Do or die: Windows RT decision looms for new Microsoft ...

Microsoft's fourth quarter unravels, Surface RT bet a flop

Microsoft's fourth quarter earnings and sales missed expectations by a wide margin as the PC market slowdown and a writedown of Surface RT inventory painted a bleak picture.
The company reported fourth quarter earnings of $4.97 billion, or 59 cents a share, on revenue of $19.9 billion. The results include a $900 million inventory writedown for Surface RT that amounts to 7 cents a share. No matter how you slice it Microsoft was walloped.

Click to expand...

Microsoft's fourth quarter unravels, Surface RT bet a flop | Microsoft - CNET News

And M$ wants to build more of these in 8" good luck M$.

LOL...it's mind-boggling how they seem to persist in their obviously flawed marketing strategy

The business strategy on paper was fine .. I'm sure many boardroom discussions centered around biting into the lucrative mobile computing market - but damn their execution sucks! now there's a development channel restructure? just proves how unsuccessful their planning had been.....not that the likes of Apple succeeded immediately but then they were breaking new grounds..anyway lets see what this restructure brings to the table..

it is called group-think what went on in that board room. Or GM corporate culture. None of the people with a brain is allowed to criticize, and everyone who disagrees is a traitor. that is how GM developed the Aztek

I'm even surprised there is room for three eco-systems. But besides iOS and android MS only can establish W8 (non-RT) as a viable option since it can build on legacy x86 software and the ever important corporate use of MS products such as outlook, Word etc.

I really don't understand how people buy an RT tablet since it doesn't have an ecosystem (like the cheaper Android devices). the device likley is fine, but software is everything (whether you call it program, or app). Maybe all those RT buyers thought it woudl be a lower version of the surface PRo and wondered why non of their software installed....

Funny, but people said the same thing about Windows 1.0. They said the same thing about Windows NT. They said the same thing about the Xbox. They said the same about Windows CE/Mobile/Phone.

Know what all those things have in common? They were "failures" when first released, but evolved over time to become good products that took over their markets because Microsoft invested the time and money into them.

You're absolutely ignorant of Microsoft's history if you think a few poor release are going to spell the doom for this or any product Microsoft believes in.

They have had a few that they decided to abandon after a valiant effort.

Interesting to see what Stevie B is doing. Sharp operator in many ways.

He is expecting to get a much better percentage of the tablet market. Probably the pc sales will putter along much as now - a small uplift is possible if the public find 8.1 less repellant than 8.

He really ought to get a better chunk of tablets. Growing market, big ad spend, lower license fees, oem platform subsidies, huge presence on the shelves.

If he doesn't get 20% or more, that won't be great. Margins on the devices will help disguise lower income from licenses. If he manages that, he will claim progress.

A lot depends on other factors - not least what Apple, Samsung, etc come up with. I think he will keep a lid on the situation with most oem's. They will likely release a few experimental linux/android alternatives, but if Stevie B gets his way, they won't get much prominence.

Mystere said:

Funny, but people said the same thing about Windows 1.0. They said the same thing about Windows NT. They said the same thing about the Xbox. They said the same about Windows CE/Mobile/Phone.

Know what all those things have in common? They were "failures" when first released, but evolved over time to become good products that took over their markets because Microsoft invested the time and money into them.

You're absolutely ignorant of Microsoft's history if you think a few poor release are going to spell the doom for this or any product Microsoft believes in.

Click to expand...

All your examples have something else in common: MS did not already have a well-established alternative with 95% market penetration and the entire world running it. W8 on mobile platforms will be a success by default since every commercial productivity software is compatible to Windows. So if apple/android don't kill RT on their own, W8 will.

If i don't care about professional software, android/iOS have plenty of toys and tools for me. If i want professional applications, W8 is there. but what exact niche does RT fill? the niche of people who want a device with no useful software available?

Really? You're saying Microsoft did not have DOS that ran most of the computers when they introduced Windows 1.0? You're saying Microsoft didn't have Windows 3.x which ran most of the computers when Microsoft introduced Windows NT?

What exactly are you talking about?

What happened before is history ( couldn't care less what circumstances existed then - there is no reason to expect that to repeat anyhow) - I'm just calling it as I see it now - given the market they are trying to capture and the advantage their competitors have..time will tell

MS and the industry is in a transitional phase right now. The next few months with WP 8.1 and the release of tablets on Haswell and Silvermont will usher in a new era.

Dish out all the punches you can for now.

Mystere said:

Really? You're saying Microsoft did not have DOS that ran most of the computers when they introduced Windows 1.0? You're saying Microsoft didn't have Windows 3.x which ran most of the computers when Microsoft introduced Windows NT?

What exactly are you talking about?

Click to expand...

you do realize that DOS (text/keyboard UI) and windows (grafics/mouse UI) are totally different for the user while W8 and windows RT look and work almost the same way? (this is why most people don't even know there is a difference.... not many people failed to realize the difference between DOS and windows)

You also don't realize that W 3.x and windows NT were totally different in terms of multitasking, network capability, stability?

Windows NT 3.1 looked *EXACTLY* like Windows 3.1. Exactly. The exact same Program Manager Inteface. Of course you couldn't buy Windows NT in stores really, and it was a lot more money.. but my point was more about the fact that Microsoft has released new products that failed to be successes in their first, second, maybe even third versions.. Microsoft sticks with them.

The fact is, Microsoft's release strategy takes this into account in most cases. They understand that the first version is typically only bought by early adopters. They also tend to want to get the product out early, and cut a lot of the features they want in the product, and those features don't make it into the product until 2 or 3 releases later. It's not until the more fully featured version is out that it becomes more popular.

For instance, Windows NT 3.1 was originally released without OLE 2 (ie, only the crappy DDE based OLE from the Windows 2.x era). despite the fact that OLE2 was already long out for 2 years in Windows 3.1.

Mystere said:

Windows NT 3.1 looked *EXACTLY* like Windows 3.1. Exactly. The exact same Program Manager Inteface. Of course you couldn't buy Windows NT in stores really, and it was a lot more money.. but my point was more about the fact that Microsoft has released new products that failed to be successes in their first, second, maybe even third versions.. Microsoft sticks with them.

The fact is, Microsoft's release strategy takes this into account in most cases. They understand that the first version is typically only bought by early adopters. They also tend to want to get the product out early, and cut a lot of the features they want in the product, and those features don't make it into the product until 2 or 3 releases later. It's not until the more fully featured version is out that it becomes more popular.

For instance, Windows NT 3.1 was originally released without OLE 2 (ie, only the crappy DDE based OLE from the Windows 2.x era). despite the fact that OLE2 was already long out for 2 years in Windows 3.1.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how NT 3.1. looked like, but "NT" which you originally said sure looked different than 3.1. And NT (whichever version) was the professional/enterprise version with NeTwork capability, but not the capability for as much gaming.

W8 and RT on the other hand are both suitable for home and professional use (if RT had all the software....) and both have similar capabilities as far as tablets go. So they directly compte with each other, which W 3.1 and NT (whichever version) didn't. With W 2000 and XP MS finally unified home and professional OS.

Hi there
Why did Ms have to bring out RT in the first place unless W8 was intended for desktops and RT destined for mobiles --now that could have made sense. Using "Metacode" a lot of W8 apps COULD run on ARM type architecture -- the Source is translated by a "metacompiler" which is done at the microcode level so you'd have two different OS's running similar apps but under a different GUI.

Everyone would have had the best of both worlds with that solution -- now we have a half baked OS which is neither Desktop or Mobile and an "Orphan OS" (RT) which is going nowhere and why on earth would YOU as a consumer buy a product that you know is going to be abandoned even before the warranty on the hardware has run out.

BTW Windows NT was possibly the most "User Aggressive" Os ever in the entire history of OS'es -- maybe at an enterprise level for servers but for home use it was a total and unmitigated disaster -- even simple things like getting a network configured was a real dogs dinner -- remember RAS and all those horrible things. As for "Plug 'n Play" devices - forget it and even THINKING about attaching any sort of USB device was going to end in tears.

No wonder we called Windows NT - Windows No Thanks or Windows Neanderthal. Windows 2000 was a much better bet all round and then that morphed into Windows 2003 server and Windows XP which we all know lasted far far longer than Ms ever anticipated.

Cheers
jimbo

I have NT4, and, while it's a lot of fun to play with, I wouldn't consider using it as my main OS.

Not then, not now.

It runs nicely in VIrtual-Box, and is not net-connected.

Wenda.