[jroseattle]

I'm not sure I follow Gruber's post here, which ironically points out how Microsoft's presentation this week for a tablet was incoherent and all over the map (kind of like this post.) I guess he's trying to assess Microsoft's position in the market by comparing their product announcement presentation skills to Apple's.

Really, when will the likes of Gruber learn that consumers will decide if they like those products, and they'll do so with their wallets. Surely he doesn't believe that Apple's success with i{whatever} is due to slick, coherent stories told onstage at some event they couldn't get into.

The truth is that the masses who buy these devices could care less about product announcements, Apple included. Apple customers will line up for the next item, no matter what it is. Microsoft customers -- well, not quite sure what floats their boat, but they'll do their thing.

These announcements are for lighting up the third-parties who like to consider themselves quasi-insiders. Like Gruber, for instance.

[NaOH]

I'm not sure I follow Gruber's post here...

I thought Gruber's point was very clear: Consumer expectations have shifted such that companies which survive (read: profit) are those which make money from reasonably priced hardware while the software is sold at low, low prices. The phenomenal, decades-long profitability of Microsoft has been based on consumers behaving in an opposite way: paying bare-minimum prices for hardware but a premium for software.

The computer hardware industry is lined up to favor the hardware makers. They can also make the software (like Apple does with iOS) or they can acquire it at low cost (like Samsung using Android), but the profits come from hardware. The Surface, no matter how good it may or may not be since no can reasonably evaluate it yet, is a testament to Microsoft recognizing this shift.

Really, the details of the market shift are irrelevant. The point is that the market is moving away from what has made Microsoft profitable, and the company has publicly (if in some ways indirectly) shown it understands this. The Surface (and Windows 8), despite how important it may be to the future of Microsoft, is most notable for the change it represents Microsoft making in its approach to profitability.

[jroseattle]

I agree with your points, but I didn't think Gruber made that argument. He referenced others who commented on the subject, but he could have made his point without spending so much time comparing product announcement logistics of the two companies.

I think the shift to their own hardware, for this Surface product, is more about trying to achieve a user experience on par with Apple. It's obvious they haven't learned from Apple in that the user's experience includes first hearing/seeing the product on stage, immediate availability, etc. so the rollout isn't polished (far from it.)

I'm just not sure Microsoft is all-in on recognizing the full profitability shift where their software is essentially a loss leader. If Microsoft releases their own high-end desktop PC and phone with Windows 8 sometime in the next 12 months, then I'll believe they've made that mental leap.

[viscanti]

Microsoft needs to explain WHY the Surface should exist. It's not immediately obvious to the market why yet another tablet with a different os should exist. Microsoft failed to answer that (and their so-so presentation skills only hurt their efforts).

The big thing here is developer mind-share. Microsoft is trying to leverage their large pc software library, but that seems like a mistake here. Tablet users want touch specific apps. A large library of nearly unusable programs isn't a winning move. They need to get developers engaged with the platform and give them a reason to support a third OS.

It's a chicken/egg problem. They need to convince both consumers as well as developers WHY they should care. That's a tough sell, made all the more difficult by poor presentation skills and no good answer for the question. If Microsoft wants to disrupt the tablet market (and they'll have to if they want to gain any significant market share), they have to do better than just living off their name. They need a game changer and I'm just not seeing it (and that might just come down to their poor ability to communicate).

[pooriaazimi]

Did you even read past the first two paragraphs?! He ranted a bit about the presentation, but his take from this "mess" (as he called it) was completely different than yours...

[jroseattle]

"even" read?

[SoftwareMaven]

I disagree. If you can't tell a coherent story to people who are actively trying to fill in the gaps mentally, how will you tell it to the average Joe?

The disconnects imply that MS doesn't understand how to communicate with the non-technical, "buy stuff because it feels right" crowd. Instead, they try to market to everyone, and when you try to market to everyone, you succeed in marketing to nobody.

[shriphani]

Most people probably watch the ads on TV or somesuch and don't bother with keynotes.

Also, keynotes are hit-and-miss for everyone (including apple) and as such nobody has the time to sit and watch 45 mins of random people talking.