Posted on 06/23/2012 7:18:05 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
Many have scoffed at the idea that Redmond's tablet will succeed. But there are three crucial reasons to take the effort seriously. By Don Sears
FORTUNE -- Do not underestimate Microsoft's Surface tablet move. Its gambit to design and build its own hardware is a bold play to develop a thriving ecosystem of new products. It is centered on Microsoft's dominant property: the operating system. Monday's flashy Surface launch may have felt like an Apple event with its bright, pastel-colored keyboard, slick introductory videos and breathless hyping from little-known engineers. But, in fact, Microsoft's play is anything but Apple-like. The company is clearly trying to make tablets into hybrid PC-mobile devices, something its California rival has said is a bad idea. We don't yet know all of Surface's details -- battery life, pricing, official release dates are all to-be-determined for instance. But here are three important reasons Microsoft's Surface is likely to be anything but dead on arrival:
Reason #1: Microsoft can build an ecosystem
Microsoft (MSFT) has had success in the consumer market with the Xbox and most recently with the Kinect motion-control devices. The Xbox has become a household name with major brand extensions as an entertainment device. Microsoft disrupted gaming, and it can disrupt hardware.
Microsoft has serious engineering chops. Josh Topolosky, Editor-in-Chief of The Verge and not exactly a fanboy, was blown away by a visit to Microsoft's R&D in 2011. He wrote of that visit: "[MS] showed me a project … which would allow you to create a virtual window from one room to another, utilizing a variety of display, motion sensing, and 3D technologies… dubbed … the 'magic wall.' It was nuts. It was awesome. It was ambitious. The whole time, all I could think was: where has Microsoft been hiding guys like this?"
(Excerpt) Read more at tech.fortune.cnn.com ...
Apple updates???
You have got to be the biggest joker in your neighborhood.
What Apple does, is to include a small new feature, with each “update”, in order to extract more money from the iFanatics, such as you.
But, keep watching the market, and, within a year or two, Apple will be right back where they were 4 years ago, and going downhill faster after that. Barring some new “miraculous” innovation from Apple (which they will have copied from some other company), the same iGadgets won’t be keeping Apple riding so high.
>>But, I’ll give you a chance to get in on the effort
You’re a delusional BS artist who self-report’s that their PC is full of Malware.
Put up the URL or STFU and stop selling your Ponzi scheme on FR.
Apple will flame out mid-2013 same as over-hyped Netflix. and will be remembered as overpriced thieves who got billions of rejection notices once the slobs and plebes woke up
[You had to dig very far and deep]
No, it took about 2 minutes - if that.
Empty bank accounts and a system full of Malware.
You said it. You own it.
FAIL
You've been extremely wrong every year for the last few years. Why should you be right this time?
So, completely new screen, completely new CPU, completely new GPU, completely new case -- completely new all hardware, coupled with a major OS update, is a "small new feature" to you, as long as it's Apple doing the update. Yet you probably think a simple accessory for the XBox is a major revolution, the Kinect.
Apple will be right back where they were 4 years ago
Let's see, in July 2008 the iPhone 3G had just been released, and sold an unprecedented one million units in only three days, doing what it took the original iPhone over two months to do. It would surpass overall Blackberry sales a few months later, the sealing the death of their mobile business. Four years ago, Apple was a few years into the beginning of a huge climb.
So if Apple is where it was four years ago, the outlook is indeed rosy. You may have finally made a correct prediction about Apple's future strength.
Barring some new “miraculous” innovation from Apple (which they will have copied from some other company),
As I say, Apple is usually not the first to do something, but Apple is often the first to do it right.
People had done touch phones, never well enough to get the buying public excited about it, until the iPhone redefined it (at the time everybody thought smart phones needed a stylus and/or a keyboard). The public had resoundingly rejected tablets until Apple reinvented them. Digital music players were mostly geek toys until the iPod came around (PC users were pissed because they couldn't use one, it was Mac-only originally). Online music stores had existed, but were kludgy and restricted your use of the music too much, then came the user-friendly iTunes Store. Even the GUI idea from Xerox wasn't really usable for a personal computer, Apple was responsible for making the idea work.
So, yes, another great implementation is likely for Apple given the history. It is possible others had worked with that idea before with little commercial success, but yet again it will be Apple that does it right so that people will want to buy them.
I notice no more talk about R&D and purchasing companies since I mentioned Apple's hard-core chip and metallurgy R&D, and Microsoft's $6.2 billion spanking for trying to "diversify" just for the sake of it ("Ooh, the online ad business is hot, let's buy a company so we can get into it!"). Apple buys strategically to strengthen products and solidify supply of appropriate technology.
You don’t get it, do you?
When it comes to an iPhone, each new iteration has not been drastically different from the previous, and likewise, with the iPad.
In fact, what people needed an iPhone version one for, they could still do with version 2 and 3 and 4. Likewise with the iPad, where, what the iPad 2 could do, the iPad 1 could do. Changing the screen to higher resolution, or the CPU or GPU, is not something which was needed in order for people to get things done that a smartphone needed to do. Most people don’t need a 4 core CPU or 12 GPUs, or even a retina screen to see what is on those tiny screens. In fact, most of what’s on the later versions of the iPhones and iPads, is overkill and go mostly unused The only people that get excited by the faster and better components, are the techies and geeks. Most regular people don’t really care, as long as the device performs as expected or promised. In the end, the biggest reason for Apple to include the faster CPU or the multi-core CPUs, or the better graphic cards, is to create a new sales cycle in order to keep the iFanatics buying and the riches flowing into Apple’s bank accounts.
But, if you’re one of those that still insists that, whatever Apple dictates is what you need, then go ahead and continue giving your money away; it won’t matter to me. But, eventually, most other smart people will begin to realize that, they don’t really need to keep “upgrading” every time Apple says it’s time to add a new feature or speed up the processor or change the screen to something that won’t really make much of a difference in the “real” world.
Like I keep saying, Apple’s time will be quickly be coming to an end in about 2 years. People won’t continue being had, and they’re wising up. Why won’t you?
You don’t get it, do you?
When it comes to an iPhone, each new iteration has not been drastically different from the previous, and likewise, with the iPad.
In fact, what people needed an iPhone version one for, they could still do with version 2 and 3 and 4. Likewise with the iPad, where, what the iPad 2 could do, the iPad 1 could do. Changing the screen to higher resolution, or the CPU or GPU, is not something which was needed in order for people to get things done that a smartphone needed to do. Most people don’t need a 4 core CPU or 12 GPUs, or even a retina screen to see what is on those tiny screens. In fact, most of what’s on the later versions of the iPhones and iPads, is overkill and go mostly unused The only people that get excited by the faster and better components, are the techies and geeks. Most regular people don’t really care, as long as the device performs as expected or promised. In the end, the biggest reason for Apple to include the faster CPU or the multi-core CPUs, or the better graphic cards, is to create a new sales cycle in order to keep the iFanatics buying and the riches flowing into Apple’s bank accounts.
But, if you’re one of those that still insists that, whatever Apple dictates is what you need, then go ahead and continue giving your money away; it won’t matter to me. But, eventually, most other smart people will begin to realize that, they don’t really need to keep “upgrading” every time Apple says it’s time to add a new feature or speed up the processor or change the screen to something that won’t really make much of a difference in the “real” world.
Like I keep saying, Apple’s time will be quickly be coming to an end in about 2 years. People won’t continue being had, and they’re wising up. Why won’t you?
“Fail” only to the dopes who don’t understand the context of my comments/posts.
I’m not an admin, and I’m not a hardware person. I do know more about application development than most people out there, and no doubt, a lot more than you.
Now, go and annoy your mother. You’ve stopped being an amusement to me a long time ago.
Oh I know quite a few competent developers and none of them have empty bank accounts or systems filled with malware...like you’ve said you do. Or were you lying?
All you say is true about the Cuppertino cabal and their marginal upgrades to Iphones and Ipads. Competing with Asians that design and manufacture your products is hilarious. Apple will be totally ripped off in 3 years. History shows technology always diffuses
Apple is done. They have no more greatest hits in the pipeline except for one. Possibly. This would be jacking the iPhone into a device that interacts with point of sale machines which replaces credit cards eventually. The gay boys at Apple would love to skim half a percent off that action so they can retire early to a large vacation house in Fire Island
So according to you, a complete new hardware replacement that is several times as fast in CPU and GPU power is not drastically different. Okay, admit the XBox was just such a useless iteration going to the XBox 360.
In fact, what people needed an iPhone version one for, they could still do with version 2 and 3 and 4.
What you needed an XBox for, you could do with a 360. You are thinking standing still. Companies tend to advance what you can do with the devices, and that changes the usage.
Changing the screen to higher resolution, or the CPU or GPU, is not something which was needed in order for people to get things done that a smartphone needed to do.
Up until recently, many Android phones experienced serious UI lag because the CPU wasn't fast enough. Mine even had a problem answering the phone fast enough. Music would hang, there would be a wait, then the phone answering part would come on, and several rings in I could actually answer the phone if I hadn't already missed the call. There will eventually be a point of diminishing returns for CPU, but more power has been needed over the last few years.
As for GPU, duh, gaming. Also, on iOS the GPU is heavily used for rendering the screen. Also, the GPU is leveraged for video in most phones.
As for the screen, I am very thankful for my Retina screen on the iPhone. It is much easier on my eyes than a regular screen. No more squinting or holding the phone closer, less need to enlarge web page content because small text is rendered so finely I can actually read it.
Apple just needs to keep improving the product, staying ahead of the competition, to keep the profits rolling in. There is no indication Apple has decided to stop doing so. And that's considering Apple doesn't pull another iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad to revolutionize yet another market and be on top of it. Given this solid history, there is no logical reason Apple will stop.
The only people that get excited by the faster and better components, are the techies and geeks. Most regular people don’t really care, as long as the device performs as expected or promised
Exactly, and that's what Apple concentrates on, the overal user experience, from sales, to opening the box, to using it, to support. On OS X Apple was known to finely tune UI performance even at the expense of back-end performance in order to give the FEEL of a more responsive system. A few milliseconds here and there in UI responsiveness really adds up to what the user percieves as performance regardless of the hardware specs. This is why Apple pioneered GPU rendering of the UI, even with low CPU specs on the sheet a fully composited and animated high-resolution UI can be delivered.
Even though another device can have better paper specs (*cough* Surface *cough*), the Apple device is usually preferable for exactly the reason of a tight focus on the user experience.
I bet you didn't know Apple created various versions of the Apple Stores in a warehouse and had people walk through. The successful layout (far more $ per square foot profit than another other electronics retailer) was a result of painstaking tests, not accident. Hell, on street-front stores, Apple even lines up the expansion lines in the sidewalk concrete with the lines in the window glass to give a clean appearance.
Look at a laptop now. See the little power LED light? See it when it's not on? Why? Why do you need to see a light that's not on? Apple thought that. Micro-holes are laser-drilled through a thinned portion of the machined aluminum housing in front of the LED that's inside the case. You can't see it because the holes are so small. But you can see it when it's on. With the old Cube Apple went so far as to use the USB connection between computer and monitor to sync-up the pulsing (pulsing, not blinking or flashing) standby lights on the monitor and computer.
This obsessive-compulsive attention to detail in the tiniest aspect of total user experience is another cornerstone of the reason Apple is on top. Apple will remain on top until someone else gets that bug.
they don’t really need to keep “upgrading” every time Apple says it’s time to add a new feature or speed up the processor
This applies to all electronics manufacturers, Apple and the competition equally. Samsung wanted you to get a Galaxy S, then an S II, then an S III. Microsoft wanted to you go from Windows XP to Vista (hahaha, just kidding) to Windows 7, and now wants you to go to Windows 8.
People won’t continue being had, and they’re wising up. Why won’t you?
Because, relative to the Apple offerings, everybody else is producing crap. Apple is popular because people wised up to the crap that was out there.
The Galaxy SIII looks good on a spec sheet, but feels cheap. The tablet competition are like cheap plastic toys. I can take an Acer notebook, twist it, and hear it creak and give. This doesn't happen with a solidly-built Apple notebook. And those are the deficiencies easy to see before it's even turned on.
Kind of like Microsoft just started to do with the subject of this thread?
Sorry, manufacturers panic at the prospect of losing Apple's business. Even though Apple and Samsung are fighting it out over phones and tablets, Samsung desperately wants to hold on to the chip fab and NAND business that solidly brings in billions of dollars regardless of how well Samsung's copycat tablets sell (or, rather, don't sell). Despite that, Apple is already building up sourcing of those from other manufacturers, paying billions to get them up to speed.
Apple will be totally ripped off in 3 years.
You were first saying that how many years ago? The copycats can never seem to keep up though. No manufacturer dares to backdoor night-shift Apple products for fear of being dropped and losing a very lucrative contract, and probably having to pay back the hundreds of millions Apple spent to get their manufacturing up to speed.
You keep going back to Apple adding things to iPhones and iPads, but, those additions, didn’t materially make the iPhones or iPads any more functional. Faster perhaps, and perhaps capable of multi-tasking, and perhaps a sharper screen. But, none of those things were actually necessary for the features and functionality which people use their phones for. I’m one of those, as a techie, that likes things like multi-processors/multi-cores and nicer/brighter screens, but, functionally, they really aren’t needed for smartphones and for tablets. Nokia demonstrated with the Nokia 900 that, a single core processor can be as capable as a multi-core processor, and that a nice bright/sharp screen is more than enough for what people use those gadgets for. With Windows 8, Microsoft is, in a way, forcing the smartphone and tablet manufacturers to increase the number of cores and to add multi-tasking capabilities, but, it’s more of a move to keep Windows phones in competitive mode, and the same would apply to future Windows tablets. But, the general public wasn’t really in need of a retina display, or a 4-core processor. Most don’t even know what’s in their smartphones, and wouldn’t understand it. But, Apple and other OEMs will keep adding to those gadgets and other computing equipment, just to get a refresh of their computing devices, and with it, a new cycle of sales, which of course, means more cash in the manufacturer’s coffers.
Me, personally, I’d like to have a million-cores in my tablet, with a 50,000 pixels/inch display, but then, I’m not a regular user. I love gadgetry and I love superior tech, but, for most of the regular people out there, it’s overkill, and most of the tech inside those gadgets goes unused. In fact, are you aware that, most developers don’t even know how to program efficiently or at all for multi-tasking? And yet, people are being sold on tech that’s unnecessary or overkill. It’s like selling a car to the public that can go 300 miles per hour, which they’ll never use at beyond 70 mph. Most of the tech is for bragging rights, and for fresh new sales cycles. And then, because the tech is superior to the older tech, the Apple will take advantage and charge people a premium price, with prices that are way over what other manufacturers charge for similarly equipment gadgets.
Like I said, Apple had better keep taking advantage of people while they can, because, the time is fast approaching when people will realize that, they’ve been had. In one or two years, the jig will be up.
Yes, they did. An iPhone 4S is noticeably smoother in use than an iPhone 3GS with the latest OS applied. Smoothness is especially important in a phone, where no matter what's going on in the background you need call functionality to be perfect (unlike my old Android phone). The only way to do this is multiple cores.
Nokia demonstrated with the Nokia 900 that, a single core processor can be as capable as a multi-core processor
For the record, this is the phone that sucked so bad they had to start giving it away, right? Microsoft's already abandoned it. Windows 7 will get an update or two more, and then die. Windows 8 is not backward compatible either, so what's the incentive for anyone to buy apps on the platform?
But, the general public wasn’t really in need of a retina display, or a 4-core processor.
Retina display isn't a need for all, but it is sure nice to have. You have to use it to appreciate it, because now I couldn't go back (I was blind but now I see!). The Retina display wasn't just a spec sheet check, it was a direct usability improvement, which is the kind of thing Apple goes for.
As far as 4-core being needed today, that's probably why Apple has stuck with two cores for now. My iPhone 4S works just fine with two cores at 800 MHz. Apple will not put more power than is necessary because Apple doesn't go by spec sheet alone. Extra cores would mean lower battery life, and battery life is more important to Apple than comparing core counts on a spec sheet. So according to what you say above, this should be a positive thing in your book. But here's where Apple haters say "So Apple is selling a low-spec phone for a normal price, what a rip-off!" You would like to have it both ways, wouldn't you?
Apple hasn't even gone 4G because of spotty availability and horrible battery life with the current generation of chipsets. Apple chose to forego that spec sheet check because the overall user experience could be hurt. There is no technical reason why Apple couldn't have put it in.
But, Apple and other OEMs will keep adding to those gadgets
That is generally true across the board for many industries. Even bicycle makers keep improving their products. The desire to make something even better, to stay ahead of the competition, is in most entrepreneurs. But at least now you're not confining your complaints to Apple.
In fact, are you aware that, most developers don’t even know how to program efficiently or at all for multi-tasking?
Yes, if you are referring to multithreading. Are you aware that when developing for Apple, most of the grunt work of multithreading is done for you? Some operations, like calling animations, are even automatically multithreaded. That and other operations (especially those done on graphics, audio or video) are also automatically performed on the GPU if that would be faster.
Like I said, Apple had better keep taking advantage of people while they can, because, the time is fast approaching when people will realize that, they’ve been had
Same is true for all manufacturers then. The one that will win is the one that differentiates itself from the pack and consistently delivers products that enhance the user experience.
BTW, see the latest article about Microsoft's "Lost Decade" in Vanity Fair? Ex-employees talk about how management killed Microsoft. I didn't know Microsoft had an e-reader in the works in 1998, did you? Of course not, because Microsoft's myopic, Windows-focused management killed it. It was moved under Office, and there the idea was that Office works with a pen or mouse, and your product doesn't have a pen or mouse, so it's a no-go. Microsoft could have founded the e-reader craze, and most e-readers could be using a Microsoft operating system instead of Android. But, no, now Microsoft sits on the sidelines because of poor management. There might have been an effort at Microsoft to make a touch-screen tablet like the iPad, and it was killed because "It's not regular Windows."
Like I said way back, Microsoft: Lots of talented engineers strangled by visionless management.
Yawn.
Once again you vociferously demonstrate that arrogance is all you’ve got under your big hat.
Where are those screenshots, Wiley?
>>Encountering a problem (one little problem at that),
So little you just had to post a vanity (vanity is evidently your true Forte) to demonstrate your superior technical knowledge. Uhuh.
L O (just because it irritates you) L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.