The Cornerplay: What if Microsoft had released an "Officebook" tablet

[Jeffrey Yuwono]

Ever since release I've been following Microsoft's Surface tablets, and when I say following I mean I've bought a few of them. I recently upgraded to the Surface Pro 3 and so my older Surface 2 (based on Windows RT) has been gathering dust. It is with sadness that I'll put it up for sale, the Surface 2 was a wonderful device that exceeded my expectations.

This got me thinking about the Surface. It's a great device, yet did so poorly in the perception game. What could Microsoft have done differently with a mulligan?

What if Microsoft had just branded the Surface as an Office-dedicated device? Office was (is) the only reason to get a Windows RT device, so why not just go all in on that fact?

Why not call it the Microsoft 'Officebook'...

Read the complete article.

 

[Kibaruk]

Although I agree with you on a couple points, the $500 price is a bit too steep just for office.

 

[Guest]

Microsoft is not in the business of satisfying needs, they are in the monopoly business. Both Windows & Office are monopoly products. Ballmer admitted that they wait until other people invent and then swoop down and take over a market (I.e. monopolize it!), but they haven't been able to take someone's else lunch in a long time....Surface, nope. Xbox, think again. Azure, big blue bust. Even the oldies are starting to get challenged, sooner or later MS has to stop milking their customers; I personally completely switched to the open document format (.odt) which I can use with either free open source office suites or Google Documents.

Instead of trying to help a monopoly that milked business for the last 20 year to the tune of billions per year, you really should be helping your reader free themselves from such monopolies...but I guess you know exactly who butters your biscuit.

 

[Guest]

Instead of trying to help a monopoly that milked business for the last 20 year to the tune of billions per year, you really should be helping your reader free themselves from such monopolies...but I guess you know exactly who butters your biscuit.

Exactly, which is why I don't use Google as a search engine being the monopoly it is, and why I don't use Android, instead preferring the underdog in this scenario MS Bing and Windows Phone. Like it or not, Microsoft has quality products, and yes you must buy them, but I much prefer the user pays once option than the constant annoyance of adverts shoved in your face. Then again, the monopoly thing probably plays much less of a role in my reasoning of why I avoid "free" things and why I stay away from Google and its half baked products. I just hate advertisements, and if Microsoft offers me a product that's good, which they do, then I spend money on their services if I never have to see, or see as little advertising as possible, and their service do have fewer of those. Also, with Microsoft's resources, why not take someone else's idea and make it better if the people who thought of it cant? Just like Apple cant place a patent on rounded rectangles thus preventing others from making smart phones, patents cant always restrict an idea to one source, and besides I much prefer a world where ideas can be improved upon, even if the person or company doing the improving isn't the one who came up with it. Business is brutal with companies always trying to out do each other, and if you feel it should take on a care bear approach, you are in for a rude awakening.

 

[Kibaruk]

I use nothing mentioned by any of the guests above, I use a 486 Linux machine on a 56kbps hijacked landline and live under a rock.

 

[gamoniac]

Microsoft is not in the business of satisfying needs, they are in the monopoly business... I personally completely switched to the open document format (.odt) which I can use with either free open source office suites or Google Documents....

@guest,
No business is in the monopoly business; the statement does not even making any sense. You gain monopoly in certain segments of the market by making good product, sometimes by unfair advantage, or simply by chance (market timing, for example). Both MS and Google are hundred-billion business entities and tend to do both good and bad things like everyone else, but if you think Google is all about do-no-evil, you should research them a bit more.

@Jeffrey (author), I think you might be on to something here. That switch of name and perception is interesting.

 

[Railman]

But the RT version of MS Office is a cut down version of Office. It would be no use to me as I use documents with macros. In addition there are other things that the RT does not support so to sell it as a business solution would be fraudulent in my view.

 

[Guest]

I use a potato

 

[Kibaruk]

But the RT version of MS Office is a cut down version of Office. It would be no use to me as I use documents with macros. In addition there are other things that the RT does not support so to sell it as a business solution would be fraudulent in my view.

Embrace the idea, of course there could be enhancements, it's an idea not a proposition.

 

[Guest]

What if Steve Ballmer had never met Bill Gates?

 

[Bobs Yer Uncle]

The presentation of the WinRT Surface 2 as Jeffrey has framed it (an "OfficeBook" rather than a "hobbled version" of Windows proper) would have been, I suspect, far more easily understood by the throngs of casual users & potential customers than the "official", much more convoluted marketing message communicated by MS at the time of the Surface 2's release. Jeffrey's framing is clear, concise & requires no excuses, justifications or detailed explanations beyond that "it solves the needs of a certain customer profile."

It's interesting to speculate about how such a product profile would have been embraced (or not) by the public at large & what it's impact on sales would have been. We'll never know, of course, but it's generally a good practice to keep all aspects of a consumer product as straight-forward & simple as possible (unless the target demographic itself maintains a very technically oriented profile).

As presented I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suspect that public acceptance & sales would have been more positive than they ended up being IRL. Shoot an email off to one of your contacts, Jeffrey; this isn't the same MS that some earlier commenters believe to be irredeemably evil & completely hopeless.

 

[Joey Pruett]

Very good idea.

Windows RT has many advantages. My experience with Surface RT and Surface 2 has been interesting. I was given a Surface RT and thought it was stunning hardware, a little pokey performance wise, and very well suited for web/movies, etc. I just purchased a Surface 2 for $199 with a $50 type 2 cover. I chose this over waiting for a Surface 3 or buying an iPAD Air II because Surface 2 is cheap, fast, great hardware, good screen, has an incredible stand, and is fully integrated with my work and personal Microsoft accounts, OneDrive, Office, and my Windows Phone. Oh, and the side-by-side multi-tasking is great. Last night I needed to quickly hook to a printer and type a few things and mouse around - I was able to use it like a laptop very effectively. I had an ah-ha moment - suddenly I knew why Surface Pros could be groundbreaking. However, I only paid $250 for almost all the functionality I normally need in a very portable package. Interested to see what the Surface 3 might look like and if Microsoft could ever combine RT and Phone since they are both ARM. I doubt Microsoft will abandon a Windows version that runs on ARM. I also doubt they will stop making hardware on ARM.