I'm watching Microsoft's release of Windows 8/Windows RT/Windows Phone 8 with interest. I'm rooting for them, because I like the Modern UI (ex-Metro) design language a lot. Microsoft seemed to be the only company to take the notion of not competing with the iPad on its home turf seriously, that another approach to design was necessary.
However, I am seriously WTFing at Microsoft right now. Most of my bafflement involves the desktop Windows environment, used solely as a compatibility layer to accommodate the Microsoft Office team's inability to port their software.
There are just so many things wrong with this.
From the point of view of an industry observer, it lays Microsoft's often-rumored product fiefdoms bare: Windows RT is a Windows OS initiative. The division responsible for Microsoft Office was either not consulted on this or — more likely — insufficiently supportive.
"Yes," they might have said, "We understand that this is a bet-the-company's-future initiative, tremendously essential to the Windows team. However, we will not support the completely new, modern APIs that you are putting forward. We define legacy, and we demand that our legacy is supported."
So untold person-years of effort go into porting Windows 7 APIs to the ARM architecture, bloating the operating system, destroying its conceptual continuity, and confusing the picture for external developers the Windows team is trying to evangelize.
From the point of view of a third-party Windows developer evaluating Windows RT, I would be seriously insulted by Microsoft's behavior.
"Microsoft," I might say, "You're demanding that I not only rewrite my software to a new API, speaking a completely new design language, but also subject myself to your monopolistic sales channel in order to sell my software to your users?"
And yet Microsoft is not bound by either of these restrictions itself. It's able to keep its legacy software around, and it's able to leverage a privileged distribution channel: bundling with the device.
That bundled software isn't free, by the way. If you're a business, or want to use the bundled Office software for "revenue-generating activities," you must buy a license covering its use.
Naturally, I contrast this with Apple's behavior with their signature legacy apps on the iPad. They rewrote and re-imagined both the iLife and iWork suites for the iPad first (for the most part), then rolled them down to the iPhone.
However, Apple did this over the course of years. The iPhone debuted with limited read-only mail attachment support, but left productivity apps to third parties. iWork was introduced with the original iPad (early 2010). iMovie accompanied the iPhone 4 (late 2010). GarageBand and iMovie for iPad accompanied iPad 2 (early 2011), and iPhoto debuted next to the first iPad with Retina display (early 2012).
Apple didn't have the pressure on them to support everything on day one. However, they did establish what was possible through their actions. They led the way by being model iOS citizens.
Microsoft has a lot more pressure on them to do everything, be everything from day one, partially because of their dominant market footprint in business, and partially because Apple relentlessly showed what should be possible in terms of productivity on a tablet.
Poor Microsoft, they're being hamstrung by their dominant positions both in business and in productivity applications.
Seeking a no compromise design has... compromised their design.
Microsoft, you needed to murder your darlings.