Why Microsoft's Surface needs to beat the iPad
Microsoft has now officially announced the Surface -- more specifically the Microsoft Surface for Windows RT and the Microsoft Surface for Windows 8 Pro. The difference in branding between Apple's disyllabic iPad and Microsoft's mouthful of a brand highlights the almost diametrically opposed philosophies behind the two approaches as well.
iPad is singular and mobile native. Surface is bifurcated and seeks to bridge the divide between mobile immigrant and native. iPad is the epitome of Steve Jobs' obsession to simplify and democratize computing, desperate to dent the universe and drag the mainstream into the future. Surface is the epitome of Steve Ballmer's obsession with Windows, a Microsoft wounded and waylaid by anti-trust desperate to maintain some of their desktop relevance in the age of internet and interconnected devices.
Apple mainstreamed the command-line interface with the Apple II, but Microsoft was right there with DOS. Apple mainstreamed the graphical interface but Microsoft stole the show with Windows and Office. Apple revolutionized digital music and the MP3 player with iTunes and the iPod, and Microsoft crashed and burned with Windows Media and PlaysForSure, tried again with the inspired but insufficient Zune, and crashed again. Apple ignored the home console while Nintendo and Sony made fortunes in the living room, but Microsoft pushed ahead with Xbox, leapt forward with Xbox 360, and willed their way past red-rings and incumbents and into the huge success. (Apple later tested the waters with Apple TV and AirPlay.) Apple ignored the search engine while Google indexed and monetized us down to our last datum, but Microsoft broke open the bank to get into that game, and remains at the edge of the field with Bing. Apple revolutionized the smartphone with iPhone, and Microsoft ignored it to Windows Mobile's detriment, and now struggles still with the adorable but ill-adored Windows Phone. And Apple once again democratized and mainstreamed computing even further with the iPad, after Microsoft failed for a decade with Tablet PC, and then failed to respond for years more.
A fighter who doesn't lose is unbeatable. Until he does. Ask Tyson. Ask Fedor. Ask Apple in the 1990s. Winning and losing are habitual. Momentum matters. To lose repeatedly, even when you won everything in the past -- especially when you won everything in the past -- hurts the soul. And comebacks are hard.
Re-invention is tough for businesses. Even in the rapidly moving technology space. Especially in the rapidly moving technology space.
Microsoft bet big on Windows, and with muscle and resolve they won what was up until now the biggest prize in technological history. But they lost badly on the internet. They've been bloodied in media, though the fight is far from over. And their mobile strategy has seen them ground-and-pounded through a mess of partnerships, Kins, and new partnerships.
Now they have Surface. And now they have to win.
That's not hyperbole. Sure, technically they have a huge legacy install base and plenty of money, but so did IBM in their time. And the company before IBM, whose name I no longer remember.
This isn't simply a fight for install base or money. It's not a fight for the future. It's a fight to be the future. A fight to matter.
Apple currently enjoys the type of success normally only attained by oligopolies in control of limited fossil fuel resources. Google has replaced Microsoft as the giant of the tech industry under whose feet other companies fear to stumble. Facebook may be the social network, or just the latest in a series of them, but their mindshare is growing as fast as their user base did. And Amazon is coming, especially once they make a serious international play.
There's no better sign of just how critical mobile is to Microsoft and Steve Ballmer than their willingness to make their own hardware. Mice and keyboard slides aside, Microsoft is a platform company. Their preference is to make powerful, hugely profitable software for a variety of commodity hardware partners.
They only made the Xbox and Zune because the content market couldn't be won by partnerships alone.
Tablet PC was abysmal. Windows 7 was a traditional desktop operating system, bound to hot, power-hungry Intel chips, with "finger friendliness" bolted on. Windows Phone was refreshing, and "authentically digital" but artificially constrained to tiny screens.
Microsoft's partners have been waiting for something competitive with the iPad. Enterprise hasn't even waited -- they've bought iPads.
All of that is on Microsoft and Steve Ballmer. Even though Apple telegraphed the iPad over 5 years ago with the advent of the iPhone, they didn't take either seriously. But their customers certainly did.
To embrace and extend Steve Jobs' metaphor, Microsoft is about to become just another truck company in a car-centric world, and they know it. Windows 8, and to a large extent, the Surface, is their play to stay relevant. To be the cross-over. The minivan. The SUV.
And it's a daring play. Consumers have thus far overwhelmingly voted on the iPad. With their wallets. They haven't wanted anything more complex. They've actively avoided it. HP failed. RIM failed. Google is failing in tablets.
To the tens of millions of consumers for whom traditional computers have always been intimidating and inaccessible, the iPad has been just the focus and simplicity they've been looking for.
Enterprises, meanwhile, have gone BYOD (bring your own device), testing and deploying iPads faster than just about any technology in history. Usability finally found a way to beat checkboxes on the IT buy list, and there's no going back.
And yet Microsoft is hoping they can get consumers and enterprise to make a different compromise.
No one, not Microsoft, not Apple, not Google can be all things to all users with all software on all devices. Every choice has a cost. Every decision is a compromise. And mobile is an extremely harsh environment. Microsoft is hoping users will compromise on the focus and simplicity of the iPhone for the flexibility and functionality of Windows 8 and Surface, and that's anything but a sure bet.
In fact, the Windows 8 mobile strategy is Microsoft's and Steve Ballmer's biggest gamble ever. If they lose, Ballmer may not be at the helm much longer, and Microsoft might have to console themselves to fortune absent relevance.
There's no better sign of that than Microsoft's rush to show the Surface off in between Apple's WWDC 2012 and Google I/O 2012, before they even had pricing or availability, before they even offered screen resolution for their Pro model, or battery life for either. Before they could even take pre-orders. Before their partners could start marketing their hardware. And to be clear, until Surface ships it's not an iPad competitor, an ultrabook competitor, or even a PlayBook competitor. It's a promo video.
Once that'We can quibble about what will define a win here for Microsoft -- what metrics and markets will be used as the measure. But that win has to be there. It's getting towards the last round, and they're all out of rope-a-dope.
There'll always be a place for not-Apple. We need not-Apple. And Microsoft can always keep trying with Windows 9 and beyond. But if Surface and Windows 8 fail, it might not matter anymore. Not for Microsoft.
Get the best of iMore in your inbox, every day!
Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.
"...before they even offered screen resolution for their Pro model"
If you actually attended or watched the video of Microsoft's presentation on the Surface (and paid attention), you would know that the project lead actually stated that the Pro has Full HD and he specifically meantioned 1080 resolution. For any modestly-tech-savvy person, that translates to 1920x1080 for the Surface Pro.
"Google is failing in tablets."
Really? This article in the LA Times says that iPad market share is dropping and Android tablet marketshare rose to 39% in Q4 2011. Maybe an actual journalist somewhere will report newer actual sales statistics, instead of spouting opinions as facts.
Market share is the percentage of tablets shipped in a quarter. No one ever knows how many actually go home with consumers.
I find it odd that they rarely share sales numbers of tablets... since they're always quick to point out how many phones they sell.
It's funny... just one month after that LA Times article... here comes Samsung with a shocking announcement:
"We're not doing very well in the tablet market" - Samsung, February 2012
And they're supposed to be one of the biggest Android tablet manufacturers... right?
A lot of it reads out like biased Apple hate coming from the place where Apple hate is greatest, the IT sector.
And even if it's accurate, who cares? It doesn't change the fact that Android is certainly not failing at tablets. And since Google still controls Android, Google is not failing at tablets, either.
Further, since Android tablets have not been around nearly as long, and they are making huge strides in taking marketshare from iPads, AND Apple's advancement of tablet technology and mobile OS technology is CLEARLY on the decline (based on the number of people even within the Apple "ecosystem" who are complaining about how the New iPad and iOS 6 both provided minimal real advancements), I think there's a pretty good case for arguing that Google (i.e. Android) is actually WINNING in the tablet market right now.
And as for reading out like hate, please quote something from my post that suggests Apple hate. Hate for fanboi editorializing posing as journalism, yes? Hate for Apple, no.
I dunno I see 6 iOS devices in my wanderings in Seattle for every one non-iOS and that includes Kindle and Xoom and all those ones. I'm sincere now: who is buying all the Android devices? where do they live, demographically and all that?
And it CERTAINLY puts the lie to the article's statement that Google is failing in the tablet market.
Could not agree more. I travel the entire East Coast and fly over 100K miles a year. I would say, based on what I see in airports and in the marketplace, more of a 10 to 1 Apple to Android ratio. When I see someone on a devise other than iPad I am always curious to see which device they are on.
And this does not count on the numerous businesses I call on that use iPad for their entire sales staff. Have yet to come across any other device used for this purpose.
1) MS, more than Apple, deserves credit for the first wave of democratization. The Apple II was great (and my first computer), but DOS and WIndows opened personal computing to several orders of magnitude more people than did the Apple II, the Lisa, and the Mac combined. The Apple of the 1980s was too focused on profit margin to have the democratizing impact they could have had.
2) Apple did try for the console market, with the ill-fated Pippin in the mid-1990s, during the Playstation/Sega Saturn generation. Never heard of it? That is how badly it flopped.
3) MS losing in the 2000s is bigger than Apple in the 1990s, Fedor, Tyson, and Stanford over USC in 2007 combined. Fairly or not, Ballmer's legacy is cemented as the guy who started with a virtually insurmountable lead, and presided over a series of missteps that allowed others (primarily Apple) to sneak into their market and define entirely new ones.
Excellent commentary, as usual.
Apple made (and makes) proprietary hardware and you can't run their OS on anything else.
Microsoft made (and makes) Operating Systems that you can run on anybody's hardware that you choose, so long as it meets basic specs. THAT is what democratized the PC market.
Apple has (and continues to) try to dictatorize the market, really.
Can there ever be ties?
In May of 2012, the Windows family of OS's accounted for over 80% of connected devices browsing the web (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp). Apple has been slowly climbing in usage (up to almost 10%) and will continue to make a push. Personally, I prefer OS X over Windows, but both platforms have their pros and cons.
To say that Microsoft's future relies on Windows 8 and Surface is taking it a step too far, however. Microsoft has a lot of time before their market share is seriously threatened, and by the looks of it, they are poised to make quite a stir in the tablet industry. Only good can come of this, as it ups the ante for Apple and other competitors in the mobile marketplace, which leads to better products for us, the consumers.
In the early years they had real competition and very immature applications, operating systems and networks to refine. Each new release of their products, whether innovated or stolen, marked significant strides. They capitalized on low cost of entry for devs, unlike the cost of learning RFP on your own AS400, to build on their OS, DB and Office platform. An open system made sense at that point. In the early years of MS there was a huge base of DIY IT staff that learned on the job and MacGyver'd together small and large business solutions on the cheap. There was a palpable excitement about working with MS products then.
The OS, DB and Office model has matured. Rene's point about the impact of the net is quite salient. New solutions with VM, and moving back to dumb terminals for the enterprise with Citrix and other, HTML front ends with DB2 backends, have left MS with no clear competition and direction. 20 years ago usable, reliable options were few....now they diverse, low cost and plentiful.
MS won most everything in the 80's and 90's. They have been coasting since. There are SQL Server and Office bugs (though MS doesn't call them as such) dating back 2, 3, 4 releases ago that they won't address...instead you get the Ribbon menu. They got into the habit of squeezing out "New" and have completely ignored making things work better (try using their Office for Mac software for anything other than casual, grandma depth tasks).
They will not die overnight, but they are fast losing their relevance for both the home and business user that they used to lord over. OSX and iOS don't have all the niche functionality of a Windows system, but they also lack the absurd complexity that stops 90% of users in their tracks at one point or another. And IT, either reluctantly or enthusiastically, is embracing the BYOD model. Add to that things like OpenOffice, Google Docs, etc... and MS's gaze down on their expansive empire is starting to reveal a restlessness at the borders.
MS can make a tablet, they've done it before. But until they start paying attention to details (Jobs-like focus) and stop trying to play me-too, they will continue to see defectors, their stock will be hokum and they will more and more appear to be old school. And Balmer? What a joke....I don't think he is their messiah.
When Surface is released, it will be drastically behind the curve. There are currently 225,000 third-party apps for iPad. There are zero native third-party Surface apps now. How many will there be on launch day?
And, not that specs are all that important any more, the Surface screen will have barely HDTV resolution. 3rd-gen iPad Retina display beats it easily.
Oh, and let's not forget that Apple will putting Siri on iPad when iOS 6 is rolled out. Siri will be a huge differentiator for iPad in the years to come, Apple knows it, and they'll be relentlessly adding knowledge to it.
I have noticed a funny thing. I've never heard anybody with a 60" 1080p TV complain that the resolution needs to be higher. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention. I know, for me, 1080P resolution on a 10.6" screen is WAY finer than I can distinguish. For that matter 1920x1200 on my 24" desktop monitor is finer than I can distinguish.
Retina Display is Marketing hype. And a waste of battery life and GPU power. Apple only went that high because they couldn't figure out any way to go higher than what they had on the iPad 2 (and iPhone 4) without just doubling pixel density on both axes.
Pixel doubling was the best solution because it was best to not break the hundreds of thousands of apps already coded for 1024x768. If you look at the battery life results and performance metrics, you'll find Apple did just fine.
This comparison reminds me of my latest visit to the U-Village Apple store in Seattle. I didn't know there was a Microsoft right across the parking lot but I can't say I was surprised to see the Apple store PACKED and the MS store EMPTY.
I think consumers may very well know Apple way better than they know Microsoft these days.
---"What it comes down to is a consumer isn't going to know the difference between this and an Ipad."---
I hope I'm not overestimating people, but only the drastically, debilitatingly stupid won't know the difference.
---"Ipad is nicer on the eyes, better marketing, more apps - going to be a clear winner"---
Your opinion. I think the Surface is nicer on the eyes. Marketing...MS has never been good at that. I can't disagree with you there. Apps...I've found that there are only a handful of apps that are essential to the experience. Those will most likely be there, unless literally 0 developers in the world want to develop for a platform that is liable to sell millions upon millions.
---"Although this product is interesting (tablet / ultrabook merged), it's still Windows with a coat of paint."---
I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that Windows 7 is just Windows 3.0 with a new coat of paint? Or OSX is just Apple IIe with a new coat of paint? It's a radical departure - which is a risk, yes - and isn't just a new coat of paint. If you've seen both Windows 7 and 8 you'd notice how starkly different they are.
---"We going to need Norton AV on this thing?"---
No more than any other system. OSX has as many security vulnerabilities as any other software, just a smaller, less attractive user base.
---"Hello bloatware and malware..."---
Two completely different things. Bloatware is from OEMs that have very little profit - the Surface is MS hardware, with no need for bloatware to drive profit. Malware is associated with the above (AV software), and depending on how much Pr0n a user is trying to download it won't be any worse than OSX.
---"blue screen of death anyone?"---
I've been using windows since the early 90's. I haven't had a blue screen in well over 15 years. Not. One. Problem. Is your personal experience different? What have you been doing with your computer?
---"On top of it confuse the user more with the RT vs Pro."---
Once again, I'm hoping I don't overestimate people, but that's like saying "now you're confusing people with a Macbook Air and an iPad! They'll never know the difference!!!!" They're two products, one that is full on tablet, and one that is like an ultrabook, but you have the option of having a similar interface. As easy as that. I /think/ most people have the mental faculties to get that one.
---"RT vs Ipad - Ipad clear winner with eco system, apps, LTE etc. Pro is very interesting but I just don't think it will fly."---
I dunno. I think MS has momentum against them, but if they go at it with the tenacity that they did with the Xbox I think it'll be well received. I've used Windows 8 and honestly, I think it has the freshest, funnest UI out of any of the tablets, iPad included. The Pro is what I have my eyes set on - the capabilities of it are staggering.
I think your opinion is valid, but it's no more weighty than mine and my pocket book.
"---"blue screen of death anyone?"---
I've been using windows since the early 90's. I haven't had a blue screen in well over 15 years. Not. One. Problem. Is your personal experience different? What have you been doing with your computer?"
haha. had to chime on on this. Reading this reminded me that i have never seen the blue screen of death on my windows computer ever. I had however seen the "grey screen of death" on my mac multiple times, though rarely software related. Most of them comes from a faulty graphics card.
Exactly. And Windows 8 Pro on Surface will be "...a traditional desktop operating system, bound to hot, power-hungry Intel chips, with a 'keyboard-case' magnetically stuck on."
With Perimeter Venting to blow out all that Intel-heated air. What a (sad) joke.
The real weakness here is not Microsoft it's their channel partners - HP, Dell, etc. None of them have done anything but a me too version of an Apple product in computers and tablets. Microsoft, in their defense, is showing much more design chops than the whole Win-Tel community which is another way of saying that when the partners do not succeed, then Microsoft fails too.
Clearly, someone at Microsoft gets it and is at least trying. There is a pulse there. The hardware was nice but they need to show innovation in the OS and in the cloud. And the latter cannot be a me too of something that Apple and Google do. They need something their own. They've got the pieces - Zune player, Skype, Bing search/maps, etc. But they need a different point of view that connects the consumer and the enterprise. We'll see if their software is as good as their hardware appears.
The Surface RT does seems behind the iPad as it relys on apps where as the pro is noes ahead as it can replace a pc by doing all the stuff a laptop can do. An iPad can do about half what my laptop can do.
The pro is just what the tablet market has been waiting for. A fully functional pc/tablet. Not a beefed up smart phone. I believe it should beat the iPad if it is competitively priced
When iPad 1 was released it redefined the tablet category. We could go on and on for who invented it. The defining fact is Apple is the reason why it is the category that it is today.
And, ther are very few things I CANNOT do on my iPad that I can do on a laptop. I use Excel, PP, Word, Numbers, Keynote and Pages daily with no qualm without having to lug a five pound piece of laggy, slow garbage around. Swipe, I'm ready to go.
Do you really think MS would have invested in this device had it not been for the huge success of the iPad? Yep, thought so.
The way I see it the Surface Pro version is really aimed at Enterprise customers and this is where MS will succeed with this version of the tablet. If anything, I truly believe that Surface Pro version really killed any chance that the iPad will have gaining anymore success in the enerprise.
The Surface RT version is aimed more at your everyday consumer and will compete with the iPad. This is the iPad's stranglehold and this is where MS will have a much tougher time winning against the iPad.
All I can say is let the games begin.
That is far from failure.
Microsoft will own the desktop and document space (Office) for a while to come as well.
"Microsoft for many years had convinced the world that, in order to get “real work” done, you needed Office...[customers] were as sure as the sun rises that, without Office, they would not be able to work, open attachments, write letters, anything. They had to have it.
Then...,the iPhone came. There was no Office. People got things done. Then the iPad came. There was no Office. People got things done. Android came. People got things done. All of those things that they, just a couple of years ago, were convinced they needed Office to do. They got them done without it. "
I think Rene fully understands that MS is not going to vanish if Surface flops; they have too much cash, are too entrenched, and, let's face it, their software powers an awful lot of modern economies. But Surface -- and its touted "full" flexibility compared to the iPad -- represents their latest, best attempt to recapture that we-need-Microsoft-to-get-work-done perception that propelled them to the heights they once enjoyed. And if it fails, Microsoft will find themselves out a lot of development resources, and fighting as just another player, rather than as a necessary fixture.
But I go back to what made the iphone big. Multitouch. Fun to use. People lined up around blocks for it.
An ipad? The fun experience of an iphone but on a 9.7" slate of glass. Apple gets it. Now it's ultra eye candy in the highest resolution that size screen has ever seen in a consumer product.
It didn't matter if we lost functionality. Computing is fun again. We made things work whether we're using online storage, remote apps, etc. We want to use that fun ipad. People lined up around blocks for it.
Here comes MS again. They get it too or at least part of it. People want fun to use again, not boring Windows associated with work. Here's Metro. Live updating tiles. Multitouch. Thin slates. Cool looking magnetic covers. Oh, but here's Office. And if you can put up with a heavier version, you can have it all. Our fun multitouch tiled Metro AND windows (work) behind it. Use a kb. Have your functionality too.
Only problem here is this. MS has to convince the mainstream that windows is fun to use again. Get the games, cool apps, and demo them off. Tie this to the xbox in anyway possible. If people connect to it, then this alone will renew interest in windows phones. The xbox needed Halo for initial sales. MS needs to find another Halo, be it a feature or hardware, to drive Metro. It will take much more than merely announcing the Surface.
What I am waiting for is for the first complaint/lawsuit that it is a rectangular shape, black, and shiny.
Well, that is completely subjective (except the resolution part) and debatable. But, the Surface Pro surely does beat the snot out of the iPad when it comes to empowering the user. It brings a full-on desktop OS to a tablet form factor. It provides a usable digitizing stylus technology for doing anything from drawing sketches to taking handwritten notes. And it has a SmartCover that has a built-in keyboard! The iPad may have had more apps than any other tablet. But, when the Surface Pro arrives, it will have more "apps" for it than the iPad does by a LONG shot. And they'll be more feature-rich, and available from anywhere you want to download them from. You won't have to hack your Surface Pro just to be able to run the apps you want.
"If a company produces a product that leap frogs what hasalready been done, i will gladly take notice"
The Surface Pro clearly leapfrogs the iPad. Take notice.
Come on, the Pro is a full blown PC. It may be more appropriate to compare the Surface Pro to the MacBook Air. As far as having a full on desktop OS, that hasn't worked for Microsoft in the tablet space yet. Maybe they finally get it right wih Windows 8, but the Surface Pro is still an Intel product that won't run cool and will probably eat battery. Useful stylus? I haven't seen a truly awesome capacitive stylus yet, but rest assured Apple patents have indicated Apple is doing lots of research in that area. Engadget tried demoing the smart cover. Microsoft would not let them.
The iPad will still be cheaper, but if you need a product competitive with the Pro, a MacBook Air might be a better buy anyway.
Please do and get back to us. Hmmm.. number of Windows apps in the world versus number of iPad apps... Hmmmm..... LOL!
"It may be more appropriate to compare the Surface Pro to the MacBook Air"
Ultimately, Surface Pro price will determine what to compare it to. Functionality is certainly comparable to a MBA. But, if it's 1/2 or 2/3 the price (say, $300 more than an iPad, for the same amount of storage, but with a keyboard), THAT is what it WILL get compared against.
"Useful stylus? I haven't seen a truly awesome capacitive stylus yet"
Good point. Fortunately, while a capacitive stylus is what you are limited to on an iPad, the Surface Pro provides a digitizing stylus (like the Samsung Galaxy Note, Note 10.1 Tab, HTC JetStream and Flyer, and Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet). A digitizing stylus allows a tablet to actually do real palm rejection. Microsoft's OneNote seems to be generally regarded as the best-in-class application available for taking handwritten notes and keeping them organized. I seem to recall reading that it can do text translation and, thus, support searching of handwritten notes. Nothing else offers that. A tablet that can do solid palm rejection, offers the OneNote functionality, has a 3mm thick keyboard/smartcover and still provides all the other benefits of an iPad-style tablet has the potential to completely own the tablet market amongst professional users.
iPad Apps (last figure I know is around 100.000) are SPECIFICALLY optimized to take OPTIMAL use of the screen and usage metaphor of the touch screen.
Try to use 99% of your average Windows software with a touch screen, and try to hit the 16 x 16 pixel icons with your fingertip.
Fact stays: There's currently ZERO Surface Apps.
And you accused me of posting Apple Hate??
I too would love to see the surface completely blow the doors off the iPad, and solely out of my own greed. I have immense faith in apple for innovation, and it seems to me that since the iPad was released, they have been sitting on their laurels. I cannot see them taking it lying down if the Surface does knock them from the top spot (which I'm sure it won't, but I honestly would love to see it).
I agree there needs to be games and fun apps and hopefully xbox integration. But here's the thing. I buy a PC and install the essential apps. Office, photoshop, some work related tax & accounting apps, winrar, VLC, itunes, firefox, etc.
Where's the streaming apps you ask? There are none. I don't install Netflix for example. I use a browser, firefox. I don't need an amazon app. I use a browser. I don't need banking apps. I use the browser.
So for a windows tablet, why would i want 200 apps cluttering up screens to do simple tasks that I can do in a browser? On an iphone you need the apps because the browser is limited, very limited. I do believe however windows RT has a desktop level browser built in with flash (and basically MS and only MS can provide desktop apps like IE and Office in RT). While windows 8 Pro is the windows we know with Metro.
If this is the case, Windows RT already can do much more than an ipad. And when people cry MS needs devs, and that's true, it's not as crucial as saying webOS needed dev support for example. WebOS didn't exactly have a desktop browser built in.
Apple has, over time, created this perception that we need hundreds of thousands of limited apps to choose from. I'd go nuts if i had to choose a different app each time on my desktop to perform a task instead of just using Firefox. It'd be great if i didn't have to manage hundreds of apps on a tablet to do what the browser should be able to do.
When the iPhone came out people went on rants about how thier win mobile or blackberry did everything the iPhone did. I had all these devices and the iPhone was the only device I LIKED to use the browser on.
Just because a device has the same or better specs doesn't mean it provides an experience users want.
Personally, I never want to have to use a stylus again!
Personally, I don't want to have to look across hundreds or marketplaces or websites to find the app I am looking for. I want one or few stop shopping for apps.
I don't care if my device is more limited if it give me the experience I am looking for. I believe that I have to sometimes forgo options for experience and that, above all else is what I think Apple has done the best at.
pop beats, check out demoxpress they have some nice beats for decent price.
my web blog: where to get beats