Oh god help me when I see ‘contributions’ such as this post ( link ) and the article wasn’t too bad given that I don’t expect much from Neowin at the best of times particularly when one considers the sensationalist headlines and the ‘content’ (I’m being generous today) where the original quote in the actual link itself says the following:
“We originally spent about a year trying to develop the application on the iPad. What we found was that it was not going to work in the enterprise setting. We weren’t able to achieve a lot of the functionality– such as interfacing with the legacy systems– that we could achieve with the Surface on Windows 8”
But here is the part that most people never go to – the actual ( link ) and how there is more to the story than what is being lead on by the Neowin story or the marketing blog link provided by Microsoft themselves. What you have in reality is a end to end Microsoft organisation that tries to make it heterogeneous but finds that integrating the iPad into the Microsoft ecosystem is a little more complex than they expected (as seen by the laborious steps that the said organisation claimed it would take if they used an iPad). I also find it interesting that they didn’t go for the cheaper Surface RT device – maybe there is something the organisation and Microsoft isn’t telling the reader? the fact that their goal was to replace their existing laptop fleet and that a hybrid device such as the Surface Pro 3 is more suitable given that it can run both modern and legacy software on the same machine? Don’t you get the impression that every time there are those going “a-ha! we’ve finally beaten the iPad” that there are a whole heap of details that are missing? it reminds me many years ago when Linux advocates were crowing about a migration to Linux in Germany (can’t remember the region) only go find that a few years later not much money was saved – in fact if I remember correctly it ended up costing more. A tonne of legacy software for example had to run inside a virtual machine which still required Windows licences for example.
Am I slamming the Surface Pro 3? of course not – I think it is a very capable device and I could see Microsoft making huge headway into organisations who are looking at consolidating their IT infrastructure into fewer desktops, more mobile devices particularly for sales representatives who need to be out in the field. I could imagine for example a Coca Cola representative visiting a supermarket and attaching a data stick or maybe using the bluetooth connection from their mobile phone to hotspot onto the internet then creating a VPN tunnel to the inventory database to see what the stock level is like at the various distribution points and wether there will be a delay in getting an order to that said store in time for the massive sale they’ve got planned for the following week. So the Surface Pro 3 I could imagine angering their OEM partners more than having any sort of damage to Apple given that the keynote to WWDC 2014 talked about using the right tool for the right job rather than the consolidation direction that Microsoft are advocating currently (I think that has more to do with a gradual progression towards being more vertically integrated than anything to do with competing against Apple – Microsoft need to grow so it makes perfect sense to establish oneself as the ‘one stop shop’ for large enterprise customers which include software, services and hardware). What ever the case maybe, to turn this into an Apple vs. Microsoft or Surface Pro 3 vs. iPad simply ignores the wider picture. Btw, I’d argue that a better comparison for the Surface Pro 3 would be the MacBook Air with the Surface RT being more comparable to the iPad.