You would be able to buy a laptop that ran these apps, but did so with an ARM chip that had so little heat dissipation, and so little power consumption, that it would not require a fan -- just like the iPad -- and would therefore have a much better battery life, perhaps upwards of 20 hours. Microsoft's "holy grail" formula was this: Imagine a customer who mainly needed to run Word, Excel and PowerPoint. It could now be done on hardware that Apple simply does not have. With Apple, you either get the x86 ( Intel ( INTC))-based) MacBook, or you get the ARM-based iOS on an iPad. The MacBook performs the Microsoft Office function perfectly, but the best battery life you can hope for is seven to nine hours, while the price of the hardware starts at $1,000 and goes up to well more than $2,000.
So here was Microsoft with an exciting new platform that had a legitimate claim for an enterprise sweet spot that Apple and Google could not claim in the same way, and ... whoops, Microsoft just shot itself in the foot by excluding the one critical piece of the puzzle. There is a special place on a wall of shame for those who are so stupid to have missed this critical point in the product planning. Ballmer, wake up! Then came June 18, and Microsoft's surprise announcement of the two Surface tablets -- one based on ARM technology (built by NVDIA in this case) and the other based on x86. Let's distinguish between the two: The ARM version won't offer Outlook, whereas the x86 version will run Outlook. In other words, the ARM version is doomed for the enterprise market, whereas the x86 version passes at least this hurdle.