How Microsoft got tablets wrong. Again.

Make me cheap!

Although we think of Microsoft as a software company they have had some big hits on the hardware front. The Microsoft mouse was, for years, the definitive pointing device. I used Microsoft's ergonomic keyboards for a long time before discovering for reasons I don't understand that Apple's straight version doesn't give me the same strain as a typical keyboard. And, of course, the X-box has done pretty good business. But Microsoft has not been lucky with tablet computing.

They first went wrong with their early attempt at creating a touchscreen standard. It gave us that excellent piece of software OneNote, but the hardware never took off. No one could see why anyone would want to buy a tablet when they could have a real computer. Then Apple showed the world exactly why they wanted one - and the world changed. So when Microsoft came back to the market with the Surface they should have had it easy. They had an excellent, touchscreen-oriented operating system that would run legacy programs (if you had the right version of the hardware). And a neat design. What could possibly go wrong?

At the time of writing the price of Surface tablets is being heavily discounted for the obvious reason that they simply aren't selling. We now all understand why we want a tablet - but we want it to be an iPad or and Android device, and we need a fair amount of persuading to go for something else. And the MS sell just isn't working. I think Microsoft has one hope, but I don't think they will see it. Certainly the usually spot-on industry website The Register didn't in this piece on the price cuts.

Simon Sharwood, the author of the piece, comments 'One small ray of sunshine is that the price cut may not be permanent.' But I'd say that's bad news, not a ray of sunshine. I think Microsoft's only hope for the Surface was not keep it premium priced, but to make it really cheap. It's the Polaroid strategy. Polaroid used to practically give away their cameras, because they made all their money from the film. You can still see this sales model operated today by printer manufacturers who sell printers ridiculously cheap considering what sophisticated devices they are, because they expect to make their money from the consumables. (I once had a colour laser printer where a set of cartridges was more expensive than buying the printer (with a set of cartridges) in the first place.)

Of course 'consumables' are a very different business with a tablet than with a printer or Polaroid camera. They are less essential, so you have to make sure that it's attractive and very, very easy to upgrade your software (something, let's face it, Microsoft knows all about with Office), to buy new apps and to buy little add-on hardware gadgets and widgets. But given that, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't sell Surfaces mega-cheap for ever. That way, they'd have a chance of surviving against the might of the aluminium clad opposition.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog