Why Is Microsoft Setting More Money on Fire with Surface 2?

[HawkMan]

I think it is a success, specially in North America.  It came in as a new player in the market and established itself as a number 2 console.

It lost money, it sold less than both competitors.

HOW was it a success ? It was a great console, but it wasn't a success. It was only a success I that it set the stage for the 360 to be a success.

In any case, you've only so far proven that you where wrong and that the original comparison you said was wrong, was in fact correct.

[HawkMan]

Surface 2 makes us laugh. Who even considers a 2nd generation of a big FAIL.

I would consider to test Surface2 if it would have come out with a nice price (300$) (250?), to compete with Android mid price tablets, it as a price tag to compete with iPad and thats just wasting money. Maybe the theory of wasting money to reserve some market-share is the best guess.

So you would only consider it if they priced a high end device at mid range prices of competitors who's tablets can't do half the stuff this one can ... Yeah that makes sense...

Those mid range android tablets are utterly useless anyway, terrible screening, slow and laggy, mostly run old android versions.

[HawkMan]

You're not correct in this. Windows may dominate on the desktop, but it does not dominate the server space at all. If anything, Windows is a niche in the server space. It probably has a lot to do with the rough start Windows Server had... Prior to Windows Server 2000 even Microsoft wouldn't run it on their own servers!

 

Linux definitely dominates the server space.

As I recall, you're basing this off old information.

I seem tore call MS not only having a decent chunk of the server space nowadays, but they're growing, and growing fast. Even universities who traditionally ran unix and Linux servers with hardcore unix it departments are now switching big chunks of theirselves parks to windows.

[grik]

So you would only consider it if they priced a high end device at mid range prices of competitors who's tablets can't do half the stuff this one can ... Yeah that makes sense...

Those mid range android tablets are utterly useless anyway, terrible screening, slow and laggy, mostly run old android versions.

 

Im a Windows/PC user since ever, so im a fan of MS, but Windows8 for example didnt get threw to me, it was a UI change that i didnt like. That made me ignore Surface1 a little bit, as i guess others did too.

 

Never read something really usefull on Surface, you think it does more, but having USB on tablet is useless because the culture has shifted beyond that. People dont work on tablets, they like Portable PCs or Desktop to do that. They manage to do some simple work on Tablet.

 

One thing that caught my eye and i think its cool on Surface, the Keyboard/Cover, but it doesn't make it a feature. I dont own a Windows Phone, they get discontinued easily, also that same thing makes people think the same on Surface.

MS doesnt have a mobile strategy written or stated they go with the flow and that doesn't stick.

 

I mentioned Android price, so they have a chance to compete in the market, pricing it as iPad, they just get themselves in trouble.

[winrez]

Can't be too bad we just picked up 3 Surface RT's for the house to replace a laptop and 2 netbooks, the reason we went with the RT's is that since there is only Metro apps (except office) is that it forces us to use Metro. On a regular x86 laptop or tablet its really easy to fall back to the desktop and non Metro apps, so far the buying the RT's has been a great experience everyone using them has become quick at using the new interface and also finding new apps using Windows Store.

[Growled Member]

 The only reason I don't have one yet is because I'm broke as ****.  If I had the money everybody in my family would have one.  

 

Which is why I still predict low sales. It's a good product but it doesn't have the hype of Apple products to rely on, and it costs way more than an Android tablet. I can't afford it either right now. 

[PGHammer]

You're not correct in this. Windows may dominate on the desktop, but it does not dominate the server space at all. If anything, Windows is a niche in the server space. It probably has a lot to do with the rough start Windows Server had... Prior to Windows Server 2000 even Microsoft wouldn't run it on their own servers!

 

Linux definitely dominates the server space.

The only part of Microsoft that didn't run on Windows NT was Hotmail - and that was because Hotmail was a custom-written service based on non-Windows code when Microsoft acquired it.  The vast majority of Microsoft internally has run on Windows, and especially NT, since NT's launch.  In fact, consider Microsoft's FTP server (ftp.microsoft.com) - it has run on only NT and its direct descendants since the beginning; in fact, it has run exclusively on a single brand of server - Compaq (now HP) ProLiant rackmount servers.  Hotmail today DOES run on Windows Server - in fact, it runs on Exchange Server; it and Outlook,com use the same server(s) today.  (That's right - Hotmail was not written by Microsoft, but FOR Microsoft.)  The travails of various issues with Hotmail are legion (do a search on issues related to Hotmail merely on Neowin itself) - I had a Hotmail e-mail address I would barely touch because of those issues. It was only when Outlook.com went into beta that I would even consider using that Hotmail account that had been basically loafing - and it was only until I could comfortably migrate off of the non-Exchange servers and to EAS that I have begun using that migrated address more and more.