Firmware Updates Hit Surface Pro 3 and Surface 3
-
I wonder how much of that is because they just don't have any experience with it and trying to be a hardware vendor is proving to be a bit much for them.
-
Well, that's definitely possible.
Which is to bad. I don't think the big names - well we're only left with Dell and HP - aren't being very innovative with new devices. At least they weren't before the whole Surface line started coming out.
From my couch quarterback position it seemed like MS got into this game to poke the big manufactures in the eye and say - Don't leave the cool tech things only to Apple. Come on. Windows based PCs can be every bit as cool as Apple products!
-
I think that if MS wants to play this game, they need to actually innovate, not just copy Apple poorly. Apple makes their own processor, builds their own stack. They are doing heavy innovation from the chip up. Microsoft is trying to piece together too much of it to compete there. And should they compete there? It's the antithesis of their traditional mark (non-integrated stack.)
-
Yeah - they can't compete there. Doing so would alienate all of their vendors. MS is constrained within the same confines as their third party vendors.
I think the Surface Pro devices look amazing - granted, finding a real place for them has been challenging, but consumers don't think about these things. They often buy things simply based on looks.
So you give them something that will run all of the same software as they Windows laptop/desktop and it looks sexy too - people will buy it.. For the price i think the Surface line is doing pretty well.
-
The bad thing is the people can't help but compare the Surface product line with the iPad even though the two are worlds apart in purpose and abilities.
So comparing the $499 price of the iPad to the $799 (sans keyboard) of the Surface Pro 3... the SP3 loses.
I think the non Pro Surface 3 will do well because it does match the price of the iPad ($499) still SANs keyboard, but then you have to also buy a keyboard for the iPad if you want one.
-
@Dashrender said:
The bad thing is the people can't help but compare the Surface product line with the iPad even though the two are worlds apart in purpose and abilities.
So comparing the $499 price of the iPad to the $799 (sans keyboard) of the Surface Pro 3... the SP3 loses.
I think the non Pro Surface 3 will do well because it does match the price of the iPad ($499) still SANs keyboard, but then you have to also buy a keyboard for the iPad if you want one.
I never realize that the SP3 costs more, I always assume that it is cheaper than it is. Wow, it's so much less useful that I imagine.
-
@Dashrender said:
So you give them something that will run all of the same software as they Windows laptop/desktop and it looks sexy too - people will buy it.. For the price i think the Surface line is doing pretty well.
I wonder how much of a factor that is? I never want to run my desktop apps on my tablet.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you give them something that will run all of the same software as they Windows laptop/desktop and it looks sexy too - people will buy it.. For the price i think the Surface line is doing pretty well.
I wonder how much of a factor that is? I never want to run my desktop apps on my tablet.
Today - who knows.
I'm really starting to like the app containerization of mobile platform apps. Of course I want them to be even more silo'ed than they are today (damn it seems like apps can just steal all kinds of data).
Even with Apple's locked down situation, when it was designed they didn't consider that third party apps would be run on the them... and the underlying design is not designed to be as secure as it could be.
and instead of starting over with the iPhone 3, they just keep adding onto their already broken (security wise) model.
This is the same thing that happened with Intel and their processors. They went down a path and due to their extreme need to be backwards compatible, they have lost out on enhancements they could otherwise have made.
-
I'm happy with the apps that I have on each. I don't want certain things on my desktop and vice versa. I use certain things when mobile that make no sense when not mobile. Same the other way.
if anything, it is the mobile apps that I often wish had desktop options rather than the other way around.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm happy with the apps that I have on each. I don't want certain things on my desktop and vice versa. I use certain things when mobile that make no sense when not mobile. Same the other way.
if anything, it is the mobile apps that I often wish had desktop options rather than the other way around.
I completely agree with you. There are mobile apps I too would like on the desktop. Though I couldn't imagine using the mobile version of some apps on a full desktop.
I like MS's approach, one app that runs everywhere with different but familiar interfaces depending on platform.
-
@Dashrender said:
I like MS's approach, one app that runs everywhere with different but familiar interfaces depending on platform.
That's not MS's approach. That's just using HTML5. LOL MS was the last to that party, not the first.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I like MS's approach, one app that runs everywhere with different but familiar interfaces depending on platform.
That's not MS's approach. That's just using HTML5. LOL MS was the last to that party, not the first.
MS was the first consumer branded to try to make apps work universally across all devices in their ecosystem.
hell Apple still isn't trying to do that.
-
@Dashrender said:
MS was the first consumer branded to try to make apps work universally across all devices in their ecosystem.
hell Apple still isn't trying to do that.
What do you mean? Android and iOS have had this since day one. Apple isn't "trying" because they've always had it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
MS was the first consumer branded to try to make apps work universally across all devices in their ecosystem.
hell Apple still isn't trying to do that.
What do you mean? Android and iOS have had this since day one. Apple isn't "trying" because they've always had it.
Android doesn't run on the desktop (well it does now). and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
-
@Dashrender said:
Android doesn't run on the desktop (well it does now). and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
Sure they do. There are two types of apps for each. On iOS there are Obj-C/Swift apps and there are HTML5 apps. On Android there are Java and HTML5 apps. Theyve both always supported HTML5 apps.
Windows just copied this and did not provide another option for their "universal apps." They've done a clever marketing trick to make you think that they did something good instead of just failing horribly, like they actually did. Their product does LESS, not more, and you see it as a success. But it is not, it is late to the party and not doing anything that everyone else hasn't offered all along.
-
@Dashrender said:
and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
If they use HTML5 they do.
Same limitation that Windows has.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
If they use HTML5 they do.
Same limitation that Windows has.
But MS is trying to change - they are making the move to HTML5 apps, Apple does not appear to be doing so (or rather, they are not advertising this functionality).
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Android doesn't run on the desktop (well it does now). and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
Sure they do. There are two types of apps for each. On iOS there are Obj-C/Swift apps and there are HTML5 apps. On Android there are Java and HTML5 apps. Theyve both always supported HTML5 apps.
OK Fine, Android has always supported this - great - but so what? Until recently there was not desktop android, so there was only a mobile platform.
It's true that Android is now venturing into the desktop zone (frankly Chrome OS makes no sense when you have Android that is positioned to do it all already) and as such their apps will run universally everywhere. But it's still not common.
But then Windows phone has nearly zero market.. so you could say the same about MS, it's not common. They each control one portion of the market.. and clearly Android is the leader right now.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
and iOS apps don't run on OSX, and OSX apps don't run on iOS.
If they use HTML5 they do.
Same limitation that Windows has.
But MS is trying to change - they are making the move to HTML5 apps, Apple does not appear to be doing so (or rather, they are not advertising this functionality).
But everyone has known about it for nearly a decade. Seems like a silly thing to advertise. MS has done nothing here. They are just way behind. What has MS done to "move in that direction?" Outside of playing crazy catchup with literally everyone else.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK Fine, Android has always supported this - great - but so what? Until recently there was not desktop android, so there was only a mobile platform.
You are working HARD to come up with a reason that MS isn't behind. I mean really, it's this simple... everyone has had this since day one except MS. Done, end of story.
If you really want to understand the scope...
You treat iOS and OSX as merged but you don't say that iOS doesn't run on a desktop but Android you expect to, why?
Android apps written in the "universal" way run on Linux desktops, Mac desktops, Chromebooks, etc. Same as with any other system. Android has always been allowed on desktops as well, just wasn't popular.
That Android didn't sell desktops is completely outside the conversation. The point is that they had universal apps to ANY desktop before MS was ready to even go down this road.
