Ballmer is sewing seams or something…

“Sometimes getting the innovation right across the seam between hardware and software is difficult unless you do both of them …”


“… from a hardware-software perspective, we are really pushing forward aggressively on that boundary …”


Seriously, fire that guy already.

Not on the market today…

Peter Bright for Ars Technica:

The money quote:

Microsoft still isn’t ready to let Joe Public get their grubby little hands on Surface. At the press event, we were given a number of demonstrations, shown a number of non-functional demo units, and given scant few seconds to touch real working devices. The Intel Core i5-powered Surface for Windows 8 Pro devices were not on display, either; only the ARM-powered Surface for Windows RT was available.

Microsoft’s Jack of all trades…

…but a master of none.

As strange as it may sound, but I was really hoping for Microsoft to hit a home-run on this one, but I guess not.

- ARM, Windows RT (who came up with that?), 9.3 mm, 1.5 lbs., a kickstand, 32 or 64 GB, 10.6-inch ClearType HD display (resolution unknown, so you know it’s not 2048 x 1536 or close to it)
- Ivy Bridge, Windows 8 Pro, 13.5 mm, 1.9 lbs., USB 3, a kickstand, 64 or 128 GB, plus that display

Both have optional touch- and type-keyboard covers, that look like something I’ve seen before…
No pricing available so far. The ARM tablet will ship around October, the Intel version about three months later.

Where to start?
Well, one version is about as thick as the new iPad, but a little heavier. The other one is..thick and heavy, which makes me think they’re not competing with the iPad at all…they’re going after the boatloads of cheap Ultrabooks – you know…the MacBook Air knock-offs.

If that’s the case, then it changes the whole perspective, which is not to say it makes it easier for Microsoft to compete. I’m guessing they will want to sell their efforts for around the price of said Ultrabooks, and while that might sound like a good idea, it’s really not. Why? Glad you asked: They’re competing with their OEM’s.

Also, why market it as the “Surface tablet”, when it clearly isn’t a tablet. It tries to be a tablet and an Ultrabook – a party Tim Cook doesn’t want to go to if I remember correctly. I wonder why? Could it be that Cook’s R&D department spent years of research on what the market will want? Nah…

Is this thing 16:9? Really?

Anyhow, here are my initial notes, unfiltered, from the event: Tablet, full PC, two distinct architectures, legacy, no legacy, smart-covers (puhlease), all over the place, not shipping, no price, 16:9??, heavier than…, thicker than…, aweful design, a stylus, Windows-branded (is that a good idea in this day and age?), apps for touch and type…mhmmm

Like I said:
A Jack of all trades, but a master of none.

After reading through some of the reports it looks like the Pro version will have HD resolution (1920 x 1080), and the RT version will have less…on a 10″+ screen…

Some more random thoughts:
- It crashed during the demo.
- No information on pricing
- No information on battery life
- No information on shipping dates
- How will this work in portrait mode?
- No demo of apps

About that Google Android Nexus tablet…

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google may start selling Google branded tablets built by Asus and Samsung sometime this year, subsiding the cost of the device to be competitive.

This is a bad idea, and here’s why:

- Remember that Google Nexus phone? Yeah…

- Google is buying Motorola, but they will sell Asus and Samsung tablets? Mkay…

- Tablets are nothing like smartphones. It’s all about the ecosystem.

- There are no subsidies on tablets, at least none that work.

- 2.000 Asus Transformer Prime pre-orders in all of the US. Samsung’s not doing too well either according to them.

- Amazon makes money selling it’s vast digital catalog, not the Kindle hardware. Again, ecosystem.

- Android users do not like to pay for apps. Where’s the money in it for Google?

- Put any, ANY, Android vanilla ICS tablet next to an iPad. Yeah…

- Android on tablets sucks. Imagine that Google Nexus tablet with ads all over the place.

Dead. In. The. Water.

Paula Rooney at ZDNet is delusional.

Paula Rooney at ZDNet is seriously delusional.

In a post titled Android tablet surge will be led by Google-Motorola, HP, Dell in ’12 she writes:

Fear not, Android lovers. Google’s Motorola Mobility’s next generation tablet will commandeer Android’s rightful place in the market and bring others such as HP and Dell back to the Android table

She’s obviously implying that Googlerola and companions will overtake the elephant in the room.

There’s so much wishful thinking in her article, that i can’t be bothered to take it down sentence by sentence, so I’ll leave it at that: I may revisit it at the end of this year…that should be funny.

Gizmodo: The Biggest Mistake People Made About the iPad. Umm, no…

Over at Gizmodo Brian Barrett has an article titled: The Biggest Mistake People Made About the iPad, and I really need to say something about it.

Not really the headline, which seems intriguing at first, but about the content. He starts of with

The original iPad certainly had its detractors. But for all the myriad complaints about that big ol’ bezel, the lack of cameras, the name, and so on, there was one refrain that echoed loudest among the haters: It’s just a big iPhone.

…aaand that’s where the trouble starts: Nobody, and I mean nobody said that. People said exactly what he’s saying later on:

You know what? They were wrong. We all were. As Farhad Manjoo points out in Slate, the iPad isn’t an iPhone at all. It’s an iPod. And more than anything, that’s why it’s been so successful.

For reference: The original article at Slate.

So yeah, that’s where the whole thing falls apart, isn’t it?

He goes on to proclaim that the iPad started out with around 90% of the tablet market, then fell to about 60%, but if you don’t count the Kindle and the Nook it’s still around 80%. Seriously? Who counts Fire’s and Nook’s as tablets? I mean as tablets competing with the iPad? Right, no one. Besides, selling “into the channel” isn’t the same as “selling to the end customer”, the latter of course being what Apple does, and the former being what the others do.

Then he points out that the iPad is “out-muscled” by the like of the Transformer Prime. Really? Where? How? When did that happen? Not even the iPad 2 is outperformed by those tablets…at all. Especially in any category that counts for anybody, like say…the ecosystem, the responsiveness, the none existent learning curve, the concise UI/UX, etc.

After this we’re treated to the ol’ “it’s an expensive toy” – yeah, amateur hour is over and all that. How has that worked out by the way?

Not missing a step it’s on to the “the competition will throw everything they have at it, and that’s why it will be like the iPhone”. So, the “competition” hasn’t thrown everything at it yet? Ok, when will we see that? They’re clearly waiting for something then, right? I guess we’ll see it when the “Galaxy 9.2938569496836274987 Super Duper HD Ha-Retina! foldable waterproof up to 1000 meters with 100 ports for 699,- plus a 10-year contract” tablet comes, right? Yeah, because we haven’t seen that before.

Brian leaves us with

The iPad has existed comfortably as an iPod, yes. And enjoyed the same ridiculously excessive success. But the romp may be just about over. Amazon. Samsung. Microsoft. Asus. Nvidia. Barnes & Noble. They’re going to fight the tablet war for as long as it takes. The only question now is if there’s any ammo left.


Read it here, if you must.