Interesting as Ratings & Reviews is what I do for a living (IT Support for the company that creates the R&R interface for companies). Both John Lewis and Best Buy Reviews go through our moderators who catch 99%+ of all non authentic Reviews. I guess it must be scary to think that MS made a decent product! /end of topic thoughts!
Even ignoring the appstore profit I wouldn't rely on teardown BOM pricing as a direct correlation to profit made per unit. Especially given the BOM pricing for an iPad 3 puts the per component pricing a bit higher than on an RT. There hasn't been a BOM estimate for the 4 yet. The reports are also 8 months apart and don't stack up against each other. Flash storage and DRAM is 50% more expensive for Apple than MS? I doubt it. Touch screen tech is more expensive for Apple? Again it's more likely that costs have simply reduced at the end of the year. These estimates also can't shed any light on the actual prices paid per unit. Remember Apple can negotiate wonderful deals based on the size of their entire product lineup. You think Apple doesn't get a better deal on CNC worked aluminium than MS? You think they pay the same for gorilla glass as MS even if they're ordering x50 the volume? (Probably is something like that when you add the iPhone, MBP screens, touchpads and iMacs into the mix) If Apple are selling a lot more than MS then either they're making them for a lower cost per unit than MS could negotiate pricing for, or MS will be making a surplus and have to sell them at a future reduced price. Simple economics. Apple are notoriously well known for negotiating very good deals with their suppliers (And shipping), and by that I don't mean they are getting the lowest of the low pricing, but they purchase capacity in advance and that puts the price up for everyone else. Apple can generally say "Make me 10million units between date x and date y and I'll pay price n per unit". Foxconn jump at the deal and other manufacturers have to pay a bit more. But MS probably did the same sort of thing on the surface, but there's still so many factors that affect the overall profit. What's the trade price on an RT vs the iPad? How many get sold direct vs a retailer? How much is spent on the Windows RT R&D? Marketing budgets? I'm still not convinced having two 'not quite compatible' tablet operating systems was the right thing for MS to do, but they had their head in the sand for too many years and where left without a decent single route to take. There was only so many times the heads at MS could whinge 'But tablets were our idea... we've have a tablet OS for over a decade' before the realisation that what they were trying to sell didn't stack up on a hardware + usability + all day usage combination.
Well, it looks like it's on the list of things to buy in the future, I definitely like what I'm hearing regarding the Surface RT overall but I'm waiting on 3rd party VPN support first (specifically a Junos Pulse client) which is waiting on MS to finish writing the API and make it available to people like Cisco and Juniper. I'm currently using an Android tablet quite happily (Asus Transformer Prime) for personal stuff but I have to use a Windows machine for work purposes so end up with two systems and the Surface looks like it would do the trick of combining the two requirements quite nicely.
I think that Microsoft is hedging its bets. If ARM processors get more powerful and yet more frugal, so that they can take on anything but the most demanding tasks (hard-core gaming, CAD/CAM and rendering) while offering oodles of battery life, then it makes a lot of sense to have most devices, from HTPCs to laptops to embedded systems built on an ARM platform, and thus to have an ARM version Windows ready for those. If on the other hand Intel manages to pull off an even more powerful Atom with decent battery life, then x86 Windows is in business as usual. What is causing the confusion is Microsoft's decision to lock Windows RT down while leaving x86 Windows open. Why two different rules for essentially the same OS running on two different platforms? The monikers don't help either. I would propose: - Unlock Windows RT; make it as open as Windows 8. - Simply name Windows RT: Windows 8L. L stands for Longevity. - Name Windows 8: Windows 8P. P stands for Performance. This creates two platforms: one where battery life or low power requirement is important, and one where sheer performance is important. Tablets, Ultrabooks, HTPCs etc. use Windows 8L. Desktop CAD/rendering systems, multi-CPU servers, games rigs and performance (gamer) laptops use Windows 8P. Most software will be available in both flavours, as it is simple to recompile for the right platform. It also allows software producers to accurately convey minimum system requirements for their software: if something is not made for Windows 8L but for 8P only, it's because it needs a high-spec system. - Incidentally, name Windows Phone 8: Windows 8C. C stands for Communicator. By the way: Microsoft has just 'approved' RT jailbreaking.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought Microsoft was trying to move away from the multiple version syndrome. I know they received quite a lot of negative feedback when it came to the various editions of Vista. Perhaps that was a different scenario because they were all variations of the same desktop OS, rather than your proposed solution of a nomenclature that designates the intended platform (phone, tablet, desktop/laptop). It certainly feels like a page from Apple's playbook. OSX is for desktops/laptops and iOS is for mobile devices; the device nomenclature seems to follow, iMac notwithstanding.
If they tried to avoid multiple version syndrome, then creating a separate RT version alongside an x86 version may not have been the wisest course of action.
I would just go with: Windows phone. Windows tablet. Windows PC, or possibly something like Windows Complete. I think opening the RT structure would be a bad move. Don't get me wrong I would love to see it opened properly. But if you do, you would be left with two really similar editions of windows but different enough to cause confusion. This confusion would essentially arise from people not realising there's a difference between x86 and arm. Nor a quick way to distinguish the two. I think to reduce any possible confusion you would need to keep it locked down and remove the desktop element of RT. So no taskbar and no pinned apps like there is in real windows 8. That way, you have a tablet with a home screen with apps like any other tablet and nothing resembling a pc so there is no confusion. The market is how you add apps, just like any other tablet and market software is about as risk free as any other tablet.
And then maybe taketh away: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/14/windows_rt_hack_microsoft_investigating/
You do realise Gizmodo have a habit of posting things days late? If you then actually read the articles, Gizmodo states: TheRegister's source then states on the 8th Jan: Which is clearly where Gizmodo got their information from, despite not listing a source. So it took them 6 days to post that article. TheRegister's article is simply then stating that the information on Gizmodo isn't accurate, and that RT may well block this hole in the future.
That line has been quoted by a number of sources for days. It does not prove that Giz got it from The Register. But the "We continue to appreciate..." comment is new.
Well, yeah, if you want to be simple and obvious about it... Having read up on it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that Windows RT is a valid OS in its own right. Sure, Intel has produced an Atom processor that appears to run Windows 8 as smoothly, with a comparable battery life. However from hardware reviews it becomes obvious that as soon as you try and run legacy software on it, it slows down to a crawl and the battery drains at an alarming rate. With games it is even worse: these become unplayable because they are programmed with powerful CPUs and GPUs in mind, not lightweight Atoms with integrated graphics. Basically, to give the impression that Windows 8 on an Atom will have the same range of functionality as Windows 8 on an i3 to i7 is at best confusing and at worst misleading. It's the same OS but it does not have the same capabilities because the platform is different. Geeks know that of course, but the average user? With Windows RT there is a lot less confusion. You know that it is created for a certain platform, and you know that its functionality corresponds to that. There are no x86 legacy apps, but they would not run at any functional speed even if ARM could process x86 code. Any code written for RT is automatically written with the capabilities of the ARM CPU in mind. Any game for RT is written with the ARM's graphic capabilities in mind. You get software matched to the hardware. You do not get that with Windows 8 legacy software, which often has a 'minimum spec'. The problem is: Windows 8 can run on machines of a very wide range of capability. That may actually confuse expectations with people who have no sense of what specific hardware is capable of. Windows RT runs on a platform with a very specific capability. You know what you can expect, every time. I think that it is for that reason that Windows RT was closed to legacy apps: to prevent that confusion. Even if it was ported to ARM, much legacy software would not run well anyway because it would be too demanding for that platform. Anyway, this weekend I'll try and post some pics of details not generally mentioned in reviews and a list of likes and dislikes (there are a few minor annoyances; nothing big and certainly other OS's have their own, but it is fair to mention them).
Windows Complete is a horrible name. Why? Well 'cause your going to have Windows Complete Pro, Windows Complete Pro Media Pack, Windows Complete Ultimate... it's like picking a cellphone plan... Do you want Simply Everything? Or Simply Everything Plus? Everything Ultimate? Everything Ultimate + Texting? Ultimate Everything Ultra with 100min talk time and + 10 free texting per month + 0.5GB of data?
Isn't that what you have now? Windows complete, because it embodies the full capabilites of windows, can run the full range of hardware: desktops, laptops,surface pro and the full range of software new and legacy desktop as well as metro. The other extensions are really not an issue on the consumer end, since you just get whatevers preinstalled on the machine. Anyway it would be better to do away with all of the different types of windows and just have one 64bit pro edition and be done with it. Their current approach is just miserly frankly.
Microsoft has 2 choices: 1- Make Windows 9 run on both x86 and ARM, so that means that the Surface 2 will have desktop app support.. compiled for ARM. 2- Remove the desktop on Windows 9 RT. And simply say, Windows RT can't run you desktop programs.
Cant see the first one happening, Simply because it would give ARM A spot in a the comsumer desktop business and servers. second one might but windows 9 is a while away ( if we are counting it as a real windows not windows blue or whatever they name it ) Surface 2 will also be out this year thats a virtual guarentee.
Yes, it's Quake. On the Surface RT. (Running on the desktop. You can have it full-screen or windowed, just like the original, because it is the original, just recompiled for ARM.)
Quake - now that brings back a lot of very good memories. My friends and I still occasionally play Quake 2 CTF with ReaperBots, using custom maps we've made over the years. Good times are always had.
