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

[Crimson Rain]

But if this second generation fails like the first, it?s questionable how long Microsoft will continue with this bruising foray into the device-manufacturing space.

http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/why-is-microsoft-setting-more-money-on-fire-with-surface-2/

 

As many times as it takes.

 

There is a reason why you are not running a company like Microsoft.

[adrynalyne]

Who ever said that's what Microsoft expects? Only you (and others in the same bandwagon) are expecting this.

 

 

If they don't expect the small bump in specs to make the Surface more successful, then they are throwing away money.

 

Which brings us full circle to the original post.

[ctebah]

Any iPhone? Any Samsung Galaxy? Lol... you're delusioned.

 

iPhones and Galaxy's are building upon already successful and well recieved products, not write-downs...

[airedwin]

iPhones and Galaxy's are building upon already successful and well recieved products, not write-downs...

We were referring to small bumps in specs being enough to make a winner (sell a lot).

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

Microsoft NEEDS TO KILL THE DESKTOP on Windows RT, it is the only thing that can lift RT off the ground again. The modern side of the OS is better for touch and can take over a majority of the functionality that the desktop offered. There is really no reason to keep the desktop on Windows RT other than office app and the rest of the desktop niceties like file explorer etc!

[ctebah]

We were referring to small bumps in specs being enough to make a winner (sell a lot).

 

I thought that's what most of people at Neowin thought about new iPhones and Galaxy phones, that they are nothing but small bumps in specs.  And to a certain degree, minus a few standaout features, they are.

 

Yet they continue to shatter sales because they are bumping an already successful product.

 

Microsoft ISN'T wrong to release a new Surface, but they made another mistake with pricing and specs.  In today's world its almost better to sell a product at cost or small loss than to take a write-off.

[adrynalyne]

As many times as it takes.

 

There is a reason why you are not running a company like Microsoft.

I'm sure someone at RIM said the same thing at one point.

[Bryan R.]

I really don't see the cohesiveness in the arguments here.

[trooper11]

I get you, it is a gamble.  However, what exactly makes Microsoft think that a small bump in specs suddenly will make the Surface a winner?

 

When has that alone ever made someone a winner?

 

Serious question, maybe you can enlighten me to when it has worked out.

 

I'm not sure why you have to come off as so sarcastic in this debate. 

 

Ok I'm not sure what you expect MS to do here.  You obviously think their problem is specs.  But then we know for a fact that all of these tech companies like to release new versions of a product with modest spec upgrades or features that are evolutionary and not revolutionary.

 

Both the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 got significant spec bumps.  If you don't believe me, look at the specs and parts behind those specs yourself. These bumps are inline with what you might see Apple or Samsung do when releasing a new version of their hardware.

 

I'm not sure how in the world its fair to attack the hardware changes, as if they did nothing to improve the device.

 

If you want to argue that the pricing is still too high or about the lack of a robust app market in the OS, that seems perfectly fair.  But to say that the hardware is to blame just doesn't seem right.

 

I never said that bumping the hardware specs would result in success.  Wherever you saw that, it was someone else. I said that MS must aggressively continue to improve their OS and courting app developers to grow the app market, while at the same time they must continue to improve the hardware at a pace similar to the competition.  That means yearly updates tot eh hardware are in order.  That means you will see incremental hardware updates for the Surface just as you see for an iPad or Nexus device.  When these companies are trying to stick to this crazy pace, its only natural that your unlikely to see massive changes from year to year. You will see a combo of faster hardware, better battery life, new software features and sometimes a new/improved hardware feature.

 

So look at Surface 2 or Surface Pro 2 and you see just that:  Faster hardware that also offers better battery life and some improvements to the hardware design along with new software features (Windows 8.1)

 

 

 

Microsoft ISN'T wrong to release a new Surface, but they made another mistake with pricing and specs.  In today's world its almost better to sell a product at cost or small loss than to take a write-off.

 

I think pricing should be lower as well, but I'm not sure that specs is an issue.  Price correctly, there is little to complain about spec wise honestly.  I think about the only thing I hear complained about is resolution.  Some want to see higher than 1080p.

 

 

For me I was hoping to see the Surface 2 being priced starting at $399 with a keyboard cover included and the Surface Pro 2 starting at $699.  So they are close on the Surface 2.

[adrynalyne]

I'm not sure why you have to come off as so sarcastic in this debate. 

 

Ok I'm not sure what you expect MS to do here.  You obviously think their problem is specs.  But then we know for a fact that all of these tech companies like to release new versions of a product with modest spec upgrades or features that are evolutionary and not revolutionary.

 

Both the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 got significant spec bumps.  If you don't believe me, look at the specs and parts behind those specs yourself. These bumps are inline with what you might see Apple or Samsung do when releasing a new version of their hardware.

 

I'm not sure how in the world its fair to attack the hardware changes, as if they did nothing to improve the device.

 

If you want to argue that the pricing is still too high or about the lack of a robust app market in the OS, that seems perfectly fair.  But to say that the hardware is to blame just doesn't seem right.

 

I never said that bumping the hardware specs would result in success.  Wherever you saw that, it was someone else. I said that MS must aggressively continue to improve their OS and courting app developers to grow the app market, while at the same time they must continue to improve the hardware at a pace similar to the competition.  That means yearly updates tot eh hardware are in order.  That means you will see incremental hardware updates for the Surface just as you see for an iPad or Nexus device.  When these companies are trying to stick to this crazy pace, its only natural that your unlikely to see massive changes from year to year. You will see a combo of faster hardware, better battery life, new software features and sometimes a new/improved hardware feature.

 

So look at Surface 2 or Surface Pro 2 and you see just that:  Faster hardware that also offers better battery life and some improvements to the hardware design along with new software features (Windows 8.1)

 

 

 

 

I think pricing should be lower as well, but I'm not sure that specs is an issue.  Price correctly, there is little to complain about spec wise honestly.  I think about the only thing I hear complained about is resolution.  Some want to see higher than 1080p.

Sorry you thought I was being sarcastic, because I wasn't.

 

Hence I said, Serious question, because I figured that would remove any consideration of it being sarcastic.

 

Guess not...

[trooper11]

Sorry you thought I was being sarcastic, because I wasn't.

 

Hence I said, Serious question, because I figured that would remove any consideration of it being sarcastic.

 

Guess not...

 

 

Sorry, but when someone asks me to 'enlighten' them, it comes off as sarcastic.

 

But if you didn't mean it that way, then I accept your apology.

 

We can debate this properly

[adrynalyne]

Sorry, but when someone asks me to 'enlighten' them, it comes off as sarcastic.

 

But if you didn't mean it that way, then I accept your apology.

 

We can debate this properly

Fine.  I'll accept that as one from you as well ;)

 

 I never said that you thought the hardware bump would make it successful.  I am going back to the original reason for the thread and why I don't understand why they did it.  The price was a bigger issue than the hardware, which you already hit upon.  Then there is Windows 8...which has not gone over smoothly, no matter what the MS zealots say.

[PGHammer]

Honestly, I think that a LOT of the public perception of Microsoft is colored by their position on desktops.  While a small (far smaller than the perception in the media or analyst communities) part of that was due to robber-baron-type tactics (not necessarily illegal), the major driving forces behind the dominance of Microsoft on desktops is due to three things - all of which are factors:

 

1.  They did not rest on their laurels.  (Even after Windows 3.x, did Microsoft stop innovating, even a little?  Not only no, but decidedly no - with NT, Microsoft took Windows into workstations, and, eventually, servers - the bastion of UNIX.  While Linux had made some headway there, it was primarily at the budget end - Linux distributions weren't seen as a serious threat to UNIX - and that includes Red hat Linux.  Windows, naturally, was pooh-poohed.  However, where are both UNIX and the Linux distributions today?  They are fighting over niches in both the workstation AND server spaces - while Windows NT dominates.)

 

2.  Wrong early, but right later on. (Yes - Microsoft has had their fair share of foot-bullets.  However, Microsoft, more than any company in IT - if not business as a whole - has managed to use even the foot-bullets to advance the state of their businesses.  Look at the relationship between Windows ME - a foot-bullet - Neptune - the stillborn consumer-targeted flavor of Windows 2000 Professional - and Windows 2000 Professional itself.  A far more recent example is the relationship between Vista and Windows 7. - exactly how much code got changed between Vista and 7?  Far less than was expected.)

 

3.  Competitive failures.  (All too often, competitors to Microsoft failed to take advantage of what mistakes Microsoft did make, while making doozies themselves.  No company is perfect - however, failure to take advantage of the errors of your rivals can spell doom in anything.)

[ATLien_0]

I think, Microsoft at least wants to give the Surace 2 (RT) another shot by changing the name and changing the specs. My gut is that they are still feeling out the market. Now my hopes are that Microsoft merges Windows Phone and RT into one mobile OS with out the desktop, this could be down the road for Surface 3. Maybe even towards Windows 9 they will make the Start Screen the Windows Phone/RT desktop so its all cohesive.  

[spudtrooper]

Short answer, Microsoft is in it to win.

 

Long answer that i'll make really short, sometimes it's good for massively profitable companies to have losses to offset revenue, especially if they're trying to penetrate new markets and increase product divisions.

 

Answer to long answer - Microsoft is not afraid of the long tail.

[trooper11]

I never said that you thought the hardware bump would make it successful.  I am going back to the original reason for the thread and why I don't understand why they did it.  The price was a bigger issue than the hardware, which you already hit upon.  Then there is Windows 8...which has not gone over smoothly, no matter what the MS zealots say.

 

But one thing that even critics of Windows 8 admit is that the Metro side works well in a touch environment, which is what a tablet is all about.

 

My point is that Win 8 has its issues, but the Metro side can handle the duties of a tablet.  Win 8.1 brings with it many improvements that will apply to tablets, especially improving the app store.

 

I'm not sure why they went with the pricing that they did, other than they feel like they need to establish these price points in the market.  They did reduce the Surface 2 price, so they certainly seem aware of that issue.

 

My point had to do with why do you continue the Surface line even in the face of slow sales.

 

If MS wants to be a serious player, they have to push forward even in the face of slow sales right now. I believe things will improve as the OS and the app market improve.  Then the word of mouth improves and more people outside of the tech media and internet community hear about Surface as a quality device.  But this means MS must keep improving the hardware and software.

[PGHammer]

Contrary to some, I never said that the change WOULD go over smoothly - however, the change has gone over far better than the critics claim.  Exactly how many major changes are there between Windows 8 and Windows 8.1?  As someone that went from one to the other - on a desktop - the changes have been minor to the point of being nitpicky.  The change between Vista and Windows 7 was greater - and very little of even that was obvious.  To a large extent, Windows 8 committed the same "sin" that Vista did - it came too early for the OEMs (most of them were, by and large, decidedly unready with product that took advantage of what Windows 8 had to offer).  How many of the hardware launches we are seeing today with Windows 8.1 hardware that was actually planned for Windows 8, but held back by OEMs unwilling, or even unable, to take any sort of risk?

[Growled Member]

Microsoft ISN'T wrong to release a new Surface, but they made another mistake with pricing and specs.  In today's world its almost better to sell a product at cost or small loss than to take a write-off.

 

Exactly. Microsoft needs the Surface to be competitive in that market. They just need to get (mainly) their pricing sorted.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

All I know is my IT department is currently deciding on the departments they want to pilot the Surface with in my company, and we are really pushing them to make mine one of them.

Life would be so much damn easier if we did go to the Surface, right now the iPad is creating all sorts of issues with the legacy apps we have, and it does not appear to be getting better anytime soon.

The iPad was basically forced on our IT department as there was nothing better for quite some time.

Now, hopefully there is with the Surface.

Honestly, it is a no brainer to me that a large corporation such as mine would replace the iPad with a Surface or similar Windows based tablet.

However a whole lot of money has been invested in custom iOS apps already by marketing, etc.
MS still does have a chance of making it, but they were late to the game, and may never recover that missed time.

Only time will tell.

[HawkMan]

Yet overall, it's still considered a success.

 

Xbox as a brand is, the original Xbox not so much. it had a good launch month. but overall it was not a success in itself, it's success lay in paving the way for the 360.

 

you know... kind of like MS is now paving the way for the future Surface's. 

[HawkMan]

I don't recall anyone singing the praises of Google with the failures of Google TV or Nexus Q either.

 

Interesting that you list Chrome and Google+.  Those are not failures.

 

 

I guess he meant ChromeOS, and G+ pretty much is for what it wants to be, and if you take away all the fake users who are only users because android and chrome forces them to be G+ users and because google added functions that makes them appear to be active G+ users even though they never actually use it, by using G+ for everything else. 

[Darrian]

Personally, I don't care why Microsoft is continuing to improve and update their Surface tablets.  When they were first announced I was thrilled as they finally made the tablet I had been waiting for.  The next release looks even better.  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.  Even with the improved battery life of the Pro version this time around I will still probably end up getting the RT version.  The only thing they are doing wrong as far as I'm concerned is not opening it up so anybody could compile a program for ARM and have it install on the desktop via traditional installers instead of forcing metro-only apps through the app store.  I desperately would love an RT-compatible version of ComicRack and it looks doubtful that the person who develops ComicRack will ever release an RT version.  It would also be nice to have Calibre and Sigil.  If they opened it up so it wasn't any different than regular Windows 8 aside from the CPU architecture who knows how many different programs would pop up?  After all, it took some time and effort, but a lot of people are compiling for x64 now.  I wouldn't mind seeing games like Guild Wars 2 on an RT tablet, either, if ArenaNet could be persuaded.  Still, for what you pay and what I would actually use it for, the only app that would really sting in its absence is ComicRack.

[ctebah]

Xbox as a brand is, the original Xbox not so much. it had a good launch month. but overall it was not a success in itself, it's success lay in paving the way for the 360.

 

you know... kind of like MS is now paving the way for the future Surface's. 

 

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.

[grik]

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.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Honestly, I think that a LOT of the public perception of Microsoft is colored by their position on desktops.  While a small (far smaller than the perception in the media or analyst communities) part of that was due to robber-baron-type tactics (not necessarily illegal), the major driving forces behind the dominance of Microsoft on desktops is due to three things - all of which are factors:

 

1.  They did not rest on their laurels.  (Even after Windows 3.x, did Microsoft stop innovating, even a little?  Not only no, but decidedly no - with NT, Microsoft took Windows into workstations, and, eventually, servers - the bastion of UNIX.  While Linux had made some headway there, it was primarily at the budget end - Linux distributions weren't seen as a serious threat to UNIX - and that includes Red hat Linux.  Windows, naturally, was pooh-poohed.  However, where are both UNIX and the Linux distributions today?  They are fighting over niches in both the workstation AND server spaces - while Windows NT dominates.)

 

2.  Wrong early, but right later on. (Yes - Microsoft has had their fair share of foot-bullets.  However, Microsoft, more than any company in IT - if not business as a whole - has managed to use even the foot-bullets to advance the state of their businesses.  Look at the relationship between Windows ME - a foot-bullet - Neptune - the stillborn consumer-targeted flavor of Windows 2000 Professional - and Windows 2000 Professional itself.  A far more recent example is the relationship between Vista and Windows 7. - exactly how much code got changed between Vista and 7?  Far less than was expected.)

 

3.  Competitive failures.  (All too often, competitors to Microsoft failed to take advantage of what mistakes Microsoft did make, while making doozies themselves.  No company is perfect - however, failure to take advantage of the errors of your rivals can spell doom in anything.)

 

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.