Microsoft Announces New 'Surface' Tablet, New Hardware and Software Based on Windows 8

[djrod]

I've been using a windows 7 based tablet HP SLATE 500 for a while. I will tell you this it is way better then the iPad & Playbook, I own both.

I really think windows based tablets are the way to go. Yes windows 7 isn't perfectly optimized for a tablet but still works better then the rest. I can only wonder how much better Windows 8 will make it...

BTW the "metro" user interface is only an option that is one click from brining it to the normal windows view.

I'm just curious on the RAM and battery life...


I will be in line for this...

 

[Nightarchaon]

Pro surface , + hackintosh mountain lion build , sweeeeeet

 

[2IS]

Apple is not in a position of monopoly, nor have they been found guilty of using said non-existant monopoly position in operating systems to create a new one in web browsers.

Microsoft's reality is different from Apple's. You can't compare them.

Just because they don't have identical business models doesn't mean they can't be compared. They've been compared since their inception and will continue to be compared long into the future, so clearly they can be compared.

 

[smoledman]

 

[G51989]

Just because they don't have identical business models doesn't mean they can't be compared. They've been compared since their inception and will continue to be compared long into the future, so clearly they can be compared.

He was comparing monopolies. For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has a Monopoly in the OS Market ( OSX Does not count, it has never been able to compete with windows. And it never will ), not as bad as it was in the 90s, but it is there still.

Apple does not have a monopoly in any market, as KnightWRX said, if Apple tells best buy the iPad is the only tablet they can sell. Best buy will return all of its iPads to Apple and not give a damn.

Same thing with Carriers, if Apple was to tell Sprint, or AT&T, Verizon or whoever " You can only sell iPhones from now on, or we'll pull our product ". The carrier's won't care, and return their stock of iPhones.

In the 90s, if you were a major PC builder, you were pretty much forced to ONLY sell Windows. If you tried to sell any other OS, there was a good chance Microsoft would pull you license, which would = death for your company.

Apple has never been in a position like that, and I don't think they ever will be.

 

[184550]

Apple has never been in a position like that, and I don't think they ever will be.

I think the explosion of the iOS ecosystem has given them comparable leverage in recent years. Through iOS they've been able to leverage questionable control over music, movies, TV shows, Apps and ebooks.

 

[G51989]

I think the explosion of the iOS ecosystem has given them comparable leverage in recent years. Through iOS they've been able to leverage questionable control over music, movies, TV shows, Apps and ebooks.

Not really. If they were try to tell a record label, or a TV network what they need to change to stay on itunes, they laugh and walk away

 

[184550]

Not really. If they were try to tell a record label, or a TV network what they need to change to stay on itunes, they laugh and walk away

I think that Apples appearance in the DOJ eBook Price-Fixing case is a telling sign of how much power they have accrued in recent years.

It's simply naive to think that Apple has no power when it comes to digital media of any sort.

 

[G51989]

I think that Apples appearance in the DOJ eBook Price-Fixing case is a telling sign of how much power they have accrued in recent years.

It's simply naive to think that Apple has no power when it comes to digital media of any sort.

They have some

I was getting at microsoft in the 90s. They could put PC builders out of business at will. Because if you were a large vendor, and you didn't have windows. You were out of business.

Apple doesn't hold thay kind of power

 

[EbookReader]

$199 price?

if true, wow

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/14/microsoft-surface-199/

According to an inside source, a session was held at Microsoft's recent TechReady15 conference in which all the launch details were laid out. If things go according to the plan detailed then, the Surface for Windows RT tablet will be launching October 26th -- no surprise there -- at a compelling price of $199.

Tim Stevens, who wrote the Engadget post, said that he had received multiple sources for the price, but that the situation was "complicated" in some way.

https://twitter.com/Tim_Stevens/status/235435965852823553

@jackschofield We wouldn't do it w/ just one -- but there is of course every chance OEMs will force Microsoft's hand to change its plans.

http://www.windows8update.com/2012/...ace-to-sell-for-199-too-brilliant-to-be-true/

I am skeptical of this story for one reason and one reason only - it would be so brilliant that it would be inconsistent with the moves Microsoft have been making.

At $199, it would be sold out on day one and would create HUGE Windows 8 buzz on day one. It would get Windows 8 into the homes of millions of adults, children and students immediately.

It would be a decisive act that would show Apple that the second 400 pound gorilla finally woke up.

If Microsoft sell the Surface at $199, would Apple sue Microsoft for predatory pricing for using a loss leader? Or is it legal similar to how Microsoft sold XBOX at a loss?

 

[smoledman]

Anything less then $399 for the 32GB RT is brand suicide. Surface shouldn't be thought of as "bargain bin" product along with all those garbage Android tablets. I'd rather Surface sell slowly at first and gain reputation, but don't put it past Ballmer to screw this up too.

 

[EbookReader]

If it costs $300 to make, and sell for $199, a loss of $101.

10 millions sold x $101 = $1.01 billion loss

Didn't Microsoft lose a lot more with selling XBOX at a huge loss?



edit. Did some quick google search

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/15/the-making-of-the-xbox-part-2/

After four years, Microsoft’s Home and Entertainment Group reported a total loss of $4 billion. That number included some other money-losing ventures too. But the vast majority of it was due to Xbox and the loss that the company was taking on every machine that it made. Insiders believed that Microsoft lost $3.7 billion on the original Xbox by 2005. That amounted to a $168 loss on every machine that Microsoft sold.

Maybe Microsoft will sell the Surface at $199 with a 2 year subscription for subscription music and movie streaming. (think something like Spotify and Netflix)

 

[smoledman]

If it costs $300 to make, and sell for $199, a loss of $101.

10 millions sold x $101 = $1.01 billion loss

Didn't Microsoft lose a lot more with selling XBOX at a huge loss?



edit. Did some quick google search

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/15/the-making-of-the-xbox-part-2/



Maybe Microsoft will sell the Surface at $199 with a 2 year subscription for subscription music and movie streaming. (think something like Spotify and Netflix)

The difference between the Surface and XBox is that the iPad is so dominant you can't come in with some gimmicky pricing mechanism in the vain hope of gaining market share. The Surface with ecosystem will have to win on its own merits at a decent price point. Otherwise, Microsoft should not even bother.

 

[EbookReader]

Anything less then $399 for the 32GB RT is brand suicide. Surface shouldn't be thought of as "bargain bin" product along with all those garbage Android tablets. I'd rather Surface sell slowly at first and gain reputation, but don't put it past Ballmer to screw this up too.

I am sure a lot of people would love to buy a $300 tablet for $199. Isn't that what it cost to make the Ipad?

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/15/the-making-of-the-xbox-part-2/

Ed Fries, former head of Microsoft Game Studios, added, “I wouldn’t say we lost $4 billion. I’d say we spent $4 billion building the Xbox brand and business.”

He noted that a recent brand value study says the Xbox brand alone (not counting the actual business) is worth more than $4 billion today.

Only a company like Microsoft could absorb such losses. And Bill Gates saw the strategic value in stopping Sony in its tracks and building a second pillar for Microsoft software, beyond productivity, based on entertainment in the home.

He knew the battle for the living room would play out over two decades, not just four years. Microsoft earned credibility with game developers and consumers by breaking the chokehold of the Japanese game giants

Windows is losing the mobile battle with smartphone and tablets. Many believe that "mobile" is the future.

What is Microsoft to do? If it want market share like it did with console gaming, then it is going to accept losses.

 

[smoledman]

I am sure a lot of people would love to buy a $300 tablet for $199. Isn't that what it cost to make the Ipad?

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/15/the-making-of-the-xbox-part-2/




Windows is losing the mobile battle with smartphone and tablets. Many believe that "mobile" is the future.

What is Microsoft to do? If it want market share like it did with console gaming, then it is going to accept losses.

#1 - Oh I'm sure people would love to have something the quality of the Surface at bargain bin price, but that's brand suicide.

#2 - Mobile is not the future, it's NOW. Where is Microsoft not present in mobile? Once Windows 8 is released, Microsoft is fully cloud-enabled in all of it's OSes. Windows 8, XBox OS, Windows Phone.

 

[EbookReader]

#1 - Oh I'm sure people would love to have something the quality of the Surface at bargain bin price, but that's brand suicide.

Why brand suicide? Was the Kindle a "brand suicide" too since Amazon priced it below cost?

#2 - Mobile is not the future, it's NOW. Where is Microsoft not present in mobile? Once Windows 8 is released, Microsoft is fully cloud-enabled in all of it's OSes. Windows 8, XBox OS, Windows Phone.

Microsoft OS marketshare for smartphone and tablet is very tiny right now.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

3.5% for smartphone compare to 68.1% for Android.

as for tablet, isn't Microsoft OS at 0% right now?

The difference between the Surface and XBox is that the iPad is so dominant you can't come in with some gimmicky pricing mechanism in the vain hope of gaining market share. The Surface with ecosystem will have to win on its own merits at a decent price point. Otherwise, Microsoft should not even bother.

Sony had something like 60% share of the gaming console business too when XBOX debuted back in 2001.

 

[smoledman]

Microsoft OS marketshare for smartphone and tablet is very tiny right now.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

3.5% for smartphone compare to 68.1% for Android.

as for tablet, isn't Microsoft OS at 0% right now?

By that logic, Microsoft should shut down Windows Phone division and not bother with Surface. After all wasn't Apple once at 0% market share in mobile?

 

[G51989]

Why brand suicide? Was the Kindle a "brand suicide" too since Amazon priced it below cost?



Microsoft OS marketshare for smartphone and tablet is very tiny right now.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

3.5% for smartphone compare to 68.1% for Android.

as for tablet, isn't Microsoft OS at 0% right now? .

Using your logic, When apple was at sub 5% marketshare, and nearly bankrupt in the mid 90s, they should have just closed up shop?

----------

The difference between the Surface and XBox is that the iPad is so dominant you can't come in with some gimmicky pricing mechanism in the vain hope of gaining market share. The Surface with ecosystem will have to win on its own merits at a decent price point. Otherwise, Microsoft should not even bother.

I think Microsoft will price it correctly, balmer can't be that stupid.

The Surface imo, is the first true Tablet ( those Dual Screen Iconias don't count ), that I think has any real chance of competing with the iPad.

If the price point is good, and people warm up to Metro ( I already am ), coupled with Window's Massive software library ( Surface Pro ). I think they could have a winner on their hands.

 

[Geckotek]

I think Microsoft will price it correctly, balmer can't be that stupid.

I'm rooting for MS. Used to work there. But I think you're underestimating how stupid Balmer can be. I don't give him any credit for any recent improvements @ MS. The only credit I can give him is finally letting smarter people make the big decisions.

 

[EbookReader]

By that logic, Microsoft should shut down Windows Phone division and not bother with Surface. After all wasn't Apple once at 0% market share in mobile?

Microsoft is competing. Hence, the Surface. Surface at $199 will give Microsoft a much bigger marketshare than Surface at $399 or $499.

Microsoft has a history of taking a huge loss (XBOX was a $3.7 billion loss after 4 years).

Is mobile important to the future of Microsoft? If the answer is yes, it will need to do something drastic. Time is running out. Android are iOS are taking over smartphone and poised to do likewise for tablets.

Having a popular tablet will mean more apps developers for "mobile" Windows OS. Microsft has a 23.62B cash reserve so it can afford the loss.

 

[EbookReader]

http://theweek.com/article/index/23...sell-the-surface-tablet-for-only-199-bad-idea

Microsoft would likely lose money on each device, but gain speedier market penetration. Is that a strategic trade-off?

It is, if the goal is to spur developer interest: Such an aggressive price tag could earn Microsoft some "significant market share," says Tony Bradley at PC World. And quickly amassing a large audience would definitely "fuel developer interest," which is key to becoming a major and enduring player. As history's shown us, a large selection of third-party apps means more "adoption by businesses and consumers." The problem is, if you start at $199, "customers might balk at higher prices down the road."

Microsoft may have no choice: Pricing the Surface that low "might make sense" because Microsoft is showing up "very late to the tablet market that is already well-stacked," says Brad Reed at BGR. Consumers have been trained to accept the $200 price point, and Microsoft understands that it needs to "positively blow the market away" just to catch up to Apple or Google. A high-end device with a low-end price tag might do just that.

By that logic, Microsoft should shut down Windows Phone division and not bother with Surface. After all wasn't Apple once at 0% market share in mobile?

When Apple debuted the first iphone, how advanced is the smartphone business? (who was Apple competition at that time in 2007)?

The tablet market is pretty advanced right now. MS needs to make a splash fast or it will be game over. It needs marketshare to interest app developers. It needs a lot of apps to gain marketshare. See the chicken and the egg dilemma?


How would you rate Microsoft future if Windows OS is a major fail on smartphone and tablets?
Pretty bleak no? especially if mobile is the future of computing.

I would say:

$199 at 25% likely
$249 at 25% likely
$299 or above 50% likely

 

[Geckotek]

When Apple debuted the first iphone, how advanced is the smartphone business? (who was Apple competition at that time in 2007)?

It was a few years older than the tablet business is today with several players including Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, HTC, LG, etc....

The first widespread sale of a smartphone was by Kyocera in 2001
Palm's first model was the Handspring Treo in 2002

Everyone thought Apple was crazy because the market was well established and it would be hard for a new player to just jump in.

 

[smoledman]

It was a few years older than the tablet business is today with several players including Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, HTC, LG, etc....

The first widespread sale of a smartphone was by Kyocera in 2001
Palm's first model was the Handspring Treo in 2002

Everyone thought Apple was crazy because the market was well established and it would be hard for a new player to just jump in.

Apple revolutionized the smartphone industry and now it's insanely tough to break in. Windows Phone 8 is FAR more advanced the the original iPhone yet it might never succeed.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I've been using a windows 7 based tablet HP SLATE 500 for a while. I will tell you this it is way better then the iPad & Playbook, I own both.

I really think windows based tablets are the way to go. Yes windows 7 isn't perfectly optimized for a tablet but still works better then the rest. I can only wonder how much better Windows 8 will make it...

BTW the "metro" user interface is only an option that is one click from brining it to the normal windows view.

I'm just curious on the RAM and battery life...

I will be in line for this...

So you compare a NZ$3000 Windows tablet to a NZ$800 iPad - am I the only one who see's a problem that comparison?

 

[Geckotek]

Apple revolutionized the smartphone industry and now it's insanely tough to break in. Windows Phone 8 is FAR more advanced the the original iPhone yet it might never succeed.

Uhhhh....we weren't discussing Win Phone 8. This is about Surface and if it can break into the tablet market....which should be easier than breaking into the smartphone market back in 2007 since the tablet market is still in it's infancy compared to the smartphone market of 2007.