Was it the device itself that caused such poor sales? I assumed all along it was a marketing/image problem which remains unsolved. Has relentlessness by a company ever overcome this issue in the past?
Apple spent a decade getting people to understand that a $1,000 machine is worth the money. It is a lot easier for Apple to move downmarket than Microsoft to move upmarket.
The iPad is really Apple's $300-500 computer and it is cannibalizing the Windows machines because millions of people would rather use an iPad to do email and facebook and youtube than they would a junky $300 laptop that weighs 7 pounds, has a 15" display, and a 3 hour battery life.
Microsoft will probably figure out how to sell computers to consumers like Apple does, but it's a long road and it's not the bargain basement volume game that they're used to.
You got me thinking differently about this. Thanks.
People familiar with Windows want a cheap way to take their desktop with them. That's the primary audience, and introducing an ARM-based tablet that CAN'T run their desktop apps, is killing them. I would have gotten rid of the ARM one entirely (at least until there's a big enough native app economy for it), and found ways to bring down the cost of the Pro, and just sell that one.
That said, the smart covers are pretty innovative. Being able to switch between a keyboard one, an extra battery one, and that amazing looking music production, is a stand-out feature. Something that Microsoft needs desperately.
The devices were definitely to blame. Surface RT squandered Microsoft's ace in the whole in this space: Office + Outlook + Windows network integration. Not only did Office RT not ship in Metro form, but the product that shipped initially was a buggy pre-release. It was disastrous execution. Besides that, Surface RT sold for an iPad/Nexus 10 price without comparable specs (Tegra 3 and low-resolution screen).
I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). They really were two very different devices for different uses. Trying to call them both Surface tablets was a mis-step in my opinion because of their very different use-cases: one is a desktop replacement, the other is a tablet. To me, that's a marketing problem, not an engineering problem.
And here we are observing them do it all over again. Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. Just by the name you still could figure they are the same machine and maybe the pro is a little bit faster or has a bigger flash drive etc. Just as you figure with the different Windows editions. "Ultimate", "Professional" "Home" etc.
People who get the Surface 2 will still be very surprised to see that that they cannot do anything with it seeing as not one "exe" they already have will work on them.
Microsoft didn't apply their own rules to themselves: they couldn't be bothered / didn't want to re-write Office for Metro, but they insisted that for everyone else the RT only support Metro apps.
If Office had been converted to Metro there would be no reason for the RT to even let you see the traditional Windows desktop. I wanted to like the RT - I really like the Pro - but after a few weeks using it I just gave up. It was a compromised device, from start to finish.
Maybe the long term goal is Modern versions of Office apps but the Office port is probably an essential bridge to it.
* In theory because they may be most familiar with Office 2003 or whatever, and now they're faced with something that looks completely different.
The marketing/image problem was to be expected considering it was a new product entering a slightly fermented market. It was always going to take time to build a brand.
(full discloser: Windows Phone employee)
Focus on what this device does fantastically, rather than poking fun at what "siri can't do".
The Surface, to me, beats out all the other tablets. At its core, it's a tablet that made to do more than simply consume media (which is what drew me to it), but they did nothing to sell this fact. I mean, their launch commercial? Jesus.. people dancing to dubstep? It makes it look like just another ho-hum, late to market product.
Do you remember the commercials when Apple started using intel processors[0]? I would have loved to see Microsoft go in that direction and play to their image of "doing work." Finally a tablet that is built for people to do things, rather than consume things. Heck, go after the gaming crowd, play Civilization, do something!
Their more recent advertising that goes directly at the iPad is much more compelling, and will have a very positive impact on their sales.