Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
August 23, 2010 08:11 AM

Maybe Microsoft Isn't So Late to the Tablet Game After All

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #125821
Rating: (112)

During his Consumer Electronics Show (CES) keynote address back in January, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer infamously held up a prototype HP tablet device and declared, in not so many words, that Microsoft was back in the Tablet PC game. "We're talking about something that's almost as portable as a phone, and as powerful as a PC, running Windows 7," he said. "[This] emerging category of PCs really takes advantage of the touch and mobility and capabilities of Windows 7, and is perfect for reading, for surfing the Web, and for taking entertainment on the go."

The discussion is infamous (and paradoxical) because Microsoft has actually been hawking Tablet PCs since 2001, when it began innovating in this space almost a decade before Apple's iPad, and because this "emerging" PC category has yet to happen: Not a single PC maker, including HP, has delivered a Windows 7-based slate PC so far this year.

Whatever the details, industry pundits have been quick to jump all over Microsoft for not being able to quickly (re-) jump into a "new" market that's being defined by a competitor, in this case Apple, which has seen sales of its limited and hobbled iPad tablet device skyrocket. Microsoft, they say, is a dinosaur, too slow to react and meet the needs of today's customers. Microsoft's best days are behind it, they say, and despite evidence to the contrary—record profits and revenues, and growing unit sales in its most recent fiscal quarter and year, PC sales growth alone outstripping iPad sales by a huge margin, and more—these pundits also claim that the software giant's entire business is going to collapse. Any day now. Well, maybe next quarter.

What's most amazing about all this Chicken Little posturing is that these same pundits seem hopelessly unaware of the rest of the industry's ability to react to the iPad "threat." Industry darling Google, for example, has yet to deliver a version of its Android system tailored for larger, non-phone devices, and there aren't any actual iPad-sized Android devices out there from major manufacturers.

And what about HP? The company snatched up ailing smartphone market Palm for $1.2 billion, announcing its intention to expand Palm's WebOS to tablet devices. And where is this mythical HP WebOS-based tablet? It turns out that product has been delayed until "early 2011," about three to nine months after the first Windows 7-based Slate PCs will arrive. In fact, HP said explicitly that it will deliver its own Windows 7-based Slate PC "in the near future," several months ahead of its WebOS offering.

So, remind me again why Google and HP get a free pass while Microsoft gets nothing but criticism, please.

The last time Microsoft faced this kind of criticism was when ASUS jumpstarted the netbook PC market by mating the free Linux OS to very low-end laptop hardware. ASUS utilized Linux because Microsoft didn't, at the time, offer a low-cost version of Windows, and Linux quickly became the netbook OS of choice. Until, that is, Microsoft entered the market. Now, Windows dominates netbook sales, and Linux is again the afterthought it should be on the client.

Microsoft's public pronouncements about slates and other next-generation Tablet PCs have recalled this netbook experience, and the company believes it can perform a similar about-face in the coming days, confining the iPad to also-ran status. Whether that's possible is uncertain and largely unrelated to the central argument here. Sure, Microsoft is reacting to the iPad. But so are other industry heavyweights. From what I can see, Microsoft and its hardware partners are closer to delivering viable, Windows 7-based iPad competitors than are the other major players, which will offer Android and WebOS offerings.

Whatever happens, this holiday season should be interesting, regardless of which platform you prefer.

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Jones
    2 years ago
    Aug 31, 2010

    "And Mac? They held like 2% market share darn near ever and only started growing in 2006 or so. So, uh, yeah, the customers are almost all attracted only to style."

    "Autodesk Will Reintroduce Its AutoCAD Design Software for Macs"

    Looks like the folks at Autodesk disagree with you. But, sure, Mac customers are only interested in style...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/technology/31autodesk.html?hpw

  • O
    2 years ago
    Aug 27, 2010

    "Mac/iPod/iPhone/iTunes users are attracted to only style, but that's millions of people for decades of use."

    Really. *Decades*? Lets see, iPhone, 3 years old. iPod, 7 for Windows (when the sales took-off).

    And Mac? They held like 2% market share darn near ever and only started growing in 2006 or so. So, uh, yeah, the customers are almost all attracted only to style.

    The first Mac that actually started to sell in *any* tremendous quantity... The iMac! Why, because it *looked* different. After the success of the iMac Apple realized they needed to go modern...

    And if you see this hardware survey:
    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

    Hey, look, the cool looking Macs outsell the plain ones by 10:1! Isn't it odd how the cheapest one apparently sells the worst? Probably because you can't show it off as a status symbol -- it's tiny. That's also why Apple TV was a bust. No prestige in owning one.

    "Not true. I like the products, not SJ. He is often a visionary, but also an arrogant SOB"

    My apologies for lumping you with the other guys as well. I just wish someone at CNBC would have asked him, "So, why rural Tennessee and not the Mayo Clinic like every other billionaire on the planet?"

  • Jones
    2 years ago
    Aug 27, 2010

    "
    "Once again, you go with the Jobs worship"

    That's Jones and a couple other guys here -- I wasn't referring to you. Jobs is however dirt in my opinion. I think his little sojourn to Tennessee proved that."

    Not true. I like the products, not SJ. He is often a visionary, but also an arrogant SOB. Of course, he's an arrogant SOB who's often RIGHT.

    " "So Apple is in trouble if one of their areas stops being profitable"

    They don't have *areas* they have *4* products. If one of them ever goes out of vogue (especially iPhone) their revenues will hit the garbage bin. "

    By the same logic, Microsoft has *2* products, Office and Windows. I don't think they're losing sleep up in Redmond that these products will suddenly fall out of favor, nor do I think the Cupertino gang is worried about their core products.

    The mistake you make with this argument that Apple's product sales are driven by style/vanity is that it's just too many people for far too long. You may think all Mac/iPod/iPhone/iTunes users are attracted to only style, but that's millions of people for decades of use. Pretty persistent usage patterns for vanity and style...

  • O
    2 years ago
    Aug 27, 2010

    "Once again, you go with the Jobs worship"

    That's Jones and a couple other guys here -- I wasn't referring to you. Jobs is however dirt in my opinion. I think his little sojourn to Tennessee proved that.

    "Sorry, but X-box has only recently been profitable. For years they lost Billions on it. What about Zune, Plays for sure, etc. how profitable have those ventures been? Overall they have a negative ROI."

    I just told you, entertainment is roughly at long-term break even. They don't have a negative ROI. Zune, no idea -- it's rolled into the division, since the division is currently profitable, no idea what they spent, earn, or lose on it. You're making assumptions without SEC published data. Plays for Sure was a spec, MSFT lost almost no money because they didn't spend any to begin with. Their partners? None of them made an MP3 player worth buying, whether it adhered to the spec or not, that wasn't Microsoft's fault. When you design a product no one wants, guess what, no one will buy it.

    I think Sony was the only company who really had a shot in the MP3 market, but they *loved* ATRAC3 and effectively ended any chance from being early movers.

    "So Apple is in trouble if one of their areas stops being profitable"

    They don't have *areas* they have *4* products. If one of them ever goes out of vogue (especially iPhone) their revenues will hit the garbage bin. Just like the RAZR, at some point someone will make something super-sexy, and if it isn't Apple, they'll watch all their customers run because they need the next toy. Seriously, people who buy Rolex, Apple, BMW, B&O, Bose, etc, do so primarily because of status. That's what sold hundreds of millions of RAZRs. The moment any of their competitors discover "lifestyle marketing", they'll have a horse-race -- it's in Apple's favor that their competition is absolutely brain-dead when it comes to knowing how to market anything. Only Intel seems to have a clue, and they don't compete.

  • Jones
    2 years ago
    Aug 27, 2010

    "Not to mention MSFT makes 60% more profits than AAPL. AAPL might be earning a lot, but MSFT earns vastly more. Their corporate revenues are close, but Microsoft has almost *no* material costs since they're selling IP."

    That's so funny. Microsoft is highly profitable, because they have high prices relative to their costs, and you see that is a virtue.

    Apple is profitable because they have high prices relative to their costs, and this is a source of incessant whining from the Winbois.

    Why do you love it so much from Microsoft and hate it so much from Apple? I guess it is that you have no choice but to put up with Microsoft's high prices.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.