Will Windows 10 S help Microsoft beat Chromebooks?

[Keeptechcoolandsimple]

i guess, personally, that's the crux of what i find so intriguing about the surface laptop, or more specifically windows 10s.
as someone who's confident in the tech he uses but doesn't consider himself a techie (as a matter of fact, i believe this is only the second time in my life i got so involved in a forum like this ^^), the comparison between windows and chromeOS, as i imagine a casual user might see it, boils down to this: for light web-based use and app-based media consumption, the web-centric chromebook is amazingly quick and responsive and (at least mine anyways) the platform of choice. for everything else beyond simple tasks, for productivity, or anything that you don't want to be web dependent, you can't beat a windows 10 pro machine (again, may be a personal preference).
And here comes windows 10s with what i perceive as the promise of bridging the gap between where windows 10 pro currently is and where chromeOS currently is: ie, a platform that can support the power tools necessary running on a quick resource-light os. and if ms can fulfill that promise through its development of the windows store, i presume the surface laptop may live up to it's surface branding: namely, a category-definer.

 

[Chris Knopff]

Doubt it currently.

As time progresses though, with more content (hopefully) brought to the Windows Store, this may actually be a competitor. Though pricing will vary, much like with Chromebook options.

 

[Ezhik]

Well that's what it's aiming for, at least. I think it depends on how easy they are integrate and manage, and then how much they cost to maintain over time.

 

[Drael646464]

Well, unlike Mobile which they eventually decided to let die (let's not deny that), they can't afford to do it to an OS they are releasing on their best bet - the Surface line. I can assure you the efforts going into Windows 10S will be much more than that of mobile.

MS just has bigger fish to fry. They are the kings of the desktop, and have a share of the console market - combined the biggest force in gaming. 60% marketshare of games.

VR is the next big cash cow, the next entertainment paradigm. I don't think anyone really doubts that. That could put mobile giants on a backfoot - just like people don't want low res, blocky graphics in movies and games, they won't want inferior VR experiences in the long run. They want the platform that can eventually deliver something lifelike.

VR is bad for mobile platforms and good for MSFT. They can't compete. Any more than a switch can compete with a tricked out gaming rig playing AAAs. Sure people may do it, but that ain't where the core of the money is.

AR/VR and mixed reality should _absolutely_ be MSFTs focus, as well as unifying the console and PC. I am glad they see this, because this is a chance for the static machine to rise again.

As should cultivating the UWP, across console, PC, mobile, mixed reality, everything, and trying to stay in the AI war, AND keeping their UI fresh. Smartphone is more or less last years battleground. Its a saturated market, that's about to decline.

Mobile is literally the last thing they should massively invest in right now. Instead, they should keep it alive, in suspension, keep strategizing it, wait till folding tablets, AR tech or something else replaces the existing paradigm. Until it becomes a strong growth market again, its not worth a lot of effort for anyone but Samsung or apple anyway.

It's simply having a sense of priorities.

 

[ajcletus500]

Im not saying that W10S is not going to beat Chromebooks, but MS needs to attract more app developers and that's a fact that cant be ignored

 

[ajcletus500]

MS just has bigger fish to fry. They are the kings of the desktop, and have a share of the console market - combined the biggest force in gaming. 60% marketshare of games.

VR is the next big cash cow, the next entertainment paradigm. I don't think anyone really doubts that. That could put mobile giants on a backfoot - just like people don't want low res, blocky graphics in movies and games, they won't want inferior VR experiences in the long run. They want the platform that can eventually deliver something lifelike.

VR is bad for mobile platforms and good for MSFT. They can't compete. Any more than a switch can compete with a tricked out gaming rig playing AAAs. Sure people may do it, but that ain't where the core of the money is.

AR/VR and mixed reality should _absolutely_ be MSFTs focus, as well as unifying the console and PC. I am glad they see this, because this is a chance for the static machine to rise again.

As should cultivating the UWP, across console, PC, mobile, mixed reality, everything, and trying to stay in the AI war, AND keeping their UI fresh. Smartphone is more or less last years battleground. Its a saturated market, that's about to decline.

Mobile is literally the last thing they should massively invest in right now. Instead, they should keep it alive, in suspension, keep strategizing it, wait till folding tablets, AR tech or something else replaces the existing paradigm. Until it becomes a strong growth market again, its not worth a lot of effort for anyone but Samsung or apple anyway.

It's simply having a sense of priorities.

totally agree with you here

 

[falcon304]

It's a HUGE uphill battle. I saw a story about how Chromebooks are like 60% of computers in schools now. I hope that they do, and I think they can, but only time will tell.