Microsoft and Surface Tension

Before I begin, I'll admit something that I consider a deep dark secret.

I LIKE the Surface. I don't love it. I LIKE IT! That alone is an unpopular opinion.

I think the Microsoft's homemade tablet has a lot of potential to smash in to the computing market like a wrecking ball (insert miley cyrus track here), but some bonehead moves are keeping it from realizing it's full potential.

I honestly think that the potential with the Surface tablets lies with the fact that they are effectively tablets for PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET THINGS DONE. They are tablets for creators, not just consumers. As such, they are a major wrench in the tablet market engine.

Sure you have the potential to create on other tablets (iPad, GalaxyTab, Nexus, etc) but it's often limited by weak third party applications and complicated connectivity issues. They are marketed as tools to help consume content. Apps, Games, Music and Videos are the main purpose. This is no secret.

Microsoft came in with a different tune. They knew that content consumption was a cornered market and breaking in was going to be a challenge. Instead they went a different route. Yeah, you can consume on these surface devices too....but you can ALSO CREATE. Running a full desktop OS allows for a lot of flexibility with application and periphreal support. Photoshop, Pro-Tools, Vegas, etc. All of that would run on this small tablet with a keyboard you can throw in your bag. It was a thin and light laptop with a touch screen. The idea seems great.  I mean the main accessory for this thing is a keyboard. How much more work oriented could you get?

Microsoft then made the huge mistake of ignoring this fact almost immediately and targeting content consumers as their ideal audience. All of the advertising seemed centered around "COOL" dancing and interaction rather than the potential of the device. With the prices the way they sat, nobody was going to buy a surface OR a surface pro when they could get a cool iPad instead.

Another problem came with the RT version of the tablet. RT was an ARM based version of the Surface. It could only use apps from the windows store, and it had a Desktop mode which was effectively worthless because you couldn't run the same windows apps you could on your computer. This was their targeted consumption device. It ran awfully, lacked an ecosystem, and was no competition for iPads or Android equivalents.

Worse yet, Microsoft managed to cannibalize their own sales. Why would anybody buy a Surface RT when they could get a Pro for small premium. The Pro does EVERYTHING, and it does it well. The Surface RT is a monstrosity that should not have ever existed. It's only advantage over the more powerful brother was that it was a bit thinner and lacked a "noisy" fan. As expected, the tablet sold terribly and Microsoft lost millions on the launch. I thought they had learned their lesson then and there.

You can imagine my horror when I heard that the Surface 2 was coming in an RT flavor as well. Microsoft does not even come close to having the required ecosystem to make this work. Sure it's a low priced surface tablet, but it lacks the functionality that makes the surface great. For the same price, I can get a Nexus 10 and enjoy my content with a couple hundred bucks lining my pocket. I could also spend a bit more and get a larger library of content with an iPad.

The Surface Pro, on the other hand remains a great tablet PC for people who want to make things happen. The new ads focus on this, and it seems Microsoft is getting the message now. I have some ideas about their long term plans for the RT platform but regardless, the Surface RT is a mistake. It's their biggest mistake and it is tainting the amazing potential that lies in the Surface brand. I hope Microsoft knows what they're doing and bails out before it's too late. I would love to see the Surface succeed and I'm eagerly awaiting a Nokia made Microsoft branded Surface Phone. Yes Please.

Fragmentation is Evolution, Deal with it.

There has been a lot of talk about Android's "fragmentation" problem since the inception of the OS all those years ago. Initially it was just a negative buzzword used by certain fruit based companies to demerit Android in the eyes of consumers, and was later taken seriously by tech bloggers for the clickbait it provided.

Poor BugDroid

I'm a nerd, and a great big Android fanboy. Putting my loyalties aside, I can honestly say this fragmentation problem does exist, but it's not the consumer adverse malicious marketing tactic that the blogosphere is making it out to be. Instead, it ties right in to the technological evolution that has existed for hundreds of years. Crying about how it sucks is just people being entitled.

Lets clear up some of the background before moving on. Android is an open source mobile operating system produced by Google Inc. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) such as HTC and Samsung are encouraged to take the Android source code and modify it to their liking (to a degree) for their own devices. Google encourages each OEM to be unique and innovative with their phone to promote beneficial competition in to the market. These phones are sold to the end users alongside a two year phone service contract in the United States.

So Google encourages companies to make their own unique versions of Android phones (software and hardware) with an effective shelf life of two years.

The term fragmentation comes from the fact that new phones and versions of the OS come out on a yearly basis or quicker. The new phones and OS versions come with new features and older models don't always get the newer version of the OS. People are rightfully upset when their phone that is barely a year old is "obsolete" after 6 months. It can get the majority of applications but because it lacks the newest of the new, it is considered obsolete. Journalists use this to throw a hissy fit online to attract more traffic.

This is stupid.

Consider the auto market. Ford releases a Fiesta. Months later they release a new Mustang. Were the Fiesta owner to complain about his car being overshadowed by the Mustang, he would be laughed at. Lets go further though. The next year a new fiesta is released with a new stereo system and a new engine technology boosting gas mileage. If the owner goes in to his dealer and demands that the new features be crammed in to his year old model for free, he would be laughed at. Also, he finds out that his fiesta doesn't have as good gas mileage as a Toyota Prius of the same year. He also can't get more than 120 horsepower out of his engine and he wants to race, so he yells at the dealer. Stupid right?

Look at all that fragmentation. 

A better example is the PC market. Microsoft releases a new version of Windows to many different manufacturers. The OEMs use that windows and install it on different computers with different specifications and different features, few of which are interchangeable past the OS level. If someone buys a low end computer, it might not be compatible with the next version of windows coming out in 4 years. All these different form factors and sizes make web development and game development a pain. Blame fragmentation right?

FRAGMENTATION! BURN IT WITH FIRE!

Here's the point for all the fragmented crybabies out there. You have choices provided by Android. You can buy a phone like a Nexus with a long upgrade path or you can take your chances with the other phones. You can buy a high end phone with a big standard screen size that will probably get an update, or you can buy a cheap no name brand with a weird screen size that will probably never see an update. THE CHOICE IS YOURS! The consequences of your purchase are also yours. As with anything, do your homework before making a purchase.

The Fragmentation complaint is people being completely entitled with their expectations. I DESERVE THIS THING WHICH WILL CAUSE A TON OF WORK FOR NO PROFIT. Companies like Samsung and HTC are only in the market to make a profit. They get no profit from upgrading your phone. They make money from selling devices. 

Crying makes no difference, because they don't care. Heck, most normal non-nerdy people don't even care. They just want to play angry birds on the toilet. It's the app developers responsibility to support the devices they want to support. It's the OEMs responsibility to make a phone with an OS. It's Google's responsibility to update their base OS for the market. It's the Carriers who keep you locked to one phone for 2 years.

Fragmentation is a sign that phones are getting better in hardware and software. If you don't like that, then don't buy in to it. iPhones, Windows Phones, and Blackberry phones have lower degrees of fragmentation, but it still exists. Buy one of those if you don't want to be obsolete soon. They're all very good choices and will offer you some of the same content from Android without the quick paced product life cycle. If you choose to buy in to Android, be prepared for the consequences.

TL;DR -  With great power comes great responsibility. Quit acting like an entitled child.