Windows RT: A Success for Microsoft?

[Ian S.]

In a blog post Ross Rubin describes what he thinks Windows RT has accomplished.

But the release of the iPad in 2010 touched a nerve: a nerve of touch. Microsoft watched as the iPhone had upended the phone industry. Now the iPad was getting dangerously close to the size and functionality of a laptop. This would not stand (well, at least not without a Smart Cover).

 

Microsoft planned a twofold counterattack with Windows 8. It would graft a Windows Phone-like touch interface atop the familiar desktop, and it would support chips based on technology developed by ARM (like the ones used in the iPad and most other tablets and phones) with a version called Windows RT. Like Windows 8, Windows RT would support the new wave of iPad-like touch apps, but, unlike Windows 8, it would not work with apps written for the old-school Windows interface. There would be one exception: Microsoft rejiggered (most of) Microsoft Office to run on Windows RT and included it for free.

Windows RT would power a new generation of inexpensive, touch-enabled laptops that broke the laptop mold. An early example was Lenovo

[neo1911]

Whichever way you say it, Windows RT flopped. It will be disbanded and parts of it would be used in WP10 for mobiles.

[BinaryData]

Well, Windows RT failed, but they did gather some incredible information that can be used for other products.

I'm curious why the poster above me was banned

[Ian W]

One wonders what led Microsoft to believe that a new platform scarcely populated with applications would succeed. Windows RT may not have been a commercial success but I've argued before that it worked (and still works) for what it set out to do. The idea essentially lives on with Windows 10 Mobile (or whatever it's called now).

 

I'm curious why the poster above me was banned

"Banned" is just the user's Member Title.

[PGHammer]

One wonders what led Microsoft to believe that a new platform scarcely populated with applications would succeed. Windows RT may not have been a commercial success but I've argued before that it worked (and still works) for what it set out to do. The idea essentially lives on with Windows 10 Mobile (or whatever it's called now).

 

"Banned" is just the user's Member Title.

Ian W., WHY was RT so thinly populated?  First is, of course, the reality that Android (and iOS) already existed, and were sucking the air out of small-application development.  Secondly, there was heavy resistance among existing Win32 developers to writing RT apps (despite commonalities, especially in terms of development environments, tools, etc.).  Those two reasons alone are why I called Windows RT (as an OS) a hedge bet.

 

However, because of BayTrail-T and CherryTrail (the child of Atom and Haswell), ARM not only has energy-sipping competition in the ultra-portable space, but it has fully x86-based competition in that space.  Now, instead of relying on a niche OS, Microsoft can bring Windows Entire into that space.  Suddenly, it's ARM that is on the back foot.    (CherryTrail and BayTrail-T can also run Android - which means that even Android developers are not irrevocably tied to ARM - RT apps could already run on Windows 8; Windows 10 won't let those apps hang, either.)  No - Android developers aren't in trouble - however, Android ITSELF could have issues in terms of tablets.  (Notice that I specifically said "tablets".)

[Anibal P]

RT failed because it was sold as Windows yet didn't run any Win32 applications, all because MS failed to promote it correctly, it may have done well if properly described and sold to consumers, AND it hurt Win 8 in the process, still hear people spouting all kinds of nonsense on this site 

 

Had the current management in MS been running it at the time RT came out it may have done much better, last management was a slow moving ball of fail dragging MS and Windows down 

[greenwizard88]

As a tech demo, it was fantastic. As a platform, it was fantastic. Its biggest issue, IMO, is the same issue that Windows 8 had - a lack of Metro apps. If developers had flocked to the Metro APIs like they did to Android and iOS, it - along with Windows 8 - would have been considered a success.

[Liana]

As a tech demo, it was fantastic. As a platform, it was fantastic. Its biggest issue, IMO, is the same issue that Windows 8 had - a lack of Metro apps. If developers had flocked to the Metro APIs like they did to Android and iOS, it - along with Windows 8 - would have been considered a success.

I would have to agree. Windows RT failed in large part because the Windows app store is a failure.

[PGHammer]

I would have to agree. Windows RT failed in large part because the Windows app store is a failure.

And why is said App Store considered a failure? Because Win32 developers won't move there (by and large) - they have insisted on staying put.

In fact, what has been the biggest complaint from Win32 developers (here on Neowin) about developing RT apps? It's different enough to make not moving the easy choice.

By and large, the quality apps on the Windows App Store are from developers that aren't tied irrevocably to Win32 - they are developers that are either RT-exclusive or mobile-focused. Even the Win32 developers admit that a lot of what they would normally do is geared toward big and complex - RT doesn't permit a lot of that.

[WndSks]

Since WinRT and Phone don't allow sideloading I stayed away just on principle (Yes, Android is the only mobile platform I have developed for).

 

Also, not allowing connections to localhost, no way to create 3rd-party application plugins/extensions/codecs and no way to allocate writable executable memory are restrictions I'm not really a fan of. It is too close to the Apple walled-garden way of thinking IMHO.

 

As far as WindowsRT/WOA goes, the fact that they disallowed all win32 apps except their own is the type of move that makes me boycott the platform.

[PGHammer]

Since WinRT and Phone don't allow sideloading I stayed away just on principle (Yes, Android is the only mobile platform I have developed for).

 

Also, not allowing connections to localhost, no way to create 3rd-party application plugins/extensions/codecs and no way to allocate writable executable memory are restrictions I'm not really a fan of. It is too close to the Apple walled-garden way of thinking IMHO.

 

As far as WindowsRT/WOA goes, the fact that they disallowed all win32 apps except their own is the type of move that makes me boycott the platform.

In other words, you wanted to do all the things that RT specifically disallowed - for security reasons. Win32 allows them, but RT doesn't. I don't have a problem with that sort of thinking - where I have the problem is those that think the same as you blowing smoke about it. There are NO Win32 apps specifically sold in the Windows App Store - in fact, name one. (While Win32 apps appear in the Store, the sale is elsewhere, such as Steam. That IS expressly permissible; however, it simply can't be sold there (the Store) directly.)

Principle/philosophical aversion to RT isn't a problem - at least for me; however, blowing smoke up my butt about it is where the line gets drawn.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I think it failed because a consumer couldn't tell the difference between RT and X86. On the Demo floor they looked identical. So most consumers probably though RT could run their existing x86 applications. Also they didn't hide the desktop on RT, so that also confused consumers.

 

I think the naming also had a lot to do with the failure. RT???

 

I think they should have done what seems to have worked very well for Apple. Windows Phone OS on tablets and Phones and Windows on Desktop, Laptops.

 

People will say, Think of the Children and think of the touch screen desktop and laptops. Maybe, but I really don't see why anyone would want to touch their AIO desktop computer or their laptop when they have a mouse and keyboard at their disposal. In fact I tried it for a little while when I acquired a touch screen all in one. It was neat for the 1st 1/2 hour. Then my arm started to hurt and by that time my screen was all smugged up with finger prints.

 

With Windows 8 they catered to touch, which made the touch users happy, but annoyed keyboard and mouse users. Now with Windows 10, at least at the moment, they are making the Keyboard and mouse people happy but annoying the touch users.

 

This is why everyone is happy on the Apple side.

 

For touch you have the iPad for mouse and keyboard you have laptop / desktop.

[PGHammer]

I think it failed because a consumer couldn't tell the difference between RT and X86. On the Demo floor they looked identical. So most consumers probably though RT could run their existing x86 applications. Also they didn't hide the desktop on RT, so that also confused consumers.

 

I think the naming also had a lot to do with the failure. RT???

 

I think they should have done what seems to have worked very well for Apple. Windows Phone OS on tablets and Phones and Windows on Desktop, Laptops.

 

People will say, Think of the Children and think of the touch screen desktop and laptops. Maybe, but I really don't see why anyone would want to touch their AIO desktop computer or their laptop when they have a mouse and keyboard at their disposal. In fact I tried it for a little while when I acquired a touch screen all in one. It was neat for the 1st 1/2 hour. Then my arm started to hurt and by that time my screen was all smugged up with finger prints.

 

With Windows 8 they catered to touch, which made the touch users happy, but annoyed keyboard and mouse users. Now with Windows 10, at least at the moment, they are making the Keyboard and mouse people happy but annoying the touch users.

 

This is why everyone is happy on the Apple side.

 

For touch you have the iPad for mouse and keyboard you have laptop / desktop.

Except that there are keyboards (and mice) for iDevices - and especially the iPad. (I know from using them.)

Apple Stores SELL the darn things. (However, they are not made by Apple.)

OS X actually supports touch - that was, unsurprisingly, discovered, by "Hack" users. And I'm not talking Yosemite - touch is supported way back in Mavericks.

Apple won't put it in the hardware for reasons yet undisclosed - and that is despite the price of adding it dropping merely since Mavericks. (The iMac and MacBooks can both add it in - for a markup, of course.)

And - like all too many mainstream-OS users - you are thinking that touch support obviates keyboard support - or pointing-device support - when it does no such thing.

It doesn't in iOS, it doesn't in Android, it doesn't in Windows - so why would it in OS X?

Once again, the only folks that insist on insisting on either/or are those that have never tried to do both - at the same time - on the same OS. On the other hand, I HAVE done both at the same time - on the same OS - in ALL of the first three cases (iOS, Android, and Windows). If I can do it (and I'm not the most efficient), why is it that those disagreeing with me are not merely unwilling to try to do so, but unable to even consider it?

Touch-screen hardware predates Windows 8 - therefore, Windows 8 is NOT the egg. (I'm not referring to tablets OR slates, or even notebooks; I'm talking desktops - specifically HP TouchSmart, Dell Inspiron, and Lenovo ThinkCentre t; all three launched with Windows 7 - either Home Premium or Ultimate x64 - as base OS.) And I wasn't even referring to everyday users - in what way is a Neowinian an "everyday user"? Most Neowinians are at least tech enthusiasts - a lot of us do, or did, technical support for a living. We're supposed to know better. Yet here we are, having a debate over something that we know - from the tons of data - to be fallacious. There is absolutely no case - in ANY OS to date - that one form of input obviates another except by user delineation. In short, given the ability to accept the input, an operating system - or the applications therefore - could, in fact, care less. All delineating between input methodologies does is the same thing that politics does - puts our biases on display.

PS: My mom has a 23" HP Pavilion AIO; in addition to touch, it supports (and includes) a keyboard and a mouse. (Most touch-screen hardware does - even that which doesn't run Windows, such as the ASUS Transformer series; the exceptions are tablet-sized devices - however, even those can get external keyboards or pointing devices as options for the most part.) On mom's AIO, I can use touch AND keyboard, or touch AND pointing device - simultaneously; the only reason I can't use all three at once is due to having only two hands.

Edited April 17, 2015 by PGHammer

[chrisj1968]

Windows RT probably also failed because it hid the desktop

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2056713/microsoft-downplays-rt-and-hides-the-desktop-on-its-surface-tablets.html

[remixedcat]

WinRT could have done good if more devs would have wanted to participate.

[Dot Matrix]

I still believe WinRT is a huge step forward for Microsoft, and that we haven't seen the last of it. ARM architecture isn't going away anytime fast.

[Raa]

I think it failed because of too much market confusion.

People got Surface 1 or 2's [or other devices with WinRT] expecting them to be able to run everything and when it didn't, it created a negative perception to the OS.