Microsoft Details Surface Pro Pricing Amidst Reports of Poor Sales of RT Version

[Liquorpuki]

Not a bad business model, a different model altogether. Apple has already shown it does not have to be a race to the bottom.

Based on what? iOS software has been a race to the bottom since the app store was created

So we don't have developers competing on desktop either? I know they do, I've seen it.

Distribution model on desktop isn't commoditized. I want software for my PC, I can buy it through brick or mortars, online distributors, or digital distribution. Multiple storefronts. I want software for my phone, I only have one storefront I can go to. Thousands of developers competing for my attention on the only outlet they're allowed to sell their product has economic implications on the value of their software and the mobile market as a whole

As long as the platform allows third party developers, there is not way to avoid it and the Surface Pro tablet is no exception.

3rd party developers don't control the platform's distribution model. They don't set rules on how their software gets on your tablet.

Besides it was already mentioned, we already have up to date window PC tablets out right now that can run desktop x86 software.

All the ones with slate form factors and x86 arch are quite new actually. And none of them have a marketing push behind them. Those things will just sit there unless the Pro succeeds and expands the market.

I hope you're right otherwise this is very unimpressive. The iPad lasts close to 10 hours, and the new laptops typically go 7 hours or more. If the best the Surface Pro can do is 4 hours, that would seem to indicate Apple was right that this hybrid is neither as good as laptop nor as good as a tablet. 4 hours was ok back in 2007, not anymore. I'd find that unacceptable.

As far as the ASUS thing getting 5 hours, you would need to say much more to convince us. The biggest power draw, more often than not, is the screen. Perhaps having a touch screen at the resolution the Surface Pro does means that it will inherently have a much larger power draw than whatever the ASUS is offering. After all, the higher the resolution for a smaller screen, the more light needs to be pushed through in order to make it work. That's why the Apple Retina screens tend to be a little dimmer than other laptops, all those dam pixels block a lot of the light from coming through.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy. I'm voicing why I think the Pro has unique value and what Apple's shortcomings are. I know I'm adopting early but I've also posted elsewhere the things I'm most concerned with are battery, heat, and engineering screwups that might not be seen until after release. Battery and heat I can work with, engineering screwups I'm willing to gamble on but a lot of people can't so I'd tell them to wait. If Microsoft does the Pro right, they will expand the tablet market anyway and create a need for this type of tablet that consumers will fill.

With battery life, the ASUS has the same 1080p on a larger screen. Larger screen, more power hungry chip, smaller battery yet it's rated for another hour so someone's math is wrong.

At the same time if people are expecting the Pro to last 8 hours, that can't happen. The RT lasts 8-10 hours. The Pro has a larger battery, but has to power a desktop CPU, higher resolution screen, and electromechanical fans. It'll be considerably less. To some people that'll be a dealbreaker but I'm sure others will put up with it if the unique value the Pro brings is worth it.

 

[Renzatic]

Your entire argument is based upon current upgrade deal prices. That $12 isn't what OEMs pay, it's what people who just bought new PCs pay for a copy of 8. OEMs in general pay about $50-100 per license per machine. Once February comes around, Windows 8 goes back to the usual Windows price scheme that's been around since about forever.

Long story short, MS isn't losing any money on Windows 8.

Most hardware got touchscreens? Where do you get that from? Most hardware is in the $499 Laptop region, touch is the mousepad, thats it.

It took me 10 seconds on Google to find this.

As you can see, most new models coming out are touchscreen enabled to take advantage of Win8. Yes, there are a few in there that aren't, but easily half of everything new coming out is, in fact, touchscreen.

Would you like to stretch all day over your desk to operate your 27" touchscreen? What kind of work is that? A workout?

Yeah...horrible.

No, Windows8 surely is not setting anything on fire. Once you got rid of Metro and configured everything back to normal, you notice that you got a Win7 without Aero. So? Why bother?

Some people like it for the under the hood improvements, of which there are many. At its very bare basics, Win8 is a faster, thinner version of Windows 7, which is easily worth the upgrade price of $40.

Course I wouldn't have gotten it if it were regular priced. I've admitted as much elsewhere. But it is a solid upgrade, if not an entirely must-have necessary one.

 

[rjohnstone]

I don't understand why many of you guys are comparing an iPad to the Surface pro?
The iPad uses a low power ARM chip and the Surface Pro is running a full blown Intel i5.
They are meant for two totally different markets.

A better comparison on performance and battery life would be comparing an 11" MacBook Air to the Surface pro.

The Air gets roughly 4 1/2 to 5 hours on a charge under normal use.
Similar to the estimates for the Surface Pro.

The equivalent MacBook Air costs more (even after adding a keyboard to the Surface Pro) and does less.
No touch option, no pen input.
And with Win 8 Pro, you can run older Windows programs along side the newer ones.
Best of both worlds I think.

 

[sleepyking]

im surprised by so many haters in here.
surface = users who never heard of the iPad?
ms consumers are only looking for the cheapest things on the market?

if you like the iPad, more power to you.
I personally have the surface RT and the iPhone 5.

why didn't I get the iPad? cause to me, and me personally, its still and always will be an overblown iPhone. thats MY personal choice. but am not bashing those who use it as im sure it serves some purpose to each individual.

I chose the RT because its a fresh OS, enjoyable interface, and works with what I typically would use it for.

MS may not be as sucessful as they hoped but give it a rest. comments from people like you are why android lovers have reason to deem all "iSheep" brainwashed by everything Apple, as if they are God and only their products are relevant.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Apple didn't just sell 66 million copies of MacOS X, they also sold 66 million computers. Microsoft sold 40 million OEM licenses of Windows 8. Apple is not in the operating system market. There is no doubt that Apple could sell an awful lot more licenses if they wanted to. They don't even try.

Of course.

----------

Most of them probably WISH Microsoft was dead.

Yea, probably.

----------

You're comparing Apples to Oranges or hardware to software. Besides that, the number of OSX users has nothing to do with the iPad. "Gotta love the logic"

I guess you didn't get my point.

----------

What exactly does Apple have a monopoly on again?

See above reply.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Hell, the 'iOS is only for content consumption' argument died a fiery death way back in May 2009 or so when the cover of a New Yorker magazine was created on the iPhone. How people have managed to keep that claim on life-support since then, despite a rash of counter-examples is beyond me.

No, the iPad (or any tablet for that matter) isn't ideal for every type of content creation, but neither is a traditional desktop or laptop. Getting the job done is all about choosing the proper tool for the job, rather than insisting on using the same tool regardless of whether it works well for the job you're trying to do.

So basically you're trying to say iOS sucks for any kind of content creation that isn't finger painting?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Since the average selling price of Windows 8 is 25% of Windows 7 (or less), I can assure you Microsoft was expecting a significantly faster adoption rate.

Selling windows computers is becoming a losing proposition for PC makers. MS needs the surface to work well. Sales of Windows 8 are disappointing. People can pretend like they aren't, but they are simply uninformed. I have been invested in MS for about 20 years. I follow the company closely. Windows 8 and the Surface are concerning.

So do you think all of the pc makers will go under now because of Windows 8?

 

[Renzatic]

So basically you're trying to say iOS sucks for any kind of content creation that isn't finger painting?

Tbrinkma isn't exactly what I'd call the brightest, most balanced poster around here, but comeon...that is kinda cool.

Though you should consider it a preview of what will be, rather than everything being good enough as it is now.

 

[croooow]

4 hour battery life? DOA.

Well, you get to use it for a little while on Arrival. More like: Dead in 4 hours...

 

[LeoFio]

I've been seriously considering a Surface RT to compliment my iPhone, mac, and Win7 laptop. I just feel I can't be as productive on an iPad. I don't need all the power the Surface Pro has since I have the windows laptop if I really need it while on the go. The Surface RT will fill the gap where I want a tablet to carry around for simpler tasks.

Surface comes with Office included, which is the killer app here. Windows 8 is a fresh operating system too, while iOS and even OSX are getting stale to me. Add in Apple's design direction of form over function now more than ever, and I'm getting pushed away from Apple's offerings even further. Surface RT is above an iPad in terms of capabilities, especially once developers get on board.

Apple fanboys can say what they want, but my opinion is that Microsoft has a solid hardware and software lineup here, especially when the Surface phone comes out. It would be a real shame if it all flops.

 

[larrybeo]

Shocker!

Does anyone find this surprising? The RT devices need to be $199. Pro tablets need to be $499. And even *still* they wouldn't get a fair market's share.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Tbrinkma isn't exactly what I'd call the brightest, most balanced poster around here, but comeon...that is kinda cool.

Though you should consider it a preview of what will be, rather than everything being good enough as it is now.

Just trying to get his logic. He said people who think iOS sucks at content creation are wrong because of fingerpainting. Then he changes his argument and says it's really up to the content. So I'm wondering what other types of content creation is iOS good for? Because business docs, movie making, music making, databasing - I don't think iOS excels at any of these

But yeah I agree, the painting is pretty cool

 

[ani4ani]

Or who want real work done

or just like to multitask....for real!

 

[Chlloret]

I've been seriously considering a Surface RT to compliment my iPhone, mac, and Win7 laptop. I just feel I can't be as productive on an iPad. I don't need all the power the Surface Pro has since I have the windows laptop if I really need it while on the go. The Surface RT will fill the gap where I want a tablet to carry around for simpler tasks.

Surface comes with Office included, which is the killer app here. Windows 8 is a fresh operating system too, while iOS and even OSX are getting stale to me. Add in Apple's design direction of form over function now more than ever, and I'm getting pushed away from Apple's offerings even further. Surface RT is above an iPad in terms of capabilities, especially once developers get on board.

Apple fanboys can say what they want, but my opinion is that Microsoft has a solid hardware and software lineup here, especially when the Surface phone comes out. It would be a real shame if it all flops.

So why do you think, its not selling? Because when people find out, that Office is not included? Only a student version without outlook that can not be used comercially and is not touch optimised (on a tablet) or is it when they find out that there is also no flash, even if some said so? Or the fact that there is a desktop (also not touch optimised) that can not be feed with programs? Or the fact that one really needs the keyboard, so basically can not use the thing fully as a tablet? And, on the go, that keyboard is pretty useless, flapping between your legs without tactile feedback and with a stand digging in your thighs non adjustable?
The better keyboard is better of course (and costs more) but then, why not just get a laptop or netbook?

The surface might be technically good, but got the usabillity of a brick. We send ours back after 10 days, nobody here wanted to keep it.

 

[Renzatic]

Just trying to get his logic. He said people who think iOS sucks at content creation are wrong because of fingerpainting. Then he changes his argument and says it's really up to the content. So I'm wondering what other types of content creation is iOS good for? Because business docs, movie making, music making, databasing - I don't think iOS excels at any of these

But yeah I agree, the painting is pretty cool

I've been goofing around with my iPad for awhile now, and I've found that it's a little bit alright at doing a lot of little things, but doesn't excel at any of them. Take Pages for instance. I use it quite a bit, think it's pretty alright to use when I'm out and about (despite it crashing all the time), but I sure as hell wouldn't use it as my default word processor. It's too limited, and touchscreen isn't the best input method for the type of work you're doing.

Like trying to align the cursor after the I and before the ' in I'm. I keep having...to...freaking...stab my finger at goddamn thing until it finally lands where I want it to. Usually I end up giving up and deleting a few words just to fix one mistake. Yeah. Apple elegance. It just works. Uh huh.

It's the same with Photoshop, iMovie, and all that other stuff. Great for quick edits and simple projects, but if you want to do something a little more fancy, you'll do better to break out the big guns.

The way I see it, the future of tablets lies somewhere between the overly simplistic nature of iOS, and the desktop with a touch layer approach MS is taking. When tablets finally meet in the middle of those two metrics, that's when they'll finally take off as do everything devices, and have the potential to truly replace laptops.

...right now, the one company in the best position to do that is Google. Even though Android hasn't exactly blown my mind as of yet, it is the happy medium between MS' overly complex and Apple's overly simplistic.

 

[Wicked1]

It is also bad for Windows 8, so far everyone I know hates it, I personally do not care for it, and since 2011 when Apple forced new Macs to only use Windows 7 in boot camp, I am sticking with Mac OSX only, not even bothering with Boot Camp.

 

[Chlloret]

Your entire argument is based upon current upgrade deal prices. That $12 isn't what OEMs pay, it's what people who just bought new PCs pay for a copy of 8. OEMs in general pay about $50-100 per license per machine. Once February comes around, Windows 8 goes back to the usual Windows price scheme that's been around since about forever.

Long story short, MS isn't losing any money on Windows 8.



It took me 10 seconds on Google to find this.

As you can see, most new models coming out are touchscreen enabled to take advantage of Win8. Yes, there are a few in there that aren't, but easily half of everything new coming out is, in fact, touchscreen.



Image

Yeah...horrible.



Some people like it for the under the hood improvements, of which there are many. At its very bare basics, Win8 is a faster, thinner version of Windows 7, which is easily worth the upgrade price of $40.

Course I wouldn't have gotten it if it were regular priced. I've admitted as much elsewhere. But it is a solid upgrade, if not an entirely must-have necessary one.

Is this serious? OEMs pay 50-100 dollars per license? That is not possible. Last Windows machines we got where 12000 Acer desktops, office boxes, i3 with integrated graphic, a terabyte drive and 4 GB RAM, they wholesale at 112 Euros a piece (about $ 140) incl. shipping, 92 (about $120) Euros at factory. They all had Windows 8 on it with Win7 downgrade option. So you are saying, that Acer actually gets between 15 and 50Euros for these computers (20-70 dollars) after paying the license? How much of that would be profit? Or better, how much is Acer paying on top to sell there computers? Acer should be able to sell these computers for 50-100 dollars less (basically give them away for free) without windows? We then could get a deal with Microsoft and put Windows for LESS then 10 dollars on the machines?
Its not happening.
You also say, that even at only 100 dollars a piece, Microsoft made only with Windows7 the small amount of 50 Billion? Remember, Windows only!
No. Office, yes, there they still make money but if you look at the quarterly and yearly results, there is no way Windows is generating that kind of turnover.

Also, we talking about upgrades for existing machines. No one got touchscreens in the offices today. When a company issues laptops for there external work, they get regular Lenovo,Dell or HP machines, none come with touchscreens even if these companies have one or two on offer. If touch, if tablet, its the iPad and thats it.

Everything else is private and consumer use. There yes, eventually there will be a larger percentage going for touch, once it arrives at the $500 Level. Nobody cares if Dell brings out a swinging touchsceen or ASUS a flaming convertable if they sell these devices in 5 figures, worldwide, because they price them at an average monthly income.
But in the private sector the surface got no leg to stand on, people that want quality, apps, community, support and ease of use will get the iPad, people that "hate" Apple, value there "freedom" real or imaginary and think they get "the same" for 200dollars, will use Android. For the same money then the iPad, surface RT is dead in the water.

 

[Renzatic]

Is this serious? OEMs pay 50-100 dollars per license? That is not possible.

Microsoft OEMs pay about $50 for each copy of Windows

Admittedly, this was written in 2009, but...

Last Windows machines we got where 12000 Acer desktops, office boxes, i3 with integrated graphic, a terabyte drive and 4 GB RAM, they wholesale at 112 Euros a piece (about $ 140) incl. shipping, 92 (about $120) Euros at factory. They all had Windows 8 on it with Win7 downgrade option. So you are saying, that Acer actually gets between 15 and 50Euros for these computers (20-70 dollars) after paying the license? How much of that would be profit? Or better, how much is Acer paying on top to sell there computers? Acer should be able to sell these computers for 50-100 dollars less (basically give them away for free) without windows? We then could get a deal with Microsoft and put Windows for LESS then 10 dollars on the machines?
Its not happening.

You know how every PC save for the highest of the high end comes with the usual bevy of crapware? That's how OEMs offset the cost of a Windows license. It works sort of like advertisement. They get deals from all these companies to load down their machines with useless software in an attempt to leverage costs.

 

[robanga]

This is so painful to watch.

I really wanted MS to deliver a credible and competitive tablet offering. It seems like their initial offerings are confused.

 

[rjohnstone]

This is so painful to watch.

I really wanted MS to deliver a credible and competitive tablet offering. It seems like their initial offerings are confused.

What is confusing about it?

It's an Ultrabook/Tablet hybrid.
Cheaper than an 11" MacBook Air, but the same battery life and more capabilities.

 

[Chlloret]

Microsoft OEMs pay about $50 for each copy of Windows

Admittedly, this was written in 2009, but...




You know how every PC save for the highest of the high end comes with the usual bevy of crapware? That's how OEMs offset the cost of a Windows license. It works sort of like advertisement. They get deals from all these companies to load down their machines with useless software in an attempt to leverage costs.

Well, if you read the linked text, you find that $50 refers to a 1000 dollar PC. It also refers to a general 5% price. Now, the average pc sold today retails at $ 456, including a screen. The average net price for a retail PC Tower today is $388. Retail. What is the 5% based on? Retail or wholesale? I would wager the price, the OEM actually gets, thats wholesale. In my case $130, the average PC runs a bit more expensive at about $240 (to retail after shipping, stocking, profit, tax ect at $388). How much are 5% for the license of $240?

Just saying

I am doing this for the last 30 years, believe me, we would notice if we paid that much for a license. If we could safe 50 dollars per machine, we would do it in a heardbeat, I even pay schooling for Linux it would be cheaper.

Btw, our OEMs have no software whats so ever on them, just the OS. Openoffice and company specific software is mass injected on site.

 

[Irishman]

No, because that wasn't a bail-out, it was a cross-licensing agreement. Apple had $1.2 billion in cash at that point and were in no immediate danger of going under (though they probably would have eventually if they'd continued on the path they were on at that time).

--Eric

The Steve Jobs biography says they were no more than 2 months from going under at the time he took over.

 

[macUser2007]

Too bad about the Surface.

The hardware is innovative and great in theory, but the wrong screen ration for a tablet - really, 16x9 belongs on $49 portable DVD players, not on tablet meant to browse the web. The iPad, even with its smaller screen, wins handily here.

As to the software, I really do not like Windows 8. To me it feels like an aftermarket launcher stuck on top of Windows 7. It's awkward both on a desktop and on a tablet, for different reasons.

But the idea is innovative and I wish Apple had come up with something like it.

 

[Irishman]

I haven't read any reviews or actually used one myself, so it may be a great product.....

But I would never spend $1,000 dollars on a tablet.

I think MS is betting the farm that enterprise will.

 

[robanga]

It just seems like they should have went all into to Metro and killed the desktop once and for all, allowing old apps to operate under the metro UI.

Its a split personality OS on a split personality device.

The RT tablet without its keyboard is not a good tablet experience at all. Using it in portrait is bad. Using the keyboard on your lap is not workable either. So you basically are left with a netbook or ultrabook experience in something that is also trying to be a tablet. Just make an ultrabook with a touch screen.

Maybe the OEMs will do better and the second gen devices as well.