Microsoft surfaces Surface tablets, but why now?

Yesterday, Microsoft announced two new tablets in Los Angeles: The Surface for Windows RT, which uses an Nvidia Tegra ARM-based processor and runs Windows RT, and the Surface for Windows 8 Pro, which uses an Intel Ivy Bridge Core i5 processor. Everyone's been focusing on the "what" of the new tablets, but I want to focus on the "why." Microsoft's event yesterday seemed to be thrown together at the last minute--the company only gave a few days of lead time to the press, the site it chose for the announcement was a little "no-name" studio in Los Angeles, and the press that covered the event couldn't even get in until more than a half-hour after the scheduled start time.

Once they got in, Microsoft showed them two tablets, both largely clones of the iPad with a bit bigger screen (but even the more sophisticated Intel-based model's display's resolution is far below that of Apple's Retina Display.) The most innovative features were the thin covers with integrated keyboards and trackpads. More importantly, Microsoft announced neither prices nor availability dates for the two tablets. All we know is that the Windows RT version will ship around the same time as Windows 8, and that the Windows 8 Pro version will ship three months later.

Why throw together a last-minute announcement of tablets that Microsoft has obviously put a lot of work into, and not even bother announcing prices and availability? Here's my totally uninformed speculation: Last night's event was a "Hail Mary" pass aimed not at tablet buyers but at app developers. Microsoft knows that it has to have a solid library of apps if it wants to have any chance of competing with Apple. Interest in the Windows RT platform by both tablet builders and app developers has been lukewarm at best: Very few Windows RT tablets were shown publicly before last night, and developers aren't going to write apps for tablets that don't exist. In addition, Microsoft knows, through take-up of its development tools, how many developers are working on Windows RT apps, and the number has probably been very disappointing. The company saw what happened to HP's TouchPad and RIM's PlayBook, and it didn't want the same thing to happen to its tablet business.

Microsoft needed to show app developers that Windows RT is a viable platform, and the best way to do that was to show it running on an attractive tablet. That's what Microsoft did last night. In addition, Microsoft's plan to release the Windows RT tablet at the same time as Windows 8, while delaying the Windows 8 Pro version of the tablet for three months, tells developers Microsoft's priorities: Write tablet apps for Windows RT first, because we can always run existing Windows PC software on Windows 8.

In short, Microsoft is very worried that it's not going to have enough Windows RT apps to compete with Apple. That's why it announced its Surface tablets well before it wanted to, in order to encourage app developers to get on board.

Reality bites: Google replaces Intel with Marvell for Google TV

Earlier today, The Wall Street Journal reported that Marvell has replaced Intel as the lead chipset supplier for Google TV. The deal is non-exclusive, but the bigger news is that Google has replaced Intel's X86 architecture with ARM, which is supported by Broadcom, nVidia, Samsung and Texas Instruments, along with Marvell and others. When the first Google TV devices were released by Logitech and Sony, it was clear that they were far too expensive for the market; for example, while Apple was selling Apple TV for $99 (U.S.) and Roku's set-top boxes were priced at $99 or less, the Logitech Revue was launched at $399. In order for Sony and Logitech to be competitive, they had to drastically cut prices and, in Logitech's case, take huge losses. (Logitech subsequently abandoned Google TV.)

By switching from the Intel architecture to ARM, Google TV's licensees will gain a less-expensive, lower-power platform that can compete with set-top boxes from Apple, Roku and others on both price and performance. They'll also get a choice of multiple processor vendors; for example, even though Marvell is the lead partner, there's nothing keeping Samsung from using its own ARM-based processors in its HDTVs, Blu-Ray players and set-top boxes.

In short, this is the move that Google should have made from the beginning. With lower-priced set-top boxes, the ability to run apps and an operating system based on a more modern version of Android, Google TV 2.0 should be significantly more successful than the original version. At the very least, it has a chance for survival, instead of being "dead on arrival".

Intel surrenders in the set-top box war

NewTeeVee reports that Intel has shut down its its Digital Home Group, which was working on chips including Atom-based CE media processors for Internet-based set-top boxes, including Google TV and the Boxee Box. The Digital Home Group team has been reassigned to tablet development. Some work will continue on devices for cable and IPTV set-top boxes, such as the processor that Pace is using in the Xfinity set-top box that it developed for Comcast.

Intel was a partner in Google TV's development, and Intel's involvement was partially responsible for the failure of the first-generation product. The reason was that only Intel processors could be used in Google TV devices, and the cost of Intel's Atom processor made the price of products such as the Logitech Revue uncompetitive. The Revue was launched at $299, then dropped to $250 and now sells for $99. The price of Intel's processors wasn't the only problem, of course; poorly-designed software, inscrutable remote controls and a lack of support from content providers didn't help.

Now, processors based on ARM look like they have the upper hand in future Internet set-top box development. ARM-based processors are less expensive than Intel's Atom, and potential set-top box makers such as Samsung already manufacture them. Apple's A-series of processors is based on ARM. Now, it appears that both Google TV and Boxee will go with ARM for their next-generation products.

New AppleTV uses A4 processor; what impact will ARM's A15 have?

According to the latest EETimes magazine, the new AppleTV uses Apple's own A4 processor in place of three Intel chips in the previous design: A Pentium M-class CPU, a memory controller with embedded graphics, and an I/O chip. Those three chips cost Apple $60 to $65 and took up 975 square mm of space. By comparison, the A4, manufactured by Samsung, costs Apple $15 to $20 and takes up 196 square mm of space.

The switch to the A4 explains why Apple won't port the new AppleTV user interface or features to the previous model. It also puts Intel at an increasing disadvantage in Apple's future product plans, since only the Mac family now uses Intel processors.

Another story in the same issue of EETimes has a great deal of potential importance to Apple's future desktop computer plans. ARM, the RISC processor developer that licenses its designs to a variety of semiconductor companies, disclosed a small amount of information about its new 2.5 GHz Cortex A15 processor. This processor is multicore-capable and uses much less power than the current generation of server chips from Intel and AMD. Apple could build a notebook- and desktop-oriented version of the A4 using the Cortex A15 as its foundation, and displace Intel from its product line entirely. The A15 is scheduled to begin shipping in 2012.

HP dropping Windows 7 tablet: Bad news for Microsoft and Intel?

Yesterday, word unofficially came out that HP is killing the Windows 7-based tablet that it's been demonstrating for months, on the grounds that Windows 7 isn't an appropriate platform for building tablet applications and requires too much power. Another rumor started circulating that HP is planning to shift to non-Intel CPU designs for tablets (most likely ARM- or Snapdragon-based designs) because Intel's Atom processors use too much power.

If HP couldn't get Windows 7 to work as a tablet platform, it's unlikely that other vendors are going to have much more success. Microsoft compounded its problem by announcing that its Courier project, a two-screen, book-like tablet with a custom operating system and applications, has been killed. It now looks like Microsoft will only be a bit player in the tablet business, at least for a while.

Intel will similarly be hurt by HP's decision to shift to non-Intel processors for tablets. Both Intel and Microsoft are looking for new areas of profitable growth, and tablets are the hottest new platform. If Intel doesn't have a practical solution for tablets, it will miss a big growth opportunity, at the same time that sales of netbooks (the primary customers for Atom CPUs) are slowing.