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 523728
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Its Microsoft's mess.
by Neolander on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:04 UTC in reply to "Its Microsoft's mess."
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

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

But as you say yourself in the very same post...

(...) they've always been a vehicle for form factor diversity and reach.

The reality is that OEMs are often the least awful option. Limit yourself to one single OEM per OS, and what you get is Apple : Don't like virtual keyboards on 3.5" screens ? Don't like to have the Inquisition decide which software is best for you ? Don't like that you have to pay hundreds of dollars to replace a friggin' laptop battery ? The answer is always "get used to it". Only a healthy OEM ecosystem can allow users to get a reasonable level of hardware and software diversity.

Reply Parent Score: 3