Gates: Apple may have to make a Surface-like device

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57466040-71/gates-apple-may-have-to-make-a-surface-like-device/

Gates claimed that he'd had the idea for tablets "way too early."

No, they just did it wrong. And they're doing it wrong again.

I'm going to make a bold assertion that Bill Gates doesn't even believe the things he says to the press. There's no way Apple(or Google for that matter) is going to wreck their design to copy Microsoft and he knows it. It sounds to me like he wants to make people who he believes are fans of Microsoft think that Apple wants to copy it.

@1001001: I'm not sure that it's all wrong. There are a lot of goodness baked into Surface. Without having used one, I'm not sure how I would compare it to my iPad, Dell XPS, Macbook Air, or Latitude. 

Pervasive async and flexible development options are the most attractive features, for me, of WinRT. The technological underpinnings are impressive, but like Betamax, the technological superior solution isn't always the one people purchase.

One of the biggest indiscretions, in my option, was naming the product Windows. There might be shared code between Windows 7 and WinRT, much like there exists common DNA between myself and a common ancestor of myself and a rodent. But it would be technically incorrect for me to refer to myself as a rodent, no matter what exceptional qualities we might share-- sharp teeth, for example.

If the product was good enough for people to buy it without a desktop escape hatch, then they would. But Microsoft clearly doesn't believe in the product strongly enough to offer it as a standalone offering. So, as a consumer-- not a developer, fayboy, or whatever-- I am left to wonder, if Microsoft doesn't fully believe in this thing, why should I?

-Josh

@JoshRoss:

"He did some things better than I did," admitted Microsoft's co-founder. Gates referenced Jobs' timing and "the package that he had put together."

What about this?

What about the fact that this isn't timely?

Google glasses are timely. It sounds like Bill hasn't extensively used an iPad or Android tablet device to be saying these things. Like he hasn't used them in every day life as a normal person would.

Apple having to create a Surface-like device was "a strong possibility."

I believe he said this, but it sounds extremely incredulous.

Similar rhetoric:

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~edluong/olpc/future/competition.htm#microsoft

The last thing you want to do for a shared-use computer is have it be something without a disk... and with a tiny little screen

unless it's surface right?

It would have been way funnier had Bill been the chairman of a toothpick company. I would have loved his commercials and ploys to sell toothpicks.

9 minutes ago, 01001001 wrote

Google glasses are timely. It sounds like Bill hasn't extensively used an iPad or Android tablet device to be saying these things. Like he hasn't used them in every day life as a normal person would.

I think that he has probably used an iPad, to the extent that he desperately wanted to find the aspects that Microsoft first pioneered, so that he could ramble off an incoherent list of facts and figures in response to any question delivered to him in regards to the perceived failure of Microsoft in this space.

-Josh

@JoshRoss:

I think that he has probably used an iPad, to the extent that he desperately wanted to find the aspects that Microsoft first pioneered

I think Bill is the type of person who would never let themselves "fall in love" with an iPad to the point where he would use it and accept it in his every day life, THEN build a list of useful features for his own device. I also think he hand picked people at Microsoft who are also largely like this.

If you do that when the device is released and you've had one for 2-3 years, you'd quickly realize that surface is a bad idea at this point and time. It's not like a console where there is a huge effort and partnerships with closed loop game companies and long iteration cycles.

Tablets are super fast iteration cycle devices like phones.

I think the glasses are going to be exactly the same.

It's not like a console where there is a huge effort and partnerships with closed loop game companies and long iteration cycles.

Tablets are super fast iteration cycle devices like phones.

No, it is totally like a console. This is one thing that Apple has got right. They developed both devices and operating systems, with a fairly predictable cadence. Much like Intel's tic-toc development of microprocessors. The hardware should last for a few iterations of the software, and the apps can target a minimum spec of both hardware (needs camera) and software (needs iOS 5+). Google is all over the map, and this isn't good for anyone except technology review bloggers.

-Josh

They developed both devices and operating systems, with a fairly predictable cadence

iPad was released in April 2010, iPad 3rd gen was release March 7, 2012

3 iPad generations in 22 months.

I never thought Apple's cycle was predictable to anybody but them.

That's why they have all the traffic light BS at MacRumors

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

@1001001: In a perfect world, I would prefer to see fewer releases with more innovation in between. I think that Apple is moving in this direction, but it takes a lot more discipline, than what they have exhibited in the past.

The New iPad is a perfect example of lack of control. If they could have only delayed it, if just for a little while, perhaps it could be both faster and more energy efficient than the iPad 2. But instead, we now have a great looking screen on a battery powered toaster.

-Josh

2 hours ago, JoshRoss wrote

One of the biggest indiscretions, in my option, was naming the product Windows. There might be shared code between Windows 7 and WinRT, much like there exists common DNA between myself and a common ancestor of myself and a rodent. But it would be technically incorrect for me to refer to myself as a rodent, no matter what exceptional qualities we might share-- sharp teeth, for example.

If the product was good enough for people to buy it without a desktop escape hatch, then they would. But Microsoft clearly doesn't believe in the product strongly enough to offer it as a standalone offering. So, as a consumer-- not a developer, fayboy, or whatever-- I am left to wonder, if Microsoft doesn't fully believe in this thing, why should I?

WinRT isn't a product. The product is Windows. The WinRT APIs are features of Windows. The desktop is a feature of Windows. The product is sold on its entire feature set, not some arbitrary subset, otherwise you could say "if the product was good enough for people to buy it without a web browser escape hatch, they would", "if the product was good enough for people to buy it without a Notepad escape hatch, they would", substitute any feature you like.

@contextfree`: For lack of a beter term, I picked WinRT to encompass the Metro Shell + WinRT + App Store. It could be a stand alone operating system named something completely different.

It would be completely feasible to bisect Windows 8 into two distinct operating systems. One designed for a mouse, the other designed for touch. They are almost completely orthogonal.

Internet Explorer, could feasibly be a whole platform upon itself, just as Google has tried so very hard to do with Chrome. But, Notepad? Now you are just being silly.

-Josh

Actually I think it is intentional to wait for Apple dictatorish App store. Otherwise Windows would face so much law suits with build-in app store. So, yes, it would never take off like iPad did because they would never risk those pesky law suits.

I can't agree with any of the criticism. Windows 8 and/or the Surface may all fail miserably, but the concept is exactly what I've wanted for nearly 20 years now. The iPad never fit the mold of what I wanted in a device, and likely never will, while the Surface has great potential. That's what Bill Gates said, almost exactly, in that interview. If Surface actually fits me needs the way I think it will, and if there's others like me this may well be a run away hit. Or it may not. No one can predict this one... it's just going to have to be tested in the marketplace. However, if it does succeed, even modestly, you can be darn sure Apple and Google both will move in the same direction.

And @JoshRoss, the inclusion of the desktop is a very big part of the reason I'm interested in the Surface Pro, while for all intents and purposes the Surface RT doesn't have a desktop (it exists purely for running Office, which I'm convinced isn't a Metro app solely due to time constraints). So the desktop does NOT exist because Microsoft doesn't fully believe in the Metro side of things. It exists because they believe (I think rightly) that at least some people want a device that can live in both worlds.

2 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

I can't agree with any of the criticism. Windows 8 and/or the Surface may all fail miserably, but the concept is exactly what I've wanted for nearly 20 years now. The iPad never fit the mold of what I wanted in a device, and likely never will, while the Surface has great potential. That's what Bill Gates said, almost exactly, in that interview. If Surface actually fits me needs the way I think it will, and if there's others like me this may well be a run away hit. Or it may not. No one can predict this one... it's just going to have to be tested in the marketplace. However, if it does succeed, even modestly, you can be darn sure Apple and Google both will move in the same direction.

And @JoshRoss, the inclusion of the desktop is a very big part of the reason I'm interested in the Surface Pro, while for all intents and purposes the Surface RT doesn't have a desktop (it exists purely for running Office, which I'm convinced isn't a Metro app solely due to time constraints). So the desktop does NOT exist because Microsoft doesn't fully believe in the Metro side of things. It exists because they believe (I think rightly) that at least some people want a device that can live in both worlds.

I agree with willie here.

Surface Pro is the laptop replacement I've been wanting, though for only the last 2 years - ever since I started touching my phone I want to touch all screens... and I will not buy a device that I cannot program upon, for me that would be a total waste.

The development cycle for the iPad was a heck of a lot longer than 22 weeks. In the Steve Jobs biography, he says that we wanted to do a tablet in the early 2000s after seeing MS's efforts and knowing they "were doing it wrong". But his engineers convinced him to shelve those plans and take elements of it for what became the iPhone, as a smartphone would be easier to sell than a tablet (especially after seeing MS efforts fail).

As a "tech enthusiast", I see the Surface Pro and like everything about it. I don't see the point of Windows RT, just like I don't see the point of the iPad. But if I can get the great tablet interface of RT with the ability to use all of my old programs and still get some real work done, I'm sold. Just keep it under $1000.