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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Innovative keyboard? Transformer Pad Series anyone? How can you get away with claiming innovation where it's just the simple borrowing of an idea? I don't have a problem with the same things being used, but saying you did it first is frustrating to say the least.
 
It would definitely be a serious mistake to price the RT version any higher than $500. The surface is a solid product and it has some significant technical advantages over the iPad, but the platform (ie tablet form factor Metro apps) is still in it's infancy. The value of a tablet comes as much, if not more, from the ecosystem of third-party software as it does from the platform and device itself so Apple has an inherent advantage to Microsoft here (at this juncture at least).

Rightly or wrongly, the market is unlikely to stop seeing the iPad as the gold standard right now and trying to sell an ARM-based tablet for anything more than their entry-level price isn't going to get you very far. To make Windows RT successful, they need to rapidly build up an ecosystem surrounding it and to do that they need to get the mass market to buy in. If you have them sitting next to the iPads in a store at the same price, people will take a look and consider the product. If they cost any more, most people will likely just skip over it and grab the Apple product.

The Intel based version is a different story, as it has a radically different value proposition to other tablets on the market. The $1000 price point is a little higher than I would have liked to see, but for people who find themselves using their tablet for 90% of what they do it's not a bad deal to squeeze in that final 10% and drop their conventional computer. With that said, it would have been nice to see a third product in between the two (ie not as powerful but able to run x86 desktop software) so stores could try and push the upsell. Trying to talk someone from a $500 iPad up to a $1000 x86 tablet isn't going to happen, but talking them up to a $700 unit that can run desktop software as well might be within the realm of possibilities.
 
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]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]
Microsoft's business model does not prevent them from selling hardware at all. MS already sells hardware and has for more than a decade.
 
[citation][nom]orgbrat[/nom]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.[/citation]
[citation][nom]ertw[/nom]It would definitely be a serious mistake to price the RT version any higher than $500. The surface is a solid product and it has some significant technical advantages over the iPad, but the platform (ie tablet form factor Metro apps) is still in it's infancy. The value of a tablet comes as much, if not more, from the ecosystem of third-party software as it does from the platform and device itself so Apple has an inherent advantage to Microsoft here (at this juncture at least).Rightly or wrongly, the market is unlikely to stop seeing the iPad as the gold standard right now and trying to sell an ARM-based tablet for anything more than their entry-level price isn't going to get you very far. To make Windows RT successful, they need to rapidly build up an ecosystem surrounding it and to do that they need to get the mass market to buy in. If you have them sitting next to the iPads in a store at the same price, people will take a look and consider the product. If they cost any more, most people will likely just skip over it and grab the Apple product.The Intel based version is a different story, as it has a radically different value proposition to other tablets on the market. The $1000 price point is a little higher than I would have liked to see, but for people who find themselves using their tablet for 90% of what they do it's not a bad deal to squeeze in that final 10% and drop their conventional computer. With that said, it would have been nice to see a third product in between the two (ie not as powerful but able to run x86 desktop software) so stores could try and push the upsell. Trying to talk someone from a $500 iPad up to a $1000 x86 tablet isn't going to happen, but talking them up to a $700 unit that can run desktop software as well might be within the realm of possibilities.[/citation]
[citation][nom]ertw[/nom]It would definitely be a serious mistake to price the RT version any higher than $500. The surface is a solid product and it has some significant technical advantages over the iPad, but the platform (ie tablet form factor Metro apps) is still in it's infancy. The value of a tablet comes as much, if not more, from the ecosystem of third-party software as it does from the platform and device itself so Apple has an inherent advantage to Microsoft here (at this juncture at least).Rightly or wrongly, the market is unlikely to stop seeing the iPad as the gold standard right now and trying to sell an ARM-based tablet for anything more than their entry-level price isn't going to get you very far. To make Windows RT successful, they need to rapidly build up an ecosystem surrounding it and to do that they need to get the mass market to buy in. If you have them sitting next to the iPads in a store at the same price, people will take a look and consider the product. If they cost any more, most people will likely just skip over it and grab the Apple product.The Intel based version is a different story, as it has a radically different value proposition to other tablets on the market. The $1000 price point is a little higher than I would have liked to see, but for people who find themselves using their tablet for 90% of what they do it's not a bad deal to squeeze in that final 10% and drop their conventional computer. With that said, it would have been nice to see a third product in between the two (ie not as powerful but able to run x86 desktop software) so stores could try and push the upsell. Trying to talk someone from a $500 iPad up to a $1000 x86 tablet isn't going to happen, but talking them up to a $700 unit that can run desktop software as well might be within the realm of possibilities.[/citation]
 
It isn't just pricey, it's also too heavy for a 10" tablet (900g).
I really don't see why this is supposed to be better than a 13" ultrabook at the same price.

[citation][nom]oneblackened[/nom]Why an i5? 'Cause they're fast and the low power ones rival an Atom for power consumption while being much faster.[/citation]

The lowest power i5 has a TDP of 17W while most ARM SoCs have a TDP of about 2W. I wouldn't expect more than 5-6hours of battery life with a processor like that even with the 42WHr battery in the Surface tablet.
One of the advantages of ARM tablets is that you can use them all day without worrying about battery life.
 
[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]It isn't just pricey, it's also too heavy for a 10" tablet (900g).I really don't see why this is supposed to be better than a 13" ultrabook at the same price.The lowest power i5 has a TDP of 17W while most ARM SoCs have a TDP of about 2W. I wouldn't expect more than 5-6hours of battery life with a processor like that even with the 42WHr battery in the Surface tablet.One of the advantages of ARM tablets is that you can use them all day without worrying about battery life.[/citation]

You do know that the i5 is also FAR more powerful right? Depending on usage the i5 would complete its tasks way faster allowing for it to enter power save mode while the arm will have to keep struggling with the load since it FAR slower as well. Personally i would prefer the i5 pad, since the windows software library is HUGE and that pad is more like a full blown computer rather than a toy. But both CPU's have their places and the two different pads are made for two completely different audiences, this is like a Ferrari pad vs Toyota Prius pad, do you want speed or do you want mileage? The choice here is yours and I for one like choices!
 
[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]

Thats the problem, Microsoft is so big that if they do such a thing (sell below cost) others will cry they are using their monopoly status to gain marketshare.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Did they use gold or other large amount of precious metal on those or what?...[/citation]


Yes, it has something more expensive than gold - Windows 8.
 
I paid $99 for a couple TouchPad tablets (fire sale) and love them. For web browsing, checking email, angry birds type games, etc it's a fun little device to kick back with and consume media. But frankly they are not worth more than $200 to me.... and I would expect all the bells and whistles for that price. Because other than just basic consumption of media they are not good for much else at all, they are indeed basically toys. Just my opinion of course.
 
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]For about $1000 I can buy a very good laptop that would run circles around this thing...[/citation]
Yes. But could you run round in circles while holding and using it?
 
[citation][nom]anth0nym[/nom]Wintel?$100?So many spelling mistakes and errors. Great reporting![/citation]

$100 was a typo (that has since been fixed), but Wintel is not a typo. It's what you'd call a Windows-based Intel-powered machine.
 
The market really seems to be flooded with all these trendy stripped down laptops. And that's saying something seeing as how normal laptops are half-assed to begin with.
 
The RT needs to be priced at the price point of the Ipad 2 ($399). The Surface needs to hit $599.

The RT is not a direct competitor to the IPAD. It will be viewed as having an inferior screen and vastly inferior app store. Trying to sell it at the same price point as the Ipad is nutso. You could probably sell the Surface for around 600- 650, but anything over that is dreaming.
 
[citation][nom]SchizoFrog[/nom]I wonder how many of these are bought and instantly reinstalled with a version of Win7?[/citation]
Secure Boot will prevent this (until someone figures out how to disable it)
[citation][nom]Zingam_Duo[/nom]Yes, it has something more expensive than gold - Windows 8.[/citation]
LOL
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Thats the problem, Microsoft is so big that if they do such a thing (sell below cost) others will cry they are using their monopoly status to gain marketshare.[/citation]
Exactly! MS is in an interesting position, as they must sell it for what other companies are likely to sell similar devices for. In the end MS will get a higher profit margin because of it, but no dobut they will loose Surface sales, while keeping ASUS, Acer, and other companies in business (and out of the court rooms).

As far as pricing goes, I think the price is not too far off the mark (though still too expensive for my blood). Considering the pro version is a fully fledged ultrabook, but much thinner, lighter, and having that optional keyboard, will make it more than worth the $1000 price tag. The RT version for $600 may be a little high, but it is thinner than the iPad, with a larger battery, and less power-hungry GPU, office, and frankly makes the iPad look old and ugly (except for the odd color choices on the Surface keyboards).
Again, too much for my toy budget, but both seem to have more value than current devices on the market in the same price range. I'll jump in when mainstream Armdose products hit $300, and wintel products are in the $600 range... of course I'll probably still spend somewhere in the $500 ARM or $800 Intel range, so that I do not have a cheap low end device.
 
These surfaces need a mobile ivy bridge I3 with HD-4000. That would be cheaper and it would do as well because an I3 gets slightly bottlenecked by HD-4000.
 
[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]

Huh???, they can't do that. They do that with console because they make money on every game sold so they can make up the difference. You can't seize market share and go broke at the same time.
 
So the rumors were true. Microsoft truly isn't interested in selling its own tablet, it's just a marketing ploy and other manufacturers like Acer, Asus and Samsung will step in and offer realistically priced devices.

Besides, I don't think it would be successful even if it cost around $800. Its major flaw is that it's a device that doesn't know what it is. Its screen is too small and its ULV processor is too underpowered for productivity applications (like anybody's going to drop $700 for Photoshop to use on this thing), and it's too heavy, too thick and too power hungry to be a proper tablet. Also, I don't know how that kickstand will work on the users' lap. I guess we'll see... in 6 months.

As for the RT version, many issues with it as well. Screen only 1366x768, incompatible with existing Windows applications, priced more than the competition with the same class of hardware, and coming out 6 months after the new iPad.
 
[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]Huh???, they can't do that. They do that with console because they make money on every game sold so they can make up the difference. You can't seize market share and go broke at the same time.[/citation]

They get a 30% cut from Metro app sales.
 
Like the article says, there is so much speculation, the "price" could be anywhere from giving it away to your first born. If Microsoft has mentioned some kind of price, it is to feel the market for what they can charge (like the article says). Wait for the price to be announced before drawing conclusions. Besides, what if this is the top end of the market? That would put Windows 8 goodness squarely in the game for sure.
 
killerclick: I think that XBox360 games have a much higher chance of returning the cost of subsidizing the console than this. You assume people are just going to load up on paid-for Metro apps instead of using free ones, or regular non-Metro apps. Anybody who buys an XBox is **obviously** going to buy games for it, and there are no free games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom