Re: Windows RT didn't fail because of ARM
I more or less entirely agree with this. The surface is/was a fine tablet on hardware terms but the software didn't exist at launch, and still doesn't - because noone is really using the windows app store at all, even for full-fat windows 8, and why would they.
When the distinguishing feature as a user between RT and 8 is lacking desktop apps, for a while when RT was still "8.0-like" there was a functional jailbreak that made this possible. MS stepped on that with the 8.1-like patch, without which it'd have been remaining quite interesting because it otherwise 'is' ARM Windows 8. The difference is only the name MS give it, and that they took the car keys back after they caught you joyriding.
Asides from the bundled (non-commercial) Office "2013" (sans scripting - and called it Office RT, so as to build the RT brand as 'restricted technology') then - the software just wasn't there for it. Tiny x86 8.1 tablets then still have access to desktop software, but it's through MS's choices this is so whereas ARM got shut down, and the fact this is leveraged on them now shows just fine this could have been a vector to build out surface on ARM if they'd wanted to. I'd point out, a range of software had been recompiled for ARM/RT even just for a jailbreak. It worked.
At least it enough, that it could have shored up the gaps to quite a few people but seems like MS didn't want it to succeed without the app store model behind it (I'd be concerned, if it were possible for such concentrated envy of apple's store margins, to congeal into a black hole - we'd be in big trouble) - a model with W10 they're still pushing because, after all, £90 for x86 tablet, and no licence but hoping for a %age on app sales is still a model, even if it's wishful at this stage.
Let's all wish that remains so.
Surface stillborn - maybe - but it was because MS's decisions. ARM all too clearly works for everyone else as a source of profit (slim as that became), not loss.