Windows 8 RT: Why no love?

[Syanide]

OP is giving me Linux discussion flashbacks.

[Manish]

(Cut the Rope and Fruit Ninja both started in the Windows aqnd RT AppStores - and have since made their way to Steam, Android, and the iOS App Store - why is it that exactly no games have done the reverse?).

 

Neither of those started on Windows; I'm pretty sure they were both released first on iOS (months) before any other platform.

[Dot Matrix]

- poor touch support

- No GPS for directions, weather reports, etc (surface)

- no apps (Not even Windows mobile)

- poor battery life

- no app compatibility with x86

- expensive

- no compatibility with windows phone

What is RT? It's not a mobile OS. It is a desktop but cannot run desktop apps??

If windows RT== Windows Phone I would buy it.

 

- What?

- Only one I'll agree with here

- Windows RT has plenty of apps

- What?

- It doesn't need it.

- Least expensive of the bunch.

- That's being worked on.

[jimmy1one]

So true. I also had my doubts before I got my RT tablet (2520), but now that I've gotten used to it, it's just great. Plain and simple! The only thing that I miss from the x86 world is MS Silverlight. Regular desktop apps (except from Office) would not be  fit for tablet use anyways. One should treat RT as a tablet OS, not to compare it with Windows 8 pro and such. It does everything really well that a tablet OS is supposed to do. Don't know how people's opinions got so twisted about it or win8 for that matter. They're both exceptionally good and fun.

I was very eager to get my 2520 I was looking forward to having my 2520 on trips using it as a GPS Navigation aid. Well that was a non starter it seems that the 2520 has GPS ON board but the RT OS has no GPS API. Well I have a problem with that  as in WTF are they thinking. Ok so there is no GPS app for  

the RT OS period. No problem MS and Nokia will correct this. Not so they have done zip it always some excuse we're always wait for the next OS now we are waiting for Gemini the merger of the WP OS and RT. IMHO there is no reason they can not do this with an update. It seems buying this OS was a huge mistake . If we keep holding onto false hope even SURFACE 2 and the 2520 will not be able to Upgrade to the hybrid OS if it ever comes. In short I if it has a GPS sensor I had every reason to believe there would be an API allowing programmers to code an APP

[-?-]

I have nothing against the surface RT.

It's a cheap tablet that is great for everyday stuff.
Bought one for my dad at christmas and he's loving it.

He can do his facebook and other internet stuff easily.

Of course, this is not a tablet for everybody, the restricted part of the tablet (no softwares) can be a downside for a lot of people.
 

[Ian S.]

I own a Surface RT, but I can accept the fact Intel has improved a lot with regard to adopting mobile platforms, so Windows RT's fate may be near.  

I don't think Microsoft will EVER ditch RT.

.. now we are waiting for Gemini the merger of the WP OS and RT..

Just FYI, Gemini is not the WP and RT merger, Gemini is the Office Modern UI apps.

[satysin]

RT doesn't have the main apps people want such as Firefox, Chrome, iTunes (so no iPhone users) and such. A tablet/computer is only as good as the apps you need.

[PGHammer]

Well your quote is very misleading.  If you tell someone you can give them "a laptop that is..." most are going to assume that when you say "laptop" you mean something compatible with the software they are used to running.  So sure they're going to say "damn, gimme!!"  Once they find out what you're offering is incompatible with everything they had before and is in fact a tablet then they are going to compare it to other tablets.  When they do they will find competing tablets that are also very light, don't get hot, make no noise, are faster, are cheaper, get better battery life, can do all their email and internet surfing, lets them download and sort photos for their camera, can play way more games, etc.  Plus they have MUCH larger app ecosystems that they may already own apps from because of prior devices.  Really Office is the only thing going for RT and it's not really a metro app and RT had to include the Desktop just to support it.  Android doesn't have an official office app yet but it has ones that do good enough for most joes on the street.  iPads now DO have an official MS Office app and also don't get viruses.

 

RT failed because while the hardware has great build quality it didn't really push the spec envelope or offer a huge bang for your buck value compared to it's more established competitors.  As for it being "very fast" that's subjective and debatable.  MS needs to merge the RT/Win8 and Windows Phone APIs/App Stores and they know this and are doing it but it's not done yet.  MS needs to make an actual touch native, non-desktop version of Office and they know this and are doing it but it's not done yet.  So in summary it's late to the party and immature in it's development state so it failed.  It was still a necessary step though because even if this particular product failed they did need to port Windows to ARM as ARM isn't going anywhere.  The Windows on ARM that is the RT OS will likely evolve into what replaces Windows Phone and even runs in server versions on ARMv8 64bit servers in the future (obviously different SKUs but the same core OS.)  So MS lost the battle sure, but the war is far from over and they are well positioned going forward.

"Push the spec envelope"?  Please - Windows 8.1 doesn't push the "spec envelope" any, either.  Other than Hyper-V - what has changed (in terms of hardware requirements) between Vista and 8.1 update 1?  Other than DX11 being the graphical floor, absolutely nothing.  Android pushes the APP COUNT envelope - however, that is the only advantage Android has other than price.  However, Android STILL has that "app quality" problem - how many apps have poor quality or (far worse) are scamware?  Android tablets are still largely selling due to price and that hyper-inflated app count.

[+Asmodai MVC]

"Push the spec envelope"?  Please - Windows 8.1 doesn't push the "spec envelope" any, either.  Other than Hyper-V - what has changed (in terms of hardware requirements) between Vista and 8.1 update 1?  Other than DX11 being the graphical floor, absolutely nothing.  Android pushes the APP COUNT envelope - however, that is the only advantage Android has other than price.  However, Android STILL has that "app quality" problem - how many apps have poor quality or (far worse) are scamware?  Android tablets are still largely selling due to price and that hyper-inflated app count.

First, I have no idea why you are responding to a comment that is over a month old.

Second your whole argument makes no sense because the "push the spec envelope" quote you go on about was clearly about HARDWARE before you took it completely out of context.  Here is the how that sentence started:

"RT failed because while the hardware has great build quality it [meaning the hardware] didn't really push the spec envelope..."

Your entire tirade was software related and thus irrelevant to the particular point you quoted.

[tsupersonic]

RT doesn't have the main apps people want such as Firefox, Chrome, iTunes (so no iPhone users) and such. A tablet/computer is only as good as the apps you need.

This. I have nothing against the Surface RT/2 hardware wise. But, the limited software (apps) that are there on the app store are either crap or you just don't have very many big name titles. It's just not a convincing package. It's the same reason why Android tablets really haven't gained much traction compared to the iPad - the Play Store lacks many tablet apps.

Android pushes the APP COUNT envelope - however, that is the only advantage Android has other than price.  However, Android STILL has that "app quality" problem - how many apps have poor quality or (far worse) are scamware?  Android tablets are still largely selling due to price and that hyper-inflated app count.

Out of the big three app stores, Windows store actually has more crap apps than Android. The only difference is that Android has more apps that people actually want and use. I definitely see why Surface (not Pro)/Windows RT is failing - what it offers is just pathetic. 

[domboy]

The Surface and devices like it aren't tablets, they are convertibles. And in this light I think the problem with Windows RT isn't that it's a bad tablet OS, it's that it's a bad convertible OS. Windows 8 does a much better job due to the basic fact that it doesn't have 2/3 of its APIs restricted to Microsoft only. 

 

The reason windows it susceptible to viruses is also what makes it a powerful OS instead of a stripped-down restricted mobile OS.

 

I own a Surface RT with a type cover, and it's a great device, but I would not have purchased it if the jailbreak wasn't available (and I'll be sticking with 8.0). I rarely use it as a true tablet, so I happen to like being able to run ARM compiled desktop apps on it when I want to. But without Microsoft's blessing no software publisher is allowed to actually release an ARM desktop app. One of the best illustration of this is no VPN clients can be built for Windows RT due to the "missing" APIs, and I say that in quotes as they are all there, just unusable. The other is no third-party browsers. No Chrome, no Firefox, fill in the blank for your favorite browser. Again, no access to the Windows APIs that are needed. Microsoft could easily fix all this if it wanted to.

 

Windows RT is failing because there is no reason to buy it over a regular Windows 8 device, and a bunch of reasons not to. And that's sad because Windows on ARM could have been so much better. But it looks like its future is to become another mobile OS. I wanted it to become Windows 8 for ARM.

[flynempire]

Well your quote is very misleading.  If you tell someone you can give them "a laptop that is..." most are going to assume that when you say "laptop" you mean something compatible with the software they are used to running.  So sure they're going to say "damn, gimme!!"  Once they find out what you're offering is incompatible with everything they had before and is in fact a tablet then they are going to compare it to other tablets.  When they do they will find competing tablets that are also very light, don't get hot, make no noise, are faster, are cheaper, get better battery life, can do all their email and internet surfing, lets them download and sort photos for their camera, can play way more games, etc.  Plus they have MUCH larger app ecosystems that they may already own apps from because of prior devices.  Really Office is the only thing going for RT and it's not really a metro app and RT had to include the Desktop just to support it.  Android doesn't have an official office app yet but it has ones that do good enough for most joes on the street.  iPads now DO have an official MS Office app and also don't get viruses.

 

RT failed because while the hardware has great build quality it didn't really push the spec envelope or offer a huge bang for your buck value compared to it's more established competitors.  As for it being "very fast" that's subjective and debatable.  MS needs to merge the RT/Win8 and Windows Phone APIs/App Stores and they know this and are doing it but it's not done yet.  MS needs to make an actual touch native, non-desktop version of Office and they know this and are doing it but it's not done yet.  So in summary it's late to the party and immature in it's development state so it failed.  It was still a necessary step though because even if this particular product failed they did need to port Windows to ARM as ARM isn't going anywhere.  The Windows on ARM that is the RT OS will likely evolve into what replaces Windows Phone and even runs in server versions on ARMv8 64bit servers in the future (obviously different SKUs but the same core OS.)  So MS lost the battle sure, but the war is far from over and they are well positioned going forward.

Never count MS Out. May not be now but in the future watch out

[+Asmodai MVC]

Never count MS Out. May not be now but in the future watch out

Did my last sentence give you the impression I was counting MS out?

 

"...but the war is far from over and they are well positioned going forward."

[flynempire]

Not at all. I am just saying this in general as it has happened several times before.

[Dashel]

This who mantra of apps is so archaic for adult uses.  It ships with the only apps you really need to enjoy the device.  It doesn't need the pre-teen gaming market to be successful, if only those types would stop giving their 'advice'.

[Noir Angel]

And you would be misleading them due to the fact that people buying laptops generally expect a full desktop OS, as much as you want it to be otherwise, the RT is a tablet, not a laptop.

[tsupersonic]

This who mantra of apps is so archaic for adult uses.  It ships with the only apps you really need to enjoy the device.  It doesn't need the pre-teen gaming market to be successful, if only those types would stop giving their 'advice'.

You shouldn't have to sacrifice app availability - Android and iOS have the majority of the market share to show this. Great if you don't use other apps, but your average consumer just expects them...It's like saying Windows is perfect the way it is out of the box without other apps. Nope. It's all about the apps my friend. Great hardware without proper software is not a good experience at all. 

[domboy]

This who mantra of apps is so archaic for adult uses.  It ships with the only apps you really need to enjoy the device. 

 

I somewhat agree with this. I'm a rather app minimalist as far as store apps go... I use the browser for most things that might also have an app form unless there is a REALLY compelling reason to use the app. IE on RT works great, and includes flash so most sites like youtube etc work just fine, no app required. Netflix is an exception unfortunately, so that is one of the few store apps I use. Otherwise, most of the standard Windows 8 desktop applications are included, so it really functions like a regular PC in most cases. 

[Dashel]

You shouldn't have to sacrifice app availability - Android and iOS have the majority of the market share to show this. Great if you don't use other apps, but your average consumer just expects them...It's like saying Windows is perfect the way it is out of the box without other apps. Nope. It's all about the apps my friend. Great hardware without proper software is not a good experience at all. 

That you are exaggerating the amount of sacrifice is the whole point.  Many use apps to do things (worse) than you can natively on Surface.  That's all that matters, not mobile market share, not what games your dumb kinds can play, or whatever the fad app of the week is.  You can beat around that bush all you want.   Without a single marketplace app installed, it runs rings around Android or iOS with their entire marketplaces for essential usage.

 

The only reason dumb consumers 'expect' them is because gadget dorks say they do.  Windows is pretty much perfect out of the box and does the essentials.  You keep confusing essential with ornament.  True or false, users install less apps in Windows than they used to?  That's why the very nature of mobile apps is a laughable regression.

 

###### ornaments.

[DConnell Member]

You shouldn't have to sacrifice app availability - Android and iOS have the majority of the market share to show this. Great if you don't use other apps, but your average consumer just expects them...It's like saying Windows is perfect the way it is out of the box without other apps. Nope. It's all about the apps my friend. Great hardware without proper software is not a good experience at all. 

 

Sacrifice app availability? iOS and Android have had years to develop their app stores. A few years ago, people said that Android wouldn't catch on because it didn't have as many apps as iOS. Now their catalogs are on a par. It takes time to get developers on board and apps developed. Did iOS have as many apps a year and a half in as it does now? Did Android? So why shouldn't the Windows app store be allowed the same time to develop?

 

And in my experience, the most critical apps are already there - Kindle, a web browser, Netflix, Facebook, Remote Desktop, Teamviewer. Those are the ones I use most, and they're all available for RT. And of course, the most complete mobile version of Office you can get - that makes the Surface RT a tool, rather than a toy/consumption device like an iPad.

 

Someone mentioned iTunes, but if it's ok for Android to not have it and provide its own alternative, then Windows RT should get the same consideration. It has its own counterpart as well.

 

About the only area I can see that RT is behind is games, and that's a matter of taste. There's a variety, and some darn good games to be found, such as Asphalt 8. Does it really matter that RT doesn't have all the versions of Angry Birds? There are games I wish were available for RT (Hello Minecraft!), but they're not enough to keep me off the platform.

[tsupersonic]

That you are exaggerating the amount of sacrifice is the whole point.  Many use apps to do things (worse) than you can natively on Surface.  That's all that matters, not mobile market share, not what games your dumb kinds can play, or whatever the fad app of the week is.  You can beat around that bush all you want.   Without a single marketplace app installed, it runs rings around Android or iOS with their entire marketplaces for essential usage.

 

The only reason dumb consumers 'expect' them is because gadget dorks say they do.  Windows is pretty much perfect out of the box and does the essentials.  You keep confusing essential with ornament.  True or false, users install less apps in Windows than they used to?  That's why the very nature of mobile apps is a laughable regression.

 

###### ornaments.

You are highly generalizing users and how they use their devices. If a device works out of the box, good for you. For me, when I install Windows on a computer, I download and install other software, whether it be from Microsoft or third party apps, much like I would on any tablet (iPad or Android). Out of the box no device is perfect for me (whether it's a computer or tablet or phone).

 

Can you for example, use Netflix out of the box on a Windows 8 device or Windows RT? Nope. You need either Silverlight (desktop) or the Netflix app (Windows RT). Can your run a terminal emulator (PuTTY, JuiceSSH, etc.) out of the box? Can you setup a Cisco VPN out of the box? Can it run Citrix apps out of the box? Does it include media apps that support Chromecast out of the box? Does it include Xbox smartglass out of the box? Can it sync with my smartwatch (Basis app) out of the box? Can I run Steam out of the box? Is there a GoPro integration out of the box? I could keep going about the apps I regularly use..Games are a big part of the tablet experience. If you don't play them, fine, but I do, and so do millions of others. Have you stopped and just thought about how there is a whole freaking industry that is building apps, and how profitable they are? Clearly you haven't put any thought into that. Tablets to me are all about entertainment and the quick check in to work when I'm on call. 

 

So, yeah, quit freaking generalizing how people should and shouldn't use their tablets. Again, if it works out of the box, good for you. Out of the box, no device is perfect and has all the apps I need (NOT EVEN CLOSE - not Android, not WP, not iOS). It doesn't stop millions of other people from downloading apps. At the end of the day, It's just what people want. 

 

 

Sacrifice app availability? iOS and Android have had years to develop their app stores. A few years ago, people said that Android wouldn't catch on because it didn't have as many apps as iOS. Now their catalogs are on a par. It takes time to get developers on board and apps developed. Did iOS have as many apps a year and a half in as it does now? Did Android? So why shouldn't the Windows app store be allowed the same time to develop?

 

And in my experience, the most critical apps are already there - Kindle, a web browser, Netflix, Facebook, Remote Desktop, Teamviewer. Those are the ones I use most, and they're all available for RT. And of course, the most complete mobile version of Office you can get - that makes the Surface RT a tool, rather than a toy/consumption device like an iPad.

 

Someone mentioned iTunes, but if it's ok for Android to not have it and provide its own alternative, then Windows RT should get the same consideration. It has its own counterpart as well.

 

About the only area I can see that RT is behind is games, and that's a matter of taste. There's a variety, and some darn good games to be found, such as Asphalt 8. Does it really matter that RT doesn't have all the versions of Angry Birds? There are games I wish were available for RT (Hello Minecraft!), but they're not enough to keep me off the platform.

 

Ok, Android caught up quick...Why isn't Windows phone and Windows RT app stores not developing at the same rates? WP8 has been out since Oct. 2012, and WP7 in Nov. 2010. The developers have had almost four years to develop for WP. I'm still not seeing some of the major apps/games on Windows Phone. 

 

Blech iTunes is crap software. I have disliked it very much at the beginning and still hate using it on Windows. Just give me the ability to mount the phone/tablet in Explorer - I prefer having that control and being able to manage my own files. 

 

Don't pin me as a MS hater and put the fanboyism away. I want more competition, and want WP to succeed. They have made great improvements (although way slower than I would like). Not sure about the future of RT - rumor mill suggests it's either dying or merging with WP. I don't give a crap about which OS is "winning" or "better", but the fact that there isn't a proper first party Gmail or Youtube app = consumers lose. Microsoft and Google both need to play better...

[domboy]

There are games I wish were available for RT (Hello Minecraft!)

 

Minecraft is the perfect example of the stupidity of the API restrictions in Windows RT. If the digital signature level requirement for win32 and .NET applications in Windows RT were set to unsigned like it is in Windows 8 (which is what the RT "jailbreak" does), Oracle could release an ARM-compiled version of Java for Windows RT and the PC version of Minecraft would just work, no porting to the WinRT (modern ui/store) API needed. But if they did that, some people might not want to use their store... gasp!

[DConnell Member]

Minecraft is the perfect example of the stupidity of the API restrictions in Windows RT. If the digital signature level requirement for win32 or .NET were set to unsigned (as in Windows 8) or even third-party, Oracle could release an ARM-compiled version of Java for Windows RT and the PC version of Minecraft would just work, no porting to the WinRT (store) API needed. But if they did that, some people might not want to their store... a big part of the problem with RT is a political one more than a technical one.

 

People seem ok with such restrictions on Android and iOS. Yet when Microsoft does the same thing, it's suddenly stupid? Why are such limits acceptable on the other two mobile OSs, but not on Windows RT?

[domboy]

People seem ok with such restrictions on Android and iOS. Yet when Microsoft does the same thing, it's suddenly stupid? Why are such limits acceptable on the other two mobile OSs, but not on Windows RT?

 

iOS and Android are mobile operating systems. Windows RT is not. It is pretty much Windows 8 for ARM, a full-blow desktop OS, minus a few older versions of common APIs, and of course the restrictions on a big chunk of the APIs in the OS as I already mentioned. As such, it acts and functions so much like its x86 counterpart that it the restrictions get very aggravating. Especially when that restriction is remove and one can suddenly run things like putty, KeePass2, and a bunch of other open source desktop windows applications (that have been recompiled for ARM or are .NET and just work), then the signing level restriction go from being annoying to just plain dumb from a user perspective. The restriction is an artificial one, not a technical one, and there to push people and developers to the store model. Windows on ARM could have been so much more than Microsoft's narrow vision for what became Windows RT.

 

The fact that many people jailbreak/root their iOS or Android devices indicates there are plenty of people that DON'T like such restrictions on those operating systems.

[neo158]

 

You are highly generalizing users and how they use their devices. If a device works out of the box, good for you. For me, when I install Windows on a computer, I download and install other software, whether it be from Microsoft or third party apps, much like I would on any tablet (iPad or Android). Out of the box no device is perfect for me (whether it's a computer or tablet or phone).

 

Can you for example, use Netflix out of the box on a Windows 8 device or Windows RT? Nope. You need either Silverlight (desktop) or the Netflix app (Windows RT). Can your run a terminal emulator (PuTTY, JuiceSSH, etc.) out of the box? Can you setup a Cisco VPN out of the box? Can it run Citrix apps out of the box? Does it include media apps that support Chromecast out of the box? Does it include Xbox smartglass out of the box? Can it sync with my smartwatch (Basis app) out of the box? Can I run Steam out of the box? Is there a GoPro integration out of the box? I could keep going about the apps I regularly use..Games are a big part of the tablet experience. If you don't play them, fine, but I do, and so do millions of others. Have you stopped and just thought about how there is a whole freaking industry that is building apps, and how profitable they are? Clearly you haven't put any thought into that. Tablets to me are all about entertainment and the quick check in to work when I'm on call. 

 

So, yeah, quit freaking generalizing how people should and shouldn't use their tablets. Again, if it works out of the box, good for you. Out of the box, no device is perfect and has all the apps I need (NOT EVEN CLOSE - not Android, not WP, not iOS). It doesn't stop millions of other people from downloading apps. At the end of the day, It's just what people want. 

 

 

 

Ok, Android caught up quick...Why isn't Windows phone and Windows RT app stores not developing at the same rates? WP8 has been out since Oct. 2012, and WP7 in Nov. 2010. The developers have had almost four years to develop for WP. I'm still not seeing some of the major apps/games on Windows Phone. 

 

Blech iTunes is crap software. I have disliked it very much at the beginning and still hate using it on Windows. Just give me the ability to mount the phone/tablet in Explorer - I prefer having that control and being able to manage my own files. 

 

Don't pin me as a MS hater and put the fanboyism away. I want more competition, and want WP to succeed. They have made great improvements (although way slower than I would like). Not sure about the future of RT - rumor mill suggests it's either dying or merging with WP. I don't give a crap about which OS is "winning" or "better", but the fact that there isn't a proper first party Gmail or Youtube app = consumers lose. Microsoft and Google both need to play better...

 

 

I know this is resurrecting a dead thread but I had to comment on this.

 

Can you use any of those things OOTB on Android or iOS, or do you need an app on those platforms as well. BTW the Netflix app on Windows RT also runs on Windows 8, no Silverlight needed.

 

WP and Windows RT app stores are growing, developers go where the money is and if that money is in rival platforms then guess what happens with WP and Windows RT. If you look in the Store then you'll find that many of those "major apps" are starting to appear now.

 

Yes, I agree iTunes is crap but Windows RT doesn't need it unlike the iPad. I guess you don't even own a Tablet running Windows RT otherwise you would know that:

 

1. You can mount phones and tablets on Windows RT to show in Explorer just like you can on Windows, which brings me onto

2. Windows RT devices don't need to connect to a PC as they are essentially an ARM based PC anyway, unlike the iOS and Android toys that require PC connectivity.

 

Windows RT WILL merge with WP at some point, WP8.1 already has some of the APIs implemented, but the full merge of the two won't happen until WP9. Windows RT doesn't need a Gmail app as Gmail support is built into both Outlook 2013 and the built in Mail app. Youtube is also covered with Metrotube. Windows RT doesn't really require apps for Gmail or Youtube when you have full desktop browsing, complete with Flash support built in. Microsoft and Google will only play better when Google wants to, Microsoft apps are already available on Android.