Mic Check
Are my debaters standing by? I'll be delivering my first question at 11am ET / 8am PT sharp.
Matt Baxter-Reynolds
Worthless
The Future
Ed Bott
The moderator has delivered a final verdict.
Are my debaters standing by? I'll be delivering my first question at 11am ET / 8am PT sharp.
Debater A is ready
I am for Worthless
Let the games begin
I am for The Future
Does the Windows RT strategy makes sense to you and is developing on the ARM architecture worth pursuing?
Strategically, building a version of Windows that would run on ARM is a great idea. Post-PC devices like smartphones and tablets needs what ARM brings in terms of low-power, long-battery life devices that are always connected. Those devices are hugely important from an industry perspective.
My problem with Windows RT is the execution. If they’d had taken the Windows Phone OS and scaled it up for different screen sizes, and left behind more of the Old Windows stuff and Office -- that would have been a better solution.
I am for Worthless
Of course it does. ARM has been a success in the marketplace for very good reasons and any technology company that wants to be competitive has to take it seriously. Microsoft’s approach isn’t all that different from what Apple did so successfully: start with your existing kernel and build on that. What you see right now is version 1.0, which has succeeded in delivering both a platform for new apps and a foundation for a future that migrates the best parts of “old Windows” intelligently.
I am for The Future
Windows RT has its advantages from ARM, notably battery life, but lacks the legacy support. Is this an issue two to three years from now? How about today?
I’m not concerned with legacy support. People don’t necessarily need a tablet to do what a normal PC does, and I think the argument of a single converged device is overblown such that people will generally continue to carry two devices if they need the specialist functionality that each brings. For example, generally people don’t miss the ability to run a full version of Word on their devices.
We know that Intel are working on reversing their design philosophy from being one focused on “horsepower” and over to more power-conservative design, but I question their ability to ever equal ARM in terms of the power efficiency of their designs. ARM are still progressing and innovating -- Intel remains some way behind them.
I am for Worthless
Hold on a second. Windows RT doesn’t completely lack legacy support. It has a full file system, multi-user support, and drivers for printers and external storage devices just like x86 Windows. It even has specially compiled versions of Office apps (all but Outlook) so you get almost full access to those legacy apps. No, you can’t install random desktop apps. But in theory, a future RT, two or three years from now, could allow additional apps on the desktop, if they’re written right and recompiled for the ARM architecture.
I am for The Future
The way I see it, Microsoft needed to do something for ARM. What could Microsoft have done differently to bring Windows to ARM without a splinter RT OS?
I don’t think they could have done it without splintering. As I mentioned above, the better idea would have been to leave Windows on the desktop, and move Windows Phone forward such that it was able to address the needs of both smartphone and tablet users.
I am for Worthless
Splinter OS? I disagree with the premise of the question. Microsoft has been working on low-power solutions for Windows for years, with nothing to show for it. Development for what has become Windows 8 and RT started in 2009 or earlier, with the goal of having two operating systems that share a single kernel and a common app platform. I suppose it’s possible that Microsoft could have chosen to start completely from scratch and develop an ARM-based OS that would have had nothing in common with x86 Windows. But it sure seems like that would have been the “splinter OS.” It also would have been a horrible mistake.
I am for The Future
Do you see Windows RT becoming more clear in tech buyers' minds or will it continue to be cause for confusion?
I actually can’t see a world where this isn’t mostly confusing. You have two products, running on devices that both similar and are priced about the same. Yet one is “normal” Windows that you’re used to, and the other looks like Windows but doesn’t run Windows
Even Microsoft’s own website is sketchy on the legacy app support.Reading the official Windows RT website, you have to know what you’re looking for (i.e. a lack of legacy app support) in order to confirm it and even then you can only find it by digging.
The difference isn’t necessary anything Microsoft wants to highlight because most buyers would see a lack of legacy support as a problem. (Although I should point out, it’s likely such potential buyers would be happy with an iPad which obviously has zero legacy Old Windows software support.)
I am for Worthless
It’s an understatement to say that Microsoft has done a less-than-perfect job of defining the differences between Windows 8 and Windows RT. But at this point in the game it’s really only an issue for early adopters, who are perfectly capable of understanding the differences. Look, there’s new Windows and old Windows. Windows 8 runs both of them, side by side. Windows RT runs only new Windows (and Office). Was that so hard?
I am for The Future
How should Microsoft educate the masses about Windows RT?
Honestly, I’m not sure it’s fixable. If Microsoft are expending cash on educating the masses, it would be better spent educating around the advantages of touch interfaces and the work that’s been done in that regard in Windows 8 and trying to push more interest in that technology in the consumer market.
I am for Worthless
See my previous response.
I am for The Future
...will Windows RT still exist?
I’m not convinced it will exist even five months from now.
I am for Worthless
Of course it will. Except it will just be Windows. It doesn’t require a lot of imagination to see a future where the RT portion of Windows 8+n is more important than the legacy portion—a flip-flop of the current situation. Likewise, a future Windows RT can fill in many of the holes in the current desktop (a SkyDrive sync utility, for example) relatively easy. Today, we focus obsessively on apps that were written years ago for the x86 Windows environment because that’s what matters. In five years, those will be far less important.
I am for The Future
What are the chances that Windows RT will be orphaned if it does exist?
Microsoft doesn’t like to drop support for software that they’ve put out, so I presume that even if they do can it, it’ll remain supported for a long time. In fact, they’ve already pledged long-term support for the platform, ostensibly to make enterprises feel more comfortable.
I am for Worthless
Microsoft has already committed to a minimum four-year support cycle for the current release of Windows RT, and every new app that’s written for the Windows Store gives it that much more relevance. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Microsoft abandons ARM, unless ARM itself becomes irrelevant.
I am for The Future
Does that strategy make sense and do you expect other hardware makers to follow?
Yes, I think it makes lots of sense. In at least one recent survey, we know that Surface accounts for 82% of the Windows RT devices on the market, and that same survey shows that Samsung’s ATIV Tab only gets 1%. If Surface is selling in very poor numbers, why should Samsung continue to invest? I also expect other hardware manufacturers to follow. Even if they do continue to deliver Windows RT devices, I don’t see a broad range of devices, nor do I see devices being updated frequently. It’ll be more “a tick in the box” rather than anything that has any serious investment.
I am for Worthless
Correction: Samsung isn’t selling its first-generation Windows RT device in the U.S. They’ve decided, probably wisely, that they can let Microsoft deal with the pain and cost of establishing RT in the marketplace. Meanwhile, ASUS and Dell both appear to have planted firm stakes in the ground now. Microsoft is doing a lot of the work of helping them develop and spec the platform, and I don’t see either of them backing off.
I am for The Future
At first glance it appears that Microsoft needs the Surface to give Windows RT a long-term shot.
I think the hardware partners are very important, but they need to be innovating rather than just ramming Windows RT into a chassis better suited to Windows 8. Take the Yoga 11. That’s actually a great laptop, but it’s not a very good Windows RT device because it’s too big and heavy. The OEM partners need to be building things that are more like iPads, Galaxy Tabs, and Nexus 7s.
I am for Worthless
Let’s turn the question around. The biggest problem with the current Windows ecosystem is the hardware. PC OEMs have been in a race to the bottom with hardware for years, cutting corners in hardware design, loading machines up with subsidized crapware, and delivering too many models. For PC buyers, that leads to an awful lot of pain and unhappiness. Windows RT is a much more tightly regulated platform. OEMs might chafe at Microsoft’s strict rules, but buyers (that’s us) should be happy in the long run with fewer choices and more reliability overall.
I am for The Future
What needs to happen for Microsoft to create a vibrant Windows RT ecosystem?
Software-wise, I’m not sure there’s much of a distinction between the work that’s happening for Windows RT and Windows 8 -- i.e. the development of Windows Store apps. In this regard, Microsoft is doing a good enough job to get ISVs to develop apps for both platforms.
I am for Worthless
Apps are one key, obviously. The other is a robust set of services that work as well on ARM-based devices as they do on conventional PCs. Microsoft is well on its way to delivering the second of those goals with Office 365, SkyDrive, Outlook.com, and its Xbox entertainment services. Getting app developers fully committed, so that people can reasonably expect to find the apps they need to be productive, is the bigger challenge. The smart part of Microsoft’s strategy in this respect is that it can leverage the much bigger installed base of Windows 8, where success in turn will lift the prospects of Windows RT.
I am for The Future
Why or why not?
I expect Surface Pro to sell well, as I think a lot of individuals who are keen on Microsoft and the individual design of Surface generally are holding out for Surface Pro. I’m not convinced Surface Pro is a particularly good laptop though
I am for Worthless
Initially, at least, I think it’s reasonable to expect the Surface Pro to do better. It’s a PC, whereas Surface RT is a PC-like device that requires a certain level of acceptance of its limitations. Surface Pro looks like it will be an excellent high-end business machine, capable of fully replacing a laptop and working in situations where a tablet is better suited. Surface RT can’t fully replace a portable PC, which removes it from consideration for many business buyers.
I am for The Future
Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, which we all know is 20/20, what could Microsoft have done differently with the Windows RT launch?
As per my point above -- Windows Phone would have been a better baseline operating system. It’s simpler, and already had straightforward developer support.
The biggest problem with Windows RT is the amount of the Old Windows world that’s carried over. This does nothing but increase the complexity that the user has to deal with, which is the last thing you want on a tablet. Tablets are supposed to be basic, simple devices that never go wrong and never cause a fuss. Windows RT is the wrong class of operating system to address that objective.
I am for Worthless
There’s an awful lot we don’t know about what went on behind the scenes with the development of Windows RT. It appears that Microsoft counted on having a couple of chipmakers and a handful of name-brand OEM partners on board at launch time. They didn’t count on HP, one of those original partners, being a complete basket case and having to drop out because their entire PC business was a mess. Nor did they count on TI deciding to unexpectedly exit the ARM business in September 2012, which took Toshiba out of the running. Those events make the Surface development effort look very smart indeed.
I am for The Future
And thank you readers your votes and comments. Please check back tomorrow for our debaters' closing arguments, and again Thursday when I deliver my verdict.
Matt Baxter-Reynolds
Ed Bott
Lawrence Dignan
I'm inclined to think that Windows RT will be orphaned so was predisposed to go with Matt's argument. However, Ed made some valid points and Microsoft's sheer will means that RT will stick around for a bit. Most likely outcome will be some sort of RT meets Windows 8 merger. I'll give Ed the win that Windows RT is the future (in some form) although I'm shaking my head as I render the verdict.
Posted by Lawrence Dignan