Is the surface line a failure?

[sd4f]

The title is a bit more nuanced than you may think, because clearly the surface pros are selling well, but where I'm starting to think that they're a failure is because they're not doing what MS set out to accomplish with them; chiefly bridge the gap between windows being a desktop OS and moving to a 'mobile' OS.

So touch screens is a big feature of the surface line. To date every computing device with the surface name has had a touch screen, yet, very little software takes advantage of the tablet form factor, and the surface ultimately spends most of its time as a laptop replacement that meaning that I could very easily replace my surface with a laptop and essentially not lose any functionality, because none of it's biggest strengths are really being exploited. That is to say that the advantages of the form factor aren't being used.

So, has ushering in the new Neo concept signalled a sign that the 2-in-1 isn't really living up to its goals and MS needs to bank harder to achieve them?

I understanding of the whole surface line was for MS to be able to better steer the direction that hardware was moving in, as clearly, very few equipment manufacturers were deviating at all from the formula, but even the surface line shows that as far as users and developers are concerned, no one is really taking a step forward in doing it, in spite of MS' efforts.

Looking at the coverage, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the Neo, ironically, the larger device is mostly in the shadow of the Duo. I think the Neo will have a real uphill battle to garner any sort of support from developers. I don't even think foldable android phones will see much interest.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Looking at the coverage, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the Neo, ironically, the larger device is mostly in the shadow of the Duo. I think the Neo will have a real uphill battle to garner any sort of support from developers. I don't even think foldable android phones will see much interest.

I agree with you regarding the Neo. Everyone is pointing at it and saying, 'Why isn't Windows X on the Duo?' Yes why aren't you putting an OS with literally no apps on a phone size device... That will sell well...

The Duo is unique in that it's OS is being developed with Google to support dual screen and the whole point of taking a year is to encourage developers to make their apps compatible for this.

Having Google on their side was a good idea.

The reason why the Duo is taking more notice is because the 'Surface Phone' has been talked about for years on this site and other sites. The fact it's not a Windows Phone has upset a few people.

As for the Surface line success. I agree with you. With Windows 8/8.1 metro tablet design made sense. W10 messed it up. Going back to a Win 7 setup was a mistake in my eyes. Not pushing touch design in apps was the second. The Duo could have been a Windows phone had MS pushed the idea of touch.

So let's see where we go from here though. Could be interesting.

 

[sd4f]

I agree with you regarding the Neo. Everyone is pointing at it and saying, 'Why isn't Windows X on the Duo?' Yes why aren't you putting an OS with literally no apps on a phone size device... That will sell well...

I agree in that running with android is the only option, any incarnation of windows on the duo would just doom it. My point was I still don't think that foldable devices, on android, will see much developer support, so I think the Neo hasn't got a snowflakes chance in hell. I may be wrong (I was wrong about the duo, I thought MS buried the idea, I'd never have guessed that they'd go android).

The interesting thing is, you can see that MS could see where things were heading, and so long ago, but they weren't able to steer their ship in the right direction. From a business perspective, you can see that they've decided to clean the slate, and allow everything on the table. They clearly aren't going to be protecting windows anymore if there's more money to be made elsewhere.

 

[ochhanz]

The title is a bit more nuanced than you may think, because clearly the surface pros are selling well, but where I'm starting to think that they're a failure is because they're not doing what MS set out to accomplish with them; chiefly bridge the gap between windows being a desktop OS and moving to a 'mobile' OS.

, I think overall the Surface line is a success; even though it is not mass adopted as a form factor it has a strong niche market (e.g. Office, artists and 3d artists) but maybe even more important 2-1's are a success. So while touchscreen is not yet the main input for Windows, it is there and slowly but steadily gets acknowledged more. Like many quite big programs have some way of touch support, e.g. solidworks or cad and recently Blender got a big ui update that partly lends itself for touchscreens. Seeing in the recent Surface event, Adobe is also working on better touch support.

 

[Ryujingt3]

The Surface line is a success for MS, but you can clearly see how they kind of knew they wouldn't match what they wanted (to bridge the gap between desktop and mobile) and that's why they have expanded out to laptops and hardware now.

 

[Golfdriver97]

I think the devices are really nice, in general. Light, nice looking, seems to do well with quite a bit that you can throw at it. My concern is the price point. There isn't much for an entry-level device and the price feels like it goes up nearly exponentially once you go beyond that.

 

[ochhanz]

I think the devices are really nice, in general. Light, nice looking, seems to do well with quite a bit that you can throw at it. My concern is the price point. There isn't much for an entry-level device and the price feels like it goes up nearly exponentially once you go beyond that.

, the solution to this is to buy refurbished or 2handed or future/faster versions of the Go (if they will refresh that one). Every MS-branded product so far that I have bought (excluding a mouse) was used lol (just double check everything, especially the battery).

 

[sd4f]

, I think overall the Surface line is a success; even though it is not mass adopted as a form factor it has a strong niche market (e.g. Office, artists and 3d artists) but maybe even more important 2-1's are a success. So while touchscreen is not yet the main input for Windows, it is there and slowly but steadily gets acknowledged more. Like many quite big programs have some way of touch support, e.g. solidworks or cad and recently Blender got a big ui update that partly lends itself for touchscreens. Seeing in the recent Surface event, Adobe is also working on better touch support.

I wasn't aware solidworks added touch support. I'm not sure it will be used a lot or significantly developed further, maybe the pen support on a surface studio looks interesting, I can definitely see myself giving that a go, but not if I had to pay for it.

If anything, the surface studio is a demonstration of a device which is pushing the way we use computers, even though it's really niche.

I'm still surprised that there aren't more programs taking advantage of that posture with a regular surface pro.

 

[ochhanz]

I wasn't aware solidworks added touch support. I'm not sure it will be used a lot or significantly developed further, maybe the pen support on a surface studio looks interesting, I can definitely see myself giving that a go, but not if I had to pay for it.

If anything, the surface studio is a demonstration of a device which is pushing the way we use computers, even though it's really niche.

I'm still surprised that there aren't more programs taking advantage of that posture with a regular surface pro.

, I thought it was Solidworks but could be I am confusing it with an other program (haven't used Solidworks much). I remember something with being able to the rotate view and zooming in and out, that kind of simple but still useful touchscreen stuff.

 

[win95wasgood]

Surface is a success in multiple ways.

First, Surface is growing rapidly. It's revenue grew 16% in 2017 and 23% in 2018. It is now around $5 Bn in revenue. It is not a top 5 manufacturer yet, but it is growing faster than them. It is also expanding in both the consumer and enterprise space.

Second, the goal of Surface is "to help drive innovation, create new device categories, and stimulate demand in the Windows ecosystem." The Surface computer drove the tablet+keyboard hybrid movement, and is now moving into the stylus as well.

It is turning into a new long-term revenue stream for Microsoft, and it is driving innovation in the ecosystem. It's a great success on both counts. I also love my Surface Book!

Source: https://q10k.com/MSFT

 

[sd4f]

, I thought it was Solidworks but could be I am confusing it with an other program (haven't used Solidworks much). I remember something with being able to the rotate view and zooming in and out, that kind of simple but still useful touchscreen stuff.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I checked it out and they have implemented touch support in the 2018 version, as well as pen support. I can't see it being really usable on anything other than the surface studio, which is what they used to demonstrate it. Makes me want a surface studio now... well more like that display. I'd buy a monitor version of the surface studio rather quickly.

 

[sd4f]

Surface is a success in multiple ways.

First, Surface is growing rapidly. It's revenue grew 16% in 2017 and 23% in 2018. It is now around $5 Bn in revenue. It is not a top 5 manufacturer yet, but it is growing faster than them. It is also expanding in both the consumer and enterprise space.

Second, the goal of Surface is "to help drive innovation, create new device categories, and stimulate demand in the Windows ecosystem." The Surface computer drove the tablet+keyboard hybrid movement, and is now moving into the stylus as well.

It is turning into a new long-term revenue stream for Microsoft, and it is driving innovation in the ecosystem. It's a great success on both counts. I also love my Surface Book!

Source: https://q10k.com/MSFT

I'm not negating the fact that they're selling well. My whole point, as articulated at the very first post is that the surface line isn't "driving innovation" for the windows platform. Most people using a surface would just as readily be served with a laptop.

Look at it as something akin to urban dwelling people buying SUV's and never taking them out of the city, let alone going off-road. Sure, the car manufacturers don't care because they sell well and they make money out of them, better margins than econo-boxes, that's for sure. In MS' case, it's a problem because the end use case is important to a degree in that they're trying to steer the windows platform towards functionality which by and large, developers have completely ignored. For instance; the app store for windows is still dead. A lot of apps which are available on android and iOS are just not being attempted for windows, not that they would all work, but by and large, there's no interest beyond your typical desktop apps.

 

[ochhanz]

Sorry I wasn't clear, I checked it out and they have implemented touch support in the 2018 version, as well as pen support. I can't see it being really usable on anything other than the surface studio, which is what they used to demonstrate it. Makes me want a surface studio now... well more like that display. I'd buy a monitor version of the surface studio rather quickly.

, why would it not be handy on e.g. a 15 inch 2-1? (I have one but I don't have any use for solidworks atm ^.^)

 

[sd4f]

, why would it not be handy on e.g. a 15 inch 2-1? (I have one but I don't have any use for solidworks atm ^.^)

I use solidworks regularly, and anything less than a display that can do 1080p at 100% scale is going to be cumbersome and lack area. Basically laptop displays are too small to allow all the menus to be readable while also having them minimal and take up little space on the screen.

Something like the surface studio is great, it's really high res, better aspect ratio, and since it's designed to be close, you can run things at a decent scale, allowing for little of the area to be dedicated to your menus.

When you look at professional CAD users, they tend to prefer having displays areound 27-32 inch for desktops, and run multiple displays too. It can be done on a laptop, but not if you're day in day out doing it. You'll really want larger monitors.

 

[ochhanz]

I use solidworks regularly, and anything less than a display that can do 1080p at 100% scale is going to be cumbersome and lack area. Basically laptop displays are too small to allow all the menus to be readable while also having them minimal and take up little space on the screen.

Something like the surface studio is great, it's really high res, better aspect ratio, and since it's designed to be close, you can run things at a decent scale, allowing for little of the area to be dedicated to your menus.

When you look at professional CAD users, they tend to prefer having displays areound 27-32 inch for desktops, and run multiple displays too. It can be done on a laptop, but not if you're day in day out doing it. You'll really want larger monitors.

, ah that makes sense. I guess one can still use a touchscreen besides its a bigger monitor(s). I don't know how this works with solidworks but with e.g. visual studio or blender it is easy setup windows over the different screens so I use the stuff that lends itself best for the touchscreen on the laptop (usually a 2d or 3d view) and the rest on the other monitor(s). Granted this makes more sense if one sometimes solely uses a laptop instead of having it always docked.

 

[Jamie Brahm]

I see it differently. The 2 in 1, is a bridge to the all touch device, which the neo is closer to. The neo and OEM variants will be more popular than the duo, because it has a pre-existing use case.

Media coverage will do the duo well, in all likelihood, but a laptop, is a laptop, it's a bigger established market. OEM variants will probably create their own interest, and form factors. Whereas dual screen duo variants will only feed into android and be unrelated.

Unless of course, the duo runs UWP, and then well, that's a different story because then it will share an app platform with the neo, and they'll feed into each other.

 

[sd4f]

Unless of course, the duo runs UWP, and then well, that's a different story because then it will share an app platform with the neo, and they'll feed into each other.

I don't think that the duo will need to run UWP, it's just that apps need to be able to be compiled for both from the one code base. This is probably the direction UWP took, but I don't know, completely conjecturing here.

Ultimately, we are in agreement that the app platforms need to feed into each other, but for the duo, it's probably more important that apps are on the android app store, whereas I have no clue whether the MS app store will be included on the duo.