All this is true about the marketing of Surface, but the real problem is the MSFT did not get the product right. They are adapting the traditional PC user interface to a tablet and the software is not right yet. Getting it right is very hard and they are just not there yet. The product doesn't suck, but the self-training (intuitive UI) is lousy.
I was quite keen about the Tablet from a technical POV, the fact I could swap MS files around between my laptop, desktop and tablet, but you're right the advertising was a mess, it put me off, and the price was not right for either students or school children.
This is why you focus on the product, not the audience. iPad introduction? Just hands using the device and showing the amazing things of which it is capable.
Competitive products? Always about how much cheaper they were than the iPad. Well, until now. Now it's about interpretive dance, apparently.
Yep, the advertising didn’t target that iPad audience that is growing. And my age-group isn’t even on your chart there, Bob. But for all the bad press the device is getting – it made sense to me – and I’m over 54. (Do we have a foot in the grave? Is that why demographics end at 54?)
So maybe I’m just smarter than those kids in advertising who think they know how to market stuff and saw past their break dancing hype. I thought - this is where hardware is going – or should be going.
I needed a device that can run the programs I use for my business. Programs that don’t run on an iPad. Sorry, the cloud isn’t for everyone or everything. I needed a fully-functioning pc that worked like a pad. Saw the ad – Voila! I just bought a Windows 8 ultrabook. And yes, I’m learning to use it.
What it will do is allow me to work with my agency clients on a device that is modern, fast, convenient, AND can run my programs. The very agency clients who don’t read the research.
And agencies wonder why they need consultants to help fix their business.
But your post was about how misdirected the advertising was. Yes. I agree.
It's not just the arrogance of youth, it is specific M$ arrogance, which they have constantly displayed over the last 40 years. The Asus Transformer is a superior and cheaper machine, but M$ would not build a competitive Surface because they didn't feel the need; the brand name will sell it anyway. The people who will spot this are the over 50s because, not only are we more technically aware than advertisers give us credit for, we are the IT pioneers; we invented all this stuff, and have observed M$ arrogance for that whole 40 years. We need a really good reason not to try new stuff from somebody else who doesn't have that baggage of history.
The deepest arrogance is that, with the loss of Steve Jobs, there is one key source of over 50s knowledge left in the industry - Bill Gates, but nobody at M$ has stopped to think that if their founder is so technically aware, then a few others of his age might be as well.
All this is true about the marketing of Surface, but the real problem is the MSFT did not get the product right. They are adapting the traditional PC user interface to a tablet and the software is not right yet. Getting it right is very hard and they are just not there yet. The product doesn't suck, but the self-training (intuitive UI) is lousy.
ReplyDeleteI was quite keen about the Tablet from a technical POV, the fact I could swap MS files around between my laptop, desktop and tablet, but you're right the advertising was a mess, it put me off, and the price was not right for either students or school children.
ReplyDeleteEpic fail
ReplyDeleteIt was a fail from the moment I saw the first spot.
ReplyDeleteThis is why you focus on the product, not the audience. iPad introduction? Just hands using the device and showing the amazing things of which it is capable.
ReplyDeleteCompetitive products? Always about how much cheaper they were than the iPad. Well, until now. Now it's about interpretive dance, apparently.
It's enough to make me act your age, Bob.
Yep, the advertising didn’t target that iPad audience that
ReplyDeleteis growing. And my age-group isn’t even on your chart there, Bob. But for all the bad press the device is getting – it made sense to me – and I’m over 54. (Do we have a foot in the grave? Is that why demographics end at 54?)
So maybe I’m just smarter than those kids in advertising who
think they know how to market stuff and saw past their break dancing hype. I thought - this is where hardware is going – or should be going.
I needed a device that can run the programs I use for my business. Programs that don’t run on an iPad. Sorry, the cloud isn’t for
everyone or everything. I needed a fully-functioning pc that worked like a pad. Saw the ad – Voila! I just bought a Windows 8 ultrabook. And yes, I’m learning to use it.
What it will do is allow me to work with my agency clients on a device that is modern, fast, convenient, AND can run my programs. The very agency clients who don’t read the research.
And agencies wonder why they need consultants to help fix their business.
But your post was about how misdirected the advertising was.
Yes. I agree.
It's not just the arrogance of youth, it is specific M$ arrogance, which they have constantly displayed over the last 40 years. The Asus Transformer is a superior and cheaper machine, but M$ would not build a competitive Surface because they didn't feel the need; the brand name will sell it anyway. The people who will spot this are the over 50s because, not only are we more technically aware than advertisers give us credit for, we are the IT pioneers; we invented all this stuff, and have observed M$ arrogance for that whole 40 years. We need a really good reason not to try new stuff from somebody else who doesn't have that baggage of history.
ReplyDeleteThe deepest arrogance is that, with the loss of Steve Jobs, there is one key source of over 50s knowledge left in the industry - Bill Gates, but nobody at M$ has stopped to think that if their founder is so technically aware, then a few others of his age might be as well.