Dell drops Windows RT, only Microsoft remains selling the OS

Hmm, you put out your own tablets, and buy Nokia, well, you are directly competing with the oem, why would then want to support you?
Particularly since Android/Chrome is free?
No brainer here.
 
It's too early to give up on RT. Microsoft does need to move RT to purely a mobile OS by removing all remnants of the desktop. Eventually people will see it as it's own OS and not as Windows 8 on a tablet.
 
bigdogchris said:
It's too early to give up on RT. Microsoft does need to move RT to purely a mobile OS by removing all remnants of the desktop. Eventually people will see it as it's own OS and not as Windows 8 on a tablet.
Click to expand...

Getting to be a bit too late before MS does that though.
 
bigdogchris said:
It's too early to give up on RT. Microsoft does need to move RT to purely a mobile OS by removing all remnants of the desktop. Eventually people will see it as it's own OS and not as Windows 8 on a tablet.
Click to expand...

windows RT was/is a failure because its called windows.

you make a product with windows in name, that has desktop that is presented like windows and it doesn't run any normal windows applications?

screw all that metro crap, of course people won't be interested in it.
 
Windows RT is a failure because there's no simply room for Microsoft in this space. It's the elephant completely engulfing every cubic inch of the room, yet still miraculously completely unseen by any of the Microsoft executives.
 
I agree with the above, Windows 8 RT needs to be its own mobile OS without being called Windows.

Normal consumers will think it's your typical Windows desktop OS, but will soon realize that you can only install programs from the app store and cannot install any Windows desktop programs. For normal people, it is confusing unless Microsoft either a) renames it or b) markets it better that you can't do certain things on a Windows 8 RT tablet like you can on a Windows desktop PC.

I get that they want to unify the UI and ecosystem but it's not going to work. They have to consider the fact that the majority of consumers buying tablets are stupid or are not very computer literate. They sure can navigate a smartphone, Netflix, and Facebook, but more than likely can't tell you in detail the difference between ARM and x86 in front of your face. At the very least, Chromium OS and Android are two very distinct and unique software like how OSX and iOS are two very distinct and separate pieces of software. You look at a Windows 8 RT screen and Windows 8 desktop, you cannot tell the difference unless you tried to do one thing on one but can't do on the other.

Call it Windows 8 Tablet OS or Tablet 8 OS, something that will keep it distinct and separate from Windows on the desktop. And, market how different it is and remove the Desktop portion out of it.

Keep Windows 8 on the non-RT tablets but market it as a tablet PC.

I like how the new commercials are comparing a 32GB iPad versus the 32GB Windows 8 RT tablet. The problem, however, is that people will think the Windows 8 RT tablet is a tablet PC that can do whatever the Windows 8 desktop can do. It won't work. Many people will think it's a portable Windows PC for $349 and that it's cheaper than the 32GB iPad. And, they will believe it's cheaper than the Windows 8 tablets going for $499 and higher. People, normal people, care about numbers and money. If it's priced higher, they won't get it unless they need or want it. If it's priced lower and looks like a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to the more expensive model, they'll most likely go for it.

Many people know what an iPad, Kindle Fire, and Galaxy Tab Note is than a Windows 8 RT tablet is but don't know how different the RT tablet is from those three tablets and their desktop PC.
 
Last edited:
I think if there ever was a window (ha) of opportunity for a limited, ARM-based version of Windows, it's certainly closing. In any case, it would have taken a far better product to enter a mature tablet market, where Android and iOS have a lock on mind share, plus the benefit of a wide price range of supported devices start at much lower price point (starting @ $199 for iOS and around $100 for Android 4.x). That doesn't even start to get into the rocky start MS has with Windows Store apps.

At this point, MS needs RT for some kind of entry level produce from a "devices and services" company, even though in the best case it'll overlap with lower end CT+ (which are going for $229 w/8" screen) and upcoming BT tablets. $449 is a completely ridiculous price and Surface 2.0 will also spectacularly fail. RT is certainly not working out the way MS needed it to. I mentioned it months ago, but the stink of RT is really in danger of actually damaging the Windows brand. I still can't believe MS doesn't see this.

Getting to the whole Surface debacle, not just RT but also the Pro versions, MS sold about $900 million in Surface and Surface Pro hardware by July 2013, just as it announced a write down of $900 million on Surface RT hardware in inventory. If that wasn't bad enough, MS spent another $900 million marketing Surface and Surface Pro tablets. Ouch. NOT entering the tablet market arguably would have saved MS over a billion dollars in direct losses.
 
pxc said:
I think if there ever was a window (ha) of opportunity for a limited, ARM-based version of Windows, it's certainly closing. In any case, it would have taken a far better product to enter a mature tablet market, where Android and iOS have a lock on mind share, plus the benefit of a wide price range of supported devices start at much lower price point (starting @ $199 for iOS and around $100 for Android 4.x). That doesn't even start to get into the rocky start MS has with Windows Store apps.
Click to expand...

Pricing is an issue for Windows RT devices. The coming Windows 8 Bay Trail devices do seem to address pricing issue however for tablets. The starting prices you mention for iOS and Android won't get you an iOS tablet and $100 Android tablets kind of suck, at least the ones I've tried.

Dell will be launching several devices this Wednesday, among them is rumored to be an RT device. But also rumored are two Bay Trial devices, a $300 8" Windows 8 tablet and a 1080P 10.8" Windows 8 hybrid for $400 with a replaceable battery and a battery keyboard dock accessory. There's also the Toshiba, Acer and Asus with Bay Trails devices in the $350 range and Lenovo might have an 8" $250 8 tablet with a keyboard in that price coming.

These devices may all suck, but these prices with 8.1 are pretty compelling if they don't.

pxc said:
Getting to the whole Surface debacle, not just RT but also the Pro versions, MS sold about $900 million in Surface and Surface Pro hardware by July 2013, just as it announced a write down of $900 million on Surface RT hardware in inventory. If that wasn't bad enough, MS spent another $900 million marketing Surface and Surface Pro tablets. Ouch. NOT entering the tablet market arguably would have saved MS over a billion dollars in direct losses.
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that Microsoft is constantly accused of being run by marketers and bean counters yet people will point out a $900 million write down for a company that still made $25 billion in that year and forget that. Microsoft has its problems but it makes tons of money in spite of those problems still. I'm sure they investments could be done better but it makes no sense for a company like Microsoft not to invest in tablets and mobile technology considering their abundance of cash presently.
 
wonderfield said:
Windows RT is a failure because there's no simply room for Microsoft in this space.
Click to expand...

The question is why.

- They were late to the party. I don't understand how they allowed themselves to wind up in this position, they've been working on touch since 1992 (if not earlier).

- They seem to have completely misjudged consumer demand. They can't compete at the same price point as the iPad and they don't have anything the sub-$300 range. Consumers want cheap content-consumption devices. The market for the work-oriented tablets like the Surface Pro/RT is too small. Cheap Android devices are better for content consumption, convertible ultrabooks are generally better for work.

Microsoft should never have bothered with RT and just used Windows Phone OS as the basis for cheap tablet devices. Tablets are toys, the future of computing is phones. Microsoft doesn't need a hybrid PC/tablet, they need a hybrid phone/PC. If Microsoft doesn't do it then Google will. You can already hook up certain Android phones to a keyboard/mouse/monitor.
 
I think a product called "Microsoft RT" or "MS RT" based on ARM and featuring the Metro UI alone is catchy enough to sell as a mobile OS. Metro itself looks really nice. We focus a lot on how it functions with a mouse, which is fair to do for desktops, but on tablets that's a moot point.

Microsoft's marketing, for the most part, is pretty lame. I do think the Siri commercials are funny, but they are attacking Apple for things Apple doesn't care about (keyboard/usb/etc).

Also, Apple made their way into the mobile industry based on phones, not tablets. Because the phones were popular, the tablets were a natural addition to people's gadget collection. Microsoft is trying to skip this step and just get people to buy their tablets. Since PC sales are slumping, not many people are not moving to 8, thus no reason to pick up a Microsoft tablet as the natural addition to your computing collection.
 
Last edited:
HvyMtl said:
Hmm, you put out your own tablets, and buy Nokia, well, you are directly competing with the oem, why would then want to support you?
Click to expand...
Google purchased Motorola and produces their own hardware (directly competing with OEMs), hasn't stopped 3rd parties from making Android tablets. :confused:
 
Unknown-One said:
Google purchased Motorola and produces their own hardware (directly competing with OEMs), hasn't stopped 3rd parties from making Android tablets. :confused:
Click to expand...

They did eventually but not at the outset. Google let third party OEM partners actually get their efforts off the ground first and build some momentum, rather than sabotaging them like MS is doing. Big difference.

The other difference is people actually *want* Android tablets, so that also helps 3rd parties to keep making them since there's actual sellthrough.
 
DPI said:
They did eventually but not at the outset. Google let third party OEM partners actually get their efforts off the ground first and build some momentum, rather than sabotaging them like MS is doing. Big difference.

The other difference is people actually *want* Android tablets, so that also helps 3rd parties to keep making them since there's actual sellthrough.
Click to expand...

How is Microsoft sabotaging 3rd parties with Windows RT if no one else is making them? Except Dell it looks. Microsoft is leaving a lot of space for OEMs for now at least, no Surface Bay Trail and Surface Pro is a niche device. And I think you'll see a good bit of demand for these cheap Bay Trail devices this fall, they are much more competitively priced versus iPads and Android tablets than Clover Trail devices from last year.
 
DPI said:
They did eventually but not at the outset. Google let third party OEM partners actually get their efforts off the ground first and build some momentum, rather than sabotaging them like MS is doing. Big difference.
Click to expand...
3rd parties have been able to make Window-based tablets for ages (far longer than Google let 3rd parties go it alone).

Windows XP Tablet PC Edition launched in 2002. Windows Vista and Windows 7 both continued to include and improve upon Tablet PC support. OEM's never picked up the ball and ran with it, not in all 11 years that Microsoft gave them before releasing their own hardware. (The surface and Surface RT are basically around to show OEM's how they SHOULD have been building these things all this time).

Google, on the other hand, launched Android in 2007 and announced their purchase of Motorola Mobility in 2011... only 4 years.
 
Last edited:
The comparison is disingenuous because Windows RT tablets were not available in 2002, nor were they available even in 2011. Microsoft's RT tablet was available out of the gate with the launch of the RT operating system. If you were to argue that Windows RT is Windows, the argument would be no less disingenuous.

Google had not produced their own branded Android tablets for four years after Android's introduction; Microsoft produced their own branded Windows RT tablet immediately upon Windows RT's introduction.
 
Windows RT is a subset Windows. While one can't install 3rd party desktop apps on RT modern apps are fully compatible with Windows 8 x86.
 
pxc said:
OTOH, MS's long involvement with tablets and handhelds is a real puzzler to why the company can't seem to get anywhere anymore.
Click to expand...

Much of the issue with Windows on tablets has been hardware related. Too expensive, heavy and not enough battery life. Those issues are mostly resolved now with Bay Trail. And there's not be true touch and tablet capable software before the modern UI. Yes, the Windows Store needs more apps but the situation is much better than a year ago.

So we now have Windows 8 devices that are half the cost, entering into the range of iPads and Android devices, and twice as fast and a lot more apps than 12 months ago. This is pretty significant progress and I don't see with all of these things put together why Windows 8 won't make so decent market share gains on tablets. It would only take about one in four Windows devices to be either a tablet, hybrid or convertible for Windows 8 rival the size of iPad sales, not counting touch clamshell laptops. That doesn't seem like an unrealistic goal with devices like Asus TF100 and a number of the cheaper Bay Trail devices on the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top