[eastmen]

The surface prices got released and are up for preorder. $500 gets you the 32 gig verison

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/16/3...g-availability

Its $600 for the 32 gig plus touch cover or the 64 gig plus touch cover. The touch cover alone is $120 and the type cover is $130.

I think MS priced the device to high here. The 32 gig verison should have only been $400. But oh well I'm interested in pro anyway

[dlm]

I think a lot of people (myself included) were hoping for a $500 device with keyboard cover included. However, the pragmatist in me didn't really expect to see it, for a few reasons:
1. The pricing "guidelines" mentioned in the announce implied iPad parity. $400 for the base device would have been a huge undercut.
2. MS would almost certainly be looking at selling at a loss at that price.
3. MS might be able to afford to do that, but it would screw over OEMs who need to actually make money on the hardware that they sell.
4. It's pretty clear that MS is targeting making a pretty premium device. Some of the things that previews have said around screen clarity and durability are pretty impressive if they pan out in real-world use.

Assuming RT-compatible app development becomes "a thing", paying sub-iPad money for potentially better-than-iPad capability doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.


That said, I am also more interested in the Pro. There is an RT in my future though, so whenever that happens, I can write some thoughts.

[codedivine]

Originally Posted by dlm

2. MS would almost certainly be looking at selling at a loss at that price.

How so? I don't see how they would be making a loss by selling a 32GB RT surface at $400? There is nothing special or expensive about the hardware at all. Honestly it is using an old SoC, a mediocre screen, basic cameras, average batteries. The price of that vapormag build is higher than cheap plastic, but I don't think it would be all that higher. You can very feasibly build and sell such a device at $400 and make a profit.

[zed]

Originally Posted by zed

MS will price roughly the same as the newest ipad (90% chance its an inferior machine technically to boot)
like I said before zune vs ipod history repeat. The problem is they do not like the idea of not being seen as topdog, thus dont want to be seen as competing on price, but MS the world has changed you are not apple.
I wrote this before but I'll repeat the new google tablet will outsell the new MS tablet. easy bet. Reason google realize trying to directly compete with apple is a no win situation (though if rumors are correct it looks apple might compete with them, cheaper 7" ipad)

Color me surprised, not!
Honestly who's behind some of these nutso strategies at MS

For the life on me I cant see the reasoning, its like theyre trying to fail on purpose but what possible reason is there for that, surely nothing to do with tax?

[wco81]

I bet they'll have to include the keyboard cover at $500. Maybe they'll call it a special promo or have some kind of rebate but if anyone is aware of the specs, they'll see that they're getting not even $500 regular Windows laptop capability.

A nicer package than most $500 laptops but this is a price-sensitive and to a certain extent, specs-aware market.

[dlm]

Originally Posted by codedivine

How so? I don't see how they would be making a loss by selling a 32GB RT surface at $400? There is nothing special or expensive about the hardware at all. Honestly it is using an old SoC, a mediocre screen, basic cameras, average batteries. The price of that vapormag build is higher than cheap plastic, but I don't think it would be all that higher. You can very feasibly build and sell such a device at $400 and make a profit.

It's not just unit price. R&D, marketing and soaking the cost of building the factory that makes these things are all not free and are not included in the material/component prices.

At some point down the line, component prices will become more significant than ancillary and 1-off expenses, which combined with economics of scale will probably provide wiggle room for lowering the price.

Remember that Surface isn't iPad. It's one device among many. Surface itself doesn't have to set the world on fire immediately for the RT-compatible app ecosystem to have a future. How important it is is a debatable point. But the value of Surface as a brand improves even when competing Win8 tablets are sold.


Frankly I just get tired on every single product launch in tech of the constant whining about price. Everyone wants the newest device to be smaller, faster and cheaper. You can't have all three at the same time. If a device isn't making the compromise you like, the easy solution is to not buy it.

I don't think Surface is the right device for everyone. However, I seem to be relatively alone in not thinking that it -should- be either.

[dlm]

Originally Posted by wco81

they'll see that they're getting not even $500 regular Windows laptop capability.

A nicer package than most $500 laptops but this is a price-sensitive and to a certain extent, specs-aware market.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Although this is not unique to Surface. There are some decent deals on Android tablets, but for the most part, Tablets have been a story of paying more to get less when it comes to compute.

Tablets aren't an interesting market because they have the potential to be cheaper, faster or more flexible than laptops. It's because you can basically use the thing while walking around. These transformer style devices will probably one day be light enough to render current tablet design effectively obsolete. Heck... if it were'nt for the constantly shifting standard of what's "heavy", they're already there.


Long long term, I don't think the glass and the computing are going to be tightly coupled at all anymore. The fact that I might in theory have a PC, a tablet/laptop and a phone that all have their own computing resources is kind of silly when with small enough technology, the only difference between them is the interface.

[Mintmaster]

Probably just getting ready for a Black Friday sale. I doubt the 32GB costs more than $250 to make, likely $200.

[eastmen]

Well the 32 gig base model is now sold out with avalibilty being 3 weeks past the 26th now. So it looks like some are finding value in the device.

Also Mintmaster I don't see them doing a black friday sale on a new product. Defeats the purpose .

I was hoping for $400 with 32gigs of ram and no cover. At $400 it would have matched the specs of ipad 2 but with twice the storage and would have had the better screen most likely


edit forgot the link http://www.neowin.net/news/499-32-gb...or-three-weeks

[McHuj]

The biggest turn off for me with this thing is the poor resolution of the display. That in itself makes it a failure (at that price)

[eastmen]

Its 147.84 ppi vs 131.96 of the ipad 1 / 2 . I guess neither of those had good resolution ?

[liolio]

Originally Posted by McHuj

The biggest turn off for me with this thing is the poor resolution of the display. That in itself makes it a failure (at that price)

Well with regard to the resolution I would wait to have the device in my hand to make a judgment, still the screen has to be the best in class in every other metrics. Then there is the issue of actually trying the device...
Anyway I feel like they priced them selves out of the market, 599$ for the sku with the KB is too much.
I guess the Intel based version may offer more bang for bucks and a complete windows experience.

EDIT
My answer is a bit unclear, I'm wary too about the resolution and MSFT claims.

[eastmen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcU-xf-skts

new add gets me excited for the pro when it finally hits

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by eastmen

Its 147.84 ppi vs 131.96 of the ipad 1 / 2 . I guess neither of those had good resolution ?

Nope. I thought the ipad 1 was just passable. Didn't use the ipad 2. I wouldn't have bought one after using a friend's.

[dlm]

It's fine to say that you like very high-res displays. But let's be honest here. Surface's pixel density is higher than a pretty huge chunk of laptops out there.

These sorts of 300+ ppi displays we're seeing now are the exception, not the rule.


It's fine to say you like that. But saying that Surface's resolution is "poor" when anything higher is a fairly new option strikes me as kind of disingenuous.

[ams]

The HD screen on the Microsoft Surface RT should be much better than most people think. According to Anandtech ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/6377/inside-microsofts-surface-rt-tablet ):

Originally Posted by Anandtech

Although Surface RT only ships with a 1366 x 768 panel, Microsoft was quick to point out that there’s more to display quality than pure resolution. Surface’s 10.6-inch panel features an optically bonded LCD and cover glass stack, similar to what we’ve seen in most modern, high-end smartphones. Optical bonding is expensive to do and not as common in large tablet panels, but Microsoft believes it can do so at reasonable yields on Surface.

The optically bonded cover glass + LCD stack reduces internal reflections, thus reducing glare and increasing light transmission. One clever trick is that Microsoft, through various coatings, index matches between the touch sensor’s ITO (Indium Tin Oxide) array and the cover glass, once again in pursuit of fewer reflections. Microsoft claims it’s also very focused on delivering a well calibrated panel with Surface, although we’ll have to wait and put those claims to the test ourselves.

So the clarity due to lack of glare and the color accuracy of the Surface RT panel should be best in class near the ~$500 price point. The Surface RT will also use ClearType technology which is supposed to help make text sharper. Also, one cannot forget that the Surface RT screen is 10.6" diagonal (which makes for significantly more viewing area than the ipad) with true 16:9 dimensions too (which is ideal for watching widescreen movies). Top that off with use of a magnesium alloy for the chassis (which is much more fade and scratch resistant compared to the aluminum alloy used on the ipad), integration of a very nice and sturdy kickstand (not included with the ipad), inclusion of MS Office Student and Home Edition with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote (not included with the ipad or with x86 Windows 8 tablets), 32GB of hard drive space (2x more than the comparably priced ipad), use of a quad-core A9-based CPU (2x more CPU cores than the ipad, running at much higher operating frequencies too), ability to multi-task by running two applications side-by-side (not available with the ipad), and availability of super thin and color coded to UI pressure sensitive touch keyboard/cover (not available with the ipad). Yes, the ipad does have a faster GPU and higher resolution screen, but most games on the ipad are rendered at 1024x768 and scaled to fit the screen. Games on the Surface RT should be rendered at the native 1366x768 resolution, and Tegra-optimized games may have additional visual effects too (such as dynamic shadows, depth of field effects, advanced bloom effects, dynamic lighting, particle effects, ragdoll physics, etc). So unless one is heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem, or truly needs to run existing x86 software, then the Surface RT is a very nice choice at the $499 price point. I believe that the majority of consumers who use computers on a casual basis are not heavily invested in any ecosystem, and do not care so much about older or existing x86 software. Since Microsoft is including MS Office Student and Home edition for free, in addition to including twice as much hard drive space as the base ipad, I don't see how Microsoft could realistically price this product any lower, especially considering that other vendors are working with Microsoft to launch new tablets based on the same Windows RT operating system.

With respect to applications, that is clearly a work in progress. Windows RT is in it's infancy, so the expectation should be significant growth over time. The full PC version of Unreal Engine 3 has already been ported to Windows RT, and Tegra 3 is able to achieve close to 40 fps in Windows RT. With Surface RT, the expectation is that NVIDIA will use Tegra 3+, which would be a higher performance and lower leakage part vs. Tegra 3.

[wco81]

But is there any doubt that a year from now, they will have high DPI displays instead of this resolution which is common to cheap laptops?

[codedivine]

There is some concern with Office RT Home & Student that ships with Surface RT.
Look here: http://surface.microsoftstore.com/st...pbpage.Surface
Footnote [2] says about Office: "not for use in commercial, nonprofit, or revenue generating activities. Commercial license options available (sold separately). See http://office.com/officeRT."

So, Office is included .. but not for work?

[tuna]

Originally Posted by dlm

It's fine to say that you like very high-res displays. But let's be honest here. Surface's pixel density is higher than a pretty huge chunk of laptops out there.

These sorts of 300+ ppi displays we're seeing now are the exception, not the rule.


It's fine to say you like that. But saying that Surface's resolution is "poor" when anything higher is a fairly new option strikes me as kind of disingenuous.

You usually are closer to the screen on a tablet than a laptop. And generally, I find the resolution on most laptop screens to be poor.

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by codedivine

There is some concern with Office RT Home & Student that ships with Surface RT.
Look here: http://surface.microsoftstore.com/st...pbpage.Surface
Footnote [2] says about Office: "not for use in commercial, nonprofit, or revenue generating activities. Commercial license options available (sold separately). See http://office.com/officeRT."

So, Office is included .. but not for work?

its the home and student. You can connect a work email to it just fine , you just can't use it at a busniess instead of small busniess or busniess liscense.

You should be fine with it and if not you can buy a liscense that you need.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by tuna

You usually are closer to the screen on a tablet than a laptop. And generally, I find the resolution on most laptop screens to be poor.

Actually not only resolution is poor, I would say that the overall screen quality is low.

[dlm]

Originally Posted by eastmen

its the home and student. You can connect a work email to it just fine , you just can't use it at a busniess instead of small busniess or busniess liscense.

You should be fine with it and if not you can buy a liscense that you need.

It's also worth noting that Home and Student in general doesn't include Outlook and RT doesn't include most e-mail related features or VBA. For really serious Enterprise use, that's probably not ideal.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ho...103210361.aspx

This doesn't say that it doesn't do IRM. Hopefully that means it does. One of the big disadvantages of the Office Web Apps for enterprise use is lack of full IRM support, and this could help fill that gap (maybe?).

[McHuj]

Originally Posted by dlm

It's fine to say that you like very high-res displays. But let's be honest here. Surface's pixel density is higher than a pretty huge chunk of laptops out there.

These sorts of 300+ ppi displays we're seeing now are the exception, not the rule.


It's fine to say you like that. But saying that Surface's resolution is "poor" when anything higher is a fairly new option strikes me as kind of disingenuous.

I have to disagree. Is the Surface supposed to compete with cheap laptops or iPad's?

A $499 IPad has had a high density display for almost 8 months now. A $299 Kindle HD has a higher density screen as well. IMO, at this point in time and especially at that price, a high res display is expected.

I remember a quote from one of the CEO's/higher ups of General Motors years ago when they were failing and trying to recover. Paraphrasing "We have to sell cars that people want to buy instead just the cars we have"

That seems to be MS to me lately. This is what we have and this is what we want to sell, completely oblivious to what the competition is doing and what the consumers want.

I really hope this isn't an indicator of how Durango will turnout.

[dlm]

Originally Posted by McHuj

I have to disagree. Is the Surface supposed to compete with cheap laptops or iPad's?

A $499 IPad has had a high density display for almost 8 months now. A $299 Kindle HD has a higher density screen as well. IMO, at this point in time and especially at that price, a high res display is expected.

I remember a quote from one of the CEO's/higher ups of General Motors years ago when they were failing and trying to recover. Paraphrasing "We have to sell cars that people want to buy instead just the cars we have"

That seems to be MS to me lately. This is what we have and this is what we want to sell, completely oblivious to what the competition is doing and what the consumers want.

I really hope this isn't an indicator of how Durango will turnout.

I think you're making very broad statements about "what the consumers want" that I have a hard time believing you have any actual data aside from your own preferences to support.

You are also assuming that MS did no market research on this subject, which is an assertion that I find extremely unlikely.

A higher res display may be expected by you. You'll have to pardon me for not considering B3D posters to be generally indicative of the overall consumer base.

I'm also a bit skeptical of someone talking about how poor a display is that they have never seen. Maybe the display won't end up being super great. But your argument seems to be increasingly painting Surface as a failure because the display resolution isn't the number you like (if this was not what you were intending to convey, apologies. I'm simply speaking from perceived tone, which in text is of course notoriously dicey). That seems rather premature to me.

[tongue_of_colicab]

I agree. In all likelyhood most consumers won't care about the resolution.

I worked in a computer shop for a while and most customers couldn't care less about the resolution of the screen. Some even said they'd rather have a 13xx screen because on the 1080p ones everything looks so small! The people buying 1080p laptops usually said they were going to use photo/video software or play games.

Given that most tablets will be used for internet, media, games (though you don't need 1080p games on a 10'' screen), and maybe some office tasks a 13xx screen will be more than sufficient for most users.

I had to live with a 11.6'' 13xx screen for the past 5 months and while the screen is a bit small to work with for hours at a time, the resolution doesn't bother me at all. You can even do some multiwindow word withouth too much hastle.

Anybody who's going to use software that really needs/benefits from a high resolution screen will probably either switch to a desktop or hook up the tablet to a external screen (windows tablets can handle higher resolutions on external monitors?). Whatever the case, I doubt they are going to screw around on a 10'' screen. Lets be honest, you might have enough space to work if it had a 1080p screen but everything would be so damn small it wouldnt be comfortable to work with.