[Windows 8 General] e.mote:
>Pushing the ecosystem at the early stages - and MS is no stranger to selling at a loss initially, then making it up in attach rate and economy of scale - could have done the trick.

MS hasn't been known to sell at a loss for other than the 1st XBox, and only because the razor/blade model was the rule for that market. Surface had multiple reasons for failure, and pricing was only one of many.

Surface likely CANNOT be sold as loss leader because MS can't afford to get into price competition with its partners. Surface per Ballmer was intended as a hero device to lead/goad OEMs into building more innovative touch-computing devices--"prime the pump" was Ballmer's exact words. OEM relations were already strained by the Surface intro. MS is still heavily reliant on OEMs for its OS licensing rev, and direct competition would've burned all the bridges. Note that the two Surface lines only service niches and not mainstream segments--no laptops, 2n1's, or mini-tablets.

Paradoxically, Ballmer also announced that "devices & services" is the cornerstone of MS' new strategy. This is likely due to MS' desire to copy Apple's HW+SW vertically integrated model, to optimize UX a la iPhone/iPad. IOW, MS wants to be in hardware. So, on one hand, Surface can only be fringe and not compete with its partners; OTOH, it has to be a viable line of hero devices (read: it has to sell) to push MS services going forward. The conflicting motivations were the prime reason for Surface failure. The problematic OS and mediocre hardware were strong secondary factors. Poor marketing and distribution also exacerbate. In short, FUBAR^2.

Also notable was the MS response after the Surface disaster. For the 2nd gen, MS basically punted and did nothing. The paralysis was likely due to the reorg and the pending CEO-change. The most egregious HW problems were corrected--updating RT's SoC & display and boosting Pro's batt life--but other changes were incremental. The one major improvement was that MS correctly anticipated the lackluster demand, and the launch was mainly a paper launch with very low inventory, hence the out-of-stock situation that persisted for months.

A second takeaway was that the RT label was removed from the 2nd gen ARM Surface. That, plus other signals (lack of RT mention at Build, rumored merging of RT & WP), indicate that MS is likely retiring the stigmatized RT brand (aka "crippled Windows"). With Intel SoC's improved low-power perf and MS' desire to simplify its platform line-up, the logical assumption is that erstwhile-RT will simply be part of WP's upscaled UI to assume a secondary role on tablets, while x86 Win takes over the leading role on all devices, including tablets. The part relevant to users is that existing RT devices will likely be orphans.

Now that Ballmer is gone, I'm curious how MS will resolve the Surface dilemma. Nadella was picked for being a "continuation" guy, so Surface won't be axed. OTOH, with his emphasis on cloud & cross-platform Office, he's not as gungho as Ballmer on being an Apple-wannabe. My guess is we'll see minor changes to Surface, but no major expansion of the line-up.

Given free Win for mobes and a more level playing field for OEMs, we'll probably see an x86 Surface-mini this year. MS will probably stick to its non-compete clause and the high-end price range, say $350-400, while mainstream 8" x86 drops to $150-250. Mini will probably have fullHD and active digitizer. The (ARM) Surface model will probably go AWOL at least for this year, as x86 can capably fill all the segments. Doesn't matter what happens to the Pro (although it'll likely stick around) as it's not a significant factor in the affecting the hybrid segment. Because MS is still charging for Win for traditional PCs, I don't see new Surface models in other mainstream segs.

>Unlike the jailbreak, dev registration of a Win8 (including RT) system is a documented, built-in feature.

OK so it is the dev reg I referred to. I fail to see how this equates to sideloading, or an open eco. If you think that making users registering as devs (and having to redo it every few month) is a feasible answer to sideloading, you're insane. Anyway, results are already in. There is no hobbyist Metro dev community. This isn't only due to the closed eco, but also because Metro has no aspiration other than a follower of iOS/Android. It wants the same kind of apps as iOS/Android, which people already have on those platforms. There's nothing distinctive about the platform other than it's more limited, with fewer choices for software.

>I don't think pointing out that, at least for a while, licensing an Adroid phone's software cost more than doing the same for a Windows phone. After all, you're the one who brought up OS costs.

I brought up OS cost because it was MS' fundamental competitive disadvantage, and its need to transition to a different business model, not for mine-is-cheaper-than-yours pissing contest. To its credit, MS has done that. But there are many cost considerations involved in production of mobiles, and the few dollars paid for IP licensing (to MS) isn't a significant consideration for all except the very low-end where margins are indeed that thin. Most of the new "partner" announcements for WP are no-name regionals, with only a few big names.

Let's take the biggest name, Samsung, that you said announced new phone models. Actually, there was no announcement per se, and the Ativ SE basically just shows up for sale. The SE is a repurposed GS4, so development & product costs were minimal. The lack of announcement or any launch hype indicate that no marketing dollars are allotted, meaning that it's mostly a symbolic gesture. WP was "free" for Nokia for some years, which meant that it was likely "free" for any large OEM as well during that time. For Samsung, "free" WP isn't new, and neither is Samsung's level of support.

What's new is that with the Nokia buy, MS is now a full-fledged phone competitor. Any help to push the WP platform only strengthens MS' ability to make money from the platform (read: services), to the OEMs' disadvantage. Remember that Nokia already has a monopoly on WP phone sales. Remember as well that outside of its bread-and-butter Android lines, Samsung already has its own OS (Tizen) that it's trying to push. To think that Samsung would help MS in any way, at the detriment of its own ambitions, borders on the ludicrous.

>Yes, Android is moddable by the OEMs...but the only really commercially successful Android adaptation I know of that *doesn't* pay Google licensing fees is the Kindle Fire OS

Now we get to the second major reason why OEMs will stick with Android on phones: control. The point isn't to have a good UI, although that certainly helps, but to retain control of the ability to monetize after the hardware sale. It's a big deal for vendors because hardware profits are slim going to none, now that phones are reaching commodity status. A company can just use the AOSP base to retain apps compatibility with the large Android apps repertoire, as many Asian vendors have done. Then it has the option to use Google services, or developing its own front-end and eco, or using a 3rd-party eco where it has a cut of the post-sales proceeds. That choice isn't available with MS controlling the entirety of the WP eco.

So the question then is, what's the first major reason that "free" WP won't matter? Because smartphones is already a saturated market, the platforms are stratified with entrenched ecos, and new platform entrants are no longer feasible. It's similar to Windows and desktop market, where "free" Linux didn't get far with consumer adoption. Not that there aren't plenty of "free" aspirants willing to break in, Tizen and Firefox OS to name two. These probably won't take WP's 3rd-place status, and neither is WP likely to get beyond its present niche.

>Anyhow, I'm not sure what Microsoft needs to do to stem their tide of (relative, with occasional absolute) failures, but I'm pretty sure the solution isn't to be found here anyhow.

I don't recall ever saying that I have the secret recipe for MS' success. The discussion should be for its own sake. There's no need for lofty goals when the basics of conversation--the ability to reason, to listen, and to be cogent--are hard enough to come by. Heck, the vast majority of people reading this thread don't even have the inclination to voice their thoughts, let alone anything else. For my part, I would just wish that people be able to convey, and hopefully shorn of the mine-is-bigger-than-yours fanboy mentality.