> I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that.

I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). They really were two very different devices for different uses. Trying to call them both Surface tablets was a mis-step in my opinion because of their very different use-cases: one is a desktop replacement, the other is a tablet. To me, that's a marketing problem, not an engineering problem.

>I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT).

And here we are observing them do it all over again. Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. Just by the name you still could figure they are the same machine and maybe the pro is a little bit faster or has a bigger flash drive etc. Just as you figure with the different Windows editions. "Ultimate", "Professional" "Home" etc.

People who get the Surface 2 will still be very surprised to see that that they cannot do anything with it seeing as not one "exe" they already have will work on them.

Well, they seem to have doubled down on that mistake by making the names even more similar this time around.

Office RT being a desktop app is as it should be - no learning curve, and each pixel works harder than in Metro. What was wrong was the lack of Outlook at launch, and then the other things like no AD integration, and the inability to run non-signed desktop apps.

...which is one reason why I think a lot of people were really infuriated by the Surface RT.

Microsoft didn't apply their own rules to themselves: they couldn't be bothered / didn't want to re-write Office for Metro, but they insisted that for everyone else the RT only support Metro apps.

If Office had been converted to Metro there would be no reason for the RT to even let you see the traditional Windows desktop. I wanted to like the RT - I really like the Pro - but after a few weeks using it I just gave up. It was a compromised device, from start to finish.

On the other hand, if your workers produce Office documents (which pretty much all of them do) then you can give them Surface RT machines where they are in theory* using the same Office so don't need retraining. They also produce documents that fit right into your workflow without the screwups you get with alternatives.

Maybe the long term goal is Modern versions of Office apps but the Office port is probably an essential bridge to it.

* In theory because they may be most familiar with Office 2003 or whatever, and now they're faced with something that looks completely different.

I agree with your reasoning, but this actually rather points towards Software being the problem. Office in tablet mode is worse than what you get on an iPad, giving away the biggest advantage MS could have in that space - and this remains unresolved with the new generation, at least from what I get in this article.

Marketing could still be an issue if they aren't sending the right message that resonates with their target consumers. Personally I haven't seen a surface ad in a while except the commercial another poster commented on above. It was a commercial that certainly did not induce excitement - just run-on-the-mill flashiness.