Kin.

RROD

im surprised nobody said windows Vista or Zune yet

-Not supporting smaller games. May not be a financial mistake but it hurts their image when you can only count on them for blockbusters. There is a market for games that don't go on to sell 4 million copies, you know.

-Not testing their hardware enough before launch. Had the 360 not exploding when you tried to.....use it...Sony would never have stood a chance.

-I only know about video games. I have to say that, compared to the competition, Microsoft has done a surprising amount of things right.

Actually the move was thought to do more with an agreement that Microsoft made with EA to get EA to invest in developing Xbox LIVE gaming.

XSN sports games were, generally, successful in that some were very popular with niche crowds.  Top Spin for example.  However, with EA and 2K locking up licensing deals, it was difficult to develop the games people were really interested in playing.  So Microsoft sold of it's XSN assets to other companies and let them do what they will with them. 

Microsoft was also already in the mood to let third party developers and publishers bring games to the system, rather than trying to fill all the niches themselves.  So, with the inability to get licensing deals, the negotiations with EA to get them on Xbox LIVE, and a general desire to get more 3rd parties in on the action, Microsoft bowed out of that segment.

Microsoft didn't let Links go for the sake of it, it was a prized possession, and one that consistently made money for Microsoft.  So good was the golfing game that no one could compete against it, and for some time no one did.

Oddly enough, as Microsoft titles, most of the XSN titles did well.  However, as third party titles they failed to have anything but modest success. 

Had the Zune and the iPod come out at the same time, the Zune would have won.  But without Zune, Microsoft would not have gotten Windows Phone, which they desperately needed to compete with Apple and Google.

Windows Vista was no where near as bad everyone believes it was.  It did consume slightly more memory than Windows 7, but in general it was just as good.  The problem with Vista was the architecture of drivers changed in order to make the OS more stable, it's actually been a process that Windows has been going through since Windows 98.  It began in Windows ME, then some major advancements were made in Windows XP, than once again in Windows Vista, Windows 7, and again in Windows 8.  The cause of 99% of BSODs are driver issues, so it's an area where Microsoft decided to focus on improving considerably.  In order to do that though, they had to rest control of developing the driver from the hardware manufacturer to them.  In turn, what the hardware developer uses now is really just a stub that lets the OS know what features it supports.   

Actually, that's exactly what XBLA is all about.  I don't recall the first successful independent game on Xbox LIVE, but there was a point where it became clear to Microsoft and the rest of the community that XBLA wasn't just a means of getting old games on a newer console.  It was in, I believe 2007 that Microsoft started saying to publishers "NO" to updated remakes, and "YES!!!" to new independent games. 

More recently there has been a lot of press about how controlling Microsoft is and how expensive certain aspects of the process can be, but there is also a back side logic to that.  The more process driven the process of publishing a game to XBLA is, with checks at points along the way, the more likely the developer is doing the things they must do in order to get ready for the next step.  Add to that, the cost of having to have your code undergo another system test, isn't so much to make it difficult to make money as it is to force developers to take time (with the free/included bug testing) to get the job done right.

I don't know how close you are to developers, I've watched people who think they know exactly how to code beautiful code get their asses handed to them in a review because in a professional environment, when top notch quality is required the first time out, they fail to deliver.  And then it's ALL your fault for requiring that the code doesn't break everything else.  I've also seen beautiful code, code that runs so efficiently and well, it actually makes you weep and proud for/of the developer.  It is an amazing skill to be able to write efficient code.  You don't just have it as a developer, and you don't learn it in school. 

So, I empathize with the developers that have complained about Microsoft process, even with Valve, but to be honest I've been in the position that Microsoft has been in myself of having developers want to publish code onto your system and thinking they now their stuff when in fact they don't.  Their code runs in an isolated testing situation, not in a real world environment.  The former is not anywhere near good enough.

I think Microsoft has done awesome work with independent games. 

It won't be, because it isn't monopolistic.  If it was then Apple would be a monopoly which, consequently, it isn't.

The Surface is, when compared to similar hardware, reasonably priced.  It isn't notably less expensive, and it notably more expensive.  As a corporation, Microsoft, even in its products, has to justify costs.  It can't offer a zero cost to Windows 8 RT/Pro, when in another part of the business they've calculated the an actual cost. 

That said, the actual cost isn't $100.  That's a flat out factually inaccurate.  The price is $50 for Windows 8 RT, $65 if Office 2013 is included.  That prices is the top tier price, with the fewest number of licenses being purchased.  Increase the quantity of devices and that price goes down.

The $100 price you cite is for Windows 8 Pro and Office 2013. 

The developer who created Game Room went under.  Not much else they could do.