Print 47 comment(s) - last by Nagorak.. on Sep 27 at 2:53 AM

XPS 10 has disappeared -- but will it be replaced?

At the 2013 Intel Developer Forum (IDF), Dell Inc. (DELL) hinted at a Oct. 2 launch event for a new family of Venue tablets.  The big question was whether Intel would have any place in Dell's tablets.  At the time Dell was selling the XPS 10 tablet, which ran Windows RT on top of Qualcomm, Inc.'s (QCOM) Snapdragon S4 -- an ARM architecture chip.

Now the tables have turned.

At IDF Dell made it clear than Intel Corp.'s (INTC) new 22 nm tablet system-on-a-chip designs -- Bay Trail -- will be onboard at least some of the Venue models.  And this week the XPS 10 disappeared from Dell's website -- apparently discontinued.  The tablet had seen poor sales and numerous price cuts as Dell struggled to sell consumers on its ARM device.

Now people are asking the reverse -- do ARM chipmakers have any place in Windows tablets?

Dell XPS 10
The Dell XPS 10 docked (bottom) and undocked (top)

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has defiantly announced that it is sticking to its support of ARM processors -- which are found in the Google Inc. (GOOG) Android designs that lead the market and in second-place Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPad.  Microsoft has committed to launch Windows 8.1 RT, a refresh to the ARM-based version of Windows, along side Windows 8.1 for x86.

Dell XPS 10
The Dell XPS 10 is MIA on Dell's webpage.

Microsoft this week announced that the Surface 2 would run Windows 8.1 RT and feature a Tegra 4 ARM processor from NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA).  But so far Microsoft is the only OEM to announce a Windows 8.1 RT device.  And the only other prototype Windows RT device pictured thus far has been a tablet from Microsoft's new hardware subsidiary Nokia Oyj. (HEX:NOK1V).

It appears the Lenovo Group, Ltd. (HKG:0992), ASUSTek Computer, Inc. (TPE:2357), and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) have all pulled the plug on Windows RT support, announcing Intel-based Windows 8.1 tablet designs, but no Windows 8.1 RT products.  Others have simply reaffirmed their unwillingness to produce ARM-based tablets -- like Acer Inc. (TPE:2353).

ARM engineers
Windows OEMs have seen weak sales of ARM-powered products.
[Image Source: My Statesman]

Some believe that Dell may buck its fellow OEMs trend of dismissing Windows 8.1 RT.  But many analysts say it would not be surprising to see Dell pull the plug too.  Comments Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates in an interview with PC World, "I just don’t see why you would stop selling your existing product until the new product comes out.  If they do, they will be bucking the trend of other vendors getting out of RT."

In other words the notion that Dell simply suspended sales to prepare for a next generation Windows 8.1 RT tablet may just be wishful thinking.

Sources: Dell, PCWorld

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Motoman on 9/25/2013 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 5
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Windows RT probably would have been fine if it didn't involve the word "Windows."

Labeling something as a "Windows" product implies beyond a reasonable doubt that it's compatible with Windows programs/apps/software.

Windows RT is not compatible with Windows programs/apps/software.

Is there anything wrong with MS making an ARM-centric tablet OS? No. In fact, it probably makes a lot of sense.

What's wrong is calling something Windows when it isn't Windows. All you do there is confuse and anger the consumer base.

Call it "Microsoft Tablet". Or maybe call it "Tiles." Or...whatever. Just don't call it "Windows." Because it isn't Windows, and trying to imply that it is is causing you massive amounts of problems.

RE: Again
By BRB29 on 9/25/2013 1:28:10 PM , Rating: 5
MS went through the trouble of making something look like win8 but is not compatible. Go figure.

RE: Again
By sluze on 9/25/2013 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft made windows 8 look like windows RT THAT is the real problem.

If Microsoft had gone after the transformer model with, Win8 being an updated version of 7, active while the keyboard is hooked up and WinRT when you disconnect the keyboard and use it as a tablet - and a file conversion or agnostic background system in place for file usage - you wouldn't have a problem.

Instead they stapled Windows RT, like a troglodyte, on top of Windows 8 and impolitely forced you to look at it alll the time.

RE: Again
By Cartman Jones on 9/25/2013 2:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
You can easily make Win8 act like Win7, for free even.

RE: Again
By grant3 on 9/25/2013 11:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not easy.

On new system with Windows 8, I spent over 20 minutes searching the system (both through menus + help system) for the settings to enable a Win7 look & feel.

I am forced to look at online forums to discover that such an option wasn't even included in Win8. Getting a Win7 UI requires finding & installing 3rd party software to simulate it.

So it may be "easy" for technical people who work computers every day & are experienced in finding & installing the right software. But the other 95% of the population it's going to be at least an unnecessary headache.

RE: Again
By retrospooty on 9/26/2013 8:33:47 AM , Rating: 3
He is referring to 3rd party free apps like classicshell

He is right in that its easy enough that anyone can do it, the issue is that no-one should have to do it. From the 1st time PC user to the seasoned vet, no-one should be forced to get a 3rd party app to make the UI not completely suck.

RE: Again
By Flunk on 9/26/2013 9:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think 1st time users would care that it doesn't support the interface style of the last version of Windows. How would they know or care? It's just people who are accustomed to the old interface who would care.

RE: Again
By ritualm on 9/25/2013 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
You missed his point.

The difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT: the latter cannot run any x86-based Windows software. Unlike Windows Phone, however, there is no clear differentiation between Win8 and WinRT.

If I'm like a lot of non-DT readers, I'd potentially end up with a Surface RT because it's cheaper, only to find out that its Windows application support is next to non-existent (as compared to every Windows computer I've built and used to date). Why continue calling it Windows at that point? It can't run anything that otherwise runs perfectly off a lowly $500 x86-based laptop from Best Buy, ffs.

RE: Again
By troysavary on 9/25/2013 3:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, it appears that Cartman was responding to the statement that Windows 8 has the Metro interface forced on you, not the lack of apps on RT. Not sure, but that is how I read it.

So I agree with both of you. Add a Start Menu app, and use the desktop versions of programs rather than the Modern UI versions, and it works pretty much like Windows 7.

Windows RT was a mistake. Should have been Windows Phone on tablets. You are right about a lack of explanation to the average consumer what the differences between RT and 8 are.

RE: Again
By Breakfast Susej on 9/25/2013 1:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
I've felt for a wile now that they should consider retiring the "Windows" brand to try to reposition themselves. Problem is Microsoft seems to be really horrible at naming products. Xbox One for example.

RE: Again
By arazok on 9/25/2013 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Can’t argue there.

Live – I hate it - Makes sense for Xbox Online, but WTF does it have to do with Windows (Live ID), Outlook (Live ID again), email, photo editing, or movie making (Live Essentials – which is not to be confused with Security Essentials, which is Antivirus).

If MS had invented the Keyboard, it would be called the Windows Human Interface Bridge, and the Mouse would be the Windows Human Interface Bridge Essentials.

Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005

The all time best:
Microsoft IntelliSense XML Files for Microsoft Visual Studio Tools for the Microsoft Office System Solution Developers (MISXMLFfMVSTftMOSSD for short)

RE: Again
By augiem on 9/25/2013 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
If MS had invented the Keyboard, it would be called the Windows Human Interface Bridge

If Apple had invented it, it would be the MagicTouch Slate(TM) or iType. Choose your nomenclature.

RE: Again
By TakinYourPoints on 9/25/2013 6:57:43 PM , Rating: 4
Yup. In hindsight calling it Surface OS or something to separate it from the desktop would have been a good move.

When people hear "Windows" but end up with a tablet ecosystem that does less than anything out there except maybe the Kindle Fire (which at least has the decency to be much cheaper), and it has a Windows desktop that you can't really even use, its very disappointing to your average user.

RE: Again
By Nagorak on 9/27/2013 2:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
They should just pull the plug on RT at this point. The OEMs are sending them a big message and they are not listening. Baytrail just made RT obsolete. The tiny difference in price for a Baytrail Atom vs an ARM chip is worth the added x86 legacy support.

There's no reason that Surface (RT) 2 couldn't be the same price with a Baytrail Atom. Performance would be better than Tegra 4 (perhaps graphics performance would be slightly worse, but CPU performance would be much stronger), and it could run X86 apps.

Surface (RT) 2 is a stupid product and its only due to Microsoft's stubbornness that they are bother with it. None of the OEMs that make their money off of selling hardware are going to follow them off the RT cliff. They'll just slap a Baytrail Atom in there and go full Windows 8.

RE: Again
By melgross on 9/25/2013 1:53:47 PM , Rating: 5
The other thing wrong is that there is no consumer centric reason for RT at all. Yes, there is a reason for why Microsoft wants to have a cheaper, ARM based line. But for people buying these things, there's no reason. What does RT really give people that they can't get from Android or iOS? Microsoft thinks it's Office, but people don't really care about Office on a tablet. At least, not on an RT tablet.

We're talking about what is really an orphaned product line. It's even questionable as to whether people want any Windows tablets, considering how poorly Pro is selling. Last quarter, the Microsoft friendly IDC said that about 300 thousand surface tablets shipped, not sold. That number includes both the RT and Pro lines. Terrible. Other vendors haven't done any better, and likely did worse.

Before Surface, third party vendors of Win 7 tablets were selling them at the rate of tens of thousands a quarter. That's no demand at all. Win 8 hasn't changed things much.

RE: Again
By flyingpants1 on 9/25/2013 2:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, people care about Office on a Tablet. RT is basically an iPad. Yeah it's useless, but with Office and a keyboard, it becomes less useless. Office is Microsoft's killer app.

If I had to choose between RT and an iPad myself, I'd go for RT every single time.

The problem was specs, price, and apps.. You can't compete with Apple's brand recognition with an inferior product and ecosystem at the same price point.

RT should be $399 with keyboard, then I'd actually take it over a Nexus 4.

RE: Again
By YearOfTheDingo on 9/25/2013 2:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Surface RT was a premium product perceived as a crippled one due to the existence of Surface Pro.

RE: Again
By EnzoFX on 9/25/2013 2:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, the specs were clearly inferior to the iPad and Android variants.

RE: Again
By Argon18 on 9/25/2013 4:43:47 PM , Rating: 1
RT was a correctly perceived crippled product. Good riddance to it, it's useless and nobody wants it. RT is nothing more than a 3rd place me-too copycat of the successful iOS and Android products. No wonder it failed.

RE: Again
By w8gaming on 9/26/2013 2:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
It is not a perception issue. It is a product made well and engineered well but happens to have little demands in marketplace. It is a marketing failure by not providing a product with the right features with the right cost and at the right price.

RE: Again
By YearOfTheDingo on 9/26/2013 10:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
Having the right features wouldn't help much if customers have a device with those same features already. Here's the thinking that might go through a potential buyers' mind:

1. "If I buy a Surface tablet, it's definitely going to be the Pro because it runs real Windows app."
2. "I have a notebook computer with Windows 8 already. Should I really spend $900 on something that runs the same thing?"

Making good products is not sufficient to be successful in the marketplace. A company has to properly position, differentiate, and promote them.

RE: Again
By augiem on 9/25/2013 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
The problem was specs, price, and apps.. You can't compete with Apple's brand recognition with an inferior product and ecosystem at the same price point.

Agreed. That's why the Surface 2 (RT) is looking not so terrible to me right now. Its actually got competitive hardware, plus the ever-elusive SD card slot which I like a lot. RT was always a non-contender to me, but now that the Surface 2 is offering something at least halfway decent for the price compared to iPad, I'd consider it. Sure, it's nowhere near the uber deal of Nexus 7 or the new Kindles, but its far from trash like last time around. Its good to have choices.

RE: Again
By 3DPro on 9/25/2013 6:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its actually got competitive hardware, plus the ever-elusive SD card slot which I like a lot.

I am looking forward to upgrading both my Surface RT to 2 and Surface Pro to Pro 2; however, to be fair and accurate, Surface RT has the same SD Card slot as the Surface 2.

RE: Again
By YearOfTheDingo on 9/25/2013 6:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Office is a huge deal for a lot of people. A lightweight, power efficient machine that can do PowerPoint? I'm sold.

I don't recall seeing a picture of Microsoft's killer app running on the Surface RT though. It's always the stupid start screen adorned with generic stock photos. Epic fail in marketing.

RE: Again
By w8gaming on 9/26/2013 2:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
You have just described ultrabook. And many people are buying that instead of RT.

RE: Again
By Nagorak on 9/27/2013 2:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
It's not really that hard to understand what the issue is. Surface Pro is just too expensive. It costs more than the iPad and that is already priced at a premium. It's OK to have the Surface Pro, but there should never have been huge sales expectations.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the RT. If you are giving up all legacy app support, then why not go with a cheaper Android tablet, or an equivalent iPad? There's no advantage of going with a WinRT tablet when it has no support for X86 apps, and also has an inferior app store to the competitors.

That being said, if full Win 8.1 tablets can be made cheaply enough, I believe there could be a market for them. Microsoft is really missing the boat by continuing to whip the dead WinRT horse.

RE: Again
By Wolfpup on 9/25/2013 2:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's kind of a good point. Windows RT/Surface RT are actually awesome products compared to iOS and Android, but they're lacking things that real Windows can do, sooo...

I think I'm buying a Surface 2 though for a relative, as it's more locked down than real Windows, yet provides most everything she'll need, I think (whereas a Chromebook or iOS don't).

RE: Again
By YearOfTheDingo on 9/25/2013 2:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem with Microsoft's corporate culture. You're either part of Windows or you're nobody. A product has to tie into Windows somehow or it faces the danger of getting axed. I was reading an article about the Kin, how its failure was basically preordained. Executives already made the decision to kill it before the device went to market. The Xbox only got the go ahead because the team managed to convince Bill Gates that it was a way to bring Windows to the living room.

Hopefully the incoming CEO will be able to change the mindset. A successful company of Microsoft's size has to be able to rally around more than one product.

RE: Again
By Cartman Jones on 9/25/2013 2:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
MS should have beefed up WinPhone and used that for ARM tablets. RT isn't a bad OS, but it was, IMHO, an unnecessary one. Using WinPhone, as clearly labeling it as such, would have done much to eliminate confusion. Windows on ARM was a necessary backup plan if Intel couldn't deliver tablet-ready chips, but they already had that in WinPhone.

RE: Again
By palmira_friend on 9/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Again
By domboy on 9/25/2013 4:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
You maybe be right, but I think one of RT's biggest problems is different people want it to be different things. Some like you want it to be iOS, Andriod, Windows Phone... i.e. a mainly touch-centric mobile OS, get rid of the desktop, etc.

Others like me want it to be the full blown Windows 8 for ARM, without all the silly signing restrictions on APIs (win32, .NET).

Unfortunately it is neither, and sort of stuck in the middle somewhere.

Thanks to some very knowledgeable folks at XDA developers, 8.0 can be made to function more like I want it to by removing the signing restrictions, but RT 8.1 mostly breaks as that's not what Microsoft wants it to be (which I find highly annoying as a paying customer), as it appears they want to push the WinRT/Modern UI thing.

I knew exactly what I was getting when I bought a Surface RT, and it can do most of what I want it to do with what's built into the OS. Thankfully there is a Netfilx app (since Silverlight is absent), and I can run the few desktop apps I want via the "jailbreak", so it doesn't have to have full x86 compatibility.

While I think the Surface hardware is brilliant, and the XPS 10 is also a really nice device (we have a demo unit in house at work at the moment) I honestly don't see much of a future for Windows on ARM, especially in its crippled state. Now that you can buy an x86 tablet or convertible (like what Dell is coming out with with their Venue line) that has just as good or better battery life and has full compatibility with the back catalog of all windows apps, and doesn't suffer from an locked down OS, and costs the same, why bother with Windows RT??

Kill Windows RT
By amanojaku on 9/25/2013 3:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
The worst thing MS could have done was prevent application compatibility with full-blown Windows. Now, consumers have to choose which tablet platform they want based on software availability, when the choice should really be battery life vs. performance.

I'm willing to bet that most of the existing software could easily be recompiled (not recoded) for ARM, since no one really does low-level programming any more. .Net, COM, etc... are available for both WinRT and Windows.

It would have made Microsoft's life easier, too. Instead of developing two operating systems and their respective SDKs, it could have just developed one with a comprehensive compiler. 1+1 on x86 is identical to 1+1 on ARM. Memory management, I/O, etc... would have been the only things needed to be tweeked.

This isn't a new concept, either. Most Linux programs are available as source code that compiles on any architecture.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By domboy on 9/25/2013 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 2

The above list show there is not only an interest, but people have taken time out of their own lives to do just that... recompile desktop windows apps for ARM. There are some things people have asked about that do actually still call binary code, but a lot of things work just fine. Some .NET 4 work without modification. And this is just open source applications...

If the API weren't locked due to signing restrictions who knows what developers might have ported. We might have a VPN client by now. We might have Chrome or Firefox.

It seems to me that Microsoft is actively fighting the idea of full Windows for ARM.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By w8gaming on 9/26/2013 2:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think MS true interest is to have Windows on mobile phone in the long run. In order to achieve that, they have to live with the hardware limitations typical on a mobile phone, and control access to the API. The insistence of having the RT platform is an effort trying to transform RT eventually to run on mobile phone, and during the transition period, they need RT to be available.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By Flunk on 9/26/2013 9:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
They're planning on stripping out the older APIs in the future to lower the OS overhead and memory usage. This is why they're disallowing them despite the fact that they're actually still there. They think that it's not possible to compete with newer, leaner OSes like Android without stripping out the older APIs.

I'm not sure it's the right strategy, but that's what they're doing.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By Argon18 on 9/25/2013 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Linux and nearly all open source software does indeed work on ARM, x86, SPARC, POWER, MIPS, etc. with usually nothing more than a recompile. That's precisely why it has spread so far and so fast.

But there's the rub - it's Open Source. Microsoft isn't. With Microsoft, you get whatever they decide to give you, and nothing more. With Open Source, each platform vendor can (and does) submit patches to the developers to ensure that it works well on their platform. Intel employees and AMD employees submit kernel and compiler patches, as do ARM chip makers, so it's like a community effort, everyone working together. With Microsoft, that isn't an option, you're stuck with whatever they give you.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By amanojaku on 9/26/2013 12:38:54 AM , Rating: 4
And OS X isn't closed source? I only bring it up since you mentioned it was superior to Windows. You even said iOS (also closed source) is superior to Windows.

What criteria do you use to define "superior"? There are many things that Windows offers that other operating systems lack, primarily enterprise features.

There are many things open source projects get wrong, as well. Consistent support being one of them. The fact that everyone can contribute to a project means little when there is no ongoing maintenance. It is common to find open source projects that are abandoned when their creators graduate from college and get jobs (or raise families). It is also common for projects to fork, leading to confusion over which fork is best. BSD is an example: FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD? Linux is another: Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SUSE, or Ubuntu?

I would never give an open source product to the average user, who happens to be the target for Windows. It's just too risky. I can pull out an old copy of a program built for Windows, and there's an extremely good chance it will work with the current version. My desktop runs Office 2007 (2007) on Windows 7 (2009), on hardware I just bought in June (2013). You can't run OS X 10.6 (2009) on a Mac purchased in 2013, and you can forget running software from 2007 on it. To give you some context, I installed a copy of Trillian 3.1 (2010) that I use to connect to AIM and MSN, and a copy of DVD Decrypter 3.5 (2008) that I rip disks with. Newer isn't always better, especially in the case of DVD Decrypter, which was killed off and reduced to ImgBurn. Not sure what people use to rip DVDs with today, but Decrypter still works. I have other software that's no longer available, and without modern counterparts, that work on Windows 7, and most likely works on Windows 8 (I'm not upgrading; I like Windows 8, despite the start screen, but I just installed 7 last year when my XP hard drive died).

Lets see how many open source development environments there are for Windows:

Open Watcom
Tiny C Compiler

Microsoft's upgrades have yet to stem the creation of open source software development, including compilers and programming languages. It simply thought it could copy the success of iOS by producing WinRT. Little does it understand that iOS was successful because it had no competition for years, and was able to develop an ecosystem that people are now locked into because of their purchases of music, movies and books. A lightweight release of Windows supporting the Win32 and Win64 APIs would make MS a serious contender on phones and tablets, because you could pretty much run code going back to Windows 95.

RE: Kill Windows RT
By Flunk on 9/26/2013 9:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
OS X and iOS are only partially closed-source. The lower level components such as the kernel are open source. It's only the higher-level userspace that is closed source.

Just a factual note, open-source definitely has it's problems.

By Roy2001 on 9/25/2013 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
RT would fail as Intel Atom Soc serves the need.

Pro would fail as people would pick ultrabook.

Good luck MS with your Surface.

RE: Re:
By XZerg on 9/25/2013 3:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ultrabook and Surface [Hybrid] serve different models. I am very much interested in the Hybrid model where the Keyboard/mouse detaches from the screen, transforming into a tablet.

I want to see a bulky hybrid model to provide me the power (faster cpu, higher memory and bigger drive, optional with dGPU). This is not all that possible with Ultrabook due to the size and weight limitations - soldered ram and ssds. This is not to say all are soldered but many are resorting to that option.

Hybrid is the option of the future imho.

RE: Re:
By Argon18 on 9/25/2013 5:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
The hybrid folding convertible laptop tablet concept is a very niche product. Companies have been making them since the late 1990's. My girlfriend had one from Compaq that ran XP in 2001 I think. It sucked then and it sucks now for most general purpose computing tasks. Things that can be done effectively with a keyboard and mouse cannot be done effectively with a touchscreen, and vice versa. It's like combining a toaster oven with a calculator; a curiosity, yeah, but not real useful to anyone.

RE: Re:
By troysavary on 9/25/2013 7:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Of course a Compaq from 2001 is gonna suck now.

RE: Re:
By Argon18 on 9/25/2013 9:01:17 PM , Rating: 1
No, it sucked *then*. I.e. when it was brand new. I have no idea how much it sucks now, because she bought it in 2001 and got rid of it in 2002. It was that horrid. Microsoft products today are no better though, lol.

By Flunk on 9/25/2013 1:03:42 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to see a new XPS 10 with one of the new higher-performance Atom SoCs. That would be a useful little system on the go, the right combination of usefulness and weight. The XPS 10 was reasonably built and attractive.

By melgross on 9/25/2013 1:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
I just love it when they do quotes on some analysts such as Jack Gold or Rob Enderle, describing them either as the "chief" or "head" analyst at their firms. What they never say is that these guys are the ONLY analyst at their firms. Enderle's firm, for example, consists of him and his wife, though there may be a secretary.

I understand these guys label their firms as though they are much larger, with Enderle using the word "Group" to describe his. That would give what they say more credence. But both of these guys don't have very good records, though Gold's is much better than Enderle's. Truth is, I don't ever remember Enderle ever making a prediction of any importance that was correct.

You wonder why companies still hire these guys, and why they get quoted so often .

The Issue is MS's Business Model
By sundragon on 9/25/2013 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
It was horizontal, and now they want to be like Apple and get verticle.... Google is doing some of that with Motorola and Google's Nexus line.

The point is RT wasn't windows and trying to make a better iPad is bad idea. Apple didn't invent the tablet, but they managed to do it right - their sales speak to that.

Look up "disruptive technology". Examples are the iPad, Blackberry, iPhone, Windows, and the IBM PC... All of these disrupted and change the landscape.

Microsoft needs to remember what it took to launch Windows and use that definition to mold it's next products or it will always play catch up.

The issue is that instead of a lot of little fish, there are large fish now - Google, Apple, to name a few and it's harder. Just wait till Samsung decides to start pushing Tizen (if and when it's viable and mature enough) and takes the crown.

Safety Net
By acer905 on 9/26/2013 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
RT was never meant to last, at least not really. RT was a safety net against Intel not living up to their end and actually producing low cost, powerful chipsets. MS announced the Windows on ARM project to give Intel the kick it needed to push out the new Atom line ASAP. Had RT taken off, MS would have won. If it fades away and people can get Win8.1 on Atom chipsets for the same cost as other tablets, MS wins. As long as they learned their lesson and not overproduce the surface line, they won't have much to worry about.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Latest Headlines
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki