Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2012 08:50 UTC
Microsoft The New York Times further fans the flames of the emerging uneasiness between Microsoft and its hardware partners. As the paper reports, Microsoft decided it needed to get into the hardware game (with Surface) after the utter failure of HP's Slate 500 Windows 7 tablet. "Microsoft worked with other hardware partners to devise products that would be competitive with the iPad, but it ran into disagreements over designs and prices. 'Faith had been lost' at Microsoft in its hardware partners, including by Steven Sinofsky, the powerful president of Microsoft's Windows division, according to [a] former Microsoft executive." The biggest news is not Surface itself. It's the changing industry it represents. Microsoft failed to deliver capable smartphone/tablet software, which pissed off OEMs, who, in turn, turned to Android (and webOS for HP) - which in turn pissed off Microsoft, leading to Surface. Had Microsoft gotten its act together sooner, we'd have had far better OEM products.
Permalink for comment 523719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Its Microsoft's mess.
by Nelson on Mon 25th Jun 2012 11:12 UTC
Member since:

OEMs have always been terrible. Everyone knows that. They fucking suck at the job they do. But they've always been a vehicle for form factor diversity and reach.

Microsoft is wrong to blame them for a failed tablet when Windows 7 quite frankly wasn't up to the task of touch computing.

Those are two separate things. I think conflating the two is a mistake.

Microsoft Surface makes sense because of reason #1. OEMs in general, even with perfect conditions, fucking suck.

Reply Score: 5