zune was a flop. Kin was a flop. Xbox is finally in the black of almost 9 years of being supported by Windows and Office revenue. If Xbox was a separate company they would have had to declare bankruptcy or leave the business like NEC and Sega.

Re:Huh? (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344729)

No objection to MS making a tablet. That is within their prerogative.

Long Term Effect: MS may just present enough competition within the tablet market to cause other MS licensees to demand a lower price for the MS tablet OS. Hence, I can't guess whether MS will win or lose on this. If MS becomes totally vertically integrated, maybe it wins, but if not, maybe Linux variants win ultimately.

Only time will tell. May the best OS's flourish. That way we users gain big time.

Re:Huh? (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344853)

Hence, I can't guess whether MS will win or lose on this.

I can...

Re:Huh? (0, Troll)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344831)

As the GP pointed out, if Google can buy Motorola and own the Xoom and the RAZR, what's wrong w/ Microsoft having its own tablet or phone?

Um, because they have a 100% failure record at anything more complicated than a mouse or keyboard?

Only difference will be Windows RT vs Android vs iOS, but that's a real Microsoft vs Google vs Apple differentiator.

It would a differentiator if it ran DOS 3.3; but that would be equally ignorant.

Particularly given that since they want to price it higher than either Apple or Google/Mot, chances are that no vendor would want to bat for them w/ such a market disadvantage. So Microsoft is probably pitching this themselves, hoping that their brand name will help sell it.

Bets on whether this will tank even more quickly than the KIN?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344941)

Um, because they have a 100% failure record at anything more complicated than a mouse or keyboard?

Don't let the facts get in your way at all. Just completely forget that there is, oh I don't know, the XBOX. Also conveniently forget the LifeCam. If you honestly believe that either of those is a failure - well you are entitled to be another of those "people who are wrong on the internet".

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344309)

"Micro$oft?" Really? C'mon this is 2012. Enough with the tired cliches already.

(Sigh. Let the "troll" modding begin.)

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344327)

Yeah, they stopped acting like that a long time ago!

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344377)

Why is it that a person who did something wrong has his record tainted for the rest of his life, but somehow a corporation should be scott-free after it pays its fines?

Re:Huh? (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344631)

... especially when what they've done in the past is the corporate equivalent of something that a person would never get out of prison for.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344963)

False premise. People who do something wrong are generally forgiven after they've "paid their debt to society". There are some people who choose never to forgive anyone for anything, but those people are sanctimonious assholes who want the world to think that they're perfect little saints.

If you had, say, stolen a car, gone to jail, and done your time, do you really think it would be fair for others to treat you as a social pariah and refer to you as a car thief in every conversation even twenty years later?

Re:Huh? (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344179)

Your problem is that you've actually given credence to PC Magazine.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344205)

Yeah, a bunch of writing hands with columns to fill. It must be brutal when you don't know much and have to write a column regularly without any information.

Re:Huh? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344203)

exactly, its one thing for /. to go all kneejerk because, well do i even have to say it? this IS /. but you would expect pcmag to be a little more journalistic.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344209)

The difference is that Microsoft spends billions of dollars annually on R&D and marketing for Windows and Office. Competing head to head against their OEMs is probably a bad move because the OEMs will drop out and look for different OS's to support.

Re:Huh? (0)

Divebus (860563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344217)

Nobody's said the same about Google because there's a better likelihood that Google could pull it off, despite all evidence to the contrary. Microsoft has already proven time and again their hardware prowess lies in making keyboards and mice.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344227)

I hear they make a pretty good games console too.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344795)

I hear they had a very cool tablet concept that leaked online and everyone drooled over it, but weeks later the project was killed and the main people leading the project left MS abruptly

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344809)

You must be talking about the Courier Booklet [wikipedia.org]

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344275)

Their current-gen console has sold 67 million units, despite reliability problems. Microsoft must be doing something right.

Re:Huh? (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344569)

They're doing "losing money on XBoxes" pretty right indeed. The replacement ratio for the Xboxes hover way over 1. There are many stories of Xboxes getting bricked and then replaced twice or thrice.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344883)

Would you have predicted that the Xbox 360 would outsell the PS3 in this generation? (PS3 worldwide sales 63.9 million to date) I wouldn't.

Considering that the PS2 sold 150 million units, and the original Xbox sold 26 million, that's a significant reversal for Microsoft. The bricked 360s cost Microsoft $1 billion, a large sum but not game-changing.

There are 30 million active Xbox Live accounts, which must make them a great deal of pure profit.

FWIW I didn't buy a 360 because of the reliability issues. If Microsoft learn from their mistakes and keep their prices well below Sony, the 720 could do very well.

Re:Huh? (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344913)

Not new stories. They got the issue figured out and fixed a long ways back. It's now the top console and quite profitable.

Re:Huh? (2)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344307)

Why would microsoft actually manufacturer the tablet when they could contract one of many OEMs to make it?

Guarantee you they aren't... (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344433)

MS doesn't 'make' anything. The most notable 'microsoft' hardware platform without OEM branding is xbox 360, and that's made by Flextronics, Wistron, and Celestica.

In this case, I'd wager they have an ODM relationship in place with some southeast asia company. It's possible they'll design it and OEM it out, but I'd guess ODM instead.

Re:Guarantee you they aren't... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344591)

Yes, and the ghost of Steve Jobs crafts every iPad with his spectral hands ...

It's no secret that almost all consumer electronics are assembled in Asia. Why make a special point about Microsoft following the same practice?

Re:Guarantee you they aren't... (2)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344961)

Yes, and the ghost of Steve Jobs crafts every iPad with his spectral hands ...

It's no secret that almost all consumer electronics are assembled in Asia. Why make a special point about Microsoft following the same practice?

Because, unlike pretty much all other OEMs, Apple has incredibly tight QA throughout the entire manufacturing chain. Ask anyone who has had to supply components to Apple.

So, essentially, you were correct: In a way, the ghost of Steve Jobs DOES craft every iPad with spectral hands.

So, while Apple (and a few others, NOT including MS) CAN get Asian CMs to produce a quality product like the iPad, the vast majority are simply interested in "cost reduction".

And that's where the cheepnis factor comes in with Asian Contract Manufacturers.

Re:Guarantee you they aren't... (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344909)

In this case, I'd wager they have an ODM relationship in place with some southeast asia company. It's possible they'll design it and OEM it out, but I'd guess ODM instead.

And since they didn't do anything other than say "It runs this CPU, and has this, this, this and this spec", the above statement doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this will be anything more than a rebranded Chinese POS, with their typical attention to fit and finish, overall build quality, and component "spec-headroom".

In other words, carefully engineered to just make it through the warranty-period. Period.

Re:Huh? (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344333)

Absolutely right. Google's got lots of consumer level hardware on the market. Like the.... hmmm...

Why do you think that there's a better likelihood that a company that has never, to my knowledge, made a consumer gadget, will be able to make a better gadget than a company that has been making them for 20+ years?

Re:Huh? (2)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344965)

Absolutely right. Google's got lots of consumer level hardware on the market. Like the.... hmmm... Why do you think that there's a better likelihood that a company that has never, to my knowledge, made a consumer gadget, will be able to make a better gadget than a company that has been making them for 20+ years?

HOW many X-Box returns???

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344683)

Google pulled something off? They have a near monopoly with their search engine. Let's see.. what else... oh.. a few people use gmail... and... ????

Stuff that has failed:
Google+
Google X (google rebranded with an OSX theme.. it lasted a day)
Google catalog
web accelerator
Google Video (this was going to whip YouTube... planb was apparently to just buy youtube)
google answers - pay us $10 to answer a question for you researched using google
google wave
wiki search
google audio ads
google dodgeball (like foursquare)
jaiku (like twitter)
google notebook
google pagecreator
google buzz
froogle
google coupons
voice search
google viewer (instead of search results page... display them like a slideshow)
google checkout
print ads
realtime search
google labs
google lively
orkut
friend connect
google latitude
knol
google health
igoogle
google click-to-call
google sidewiki
goog-411
google tv
google radio ads
google shared stuff (bookmarking site)
searchmash
google search timeline
google bookmark lists
google desktop
fast flip
google pack
google web security
image labeler
subscribed links
app inventor
City Tours
Google Breadcrumb
Google News Timeline
Google Sets
Google Squared
Google Talk Guru
Image Swirl
Places Directory
Realtime Mytracks
Script Converter
Sputnik.

OK.. that's enough for now. There's more... that's just what I could remember + what i could find in 5 mintues.

Why would anyone count on google to pull off *ANY* project over Microsoft. At least Microsoft has more than 1 profitable project.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344881)

Wait, iGoogle? I'm sure that was still up... yeah still up.
Mind you, I guess it depends on what way you mean fail.

They waited way too long to change to the way it is now. (which is good, and actually a decent homepage)
This sour taste put a lot of people off, me included, since we felt as if requests were just ignored on the groups.

The problem with so many of these things is... they never advertised any of them.
For an advertising company, it is hilarious awful of them to fail at simple advertising of side projects that many MANY people could have found useful.
Most people hit the frontpage, or search results page, most stuff is hidden away.
Hell, even a simple "you seem to be [something], you could check out our new tool that makes [something] even easier! [link]"
Nope, none of it. Nowhere to be seen.
Instead, they kept everything hidden away behind several clicks.

Casuals don't like clicking through loads of text. They want to find things quickly.
This was, and still is, a huge failure on their part.
So many of those projects would regularly be getting millions of users if they had done something like this. But their lax attitude resulted in all of them, past and future, being killed.
I miss Google Labs. RIP creativity.

Re:Huh? (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344969)

WOW!

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344431)

Did you read the whole article or even the whole summary?

Including Asus, there has been very little interest in Windows RT tablets. Polishing a turd and sticking a 4-colour flag on it won't make it any better.
Nobody has said the same thing about Google's tablet because there is a lot of interest in Android tablets.

Re:Huh? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344503)

Well there's Toshiba [tomshardware.com] too.

(That was simply the next manufacturer I plugged into Google after assuming Samsung and Motorola will probably not, because of their ties to Android. So that's at least two current tablet makers who have announced Windows RT tablets. So if you respond with "Only two", you can safely assume I'll come up with others. I seem to recall HP and Dell have expressed an interest too, just off the top of my head, making me think you'll probably see RT tablets from most major PC makers.)

Re:Huh? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344711)

Or:

'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.'

Is because Microsoft can accept selling it for a loss to gain market share while other companies probably wouldn't be that interested in that.

I know! I'm a genus!

Call me interesting! (-- subliminal message right there! :D)

Re:Huh? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344719)

Looks like knee-jerk anti-Microsoftism to me.

No kidding.

Office 2013 RT includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, and will ship as an integral part of Windows RT. ARM-powered Windows RT to run "Office 2013 RT" [arstechnica.com]

MS Office never exits the top ten bestseller lists in OSX and Windows software sales.

prior to Windows 7 their desktop operating systems were terrible

The MSDOS and Windows OS runs well on hardware that is midline at the time of release and entry level a year or so later.

The Ford Model T wasn't the most technologically sophisticated car on the road. But its design and engineering made perfect sense given the existing infrastructure ---- or lack of it --- and the potential for mass market sales.

Re:OS/2 Syndrome (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344821)

The reason OS/2 failed was because OEMs didn't want to support a competitor.

With MS doing this and charging licensing fees it will only make companies like Asus prefer Andriod tablets instead. No one wants competitors and to invest a lot of money and therefore risk to help someone who is actively stealing customers out.

MS is turning into IBM of old in many ways. A former monopolist who lost its way after being cocky with new lower cost competitors while it focuses on bigger machines. The desktops and workstation are the mainframes of old in this parallel. We all remember what happened next and how IBM is not even in the PC market it created.

No, this is smart (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344125)

Because now Microsoft CAN lock the device down since it will be their own product.
This tablet is now more like iPad and general Apple hardware+software combinations that people always say is "unfair" when it is their own product.

If they just made a generic OS for any hardware maker to buy, then they would be open to attacks if they tried to lock out competing OSes from it.

The light dawns (5, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344127)

That helps clear up the mystery of why MSFT raised the price of RT for OEMs.

Re:The light dawns (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344249)

+1

Re:The light dawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344515)

They are sawing off the branch they are sitting on. OEMs are the only thing that keeps Windows ruling the desktops. If OSX were on OEM market they could have gained a far greater piece of desktops. Why are they willfully waging war with OEMs, that mostly helps them? I hope next OSX is OEM ready (though it won't be) for the sake of competition.

Re:The light dawns (2)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344547)

Or it could be that since RT has a full copy of Office included they made it more expensive so as to not get the various government antitrust agencies upset with them.

Re:The light dawns (1, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344593)

or did they do this, decide to mfg their own tablet, because at those prices nobody wanted to make a WinRT based tablet and end up like Nokia? Yes I know some had announced they were planning a Windows tablet but we've also seen Microsoft on stage with vendors(HP) showing product before which didn't see daylight.

So why a Microsoft built tablet? Has Ballmer really gone chair throwing ape over Apples success? His attack on the iPod didn't go so well( hello Zune ). Nor did Windows Mobile 6.5 or their latest 2 year attempt with Windows Phone 7. So now a port of Windows 7 to ARM, a rejiggering of the Windows Phone UI framework for tablets along with no backwards compatibility and they're going after Apple? Steve B is looking at strike three it would seem. Maybe he thinks there is a huge pent up demand to do word processing on tablets and since they can't rely on the x86 Windows economy and compatibility they'll leverage their next best monopoly and that is in the business office suits. ie, Microsoft Office. Yup, that is my guess at the moment. It'll be all about running MS Office on a tablet and nobody wanted to touch that with a 10' pole so it had to be done by Microsoft themselves. And they probably 'leveraged' their XBox manufacturing partners to make it. Leveraged in quotes because they probably threatened to move the XBox production elsewhere if these were not sold to Microsoft at cost.

But as is usually the case with MS, the real details will remain a mystery until some court documents expose what really went on behind the scenes. It's almost always completely different from what they say in public. We're looking forward to Monday for a good laugh.

LoB

Re:The light dawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344837)

Am I the only one who thinks of this [wikipedia.org] when reading "RT"? I guess I am, who cares?

Great windows tablet.... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344135)

A windows tablet that can't run windows applications.
Yep that'll go very well with your standard windows customer.

So? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344145)

How's that different from Google, who supports the Nexus smartphone series to provide a reference for other companies?

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344427)

Google lets manufacturers use Android for free MS charges $99 for Windows RT. This gives Microsoft a competitive advantage on price, Google just gets a slight advantage by getting the device out first.

competing with whom? (3, Interesting)

kbdd (823155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344191)

'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.' No reaction yet from Microsoft's system OEM customers that it will now be competing with."

You have to make up your mind. Either MS could not find anybody to make an RT tablet, or they will have competitors in the RT tab;let market. It cannot be both.

I am no fan of Microsoft, but I tend to like them better when they are the underdog. It seems it brings the better out of them.

competing with whom?-Handiness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344301)

It's a cage match were the left hand competes with the right hand to see who's going to dominate. :)

Re:competing with whom? (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344335)

You mean like when they released the Zune to compete against the iPod?

Re:competing with whom? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344627)

Can you imagine how horrible the Zune would have been if it had not been an iPod competitor?

"Bringing the better out of them" doesn't mean the end result is necessarily good.

Re:competing with whom? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344687)

I don't know what the internal negotiations were but that would effectively say to any potential tablet makers not to bother. This puts MS at a significant cost advantage. I heard Asus was coming out with one.

x86 please (4, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344247)

As a network administrator/system operator/analyst/jack of all, I want an x86 tablet please. Why? Because I need a windows tablet in the enterprise that I can manage like a computer.

RT is nice...for the consumer space...I guess. But I really want a windows tablet for the enterprise space please.

Re:x86 please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344439)

You do not need AD to sync up a profile and even automatically upload enterprise applications with Windows 8. Only an Exchange email address. You can manage all of it and just instruct the user to log in with their corporate email address.

Active directory is not all that cranked up as you think it is in a portable device. It is static and assumes the device is a physical desktop in a central location hooked into a LAN and never moved.

I used to be a fan of it until I started receiving tickets from angry sales people who can't get Windows Updates, No AV updates, can't even print a document on a hotel's printer as it would require admin rights to setup the printer even if the driver already comes with Windows. No instructing him to drive 6 hours to an office to plug his laptop in is ludicrous!

Re:x86 please (5, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344483)

No -- you want administration tools that you can use to manage an enterprise's corral of tablets and smartphones. Surprisingly, Apple offered this for the iPhone years ago as part of their OS X Server package that allowed for the adding/removing of apps and permissions for all registered devices on the network. Not sure if it still exists in Lion Server -- but it stands to reason it should.

Expecting them to come up with a brand new Tablet OS just for your IT dept needs did give me a chuckle though.
But rest assured, I'm sure they'll rip-off Apple (as usual) and come up with a device administrator for you to play with.

Re:x86 please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344581)

ummm...windows 8 already has all the admin tools available. Once joined to a domain, all group policies will apply to the tablet just like a regular PC - and some new policies will be applicable to tablets - such as remote wipe, etc. Some devices targeted at home users will not have all this (similar to Win 7 home edition - it cannot join a domain). Enterprise manageability is baked in to Win8 just like Win7 (and older business operating system lines). No, apple was not the first if that's your implication...not that anyone cares...but Apple and enterprise management do not go in the same sentence. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:x86 please (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344769)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Windows 8 isn't out yet but iPads are. Windows RT does not have all the features of Win 8 like the ability to join a domain so their place in enterprises is questionable. The iPad is not an enterprise targeted tablet. It is a consumer tablet with enough enterprise features that companies can accept them into their networks.

Re:x86 please (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344647)

you'll have to wait until some super doper battery tech is invented then. x86 and Windows are not very kind to battery powered devices people are used to carrying around. Well, unless their is a shoulder strap involved. Or you can wait until Intel and others get below 20nm but even then the others will be that much lighter. Still, with sub 20nm and huge SSD's you might get something running the full x86 Windows APIs and services people can carry around without a shoulder strap but aren't we looking at close to 5 years for that?. IMO

LoB

Re:x86 please (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344791)

HP Slate [wikipedia.org] runs Windows 7. However not many of them sold probably because they started at $799 and battery life on Win 7 was terrible.

iCrash (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344255)

I'll be queuing outside the store at midnight with all the other Microsoft fans. This is going to be incredible folks. The hype surrounding this tablet could even surpass that of the Zune!

Why not Windows 8? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344269)

I mean seriously, wasn't Windows 8 having all this newfangled interface specifically for tablets?

Re:Why not Windows 8? (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344343)

From the article: Windows RT tablets are built on the Windows 8 OS

Re:Why not Windows 8? (5, Interesting)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344405)

From the post: "...running the Win RT (ARM-based ) subset version of Win 8."
Clearly implies Win RT is based on Win 8, but a subset, since you cannot run legacy Win apps and is missing many other full Win 8 features.
Full Win8 is only available in x86 version.

Re:Why not Windows 8? (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344461)

It basically is Windows 8; it's just named so that they can differentiate between the two builds.

Re:Why not Windows 8? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344813)

No it is not. Win RT can only run applications compiled for it and not legacy x86 programs. Win 8 tablets on x86 can run the full range of Windows applications.

Re:Why not Windows 8? (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344693)

what do you mean by Windows 8? If you mean something to run x86 apps and stuff you're used to doing on a desktop then it's because it would need to be a huge tablet just to hold the hardware required and wouldn't be even close to an iPad in size. Windows RT is based on the Windows 8 code but with massive amounts of it cut out and just a bare minimum to run that newfangled interface as you called it. And since we all know there's not much software for that, this has to be tied to Microsoft Office and that's probably the gimmick they'll plug at this PR stunt on Monday.

And your question shows that people are already confused as to what Windows 8 is, isn't and what Windows RT is and isn't. Not good if you plan on selling enough for people to care. Remember the RIM tablet? Lots of people stayed away from that not because the OS stunk but because they didn't think it had a future. Windows RT? we'll see.

LoB

At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to... (5, Insightful)

guidryp (702488) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344399)

If previous reports of >$80 for OEM WinRT are correct, only Microsoft can reasonably afford to build low end Windows RT tablets, as the $80 becomes prohibitive software cost for low end tablets (where WinRT will compete). For Microsoft it is just inter-divisional funny money.

How do HW OEMs compete with a $200 Kindle Fire (or rumored Google Branded $200 tablet) when saddled with $80+ OS?

Re:At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to.. (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344545)

Remember that MS is a huge company with many many mouths to feed. They need to sell them at a fairly large profit to feed the machine.

Re:At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to.. (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344585)

They need to sell them at a fairly large profit to feed the machine.

Microsoft does pour money into markets for years at zero or negative profits in hopes of eventually winning. Just look at Bing.

They still have Desktop OS/Office monopoly machine printing money until something they pour money on catches fire.

This could be their way of seeding the WinRT market that doesn't really make sense for OEMs (anyone?).

Re:At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to.. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344655)

Remember that Google is a huge company with many many mouths to feed as well.

Yet, last time I checked, Android is available for free, and it's open sourced under the permissive Apache license to boot.

Re:At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344575)

perhaps selling them with just a version of "FreeDOS" pre-installed... oh wait, forgot about mandatory UEFISecureBoot with per-device unique keys/certificates.

This is the way of the future (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344713)

As Steve Ballmer has taught us, hardware will be free and only software will cost money.

Re:At $80+ OEM cost only Microsoft can afford to.. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344921)

If previous reports of >$80 for OEM WinRT are correct, only Microsoft can reasonably afford to build low end Windows RT tablets, as the $80 becomes prohibitive software cost for low end tablets (where WinRT will compete). For Microsoft it is just inter-divisional funny money.

How do HW OEMs compete with a $200 Kindle Fire (or rumored Google Branded $200 tablet) when saddled with $80+ OS?

The answer is Android.

Keep it up Microsoft and you wont have any tablets left as the OEMs will just have laptops with Win RT on x86 and Android tablets.

This isn't a troll just an observation (5, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344419)

Why is it that Microsoft can't seem to do anything until some one else does it and it's usually Apple? Apple used a windows environment before Microsoft. Zune came after virtually everyone else had a music player so it never had much of a chance. Now they suddenly decide it's time to get into tablets? FYI there are other examples, just making a point. Just seems like a poor business model to wait until market saturation to launch a product. If Apple launches a TV can we expect a Microsoft TV a few years after? I didn't include things like a portable OS because they have tried that before but it didn't take off where as Android and iOS have done well. They just seem to wait until others take the risk then get their feet wet once the pool is full.

Re:This isn't a troll just an observation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344617)

In a word, safety. Microsoft is large enough and stable enough that they can let other companies probe unknown territory. Gaming consoles, music players, tablets, etc. Other companies put in the investment and R&D and find out which markets have potential and which are dead ends. Then Microsoft comes in, copies the basic concept and tries to sell the same basic technology, but without all the high-risk flailing about. It means their payoffs are lower, but then so are their risks. It's really a safe, practical business model. As long as their "me too" products break even or better, they are ahead.

Re:This isn't a troll just an observation (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344685)

I don't have the feeling that the tablet market is exactly saturated. Sure there are many players, but it's a fast growing market, and there is definitely place for more players.

Whether MS has what it takes to compete in that market, that's a totally different matter.

And by the way, Apple launched their first-ever mobile phone offering in a mature, and far more saturated market than the tablet market is now. I can't say they didn't do well. So launching a new product in a saturated market is not a recipe for failure - you just have to offer something good that can compete with the rest.

That the Zune was a flop was not because the digital music player market was saturated, it was more because it was a lesser offering than the iPod.

Re:This isn't a troll just an observation (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344899)

The difference between the iPhone and the Zune was Apple went after a highly targeted and under-served segment of the market. Smart phones existed way before Apple but most companies focused on business smart phones. They put out "consumer" versions which were only slightly modified versions of business ones. Apple and later Android made their phones specifically for consumers. The Zune simply went after the iPod. For a while there it was slightly better than the iPod Classic; however, Apple moved the goal posts. The iPod Touch wasn't just a media player. It was a portable computing device that was also a media player, internet browser, email application, etc. As soon as Apple opened up 3rd party applications for iOS, it was over for the Zune and other media players.

Tablets have been around forever just like smart phones before iPhone. Again tablets were mostly for business users. Apple made a consumer one. But just like the Zune, the MS tablet may take away market share only from MS partners and not Apple per se.

Re:This isn't a troll just an observation (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344725)

I don't think "suddenly" quite sums it right. MS has been making Windows tablets for years but has had to change their strategy. Slowly turning behemoth is more descriptive of MS. They've failed to sell many tablets. In fact in 2010 at CES, Ballmer stood in front an array of tablets and gushed about the year of the tablet [pcworld.com] . He was right but it would be the iPad that Apple launched a month later and not any Windows ones.

Re:This isn't a troll just an observation (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344911)

Why is it that Microsoft can't seem to do anything until some one else does it and it's usually Apple?

Corporate culture. Microsoft is famously a competitive environment, but from what I've read it's not companies like Apple that's the enemy, it's other projects at Microsoft that might siphon resources from yours. When an outside vendor introduces a successful product, nobody can say, "it'll never sell." When the product is *wildly* successful, like the iPad, it can even overcome "we tried that before and it doesn't work."

Just another sign that Win 8 is doomed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344443)

This is the same trick they tried with the original Windows Mobile.

I tell you, I bought a phone with Windows Mobile 6 on it and swore forever that I'd never use another MS mobile product.

After my experience with Win 8 preview I am strongly considering buying a few spare Win 7 keys and clinging to this OS until Win 9.

Kin, Zune, Nokia... Ballmer (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40344455)

Look, we can all see this will flop, but when it does, can this time the shareholders dump Ballmer?

He makes terrible choices, and that impacts their products. They have talent in Microsoft, they have money, they have a market to leverage, yet time and time again he fails to marshal them.

So at some point the shareholders have to say enough and dump him.

Oh and BTW, the Acer A700 tablet has sold out on pre-order. That's the *Android* Quad Core Tegra 3, with bigger than HD screen (1920x1200), so Windows RT will face incredibly tough competition out there.

Why would they do such thing (2)

snookiex (1814614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344489)

If they are about to buy Nokia at a fire sale price.

RT ? (3, Funny)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344553)

It only requires 5 words to bring down a leader

Doesn't Windows look Really Tired

This is reference hardware for... (1)

barfy (256323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40344623)

Smart Glass. This is a bit different than a phone. Just like they make Keyboards, Mice and Joysticks. This is primarily for the smart glass living room marketplace, and they are going to explore ideas that are best for that space and application, as well as all the other cool stuff you can do with a tablet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...