It's Time to Kill Surface

This article argues that MS should kill the Surface because it hasn't been a runaway success. By this logic, the Xbox should go too (the article says as much) and hey, even though he didn't mention it, why not the whole mobile end of the business too? Hey, Windows 8 is a total failure (the article says as much), so why is that sacred cow not on the block too? Microsoft is failing at everything and they should just quit. That leaves... what? Corporate? Embedded servers?

Seriously, this argument is a hot mess. Microsoft obviously has to make smart business choices about what things they can afford to pursue, but a lack of immediate success is not adequate grounds to sever themselves from their aspirations. MS wants to get into the hardware market because it's made Apple gigabuckets of cash. The surface, although not the most commercially hot commodity out there, is a good piece of kit and has some dedicated fans. It's fundamentally different from anything else on the market right now. i.e. It's a tablet that's actually good for more than mere consumption. To date, price has probably been the biggest thing holding it back. Well, prices have a funny way of coming down over time. The Surface's day may yet come.

The reason I love my SP2 is that it is extremely successful at occupying the middle ground that it's trying to occupy. I need something like a laptop, for when I'm travelling and it needs to be a general-purpose computer, (with an actual keyboard, among other things). But, I wanted to have a tablet for light media consumption and taking notes in meetings and switching to an electronic workflow for grading things. I have not seen another device that does all that well.

I'm especially impressed with the way that they've treated the stylus as a first-class input device, rather than as an afterthought add-on for the troglodytes that can't be bothered to learn a new input method (I'm looking at you Apple). The stylus on the SP2 clips to the tablet (at least, when it isn't charging), it incorporates a button for clicking and an "eraser" that is a great UI concept, the software filters out your palm resting on the tablet to have really good registration of what the stylus is doing, and it feels like a pen. Most stylus input I've seen on other devices doesn't have any of that, and I haven't seen anything else that nails all of it. This is the particular thing that sealed the deal for me, and I feel like I can't be the only one.

All of which is to say that I really appreciate the direction they've taken with the Surface Pro, and I appreciate their priorities. I very much hope that they keep at it.

In fact, I wholly disagree with some of the author's content analysis. Example:

>The hardware capability that Nadella claims Surface leverages only exists because of the decision to make Surface. Nadella is basically saying Microsoft needs to make Surface because Microsoft makes Surface.

BUT, in the quote, the first thing that Nadella says IS "We are not building hardware for hardware’s sake." What Nadella DID say is that essentially, they're trying to build a complete ecosystem. Furthermore, this wasn't even listed as one of the goals that the author identified, although I feel that it was certainly one of Microsoft's primary goals with the surface. I don't think that Microsoft was thinking "think of all of the money we'll make off of hardware," especially when all of these hardware companies are flailing. Business decisions at a large company like Microsoft are calculated, if nothing else.

Personally, I think Microsoft should keep going. The only reason that I'm buying Macbook Airs at this point is because I like having a BSD environment at my fingertips. The Surface's hardware is actually better than a MBA's[0], and Microsoft seems committed to the product.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6630053 - though, note that the hardware has been refreshed. Arguably just as fast, but much lighter and slimmer, too.

    Meanwhile, Sony is leaving the OEM business, Dell is restructuring, HP can’t
    decide whether to sell or not; Acer is barely afloat; only Lenovo seems to be
    prospering (and now Surface Pro is aimed directly at their Thinkpad lineup).
    When you consider the original goals, none of which have been met, and the
    original dangers, all of which have come to pass, the only conclusion is that
    Surface is a failure.

Lenovo is privileged as their company was a supply chain company. Until they owned the logos that go on your computer, they owned all the parts underneath or figured out how to put them together. Seems natural they're doing better than most. This supply chain company eating the company that puts the logos on is important for what comes next.

So the curious conclusion: kill the Surface. Kill the Surface because it didn't meet its stated goals - I disagree. Kill the Surface because it didn't save the consumer PC industry - I disagree. Welp. It sounds like the conclusion is to kill one of the only things the consumer PC industry has going for it. If they kill the Surface, it means they're going to rely on Lenovo to make the only handhelds that consumers want a Windows logo on.

This article seems to suggest that Nadella or his strategy team see this all. I don't know if they do. This article also seems to suggest they've seen this and said, "Yes, I like the relationship the operating system company Google has with its OEM, Samsung." Which strikes me as delirious thinking at best. I can't imagine Google is happy to have Samsung eating Android's lunch and subsuming the Google logo, or Nadella thinking that is an enviable model for the future of Microsoft.

With a 4K monitor capable docking station, it seems like a device that could do it all, except for also having a smartphone.

They currently have $88 billion in the bank plus assets, so they are better off returning that to shareholders instead of trying to make better hardware? OEMs just make cookie cutter junk, just look at the state of monitors or bundled crapware as an example. Lenovo is making some good stuff and they're reaping rewards in the marketplace even while competing with Surface. Why the call to reduce the competition?

>However, when it comes to PCs, Microsoft needs to focus on fixing Windows 8, and leave the devices up to its partners, especially Lenovo. Lenovo knows how to compete in mature markets,8 makes great hardware, and Microsoft should see them as their best partner, not a competitor

And yet, Lenovo continues to bundle a ton of crapware and junkware that hooks deep into the system.

I think we're lucky to have the resources/money to continue trying and trying and trying at something until we do well. Yes, eventually you might want to cut your losses and give up. But Microsoft doesn't give up on the first try. Or second. Or third.

And you have to admire that.

So killing the Surface is the badest thing Microsoft could do!

Microsoft has just completed a $7B USD acquisition of a hardware division that has 25,000 employees worldwide. They're not about to get out of hardware now!

After the Nokia purchase, Microsoft's hardware volume is on equivalent scale compared to the major Windows PC vendors. The Surface Pro is the high end of a product range that spans everything from the $90 Lumia 520 to the Xbox. In that role, the new Surface Pro is an important halo product. What's the benefit of killing the Surface today?

But the XBox 360 has a nice price point. Sure, it's more expensive than an Apple TV, but well-fit as a media center plus you can play games. The current generations of Apple TV are far to underpowered to play any serious games.

The fact that the XBox 360 is still on the market clearly states Microsoft's (and Sony's) strategy: the XBox 360 is a nice console that competes with media centers, the XBox One is for hard core gamers who want the latest and greatest.

I am not worried about the XBox One, the price will go down eventually and when it's in the 200-250 range, it'll replace the XBox 360.

We did by an XBox One, even though we are only casual gamers. The console will probably stay relevant for five or six years. So, it's a good investment.

That doesn't mean it will DO well but I wouldn't be surprised if it did better than previous surface generations combined.

He writes it like Surface costs MS a fortune or distracts customers. Yep, Surface is probably not a win (don't own one, and not an MS customer, although it happened to me to use Windows 8 on some occasions), but who said MS can't have their toy projects?

He lost me at that sentence. You have to be a complete lunatic to make such a statement.

What? Not everyone needs, wants or can afford (hi EU!) Apple devices, which are loosing more and more ground to competitors every quarter.

It can't be the "do anything" device - if I still need 2 devices to get my stuff done, I might as well buy one that's less expensive and will give me the same function I need.

I do think Ben built a bit of a straw man out of Nadella's comment, though.

> "Nadella is basically saying Microsoft needs to make Surface because Microsoft makes Surface."

That's a very selective interpretation of what Nadella said. He said he wanted to integrate the company's products into a single experience. He didn't say that's why the Surface exists, nor did he say the reason behind building hardware and products is for the sake of integration. He's just saying the vision is to integrate the experience. Ben makes it sound like there's no other reason behind it, but Nadella may very well see reasons for integration that he didn't go into (there).

It was a calculated means to solidify DirectX as 'the' graphics library for games.

Although this makes sense, it is immensely disappointing. I would love to see more high-quality alternatives to Apple products, if only to encourage competition. We need more HTC Ones, not fewer.

It started with the Xbox. I played a lot of games in college, but before starting grad school I realized that I would need to really bring it if I wanted my M.A. to be useful outside of academia, so I sold my Xbox 360, Kinect, controllers, and games (Halo 3, MW3, DiRT, and some others) for $150. I then bought an AppleTV and had a nice lunch.

After setting up the AppleTV I was really impressed with how easily it connected to, and streamed, my iTunes library and Netflix. So soon after I ditched the Blackberry for an iPhone 4. That, too, was amazing and I soon snatched up an iPad 1 and, finally, ditched the HP for the Air.

Since then I've really enjoyed the Apple "way" and I am always amazed that, regardless of what new hardware comes out by other vendors, I am never jealous of anyone else's rig or laptop. I'm never thinking "Man, I need to get that 'droid device as soon as I can." And I never look at a PC and think I'll be ditching the Air and picking going back to PC.

However, I have coveted the design and hardware of the Surface since the very first one. It's a really solid design that has only gotten better with time, and the Surface Pro 3 seems to be even better. I love how it looks, how it feels, and the utility of the device. The Surface Pro is the first device to come along since I switched from PC to Mac that makes me take notice of anything else.

Unfortunately, there are a few things that I dislike. The keyboard cover is too flimsy to be really useful, meaning that it's really just a mildly-useful accessory that would be better off as a proper keyboard. Also, I dislike the stand aspect of the Surface. If I have a keyboard attached, then I shouldn't need a stand, it should just lock in place, more like a dock than a cover (though of course it needs to be easily adjustable, but I'll leave that problem for the designers and the engineers to sort out).

Other than those two things, the Surface seems like a really solid device, and so I'm genuinely surprised that it's doing so poorly as far as sales figures go.

As an owner of a Surface RT, lol. That piece of junk has turned me of to the brand forever. Whether it was apps taking 5-10 seconds to load or having to unattach and reattach the keyboard 1 out of ever 5 uses, I can't imagine ever wanting to own a Surface again.

It's not just that Apple has taken the high road, thanks to Tim Cook's supply chain magic woven over the past decade, Apple has taken the high road, and similarly almost always provides consistently higher end products at lower price points than the competition can offer, with impressive margins.

In other words, you must not only beat Apple's hardware quality (HTC One and Chromebook Pixel got this right, and maybe the Surface3), but you must offer it a lower price than Apple, and do so sustainably for the long haul (so subsidizing would require substantial force-of-will even for large companies). And then fight against Apple's continued "coolness factor" which some argue is dimming, but is still a marketing force to contend with.

I consume passively for about half of my time and produce actively (run programs on a server via Terminal) the other half. So, if I had to read a document, I think Surface 3 is just the right size. Plus the stylus there is very good for annotations. And then I can work in the Terminal using the Keyboard accessory. Also, switch between programs via Alt-Tab, multiple side-by-side windows etc. Install iTunes to bring over my music collection.

So I am very very tempted to move from my 13" MacBook Air to Surface 3. Price is not really a consideration for me. So, what am I missing?

I concur with the article when it notes, Apple's iPad is a clear winner in the high end for now and the immediate future (I'll bet the next 3 years).

But the high end isn't the only market. In the long term, the interesting market will probably evolve out of today's low/middle end. And ceding what was traditionally known as the "white box" market, not to Apple, but to Android, would be a huge mistake. One that could threaten Windows in time.

For the short term, Android is probably going to hold the lowest end ARM tablets. I can't imagine Microsoft being able to compete here any time soon (as price is the big issue). The best MS can do is try to make Android irrelevant. If, 5 years from now, Android is seen as "good enough" by the general population, then Google might be able to use it to make a run on the desktop. I know I would in their shoes.

That leaves the mid-range market. And I believe there is value in a Windows tablet running a low-powered x86. One that plays movies/TV shows, runs Office, has IE, and has backward compatibility with existing apps. A tablet that favours price to specs, but needs to come in a shiny casing none-the-less. This product isn't the Surface 3, but there is no reason it couldn't be the next iteration.

If the price was right, I could see my proposed tablet becoming the "safe" option for IT departments. Once the basic form is there, help third party OEMs get in on the market, and slowly revert to being a software-only company.

That is the best reason why, it raises the floor for other core services.

It is a quality device, but the marketing just seems wrong. Too expensive, different models of the Surface are radically different products, doesn't have the developers that iOS or Android has, and just didn't take off for some reason.

I don't see a reason to not make the Surface, people I know who have them, love them, and that is something that could be built on. That used to be the space that Apple occupied in the 90s, small user base with intense adoration and love and eventually came to be a dominant player in personal computing.

For everyone else a laptop is better, and a more unified product without moving parts. Surface is also too expensive if you want a decent amount of storage. 40GB of free storage for $930 as a "laptop replacement" is unacceptable. Most people would be much better served than say a $900 Macbook Air.

So from this point of view, the author is right. Surface has been and continues to be a big failure for Microsoft, no matter how well it is designed and made. It doesn't win Microsoft anything other than a very small niche of people who like to design with styluses.

On the other hand, I have to admit that the new Surface 3 makes me a little disappoint because Microsoft insist that a tablet not only should be used on work but also should even take the place of notebook.

hmmm.... It's always hard to say what things will be like in the future, but I think I will prefer a notebook for work.

The pen is it's unique selling point and niche (there's quite a few hybrid tablet/laptops, but not with pen input), and given that Pro 2 (with a less helpful aspect ratio for that) tended to be "out of stock" much of the time, it seems to be in reasonable demand.

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...

And God forbid you want or need processing power or RAM >= 8GB...

Is that MS' goal? Or the pundits' perceived goal?