Report: Microsoft's Intel-powered Surface to Cost $1000

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not $1000.

Microsoft needs to xbox360 their way into the market and not charge oodles of money for devices. Sell it far below cost to seize market share from Amazon and Apple.
 
Both of those prices are out of line. First of all, why an i5 processor anyway? Why didn't Microsoft go with Medfield? Intel is making a dual core version of Medfield specifically for tablets which will be generally more powerful than their ARM counterparts and could run Windows Pro or Windows RT. It would have cost a lot less than the $1000 version. While having a full fledged i5 processor with Ivy graphics is a boon, is all that power necessary for a companion device? I wouldn't buy a tablet over a laptop. I can understand that this version does come with a keyboard and all, but using expensive i5 parts over tablet style Medfield parts seems to be a miscalculation.

If I buy a tablet, it will likely be one of the Medfield variety from other vendors so I can run regular Windows on it while keeping the cost reasonable.
 
The difference here is that this is basically an ultrabook and a laptop! 2 for one AND it comes with the ultimate productivity tool, Windows 8 Pro!! :)
 
0 $. Instead of ARM, why not use lower-end intel processors. They seem ok, and more importantly are x86 compatible.
 
[citation][nom]nbelote[/nom]Not $1000.Microsoft needs to xbox360 their way into the market and not charge oodles of money for devices. Sell it far below cost to seize market share from Amazon and Apple.[/citation]
Problem is MS probably relies on other vendors to sell its tablets. If it wants to sell its own hardware, it has to change its business model. They make money primarily by software licensing and if they go this route, they can't make that money.
 
[citation][nom]nbelote[/nom]Not $1000.Microsoft needs to xbox360 their way into the market and not charge oodles of money for devices. Sell it far below cost to seize market share from Amazon and Apple.[/citation]
And destroy their relationship with OEM's who also want to make tablets?
 
[citation][nom]ThinkingConscious[/nom]Both of those prices are out of line. First of all, why an i5 processor anyway? Why didn't Microsoft go with Medfield? Intel is making a dual core version of Medfield specifically for tablets which will be generally more powerful than their ARM counterparts and could run Windows Pro or Windows RT. It would have cost a lot less than the $1000 version. While having a full fledged i5 processor with Ivy graphics is a boon, is all that power necessary for a companion device? I wouldn't buy a tablet over a laptop. I can understand that this version does come with a keyboard and all, but using expensive i5 parts over tablet style Medfield parts seems to be a miscalculation. If I buy a tablet, it will likely be one of the Medfield variety from other vendors so I can run regular Windows on it while keeping the cost reasonable.[/citation]

Only Apple sees the iPad as a companion device. Microsoft probably thinks otherwise. This Surface is a perfect fit for students, has a full OS so they can run there write up reports/essays and various other programs (with a keyboard and trackpad on the magnetic cover.

Its a hybrid tablet/ultrabook device. The only good use for Metro, I think, is having a touchscreen. And thats why this would be better than getting a ultrabook with no touchscreen.


I think Microsoft is pushing the idea that a tablet DOESNT need to be though as a companion device like an iPad or Android tablet.
 
[citation][nom]anth0nym[/nom]Wintel?$100?So many spelling mistakes and errors. Great reporting![/citation]
Pretty sure Wintel is not a typo, it is a term that has been around for years to indicate a computer that runs Windows on an Intel CPU.
 
If they're marketing the tablet aspect, you'd be insane not to make the obvious comparison to a 3rd gen iPad, which goes for ~$500. The main market here isn't tech savvy, and certainly not THG readers, they don't know ARM from x86. All the care about is what it does, and if it's a tablet it's hard to sell a $1000 one running Windows versus a 3rd generation Apple product -- more generations means fewer bugs! And given Apple's dominance in the smart phone market, odds are good many of these people are somewhat familiar with or even own an iPhone and can predict how an iPad behaves. Windows 8 is totally new to them and the only preview of it is a beta which most consumers aren't knowledgeable enough to install (as a VM, which is the only sane place to try out a beta OS).

So, $1000, no. No way. $600 for ARM and a different version of Win8? If I really wanted a tablet, I'd opt for an iPad at that price.

And for those who say that of course they need to charge this, since they're not making money on a license. Really? You think that one through? If a 3rd party can pay MS for a license, pawn it off on you and turn a profit for less money, how do you possibly think MS would lose money at that same point? They don't have to pay for a license to themselves, but all hardware companies that bundle Windows have to pay them. So, the competitor's prices have a Win8 license "fee" tacked on and is what the market expects. Therefore, if they keep prices in line they actually make *more* money; they can actually undersell the competition and make more money on hardware than they currently do on licenses. It's the Apple way, and given they have more free cash than several European countries combined, I can't imagine how this strategy wouldn't work.
 
MS has to charge about $100 more for the surface because it includes Windows 8. Android is free, and I don't think Apple is charging consumers for their tablet OS. But MS has a bit of a problem in that they are actually selling Windows 8 as a separate product. From a marketing and branding standpoint they don't want to make it appear as if Windows 8 is a "giveaway" product and therefore need to factor the price of their OS into the price of the surface.
 
The article isn't providing the FACTS but these days I'm not really expecting that.

Samsung 7 slate +$1000
Asus EP121 +$1000

If it 'is' above $1000 that'll be due to the Wacom active digitizer.

But of course everyone posting already knew that /s
 
In my opinion the WinRT ( ARM ) version is the direct competitor of the iPad which by the way is $599 for a 32GB model. Out of the box this version of Surface will be much more useful than the iPad with Office, Metro and other apps that will be there by the time it goes on sale.

The Windows 8 Pro ( Intel ) version is way more than a iPAD or Android device today. I have been using one of the Samsung Series 7 Slates ( $1300 ) with Windows 8 installed as my daily computer for over a year. With the addition of a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard this little tablet has been just as much of a work horse as any desktop. It is loaded with the desktop apps that I use on a daily basis and I have found nothing that it is not capable of doing.

The Surface computers are just that real computers that can be used anywhere. On or off of enterprise networks, at home or work and anywhere else they are needed.
They are not just for internet browsing although they will do that very well. There is nothing else out there that can compete with these devices right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom