Microsoft's Surface program isn't going great, but maybe Google can teach them a thing or two

Microsoft’s Surface devices first raised their head in 2012. These hybrid, 2-in-1 devices were expected to usher in a new era for Microsoft; an era where Microsoft would transform from a software and services company to a hardware one.

Four years later, I’m not sure if that plan has actually worked out for them.

On the Surface

The Surface devices are easily the most compelling Windows devices in the market today. In my opinion, only the Dell XPS 13 line and Lenovo’s Thinkpad line offer something as compelling to the end user.

The Surface devices did get off to a rather rocky start. The first devices came out around the same time as the terribly conceived Windows 8 and to make matters worse, the first Surface device used Windows RT, which was an ARM fork of Windows 8.

A lack of apps and long-term strategy for an ARM-powered Windows-based device killed that off pretty quickly. By the time the Surface Pro and Surface 2 came and went, Microsoft had already written off about $1 billion of Surface stock.

It was only after the launch of the Surface Pro 3 and Pro 4 that things actually started looking up for the Surface series. The Surface Book, while let down by a steep price, was a showcase of the true power of Windows 10.

Sadly, these devices didn’t really catch on the way they were expected to. Sure, the Surface lineup was something to lust after, if you’re into such things, but the ‘good’ Surface devices were a bit late in coming and the price set up a steep barrier that only the well-heeled could pass.

Don’t get me wrong, the Surface devices are gorgeous and, if nothing else, marvels of engineering. They are, however, very niche.

Unlike Apple, Microsoft has always been a software and services company, much like Google, and their strength lay in the licensing of their software.

The vendors are important for Microsoft, be it HP, Lenovo, Sony or anyone else. With the Surface line, Microsoft effectively eliminated their vendors from the running. Why would you buy, say, an Asus or Acer 2-in-1 when a Surface device is also available?

The same thing happened with Microsoft’s Lumia phones as well. Microsoft bought Nokia, built some gorgeous phones and tacked on Windows Phone 7 to said phones. While there was quite a bit of initial interest in Windows Phone 7 devices, the moment Microsoft started pushing Lumia, third-party vendors started backing off.

One can understand Microsoft’s point of view. The PC market was dying after all and few manufacturers actually offered a compelling Windows experience. Bloated laptops and insufficient hardware were only two of the myriad issues faced by Microsoft.

Nexus vs Surface and Lumia

Google’s Nexus program on the other hand, followed a very different approach; one that Microsoft would have done well to ape. Google has much of the same problems that Microsoft does, but they choose to tackle it differently.

Google knew from the start that they weren’t a hardware company per se and they wanted to get Android on as many devices as possible.

Google’s approach with the Nexus program was simple, put a great manufacturer in the spotlight and show the world how good a truly Google-curated Android experience could be.

Google bought Motorola, yes, and under their guidance, Motorola built some of the best smartphones they’ve ever made (the Moto G and Moto X), which, again, showed the world how easy it was to make and use a good Android device.

However, Google soon caught on to the fact that they were alienating other manufacturers and eventually sold off their stake in Motorola to Lenovo. Manufacturers are left to their own devices (pun intended) and Google would step in once a year with a new Nexus device that attempted to redirect energies in the right path. And you know what? It worked.

Nexus devices are considered to be among the best Android smartphones out there and while companies like LG, Huawei and Samsung were already on the map, the Nexus program extended their reach.

Microsoft’s strategy is understandable, they saw an opportunity (a bankrupt Nokia, for a start) and took it, but in the long term it didn’t work out. I can’t help but feel that a Nexus-esque strategy for Microsoft would go a long way towards their cause.

Microsoft knows how to make great devices, but they need to show others how to do that as well.