Microsoft Touts Surface Pro 7 as 'The Better Choice' Over MacBook Pro in New Ad

[theotherphil]

I think they have not yet decided if they want to pursue a hard core gaming strategy, but I do agree that it made no sense for them to do so when they had no way of differentiating from less expensive PC hardware. Their unified platform gives them the opportunity to offer developers a seamless path from the console to mobile and desktop, with games that can move among these platforms.

Whether they will decide to do what is needed is anyone’s guess. :-D

I think it’s highly likely that Apple will be following this path. The integrated GPUs from x86 have been anaemic and the heat generated from x86 has been insane.

Apple Silicon changes that. When watching the state of the union address, Apple specifically stated that what they were most excited about was their “custom GPU’s and what they mean for pro applications and games”. That comment was really interesting given that the CPU is a game changer in itself.

 

[Alan Wynn]

iPad sales were highest when the iPad was first introduced, and a downward trend followed, suggesting they were all hype. (There was a recent uptick in sales, but that was amid tech companies broadly selling more products due to covid19.)

Apple made as much from iPad sales as they did from Macintosh sales according to their earnings call today. Definitely seems like hype to me.

Now we have the M1 Mac, which has all the advantages of iPad hardware and all the advantages of macOS, plus it runs iOS apps. Almost seems like Apple is going to axe the iPad eventually.

That you do not understand the difference between a tablet with a touch focused interface and a laptop with a mouse and keyboard focused interface, does not mean that all (or even most) others (including Apple) share your views. Given how strong iPad sales have been, I am guessing that they are not dropping the iPad anytime soon.

 

[hot-gril]

Apple made as much from iPad sales as they did from Macintosh sales according to their earnings call today. Definitely seems like hype to me.

That you do not understand the difference between a tablet with a touch focused interface and a laptop with a mouse and keyboard focused interface, does not mean that all (or even most) others (including Apple) share your views. Given how strong iPad sales have been, I am guessing that they are not dropping the iPad anytime soon.

Microsoft doesn't understand the difference either then, and it's working out for them even though they're not really a hardware company. The Surface still only made $1.72B revenue in Q4 2020 compared to the iPad's $6.8, but it's been trending upwards for years rather than mostly downwards. And people actually buy Surfaces in lieu of a PC.

There have always been long explanations here, and from Jobs himself (who I usually agreed with), as to why a Mac can't have a touch screen. That looked bogus once I entered college and saw my classmates using their touchscreen laptops and Surfaces, and it looked easy even though Windows is a massively inferior OS. The real reason is potential cannibalization. Y'all have both Macs and iPads in your sigs.

 

[hot-gril]

I know many people used own very old desktop computer they rarely used. Only use it online shopping or type letter once in while. They all replace that with iPad and only own iPad no desktop and no laptop. iPad more than enough for those type of people. My mum one example. She struggle use any PC but can use iPad browse internet and type up letters to her pen friend abroad. She can even view photos on iPad, before we have to print photos out for her to have look cos she can't understand how use PC view photos. iPad save us lot of paper and ink cost for that! 🤣

Yeah, my grandma is like that, but the number of tech-illiterate people is decreasing. I tried to get my mom onto an iPad because she can hardly use a Mac and keeps asking for help, but turns out the iPad is missing some features she needs.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Microsoft doesn't understand the difference either then, and it's working out for them even though they're not really a hardware company. The Surface still only made $1.72B revenue in Q4 2020 compared to the iPad's $6.8, but it's been trending upwards for years rather than mostly downwards.

According to Statistica iPad revenue has been pretty consistent over the last several years, with one or two high quarters (in the $5-7 billion range) and one or two lower quarters (in the $3-$5 billion range). Microsoft uses the Surface name to cover all its computers, including their laptops, tablets, and desktops. Their total revenue for all systems remains under $2 billion per quarter. That means the more accurate comparison is not to just iPad sales, but to desktops and iPads combined, or about $15 billion.

And people actually buy Surfaces in lieu of a PC.

Most of them are simply PCs, so your statement does not make a lot of sense.

There have always been long explanations here, and from Jobs himself (who I usually agreed with), as to why a Mac can't have a touch screen. That looked bogus once I entered college and saw my classmates using their touchscreen laptops and Surfaces, and it looked easy even though Windows is a massively inferior OS. The real reason is potential cannibalization. Y'all have both Macs and iPads in your sigs.

I have desktop macs and several iPads Pro. iPad sales sometimes replace Macbook sales and sometimes supplement them. It is funny that you argue that there is only a need for one type of portable device, and yet Microsoft (the company that you seem to be arguing has gotten this all right) themselves has two: a laptop and a tablet.

 

[hot-gril]

According to Statistica iPad revenue has been pretty consistent over the last several years, with one or two high quarters (in the $5-7 billion range) and one or two lower quarters (in the $3-$5 billion range). Microsoft uses the Surface name to cover all its computers, including their laptops, tablets, and desktops. Their total revenue for all systems remains under $2 billion per quarter. That means the more accurate comparison is not to just iPad sales, but to desktops and iPads combined, or about $15 billion.

Most of them are simply PCs, so your statement does not make a lot of sense.

I have desktop macs and several iPads Pro. iPad sales sometimes replace Macbook sales and sometimes supplement them. It is funny that you argue that there is only a need for one type of portable device, and yet Microsoft (the company that you seem to be arguing has gotten this all right) themselves has two: a laptop and a tablet.

All of MS's PCs, or whatever you want to call them, have touch screens and can be used similarly to a tablet. That's what I'm saying. Apple refuses to make a touch screen Mac.

 

[theotherphil]

All of MS's PCs, or whatever you want to call them, have touch screens and can be used similarly to a tablet. That's what I'm saying. Apple refuses to make a touch screen Mac.

Because they’re a poor compromise for an actual tablet and are poor ergonomically to be reaching out in front of you all the time to touch a horizontal (or near to it) surface without growing giant gorilla arms.

I personally, and I suspect many others, wouldn’t want to be reaching out and touching my laptop screen when I have a perfectly good trackpad/ mouse. I hate dirty finger prints and even dust on my monitor screen. I accept this on my iPad because it is a tablet....designed primarily for touch input. So everybody would end up paying extra for a touch enabled panel which the majority wouldn’t use. This would mean either a) Macs become more expensive, or b) it misses out on some other feature that would be used for that same price.

Just because other manufacturers offer this functionality, it doesn’t mean it’s a good experience. This is exactly the problem that Apple deals with well....user experience and ergonomics.

 

[hot-gril]

Because they’re a poor compromise for an actual tablet and are poor ergonomically to be reaching out in front of you all the time to touch a horizontal (or near to it) surface without growing giant gorilla arms.

I personally, and I suspect many others, wouldn’t want to be reaching out and touching my laptop screen when I have a perfectly good trackpad/ mouse. I hate dirty finger prints and even dust on my monitor screen. I accept this on my iPad because it is a tablet....designed primarily for touch input. So everybody would end up paying extra for a touch enabled panel which the majority wouldn’t use. This would mean either a) Macs become more expensive, or b) it misses out on some other feature that would be used for that same price.

Just because other manufacturers offer this functionality, it doesn’t mean it’s a good experience. This is exactly the problem that Apple deals with well....user experience and ergonomics.

Evidently it's natural for a lot of users. People do get trapped using inferior tech (e.g. Windows as a whole), but nobody is using a touch screen PC out of being forced, and it's not a fad either. The like it; have you tried it? Apple knows ergonomics better than anyone else, but they also know economics.

The touch panel doesn't seem to add significant bulk or cost to the other laptops.

 

[theotherphil]

Evidently it's natural for a lot of users. People do get trapped using inferior tech (e.g. Windows as a whole), but nobody is using a touch screen PC out of being forced, and it's not a fad either. The like it; have you tried it? Apple knows ergonomics better than anyone else, but they also know economics.

The touch panel doesn't seem to add significant bulk or cost to the other laptops.

Yes I have tried it and I don’t like it for the reasons already stated. I will add a few more:

1) Not ergonomic due to reaching out to touch a flat surface. A touchpad has greater resolution and better gestures without moving your hands/ arms.

”Straining of the fingers, arms, and legs are particularly alarming for touch screens, since these screens often require the interaction of the arm and shoulder during input, something that is rare with the use of keyboards and computer mice. ​

​

Luckily, many issues for the ergonomics of touch screens are not necessarily applicable to many devices with touch screens. For example, phones and tablets are generally used by hand, giving them a controllable axis of operations. By being able to freely move tablets and smart phones during interfacing, users do not apply significant strain to their arms and shoulders. Additionally, these devices are intended to be used for a much shorter period of time than a workstation computer. ​

​

Despite this, users can very easily use these devices for a long time, and most touch screens can ultimately be responsible for carpal tunnel and repetitive stress syndrome. However, these problems are much more likely to occur from the use of a touch screen laptop or desktop, in which the user’s finger takes the place of a mouse in moving the cursor. This is because the screen rests parallel to the body of the user, and he or she is forced to perform interface gestures during flexion and extension of the arm, hand, and fingers. ​

​

Continuous computer touch screen use can cause “gorilla arm” The shoulder pain that derives from continuous extension of the arm bones to interact with a touch screen has been nicknamed “gorilla arm” and was responsible for killing the first wave of touch computing in the 1980s. ​

​

Additional problems with horizontal touchscreens include the difficulties of thick fingers interacting with scroll bars and menus that are designed for much smaller arrow cursors and the grease and moisture on the user’s fingers.”​

Read more at the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Blog: Ergonomic Hazards of Touch Screens https://blog.ansi.org/?p=7241

​

2) Cost - on average a touch enabled laptop costs $75-100 more.
3) The digitiser is always on so draws more power resulting in worse battery life. Eg The Thinkpad T460 (non-touch) gets 17hrs battery life vs 13 in touch configuration.
4) The digitiser adds an extra layer that needs to be accounted for leading to thicker devices and greater weights. Eg An XPS13 is 0.2lbs heavier in touch config.
5) Poorer viewing angles due to the glossy nature of most touchscreens.
6) An OS optimised for touch doesn’t work well with mouse and vice versa. It‘s a compromise.

For me, the benefits of a handful of users using them occasionally doesn’t outweigh all the disadvantages. Touch on a laptop is a compromised experience no matter how you look at it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Evidently it's natural for a lot of users.

You say this based on what user studies? That these devices exist and even that they get sold, gives no indication as to how much they are used or how valuable that use is.

People do get trapped using inferior tech (e.g. Windows as a whole), but nobody is using a touch screen PC out of being forced, and it's not a fad either.

People often get the device they are given by their companies and have not made a decision to use a touch screen, but have one anyway.

The like it; have you tried it?

Yup, I have tried both the Surface Book and the Surface Pro. I felt they were no where near as nice as tablets as my iPad and no where near as good as laptops as my B/F’s MacBook Pro.

Apple knows ergonomics better than anyone else, but they also know economics.

Please explain something to me. You claim no one really wants an iPad, and that tablets are “fake”. If that is the case, why does Microsoft, the company whose products you are using as the reference for your position, have two products, one that is a mediocre tablet with a keyboard attachment as an option, and one that is a laptop with a touch screen and pen support? If no one wants a tablet, why even produce one? If no one would want one without the keyboard, why sell it that way?

The touch panel doesn't seem to add significant bulk or cost to the other laptops.

It adds both, as well as additional power draw, and leads to a hopelessly compromised experience.

 

[Abazigal]

Evidently it's natural for a lot of users. People do get trapped using inferior tech (e.g. Windows as a whole), but nobody is using a touch screen PC out of being forced, and it's not a fad either. The like it; have you tried it? Apple knows ergonomics better than anyone else, but they also know economics.

The touch panel doesn't seem to add significant bulk or cost to the other laptops.

I think there’s a difference between buying a laptop because it has a touchscreen, and getting a laptop with a touchscreen just because it’s there (meaning the user would have been indifferent between a laptop sporting a touchscreen and one without).

I would like to see data on just how extensively people use the touchscreens on their laptops, and I suspect it’s nowhere near as prevalent as people are pointing it out to be.

 

[koruki]

Sounds like a Pinocchio story. I have both. MBA is heavier and a lot more slippery so slides off easier. Difference in width between the two is less than a fraction of an inch.

a pinowhat... wtf is this? what do I gain from making up such a story. You can believe it or not but that stand is not usable on the lap regardless of weight, your thighs are not a solid flat table, its like two cylinders, the more surface area the better.

and for the record, I've had two Surface pros, they were great at what they did, I much preferred them over a PC laptop but not happy having to deal with dead devices after only 2 years. The battery life was pretty good on them but the M1's obliterate them on that front now, not just performance.

 

[cocoua]

it is true the the Macbook Pro is by far a better laptop, but the SP7 is a great device.

Add MacOS, 5G, M1 and Apple pencil tech, and I'm pretty sure nobody would buy a MBA, a MABP13 or an iPad Pro anymore.

 

[Muscovite]

Apples to oranges comparison (pun somewhat intended).

$2299 is for the highest end M1 MacBook Pro with 2TB storage (not 256GB).

Apples to lemons - both puns fully intended