The Surface Duo is Windows Phone all over again

[Laura Knotek]

Maybe. I'm dubious of that explanation though. I would concede that certainly made it an uphill fight. But an uphill battle can be won IF YOU COMMIT SUFFICIENT RESOURCES. And I'm not talking about promotion. I know a lot of people say that lack of promotion is MS' problem, but I'm not one of them. Sure, promotion is a facet to marketing, but it's just one part. Branding, the message being communicated, features, support plan, pricing, things like the Insider program, and more are all critical components to product marketing.

As evidence, I point to the examples of my prior post: Word took over the fully established and entrenched and beloved WordPerfect. Same with Excel against Lotus 123 and Internet Explorer against Netscape (and then for a little while, people said the same about Chrome going against IE). In all of those cases, conventional wisdom was that MS was too late to have a chance.

I think that a company can succeed in those situations if it commits and fights hard. Further, MS today is much stronger than MS was during those prior fights. IF it thought they were worth winning, I believe it could have won.

The difference is that Word and Excel had better GUIs and Microsoft aggressively bundled Office to businesses. IE became popular because it was packaged with Office, leading to a huge lawsuit that almost broke up Microsoft. Office was objectively better due to its ease of use by anyone, rather than people with specialised training. For example, I was working in a science laboratory position, not an office position, in the early to mid 90s, and understood how to use Word, Excel and Access without any formal training on that software. I wouldn't have had a clue how to use Lotus at that time unless someone trained me in its use. Office was simply intuitive for people who didn't necessarily work in offices. IE wasn't better, but monopolistic business practices made it popular.

Windows Phone could have been better than Android if it had the necessary apps. However, even offering money to developers didn't make the apps appear. Windows 10M was buggy and still lacked apps, so users left.

 

[MorganRW]

This thing will never compete in the phone market. They need to stop thinking of this as a phone and instead a highly portable Surface with full Windows. This could also work as an Xbox cloud gaming device with 5G. I would love to have a device that I can dock at the office or home that allows it to become a full Windows computer with monitor, keyboard and mouse. On the go I could tether to my phone and use in a pinch should something work or personal related arise when a laptop was needed. Offer a version with cellular for those that don't want to tether. On a plane or when WIFI is available, one could use with a small folding keyboard/dock. If I could keep my laptop on me but not need a backpack or separate laptop bag, I would buy this thing immediately. I for one am tired of carrying my laptop backpack on vacation or to the office. I think the ability to carry a full laptop capable device in your pocket would be huge. Does anyone else feel like a product like this would sell?

 

[naddy69]

“I think the ability to carry a full laptop capable device in your pocket would be huge. Does anyone else feel like a product like this would sell?”

No, it would not sell. Because Windows is not now - and never will be - a mobile OS. It always needs a keyboard, mouse and big screen.

So are you going to carry all of that around with you? Plus the dock, cables and power supply? Or are you expecting hotels, restaurants and coffee shops to supply all of this stuff for you?

It’s easier to just carry a laptop, assuming you even need a laptop while on the road. I find that a phone and an iPad are more than enough when I am on vacation. The last thing I want to deal with while on vacation is Windows.

OTOH, if I am on the road for my job, then I would definitely rather carry a laptop. Why fiddle around with docks and cables and all of that crap? Not to mention that when I get to the client site, they expect me to arrive ready to work. They are not going to be impressed when I pull out a phone and say “Do you have a keyboard, mouse, screen, dock and cables I can use?”

You might as well carry a Raspberry Pi around with you. It would be “Windows in your pocket”, but just as useless as a Windows phone without the keyboard, mouse, screen, dock, cables and power supplies.

 

[bio]

I wonder how many decades will it take to people to understand Microsoft can't be trusted when it comes to hardware. They should stick to software as they already have enought to deal with it to stay ahead of the competition.

 

[Cosmocronos]

The major problem wasn't that Microsoft failed to promote Windows Phone and Zune. The problem is that they entered the market too late. By the time they introduced those devices and OSes, the market had already chosen the Android as the alternative to iOS and no other mp3 player could challenge the dominance of the iPod. All the other mp3 players like those from SanDisk also failed.

The story of entering a market too late is a groundless justification: when MS launched Excel for Windows, which ironically happened after it was released for Apple, the market was well established and dominated by Lotus and Quattro Pro; still MS persisted and, thanks also of its advantage of owning the OS, won. Exact same story for Word: WordPerfect, WordStar and, again, Lotus owned the market, but again with persistence and continuous and timely improvements MS succeeded.
BTW the same happened with hardware: when MS launched its Pocket PC concept Palm was the king of the market but ended up extinct in a very short period of time. If the actual management was at the helm when Xbox was launched... we would most likely do not have an Xbox today; it was Ballmer that pushed forward with more than a Billion dollars on the table that allowed the console to survive the storm.

 

[Cosmocronos]

The difference is that Word and Excel had better GUIs and Microsoft aggressively bundled Office to businesses. IE became popular because it was packaged with Office, leading to a huge lawsuit that almost broke up Microsoft. Office was objectively better due to its ease of use by anyone, rather than people with specialised training. For example, I was working in a science laboratory position, not an office position, in the early to mid 90s, and understood how to use Word, Excel and Access without any formal training on that software. I wouldn't have had a clue how to use Lotus at that time unless someone trained me in its use. Office was simply intuitive for people who didn't necessarily work in offices. IE wasn't better, but monopolistic business practices made it popular.

Windows Phone could have been better than Android if it had the necessary apps. However, even offering money to developers didn't make the apps appear. Windows 10M was buggy and still lacked apps, so users left.

The fact of having better GUIs is subjective to say the least; at the time the "Computer" itself was synonyms of business not just some specific software.
As for IE it became popular because MS began bundling it with Windows not Office while Netscape was sold at around $50.

 

[MorganRW]

“I think the ability to carry a full laptop capable device in your pocket would be huge. Does anyone else feel like a product like this would sell?”

No, it would not sell. Because Windows is not now - and never will be - a mobile OS. It always needs a keyboard, mouse and big screen.

So are you going to carry all of that around with you? Plus the dock, cables and power supply? Or are you expecting hotels, restaurants and coffee shops to supply all of this stuff for you?

It’s easier to just carry a laptop, assuming you even need a laptop while on the road. I find that a phone and an iPad are more than enough when I am on vacation. The last thing I want to deal with while on vacation is Windows.

OTOH, if I am on the road for my job, then I would definitely rather carry a laptop. Why fiddle around with docks and cables and all of that crap? Not to mention that when I get to the client site, they expect me to arrive ready to work. They are not going to be impressed when I pull out a phone and say “Do you have a keyboard, mouse, screen, dock and cables I can use?”

You might as well carry a Raspberry Pi around with you. It would be “Windows in your pocket”, but just as useless as a Windows phone without the keyboard, mouse, screen, dock, cables and power supplies.

You missed my point entirely. I am not pitching this as a laptop replacement for people who make coffee shops and other public spaces their office. A laptop will always be needed for those scenarios. For me, 98% of my work computing happen at my home or company office. A dock with full keyboard, monitor and mouse installed in both of my work locations would give me the full workstation experience. For me I would just pull the device from my pocket and toss in the dock and get to work. I wouldn't need to lug around a laptop and bag to my work spots. I am not talking about carrying around "all that crap" because as you said, what is the point. Also, I do end up lugging a laptop around with me after hours and on vacation because work emergencies can pop up. I imagine a folding keyboard with integrated dock and travel mouse that I could toss in my suitcase to use just to knock out emergency tasks when they happen. Again, not ideal for full time on the go use but for those small emergencies that can crop up, it would work. I guess I am the only one who would benefit from this ultra-portable Surface.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

The difference is that Word and Excel had better GUIs and Microsoft aggressively bundled Office to businesses. IE became popular because it was packaged with Office, leading to a huge lawsuit that almost broke up Microsoft. Office was objectively better due to its ease of use by anyone, rather than people with specialised training. For example, I was working in a science laboratory position, not an office position, in the early to mid 90s, and understood how to use Word, Excel and Access without any formal training on that software. I wouldn't have had a clue how to use Lotus at that time unless someone trained me in its use. Office was simply intuitive for people who didn't necessarily work in offices. IE wasn't better, but monopolistic business practices made it popular.

Windows Phone could have been better than Android if it had the necessary apps. However, even offering money to developers didn't make the apps appear. Windows 10M was buggy and still lacked apps, so users left.

Some of those are correct, but the history is not right on all of those. Word was not any easier to use than WordPerfect for Windows and Excel was not any easier than Lotus 1-2-3. MS, back then (I would say very different from the MS of today), in addition to the positive side of persevering until they won, they also engaged in some pretty shady business practices by making it harder for competing products to run optimally on Windows (MS famously used a lot of hidden API calls in Windows that competitors couldn't access). This is part of what led to the early calls to break up MS as a monopoly, splitting them into an OS company and an apps company. At the same time, WordPerfect and Lotus were slow to make fixes to ensure proper functioning on Windows.

Microsoft's marketing at the time, both covert and overt, messaged around how their programs worked best with Windows. They implied that you shouldn't trust WordPerfect or Lotus. They also took advantage of the incompetence of their competitors, who ran their businesses like engineering houses rather than corporations, allowing themselves to be easily beaten.

I am definitely not suggesting MS should go back to architecting its OS so that its own apps have an unfair advantage or messaging that competing products don't work. That was despicable. However, their success was absolutely not purely based on nefarious business practices. More important to MS' rise beyond just an OS company was their perseverance and approach of iterating on even weak products until they got it right and won. That, they should continue.

Like Amazon with cutting prices for customers today (in addition to whatever heavy-handed problems Amazon has with its business practices, they are undeniably customer-focused), MS back then worked tirelessly to actually listen to customers and improve their products. They iterated faster than their competitors and kept going when others might have given up.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Some of those are correct, but the history is not right on all of those. Word was not any easier to use than WordPerfect for Windows and Excel was not any easier than Lotus 1-2-3. MS, back then (I would say very different from the MS of today), in addition to the positive side of persevering until they won, they also engaged in some pretty shady business practices by making it harder for competing products to run optimally on Windows (MS famously used a lot of hidden API calls in Windows that competitors couldn't access). This is part of what led to the early calls to break up MS as a monopoly, splitting them into an OS company and an apps company. At the same time, WordPerfect and Lotus were slow to make fixes to ensure proper functioning on Windows.

Microsoft's marketing at the time, both covert and overt, messaged around how their programs worked best with Windows. They implied that you shouldn't trust WordPerfect or Lotus. They also took advantage of the incompetence of their competitors, who ran their businesses like engineering houses rather than corporations, allowing themselves to be easily beaten.

I am definitely not suggesting MS should go back to architecting its OS so that its own apps have an unfair advantage or messaging that competing products don't work. That was despicable. However, their success was absolutely not purely based on nefarious business practices. More important to MS' rise beyond just an OS company was their perseverance and approach of iterating on even weak products until they got it right and won. That, they should continue.

Like Amazon with cutting prices for customers today (in addition to whatever heavy-handed problems Amazon has with its business practices, they are undeniably customer-focused), MS back then worked tirelessly to actually listen to customers and improve their products. They iterated faster than their competitors and kept going when others might have given up.

I think we both agree here. Also, we've both pointed out am important fact. Microsoft succeeded in the business environment. Their customers are businesses and corporations, not consumers. All of the Microsoft products that failed were attempts at consumer products, rather than business products.

Microsoft just never had much of an insight into what consumers want. Hence, Apple conquered that market with phones and mp3 players.

Samsung already had a consumer market in appliances and consumer electronics, so adding smartphones was also easy to do.

Brand association also hurt. Many people remember the prior shady business practices of Microsoft and dislike the brand for that reason. Others consider Microsoft products to be something associated with work. People don't want to think about work 24/7, so the thought of using the brand that makes Office when they are away from the office doesn't excite consumers.

Case in point for me: The only thing not work related that I require a PC to do is playing games that are only available for the PC. All other features I need as a consumer can be used on a smartphone, tablet, or smart TV.

 

[naddy69]

“Microsoft succeeded in the business environment. Their customers are businesses and corporations, not consumers. All of the Microsoft products that failed were attempts at consumer products, rather than business products.

Microsoft just never had much of an insight into what consumers want. Hence, Apple conquered that market with phones and mp3 players. “

This is the key point. Microsoft CAN succeed. Indeed it has. But MS has never had success in the consumer market. Nothing wrong with that. No company can be all things to all people. This is why Apple has no business products.

Well-managed companies focus on their strengths. Its OK to occasionally ”test the waters” in new markets. But when products sell as poorly as Windows phones and now the Duo, there is no point to keep trying. The market has spoken.

Time to move on. Again.

 

[larakurst]

Wait the author of this article is happy that he's "part of the development process"

It's like a Microsoft employee who's trying to help them avoid a class action lawsuit or something it's so weird

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I think we both agree here. Also, we've both pointed out am important fact. Microsoft succeeded in the business environment. Their customers are businesses and corporations, not consumers. All of the Microsoft products that failed were attempts at consumer products, rather than business products.

Microsoft just never had much of an insight into what consumers want. Hence, Apple conquered that market with phones and mp3 players.

Samsung already had a consumer market in appliances and consumer electronics, so adding smartphones was also easy to do.

Brand association also hurt. Many people remember the prior shady business practices of Microsoft and dislike the brand for that reason. Others consider Microsoft products to be something associated with work. People don't want to think about work 24/7, so the thought of using the brand that makes Office when they are away from the office doesn't excite consumers.

Case in point for me: The only thing not work related that I require a PC to do is playing games that are only available for the PC. All other features I need as a consumer can be used on a smartphone, tablet, or smart TV.

Yeah, I agree with that. I would add that I do think MS was more consumer oriented in the past, but never like an Apple or Sony. It was consumer like Intuit: for home productivity and small business, but the open architecture of the PC (really a credit to IBM's design more than anything MS did originally, but then they embraced it starting with Windows 95 and Direct X) meant that third party gaming was also always a big part of it. Personal anecdote on that: when my Apple // series came to a dead end with the impressive but abandoned //GS, obsoleted and dropped like Windows Phone, with no bridge to the Mac, no way to run any of my years of accumulated software from ][+ to //e to //GS, I had to start over. I could go with a Mac with its better UI (compared to Windows 3.1 then), but it had minimal games. PC had ALL the games, so I figured go with PC. I was also annoyed with Apple for failing to give me an upgrade path.

Anyway, back to the main point, keep in mind that one of the reasons Windows became dominant at work was because everyone already had it on their PC at home and knew how to use it. MS provided the dominant consumer OS BEFORE it became dominant in Enterprise. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that. Before MS, enterprise used almost exclusively some form of UNIX or custom OS on mainframes and minicomputers, and then when MS started getting a foothold, it was just for the user stations, the big systems that ran the business on the back-end were still from DEC, IBM, Unisys, etc. Windows NT was the first real attempts at competitive network servers, but it didn't really become dominant until Windows 2000.

 

[dkstrauss]

I'm now leaning towards the notion that until Satya Nadella retires/is replaced and his successor proves commitment to hardware, nothing will get me to buy another Microsoft hardware product.

I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. The laptops and desktops are languishing, and despite adopting the better design language of the Surface Pro across the board, little progress there either. MS really dropped the ball on the Surface Neo design, and the Lenovo Yoga Book 9i is an over-sized attempt at the same product. Here's hoping a power 11" version of the surface Pro will revitalize the lineup.

 

[naddy69]

I'm now leaning towards the notion that until Satya Nadella retires/is replaced and his successor proves commitment to hardware, nothing will get me to buy another Microsoft hardware product.

It’s not the job of a CEO to be “committed to hardware”. In fact, it’s not his job to be committed to any product.

All he is committed to is keeping the company profitable. Period. If a product has been losing money for years, then it’s the CEOs job to dump that product. A CEO who is willing to lose money is on the fast track to losing his job, before he wrecks the company.

Besides, the PC hardware market is very crowded. It’s not like the market NEEDS Microsoft hardware. MS is way down at the bottom of the list of PC vendors, basically in the “other” category.

MS is - after all - a software/services company. Way more money to be made there than in PC hardware. I would not be at all surprised to see the entire Surface division gone in 5 years. As the PC market continues to shrink, there will be companies dropping out.